(Beyond Pesticides, July 27, 2023) A study published in the Journal of Economic Entomology calls into question the scientific literature on protecting bees from pesticides. The study analyzes actions taken by pesticide users to reduce the risk of pesticides on nontarget organisms, known as “mitigation measures.” Ultimately, the study finds that there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of bee-protecting mitigation measures.   

“Almost all research was centered around protecting honey bees. However, honey bees are a managed species that is not endangered,” Edward Straw, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Agriculture and Food Science at University College Dublin in Ireland and lead author on the study, says, “When we try to protect bees, we really want to be protecting wild, unmanaged bee species, as these are the species which are in decline.” 

The study includes a chart of mitigation methods that have been tested in the scientific literature. The mitigation measures under evaluation include: restricting pesticide application to certain times of day, restricting the application of pesticides during weather events, removing flowering weeds that attract pollinators, applying repellents to deter pollinators, and more. The researchers find that there are few empirical tests on the most widely used mitigation measures, and they recommend that more and stronger scientific evidence is required to justify existing mitigation measures to help reduce the impacts of pesticides on bees while maintaining crop protection. 

The study also finds that only one category of mitigation measure appears to be more thoroughly covered with 12 studies — repellents, which are used to repel bees from visiting crops recently treated with pesticides. “It is an interesting idea, but it is not yet ready to be used,” says Mr. Straw. “It would need to be tested on a diversity of bee and insect species, as if it is only repellent to one or two species, all the other bees would still be exposed to the pesticide.” 

However, the researchers caution that the number of studies alone is not a sufficient measure of the effectiveness of a mitigation measure. The quality of the research is also important, and evidence from multiple continents and multiple species is needed to determine whether a measure works. 

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides says, “Even the most effective mitigation measures are not adequate to protect pollinators and human health.” Beyond Pesticides has documented drift through air and the migration of pesticides into groundwater with toxic runoff. 

With bees playing a crucial role in pollinating crops, it is important to ensure that they are adequately protected from the harmful effects of pesticides. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated to protect and enhance biodiversity, prevent crop loss, as well as protect pollinator populations, human health, and wildlife. Anything short of complete pesticide elimination in our agricultural system is inadequate. Eliminating synthetic pesticide use also helps to reduce the use of fossil fuels that contribute to the climate crisis and the spread of pests and diseases. See Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture page. Also, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective page. 

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

Source: Journal of Economic Entomology

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2023) An exploratory study published in Environment International adds to the many studies demonstrating residential prenatal pesticide exposure can result in adverse birth outcomes. Residential exposure to five active pesticide ingredients (Ais) fluroxypyr-meptyl, glufosinate-ammonium, linuron, vinclozolin, and picoxystrobin has adverse effects on gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW), mortality after birth, child’s sex, premature development, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), and large for gestational age (LGA). Pesticides’ presence in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Birth and reproductive complications are increasingly common among individuals exposed to environmental toxicants like pesticides. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality, with one in every 33 infants born with an abnormality that results in death. Therefore, studies like this can help government and health officials safeguard human health by assessing adverse effects following prevalent chemical exposure. 

Using a Dutch birth registry from 2009 to 2013, the researchers selected pregnant mothers over 16 years who were living in non-urban areas (who have never moved addresses or only moved once) as participants. Researchers estimated how many kg of the 139 active ingredients are used within 50, 100, 250, and 500 meters of the mother’s home during pregnancy. To determine the association between evidence of reproductive toxicity and gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW), perinatal mortality, child’s sex, prematurity, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) among select active ingredients, the study employed generalized linear models, adjusting for individual and area-level confounders. The results demonstrate maternal residential exposure to fluroxypyr-meptyl and vinclozolin has associations with longer GA, exposure to glufosinate-ammonium increases the risk of LBW, and linuron exposure has an association with higher BW and higher probabilities of LGA. Additionally, picoxystrobin has associations with a higher likelihood of LGA.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water, and researchers caution that there are hundreds to thousands of chemicals that humans are likely to encounter. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned chemicals. However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. Considering the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods of fetal development, exposure to toxicants can have much more severe implications. A 2020 study finds prenatal pesticide exposure can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher pesticide exposure rates, increasing the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. These birth abnormalities can include acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even common household pesticide use during pregnancy can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. Therefore, prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants like pesticides increases susceptibility to disease for both mother and child’s health.

The rates of preterm births, miscarriages/stillbirths, and birth malformations are increasing. Additionally, many current-use pesticides and metabolites (or breakdown products) of many long-banned pesticides still impart negative effects on human health that can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. Thus, pesticide exposure poses a risk to mothers, their subsequent offspring, and future generations. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). Although the U.S. bans many organochlorine compounds, the ongoing poisoning and contamination underscore how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued adverse impact on human health. 

This study amplifies the growing body of scientific research evaluating pesticides’ effects on newborns. Exposure to specific pesticides can increase the risk of higher BW, LGA, and longer GA, indicating an association between these neonatal complications and increased risk of obesity and cardiovascular diseases later in life. Although fluroxypyr-meptyl is one of the only pesticides in the study still approved for use in the European Union (EU), imported products can contain contamination from the remaining active ingredients via countries where use is possible. Moreover, some current-use pesticides share similar modes of action with the active ingredients in this study, suggesting future research on the effects of maternal pesticide exposure can use these findings as models. The study concludes, “The underlying mechanism driving these effects are unclear, but the findings warrant more research into the effects of (non-occupational) exposure to these pesticides on human health, especially in the vulnerable population of pregnant women and their babies. [Active ingredients] that were correlated or that share the same modes of action with the identified in this study may also be considered as leads for further research.”

Such ubiquitous exposure to environmental chemicals is of growing concern. But even more concerning are the multiple studies pinpointing the adverse health outcomes that are linked directly to the chemical exposures.  With the range of ever-present environmental hazards, advocates argue that it should be incumbent upon regulators to act quickly and embrace a precautionary approach. In the absence of protective regulations from the widespread use of pesticides, U.S. residents, particularly sensitive populations like pregnant mothers, are encouraged to take precautions.

There is a growing consensus that exposure to environmental toxicants before pregnancy can impair fertility, pregnancy, and fetal development. Thus, doctors and pediatricians strongly agree that pregnant mothers should avoid pesticide exposure during critical developmental periods. Exposure concerns about pesticides and other environmental toxicants are increasing significantly, especially for adults and children more vulnerable to their toxic effects. Moreover, many pollutants are subject to regulatory standards that do not fully evaluate exposure-associated disease risks. Advocates say that addressing the manufacturing and use of pesticides is essential to mitigate risks from chemical exposure to toxic pesticides. Therefore, advocates urge that policies strengthen pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about how inadequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

Human and environmental contamination from pesticides can be reduced through the buying, growing, and supporting organic. Study after study finds that making the switch to an all-organic diet significantly reduces pesticide metabolite levels in urine. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agroindustry workers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among vulnerable population groups. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2023) How can scientists fight the elimination of national pesticide data? More data! A new report surveys 58 academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, government officials, and businesses to measure the scientific, educational, and policy use of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project (PNSP), a database that is getting phased out by the current administration.  

According to the report authors, Maggie Douglas, PhD, Bill Freese, Joseph G. Grzywacz, PhD, and Nathan Donley, PhD, the PNSP is the “most comprehensive public description of pesticide use in U.S. agriculture.” Despite its widespread use across the government and 348 citations since 2010, the database has been degraded in recent years, including a shift from monitoring 400 pesticides to 72 pesticides in 2019. Moreover, starting in 2024, estimates of agricultural pesticide use will be released every five years (instead of annually). Advocates believe the loss of PNSP data could further hinder the ability to manage pesticide impacts on humans, agriculture, and the environment. These concerns are outlined in a letter to USGS and the Department of Interior, signed by more than 250 scientists. 

Beyond Pesticides extensively tracks USGS data and resulting findings to inform local and state action to take restrictive action on pesticides for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to act. For example, Beyond Pesticides has cited in its Daily News and databases (Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database) USGS data on issues including the following:  

• Harming Wildlife, Pesticides in Waterways Run into the Great Lakes Year-Round;  
• 45% of U.S. Tap Water Is Contaminated with PFAS, According to USGS Survey;  
• Ecosystem-Killer Fipronil More Toxic Than Previously Thought, Found in Waterways Throughout the U.S.;  
• USGS Report Shows Dozens of Pesticides Consistently Found in Midwestern Streams, Underscoring the Need for Organic Practices;   
• USGS Documents Threat of Pesticides to Waterways; Farm Bill Amendment Undermines Clean Water Act;   
• Levels of Pesticides Still a Concern for Aquatic Life in U.S. Rivers and Streams;  
• Native Bees Found to Have Residues of Pesticides Linked to Their Steep Decline;  
• USGS Survey Finds Pesticides, Fertilizers in Well Water;  
• USGS Finds Atrazine Herbicide Adversely Affects Fish Reproduction;  
• USGS Survey Finds Low-Level Pesticides in Drinking Water;  
• USGS Identifies Contaminants in Potomac River Possibly Linked to Intersex Fish;  
• Pesticides and Degradates Widely Detected in USGS Chesapeake Bay Study 
• and more, including citations of USDA data in factsheets, testimony, regulatory comments, and Action of the Week. 

Key findings from the report’s questionnaire highlight the critical role of USGS in providing pesticide use data, graphs, and maps. After compiling over 100 responses, the report finds that the PNSP is widely used in scientific research and policy analysis for “environmental integrity, agriculture, and human health.” Across federal and state governments, PNSP is frequently utilized in agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Center for Disease Control, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and USGS. Notably, many of the data from PNSP are not publicly available elsewhere. There is another national pesticide database from the USDA called QuickStats, but the report says the coverage over time, space, and pesticide compounds is not as widespread as the data in the USGS’s PNSP database.  

The report surveyed 111 people at 58 organizations with the following breakdown in representation: 60% academia, 24% nonprofits, 6% federal agencies, and 6% private sector. Among the scientists who completed the questionnaire, the PNSP was used in 65 of their collective number of scientific journal articles. The survey respondents used the database on topics including pesticide effects on wildlife or ecosystems, agricultural or pest management, the fate of the environment, and pesticide effects on humans. The themes from the survey include uses for informing research design, patterns of pesticide contamination, effects of organisms, pesticide regulation or policy, and educating farmers or the public. For more information, see a full summary of the report and talking points by the report’s lead author. 

The reasons behind these aforementioned cutbacks remain unclear, as the cost of the program—$90,000 to $150,000 per year (not including staff time)—pales in comparison to the USGS’s annual budget of $1.7 billion. Moreover, Dr. Douglas says that the changes to PNSP were made without consulting other divisions within USGS or other agencies that use the data.  

According to the report, the PNSP’s comprehensive and accessible dataset has played a pivotal role in research and policymaking. With the high stakes of biodiversity loss and public health becoming increasingly widespread, the need for reliable pesticide data is more crucial than ever. The report authors are part are calling on the USGS to:  

• Restore the dataset to its full scope of 400 pesticides or more every year and retroactively estimate the missing data 
• Gather input from stakeholders about the past and planned changes to the PNSP 
• Restore data about seeds being treated with pesticides
• Updating the estimates in the PNSP every year and posting preliminary estimates as needed 

At Beyond Pesticides, we believe the preservation of the USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project is essential to safeguard public health, support organic agriculture practices, and protect the environment from the impacts of pesticide use. Contact your elected officials today about improving transparency about pesticides and ask them how they plan to create or enforce “science-based” regulations of toxic chemicals without data.  

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to help keep the USGS’ Pesticide National Synthesis Project. Tell Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland and EPA Administrator that USGS mapping of pesticide use and monitoring of waterways is critical to good decision making and pesticides shown to contaminate rivers and streams must be banned. 

Letter to U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators 

I am writing to ask you to advocate for the retention of the Pesticide National Synthesis Project at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This important program for data collection is slated to be phased out.  

A recent study by the USGS shows that waterways that flow into the Great Lakes are experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life. This is only one of many studies based on USGS monitoring of 110 stream and river sites, combined with mapping of annual agricultural chemical use. Other recent studies by USGS have discovered dozens of pesticides that are consistently found in midwestern streams; 88 percent of water samples in U.S. rivers and streams contain at least five or more different pesticides; 41% of public water supply wells are contaminated with pesticides or their degradates; and degradation of rivers from pesticide pollution continues unabated. 

The studies relating pesticide use and contamination of waterways can and should be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in pesticide registration decisions. “What you use makes it into the water,” Sam Oliver, PhD, coauthor of the most recent study, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As important as the existing monitoring network is, a joint study by USGS and EPA shows that it underestimates the problem—more frequent sampling detects twice as many pesticides, at higher concentrations. 

The USGS Water Resources Mission Area (WMA) researches pesticide use, trends in pesticide occurrence in streams, concentrations of pesticides in water of potential human health concern, pesticide toxicity to aquatic organisms, pesticides and stream ecology, and pesticides and lake sediment. While agricultural practices appear to correlate with peaking pesticide contamination during the growing season, urban runoff represents a larger overall proportion of the contamination flowing into waterways. With little to no natural soil to filter contamination, and impervious surfaces creating massive outflows of polluted water, this finding is unsurprising. Research conducted by USGS and EPA on urban runoff across the country in 2019 found 215 of 438 sampled toxic compounds present in the water. The sheer number of different chemicals and thus potential for even more toxic mixtures presents significant risks to health and the environment.   

The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. The data on water contamination has become one of the compelling reasons to abandon reliance on toxic chemicals in favor of organic land management can eliminate these threats. 

Scientific research by USGS is essential to evaluating the impacts of pesticides and must be included in EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. USGS needs your continued support to elevate, not eliminate or reduce, its role in uncovering and documenting the contamination caused by registered pesticide use. In addition, please urge EPA to cancel pesticides that pollute waterways and groundwater. No contamination is reasonable under federal pesticide law, given the availability of cost-effective alternative practices and products certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. 

Thank you. 

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

Source: An Essential Resource at Risk: Stakeholder Perspectives on the USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2023) Sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, is a byproduct of sewage treatment and is used as a source of organic matter for amending soil in nonorganic agriculture and landscaping. EPA has published a list of 726 chemicals found in biosolids in the National Sewage Sludge Surveys. This list does not include the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are emerging contaminants of biosolids.

Tell your Governor and local officials to ban the use of biosolids in farms and parks, until there is adequate testing of toxic residues—which does not currently exist.

In addition to PFAS (also referred to as “forever chemicals”), persistent toxic pollutants found in biosolids include: inorganic chemicals such as metals and trace elements; organic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants; and pathogens including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Regulation of biosolids by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been found by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG), in its report EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of Unregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment, to be inadequate. Lacking sufficient oversight at the federal level, action to protect health and the environment falls to the states and local jurisdictions.

Here are the conclusions of OIG:

“The EPA’s controls over the land application of sewage sludge (biosolids) were incomplete or had weaknesses and may not fully protect human health and the environment. The EPA consistently monitored biosolids for nine regulated pollutants. However, it lacked the data or risk assessment tools needed to make a determination on the safety of 352 pollutants found in biosolids. The EPA identified these pollutants in a variety of studies from 1989 through 2015. Our analysis determined that the 352 pollutants include 61 designated as acutely hazardous, hazardous or priority pollutants in other programs.

The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to review biosolids regulations at least every 2 years to identify additional toxic pollutants and promulgate regulations for such pollutants. Existing controls based on the Clean Water Act and the EPA’s Biosolids Rule include testing for nine pollutants (all heavy metals), researching for additional pollutants that may need regulation, reducing pathogens and the attractiveness of biosolids to potential disease-carrying organisms, and conducting compliance monitoring activities. The EPA’s risk communication regarding biosolids should also be transparent.

The EPA has reduced staff and resources in the biosolids program over time, creating barriers to addressing control weaknesses identified in the program. Past reviews showed that the EPA needed more information to fully examine the health effects and ecological impacts of land-applied biosolids. Although the EPA could obtain additional data to complete biosolids risk assessments, it is not required to do so. Without such data, the agency cannot determine whether biosolids pollutants with incomplete risk assessments are safe. The EPA’s website, public documents and biosolids labels do not explain the full spectrum of pollutants in biosolids and the uncertainty regarding their safety. Consequently, the biosolids program is at risk of not achieving its goal to protect public health and the environment.”

Despite OIG’s recommendation that EPA disclose to the public the fact that the chemicals in biosolids are not fully evaluated for safety and therefore safety claims, or implications of safety, are fraudulent, EPA continues to mislead the public. The OIG’s recommendation stated, “Change the website response to the question “Are biosolids safe?” to include that the EPA cannot make a determination on the safety of biosolids because there are unregulated pollutants found in the biosolids that still need to have risk assessments completed. This change should stay in place until the EPA can assess the risk of all unregulated pollutants found in biosolids.” However, EPA’s website does just the opposite with the following language: “Pollutants found in biosolids will vary depending upon inputs to individual wastewater treatment facilities over time. The presence of a pollutant in biosolids alone does not mean that the biosolids pose harm to human health and the environment.” Rather than alerting the public to the fact that full information is not available on the hazard of toxic chemical residues in biosolids, as recommended by OIG, the agency is telling the public that findings of residues does not indicate a threat to health.

Land application of biosolids to farms and landscapes is considered the standard means of “disposal.” Chemicals such as PFAS have been found to migrate into food when grown in farms using contaminated biosolids. Over 60% of biosolids are used in crops, and the contaminants in them make their way to our food and water. But if biosolids are used in landscaping, the contaminants pose a hazard to landscapers and those using athletic fields. In view of EPA’s failure to provide comprehensive identification, regulation, and elimination of potential contaminants, the biosolids themselves must be tested to ensure safety. Biosolids should be tested to ensure that they do not cause acute toxicity, cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects, reproductive or developmental effects, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, or immune system effects. Otherwise, they should not be used on farms or landscapes.

Tell your Governor and local officials to ban the use of biosolids in farms and parks, until there is adequate testing of toxic residues—which does not currently exist.

Letter to Governors and [local officials:

Sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, is a byproduct of sewage treatment and is used as a source of organic matter for amending soil in nonorganic agriculture and landscaping. EPA has published a list of 726 chemicals found in biosolids in the National Sewage Sludge Surveys. This list does not include the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are emerging contaminants of biosolids.

In addition to PFAS (also referred to as “forever chemicals”), persistent toxic pollutants found in biosolids include inorganic chemicals such as metals and trace elements; organic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants; and pathogens including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Regulation of biosolids by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been found by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to be inadequate. Lacking sufficient oversight at the federal level, states and local jurisdictions must act to eliminate the hazards created by these contaminants.

Land application of biosolids to farms and landscapes is considered the standard means of “disposal.” Chemicals such as PFAS have been found to migrate into food when grown in farms using contaminated biosolids. Over 60% of biosolids are used in crops, and the contaminants in them make their way to our food and water. But if biosolids are used in landscaping, the contaminants pose a hazard to landscapers and those using athletic fields. In view of EPA’s failure to provide comprehensive identification, regulation, and elimination of potential contaminants, the biosolids themselves must be tested to ensure safety. Biosolids must be tested to ensure that they do not cause acute toxicity, cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects, reproductive or developmental effects, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, or immune system effects. Otherwise, they should not be used on farms or landscapes.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2023) A comprehensive and scathing report, “Neonicotinoid insecticides: Failing to come to grips with a predictable environmental disaster,” issued by American Bird Conservancy (ABC)in June, lays out the dire consequences of neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides’ continued use. The report is an update of an earlier review from 2013, which warned of the risks to birds, stating starkly: “A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird. Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, can poison a bird. As little as 1/10th of a corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction with any of the neonicotinoids registered to date.”

The story of neonic harm is one that has been repeated for generations with different pesticides. Pesticide manufacturers claim every new generation of their products is safer and more environmentally benign than the previous one. This is seldom true. There is ample evidence that pesticides pose threats to nearly every class of organism on Earth, from earthworms to elephants.

The neonicotinoids, introduced in the early 1990s, have been marketed as safe for vertebrates, non-bioaccumulative, and, because of their flexible application methods and long persistence in soils, requiring fewer applications than previous pesticide groups.

Neonics are now the most widely used insecticide globally in agriculture. The chemical group includes acetamiprid, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as the minor compounds dinotefuran, nitenpyram and nithiazine. Neonics are often used to pretreat seeds before planting but are also sprayed on leaves and applied in what’s called “soil drenching.”

Because of neonics’ devastating harms to bees, the general public is likely now aware of the damage they cause to pollinators, but perhaps not so alert to their harms to birds. Despite the manufacturers’ assurances, residues left on seeds remain at levels that can harm nontarget insects and birds, many of which flock to agricultural fields expressly to eat seeds and insects. Thus, both seed-eating and insect-eating birds are often exposed to neonics. In fact, regardless of adult diet, it is estimated that 96% of birds feed insects to their young.

Neonics are useful because they are water soluble and thus can travel through all of a plant’s cells to kill plant predators. But this also means they are consumed not only by seed-eating birds but also by pollinating insects and hummingbirds, and they travel rapidly through aquatic environments. Even though manufacturers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed when the neonics were registered that their water solubility would prevent bioaccumulation, their residues have been found even in seabirds.

Further, researchers have found harmful reproductive effects at concentrations much lower than the thresholds set by regulators. The ABC authors write, “Based on recent studies, we have increasing concerns over reproductive and sub-lethal effects resulting from low exposures in farm fields. In particular, impacts on sperm quality have been seen at dose levels a fraction of our calculated MATC [an average of no-effect and low-effect levels]….Given that exposure is often season-long, this raises the specter of significant effects on a large number of bird species.”

The industry and the government also appear to rely on some assumptions about bird behavior that appear to be specious. According to the ABC authors, EPA believes birds develop “learned avoidance,” that is, birds will be repelled by the neonics and will not eat enough seeds or insects treated with neonics to make them sick. But as the authors also note, “Learned avoidance in laboratory settings has been found to be highly variable and dependant [sic] on test conditions,” and if symptoms occur after a delay, a bird will not connect the symptoms to the food and will not learn avoidance. Wild birds can also be exposed to neonics via their drinking water, dermal contact, or inhalation, exposure pathways they cannot control. Birds may also be incapacitated enough that they quit eating, fail to reproduce, fail to migrate, become paralyzed or experience seizures.

The European Union banned three neonics in flowering crops pollinated by honeybees in 2013 and in 2018 expanded the ban to all field crops (but not permanent greenhouses). By contrast, EPA has ignored the advice of its own scientists. According to the ABC authors, “As early as 1994, EPA scientists had warned that both acute and chronic aquatic risk triggers had been exceeded for both non-endangered and endangered species exposed to imidacloprid….In 2007, USEPA scientists also extended concerns to vertebrate wildlife citing potential risks from low chronic exposures [references omitted].”

In May 2019, EPA obliged a request from Syngenta, Valent, and Bayer to cancel the registrations of 12 out of 59 pesticide products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The request derived from a settlement in December 2018 of a lawsuit brought by beekeepers and NGOs. EPA is also supposed to revisit the whole class of neonics to assess their effects on endangered species.

But in the meantime, perhaps the most egregious regulatory failure is that neonics used as seed coatings escape regulation, falling under the “Treated Item Exemption” of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which means the vast majority of applications of neonics are not even counted in usage estimates, according to the ABC authors. In 2017 a number of progressive organizations including the Center for Food Safety petitioned EPA to remove seed treatments from this exemption. EPA took five years to deny the petition, although it promised to “review labeling instructions for pesticides registered for seed treatments.” Earlier this year the groups sued EPA.

The federal government is also reducing the amount of data available to scientists and the public about pesticide use and spread. This year the U.S. Geological Survey slashed the amount of data it collects in its National Pesticide Use Map and is planning to release its report only every five years instead of yearly, starting in 2024. It has reduced the number of pesticides it tracks from 400 to 72, in part because the USGS buys data from a private company, Kynetec, which stopped including seed treatments in its usage statistics in 2015. The ABC authors add that the USGS also omits this category in its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) maps, as the “seed coatings are too difficult to reliably source information on and, therefore, are not included in national pesticide-use estimates.”

Thus, no one really knows how much neonicotinoids are used on seeds. Claims that usage has declined reflect only that seed treatments are omitted from usage estimates. For example, a USGS graph of clothianidin usage in the ABC report shows that in 2014 more than 3.5 million pounds were used—the vast majority of it on corn—and the next year it was just over half a million pounds. This means only that 2015 was the first year seed treatments were dropped from usage estimates, not that less clothianidin was used. A paper published in 2015 in Environmental Science & Technology observes that, “It is remarkable that almost the entire area of the most widely grown crop in the U.S. (i.e., maize) is now treated with an insecticide, yet we have no public survey data reflecting this trend (USGS data are based on proprietary surveys and do not report the key metric of percent area treated).”

This kind of head-in-the-sand avoidance by regulators and agencies is dragging ecosystems into an abyss. Here’s what you can do to pull it back out:

• If you use neonics on outdoor plants, stop immediately. Buy organic fruits, vegetables, and seeds. Beyond Pesticides has a directory of organic retailers of these items. There are alternatives to neonics, as detailed here. If you feed wild birds, the ABC has looked into the question of whether commercial bird seed for wild birds contains neonic residues, and in 2019 concluded there is little risk of exposure to birds by this route so far.
• Write to your elected representatives in support of the Migratory Bird Protection Act. A sample letter is available from Beyond Pesticides. First introduced in 2020, the bill failed to reach a vote, and during the Trump administration the bill was altered drastically to absolve industry and agriculture from liability for bird kills. It was reintroduced in 2021 with restored protections to modify the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by banning the “unauthorized take or killing of migratory birds includ[ing] incidental take by commercial activities.” This would include birds killed by pesticides.
• As Beyond Pesticides has previously urged, “Learn more about what you can do in your community to protect pollinators and other species impacted by pesticides, and by neonicotinoids, in particular, via the short video, ‘Seeds that Poison’. More broadly, organic solutions to pest management and land management are the best ways to protect bird and non-target wildlife populations….For more information on organic land management see the recent article in Pesticides and You titled ‘Thinking Holistically When Making Land Management Decisions.’”

Beyond Pesticides collaborates with people and local organizations to advance changes that eliminate petrochemicals and fertilizers. See the Tools for Change page and become an advocate for Parks for a Sustainable Future.

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

Source: Neonicotinoid insecticides: Failing to come to grips with a predictable environmental disaster, American Bird Conservancy, June 2023, https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-Neonic-Report.pdf.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2023) Despite evidence of toxicity to pets from Seresto pet collars (manufactured with the neurotoxic insecticide flumethrin, as well as the notorious neonicotinoid imidacloprid), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) has announced that the popular flea and tick collars will remain on the market, but with new mitigation measures. However, advocates say that these measures will do little to protect people and pets from chemical exposure using these collars. The agency will require Elanco — the manufacturer of Seresto — to conduct enhanced reporting for various factors, including adverse symptoms, veterinary community outreach, and warnings on the product’s label. Seresto, developed by Bayer and sold by Elanco, has been linked to nearly 1,700 pet deaths, injuries to tens of thousands of animals, and harm to hundreds of people. There are nontoxic ways to protect pets from fleas and other pests while protecting human family members.

Children Ignored by the Agency
EPA has a history of ignoring the exposure patterns to children who come into close contact with pets and their flea collars and the potential adverse health threats, opting for warnings instead of regulatory action. In 2017, EPA issued a warning for tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) flea collars that advised: “not allowing children to play with [the] pet collars; keeping  [the] spray and power products out of reach of children; and, washing hands thoroughly with soap and water after handling.” Advocates point to the unrealistic nature of the precautions being advised, given that children come into contact with collars and other toxins sprayed on pets when they play and sleep with their pets and through hands (exposure) to mouth contact (ingestion). With TCVP pet collars (not pump/trigger liquid sprays), EPA announced a Notice of Intent to Cancel in October 2022 pending additional manufacturer data. In the case of Seresto collars and the synthetic pyrethoid ingredient, EPA is ignoring a plethora of studies in the independent scientific literature on adverse effects to children, including a 2022 study on prenatal and infant daily exposure effects.

EPA Opts for Warnings and More Information and Monitoring, Not Regulatory Action
EPA’s multi-year scientific review of Seresto-related incidents analyzes all reports of death and injury associated with these collars from 2016 to 2020. Although EPA highlights two percent of Seresto-related incidents resulted in death, death-related incidents are missing critical details that prevent EPA from determining the cause. Sublethal exposure to chemicals in these pet collars can cause severe adverse effects—from pruritus (itchy skin) and dermal lesions and changes in fur to lethargy, anorexia, and neurological symptoms. Since the removal of the collar can alleviate moderate to severe clinical signs of adverse health incidence, and reapplication of the collar results in a reoccurrence of clinal symptoms, EPA will require the registrant of Seresto to implement the following measures:

 “To alert veterinarians and consumers of potential risks, the terms of continued registration require Elanco to include label warnings on Seresto products that describe common adverse effects that have been reported, along with instructions to remove the collar if those effects occur and instructions on how to report the incident. Elanco also must develop an outreach program to more effectively communicate with veterinarians and the public on the risks of using the product and other similar pesticides on pets.

• To improve the quality of data reported when receiving reported incidents from consumers, Elanco must pursue additional information to the greatest extent possible to ensure that complete details of each event are captured. This information includes whether the pet had any pre-existing conditions or previous history of the reported condition. The Seresto pet collar registration has also been split into two registrations, one for cats and one for dogs, to make comparison of incident data across products easier in the future. Elanco must report incident and sales data to EPA on an annual basis.
• To reduce the risk of strangulation, Elanco must evaluate potential changes to the emergency release mechanism of Seresto pet collars to prevent death by strangulation or choking. The company must submit a report detailing the data and analysis collected and performed in pursuit of this effort within one year. Based on this evaluation, EPA may require a modified release mechanism for the Seresto collar.
• To allow for the continued evaluation of reported incidents, EPA has limited its current approval of Seresto collar registrations to five years. EPA will continue to evaluate Seresto incident data over that period.”

Background
Seresto collars are plastic pet collars embedded with pesticides designed to kill fleas, ticks, and lice; they contain the active ingredients flumethrin and imidacloprid. Flumethrin, a chemical in the pyrethroid class of synthetic neurotoxic insecticides, has been linked repeatedly to neurological issues, such as seizures and learning disabilities in children, to gastrointestinal distress, and to damage to invertebrates, according to EPA’s own analysis. However, this is not the first-time tick and flea pet products have garnered negative attention regarding pet health, as numerous flea and tick prevention products (e.g., collars, topical treatments, sprays, and dust) include pesticides such as (TCVP (mentioned above), propoxur, synthetic pyrethroids, and fipronil are toxic, not just to pets and non-target organisms, but to humans, as well.

Moreover, the agency fails to evaluate the synergistic effects of pesticides as these pest collars can contain more than one active ingredient that can work in tandem with another to exacerbate the adverse health symptoms. For instance, USA Today reports, “A 2012 Bayer study found [flumethrin and imidacloprid] have a ‘synergistic effect,’ meaning they are more toxic together on fleas….” However, a 2016 EPA bulletin concluded, “The risk of the combination of the two active ingredients, flumethrin, and imidacloprid, was not assessed because the two chemicals act in completely different ways.” Therefore, the EPA does not adequately evaluate the risks and harms of exposure to multiple pesticide compounds and “inert” or “other” pesticide ingredients.

EPA’s review of these Seresto-related incidents highlights the agency’s failure to thoroughly evaluate these products for animal safety with ongoing monitoring. In fact, in 2021, internal emails at EPA show that career scientists at the agency expressed concern about pesticide-laced pet collars, such as the notorious Seresto flea and tick collars, but that EPA managers “instructed them to avoid documenting those worries in publicly accessible records.” Additionally, the 2021 internal email revelations are further and unfortunate evidence of the state of EPA’s function in carrying out its fundamental mission “to protect human health and the environment.” However, for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, this means protection from the broadly damaging impacts of synthetic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides has chronicled EPA’s “capture” by industry influence and the corruption that has marked both agrichemical industry behavior and, occasionally, internal EPA actions, as well as specific instances of EPA failures, such as those (like the pesticide pet collars) that put children at risk, and those that continue to allow the devastation of critical species (such as pollinators), ecosystems, and fragile habitats.

Furthermore, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) notes that EPA has received more than 75,000 complaints about these pet collars, associating their use with problems ranging from skin irritation to death. Gizmodo puts the current count of complaints to the EPA about Seresto, since 2012, at more than 86,000 — with 2,340 of those relating to pet deaths. CBD’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Burd, commented that — given EPA’s estimate of the ratio of pesticide incidents “in the real world” to complaints filed with EPA as roughly 5:1 — a sensible extrapolation is that many more pets wearing Seresto collars have been hurt or have died than are represented by reports filed with the agency. Karen McCormack, a retired EPA scientist and communications officer, notes that these collars have generated the greatest number of incident reports of any pesticide product in her long experience. She says, “EPA appears to be turning a blind eye to this problem, and after seven years of an increasing number of incidents, they are telling the public that they are continuing to monitor the situation. But I think this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.”

Until EPA acts to protect pets by canceling the registration for Seresto flea and tick collars, dog and cat families can take steps to ensure their beloved pets are not negatively affected by these products (insecticide dust, sprays, or shampoos). Certainly, veterinarians may be able to suggest alternatives. In addition, check out Beyond Pesticides’ page on Keeping Our Companions Safe, its guide to least-toxic controls for fleas, and its comprehensive guide to keeping pets safe. NRDC also offers guidance on its website: Non-toxic Ways to Protect Your Pet.

Safely kill flea and tick larvae with non-toxic solutions: vacuum daily during flea season (changing bag often); groom pet daily with a flea comb (cleaning comb with soap-water between brushes); frequently bathe pets with soap and water; and frequently wash pet bedding, restricting pet to only one bed. Learn more about how to protect your pet from pesticides and the least-toxic controls for flea and tick infestation. 

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

Source: EPA, USA TODAY; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2023) A study in Environment International (August issue) by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) finds that almost half of U.S. tap water is contaminated with PFAS chemicals, with measured concentrations in both private wells and public water sources. Authors of the study “estimate that at least one PFAS could be detected in about 45% of U.S. drinking-water samples.” Although there are more than 12,000 different types of PFAS, only 32 are detectable by USGS lab tests, so 45% is likely a low estimate. 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of chemicals found in a variety of common household products such as nonstick pans and stain resistant carpeting, as well as pesticides and biosolids used as fertilizer. Long-chain PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS, are more widely known because of their high toxicity and controversial use in the past. Today, long-chain PFAS are often replaced with short-chain PFAS, as the latter are not as bioaccumulative; however, short-chained PFAS also pose a significant threat because they remain highly persistent in the environment. Past Beyond Pesticides’ articles have described the prevalence of PFAS in products as well as their negative health consequences, including cancer, decreased fertility, obesity, and hormone suppression. 

PFAS are concerning because of their persistence in the environment alongside their contamination of food and water. “The quality and sustainability of drinking-water are rising concerns in the United States  because of population-driven water demands, increasing contamination of drinking-water resources, and a growing understanding of potential human-health consequences associated with exposures to contaminants,” according to the study’s authors. PFAS can contaminate drinking water sources as a result of biosolids application, outdoor pesticide use, industrial and wastewater treatment discharges, firefighting foams, and septic or landfill system contamination. 

The EPA recently issued health advisories on PFAS, emphasizing that it failed to adequately regulate this group of dangerous chemicals. Industrial chemical giants Dupont, Chemours, and Corteva are currently embroiled in a multi-billion dollar settlement over their role in PFAS water contamination. Although, as the study’s authors point out, “newly proposed MCLs for PFOA (4 ng/L) and PFOS (4 ng/L) were released in March 2023 by EPA as part of the National Primary Drinking-water Standards Rule,” these standards are not yet enforceable, so contamination remains a pressing issue. 

The aim of this study is to compare water samples from private and public wells, highlight in aggregate the consequences of PFAS on human health, and determine the primary drivers of PFAS contamination of drinking water. Water samples from all 50 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands were collected from 716 point-of-use tap water locations (269 private wells and 447 public water sources) between 2016 and 2021, with PFAS concentration measurements assessed by three different laboratories.  Researchers collected data through a standardized analytical survey with the help of a volunteer network. New data was examined in combination with tap water samples collected by the research team in past years. Although there are more records of water contaminants from samples gathered directly after treatment and before distribution, there are limited measurements of PFAS contamination at point-of-use (water that directly comes out of household faucets). This trend holds especially true for private wells, as they are often poorly monitored. As highlighted by authors of the study, testing before distribution does not account for contamination through “plumbing material with PFAS or sorption/degradation in the supply network.”  

After analysis, similar PFAS concentrations were identified in private and public water sources, but increased contamination levels were measured near urban centers, as well as industrial manufacturing and waste facilities that actively use PFAS. Types of PFAS identified per water source ranged from one to nine, and the corresponding amount of PFAS detected ranged from 0.348 to 346 ng/L. Seventeen different types of PFAS were detected in at least one source and as mentioned above, 45% of the water sources measured contained at least one type of PFAS. Exposure to PFOA and PFOS are believed to pose the greatest risk to human health, considering their well-documented carcinogenic capacity. 

Given the growing body of evidence on the dangers and prevalence of PFAS in our homes, outdoor spaces, and human bodies, methods are needed to clean and remediate drinking water sources—and immediately eliminating these toxic chemicals from production and use to protect people and the environment. More research is needed to investigate how PFAS interact with other organic and inorganic contaminants. Additionally, research must identify, and address, the geographical regions and subpopulations most affected by PFAS water contamination, as well as ensure that sample monitoring continues for both heavily used public systems and the more sparsely used public and private wells. 

Beyond Pesticides offers a variety of articles in the archives detailing the dangers of PFAS and prevalence of PFAS in pesticides. Check out Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination to learn more about the health and safety of water sources. Click here and here to take action against the widespread contamination of PFAS and explore Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change webpage to get involved in community action.  

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

Source: Environment International 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2023) The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council, the governing body for the world’s largest source of multilateral funding for biodiversity loss and climate change, has authorized $34 million USD to support the new high seas treaty agreement announced on March 4. The move marks a significant step toward safeguarding the delicate ecosystems of the world’s oceans and promoting sustainable practices on a global scale. The oceans suffer from severe pollution caused by various substances, including pesticides, agricultural runoff, industrial and petrochemical waste, and synthetic chemicals found in plastics. These pollutants pose a significant threat to human health. The ecological consequences of ocean pollution have long been highlighted by Beyond Pesticides.

The March draft agreement was approved by 193 countries under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). Then in June, the BBNJ agreement was adopted by consensus at the United Nations meeting in New York. The agreement will be open for countries to sign on September 20, 2023, after the Sustainable Development Goal Summit. In order for the treaty to be entered into force, sixty countries must ratify the BBNJ. In the United States, President Biden can ratify the treaty if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate approves a resolution of ratification.

The BBNJ is a legally binding agreement that establishes a framework for managing activities such as fishing, shipping, resource extraction, and pollution in the high seas. Critics of the agreement are concerned that the U.S. will not ratify the new high seas treaty because it was developed under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was not ratified by the U.S.

The $34 million allocation by the GEF Council will provide financial support to countries and organizations working toward the effective implementation of the BBNJ treaty. These funds will be utilized for capacity-building efforts, technical assistance, and the development of innovative tools and approaches to monitor and conserve marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The funds will be used to support various initiatives, including the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in high seas regions, the development of scientific research programs to enhance our understanding of marine biodiversity, and the creation of partnerships and networks to facilitate international cooperation on sustainable ocean management. In addition to the aforementioned benefits, the treaty includes the following principles:

• The Precautionary Principle
• Polluter pays
• The common heritage of humankind
• Equity, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits integrated, ecosystemic approaches
• Recognition of the special circumstances of small island developing states and least-developed countries

GEF CEO and Chairperson Carlos Manuel Rodríguez said, “The Global Environment Facility is honored to serve this important new convention. We are ready to continue and intensify support for biodiversity protection and ocean health on the high seas.” According to its website, GEF is governed by a body of 32 (14 for developed countries, 16 for developing countries, and 2 for economies in transition) appointed by the 185 member countries, and funding is made available to developing countries that are seeking to comply with international environmental agreements. The website notes, “Financial contributions by donor countries are provided via several trust funds administered by the World Bank acting as the GEF Trustee and serviced by a functionally independent Secretariat housed at the World Bank.”

The GEF Council’s decision has been met with widespread acclaim from environmental organizations, scientific communities, and governments worldwide. Cassandra Worthington, community and policy manager at Beyond Pesticides, said, “The allocation of funds from the GEF not only signifies a financial commitment but also sends a strong message of collective responsibility towards the protection and conservation of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries.”

Though many climate activists have historically focused on the carbon in the atmosphere, there is a growing concern about the accumulation in the Earth’s oceans. Oceans play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate, holding 50% more carbon than the atmosphere. In the face of catastrophic climate change, prioritizing the health of Earth’s oceans can help stabilize global temperatures and weather patterns.

Moreover, protecting the health of the oceans ensures the preservation of diverse ecosystems and safeguards countless species from extinction. The same chemicals responsible for the decline of insects on land also contribute to the loss of vital aquatic and marine organisms, disrupting entire ecosystems. Healthy marine ecosystems contribute to the overall biodiversity of the planet. Beyond Pesticides reported neonicotinoid insecticides, detected in rivers, streams, and lakes across 29 states, which have detrimental effects on crucial aquatic organisms and ecosystems.

With the climate crisis upon us, international collaboration to take action is critical to a sustainable future. Healthy oceans are a critical element of any plan to mitigate the threats of the climate crisis. Beyond Pesticides is urging people and organizations to: Tell President Biden to sign the UN high seas treaty. Tell EPA and Congress to protect the ocean from toxic pollution. In your community, advocate for Parks for a Sustainable Future and work with Beyond Pesticides to put organic land management practices in place.

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

Source: GEF press release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2023) Students of environmental policy quickly learn that the most meaningful change to protect health and the environment begins with action in local communities. The challenge now is to preserve the rights of communities under federal law to restrict pesticides and advance local protections through the adoption of eco- and health-friendly, organic land management practices. As is known from history, with the leadership of local communities, the states and the federal government will follow.

History of Action in Communities and States

Major actions on the banning or restricting of specific pesticides over the last seven decades—from DDT (in Michigan and Wisconsin), 2,4,5-T [1/2 of Agent Orange] (in Oregon [read A Bitter Fog]), to chlordane (New York)—began with calls from the grassroots about dying wildlife to elevated cancer and miscarriage rates and other diseases. But, these chemical incidents (which continue to today with similar campaigns, but different chemical names like glyphosate, imidacloprid (neonicotinoids), and others), launched broader community-based efforts to curtail overall pesticide use—stop drift, runoff and other nontarget exposure—and require organic-compatible practices. Tracing the history—from Mendocino County, CA to Lincoln County, OR, to Casey, WI (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court), to Montgomery County, MD, to South Portland  and Portland, ME, to Eastern Arkansas—communities have sought to exercise their local democratic right to protect their families and communities from the assault of toxic pesticides. This right is the current existential challenge because today the continued reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers significantly contributes to existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Will we allow Congressional elected officials, in alliance with the pesticide lobby, to take away this path to a livable future?

Chemical Industry and Congressional Allies Seek to Take Away Local Rights

While chemical industry power has in most cases successfully curtailed the rights of local communities to restrict pesticides on private property (allowing drift over neighbors and sensitive areas and runoff to waterways), the issue has been left to the state governments to determine the authorities it allows to its cities, towns, and counties. At least six states have upheld the right of localities to restrict pesticides, with Maine and Maryland communities serving as the shining example of local governments exercising their values and principles to protect people and the environment. Where a state preempts local authority, local governments are increasingly adopting ordinances that adopt organic land management practices (allowing only organic-compatible products to be used) on their public property. However, communities are fighting to get pesticides out of their local environment because these chemicals move so easily through the total environment (air, water, land, lawns, gardens, etc.). While not giving up on the responsibility of federal and state governments to honor their responsibility to protect public health and safety, the history of change teaches that the urgent need for transformative change will occur from the ground up.

Industry Pushes Farm Bill to Limit Local and States Rights to Adopt More Protective Standards

The industry, and its allies in Congress, continue to try to stop local governments from acting and are now discussing, in the 2023 Farm Bill, provisions that will stop local governments from restricting pesticides (see below). In so doing, the legislation under discussion will take away the right of states to restrict or choose not to restrict (like Maine and Maryland) their local jurisdictions from restricting pesticides. The federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) currently allows localities to restrict pesticides. As the federal government fails to take the urgent action necessary to confront the health, climate, and biodiversity crises, and is paralyzed by the current political discourse, the importance of local and state action has never been more important. (For more history, read this.)

Fighting Back with Organic

The good news is that practices are available through organic land management that contribute significantly to the mitigation and reversal of the current health, biodiversity, and climate emergencies by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. (See legislation under discussion below that upholds and supports organic management practices.)

Act Now

There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity. The Farm Bill covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—offering many opportunities for strengthening organic production.

Tell Congress to use the Farm Bill to strengthen organic agriculture and our democratic process.    

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics—good and bad—to be introduced. Dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It is designed to secure a sufficient food supply, establish fair food prices for both farmers and consumers, provide supplemental food assistance, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. Several proposals relevant to organic agriculture are currently under consideration, and Congress needs to hear that there is strong public support for those that will strengthen organic agriculture. In addition, bills that threaten democratic processes are also being considered. Our voices are also needed to oppose attacks on democracy and support an open, democratic process in writing the Farm Bill.

The Farm Bill is created through a process of negotiation that largely excludes the public at large. It consists of many sections, championed by a number of different constituencies and vest interests. The Agriculture Committees negotiate the contents of the Farm Bill, but it reaches Congress as one bill to be considered as a whole. As the Farm Bill is currently being put together, we are aware of several potential “marker bills” relevant to organic agriculture and the adoption of organic land care that may be incorporated.

Positive goals may be supported by these marker bills:

• Increase number of organic farms.
  • Opportunities in Organic Act R. 3650 and S. 1582.
    
    
• Support beginning and BIPOC farmers.
  • Justice for Black Farmers Act ( 96, H.R. 1167)
    
    
• Promote soil health and climate resilience through conservation policy.
  • Agriculture Resilience Act ( 1016, H.R. 1840)
    
    
• Sustain research that supports organic.
  • Strengthening Organic Agriculture Research Act
    (SOAR) (H.R. 2720)
    
    
• Provide infrastructure that supports organic.
  • Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act (S. 2023)
    
    
• Support for organic dairy is urgently needed, but so far no marker bill has been introduced that covers these areas:
  • More detailed organic milk data to reflect the depth of information provided for non-organic milk production.
  • An organic dairy safety net program based on organic-specific milk and input cost data.
  • Immediate support to address dramatically increased organic input costs for organic dairy farms.
  • Investment in organic milk processing infrastructure that serves areas within the US that have large numbers of organic dairies.
  • Fund feasibility studies on Regional Organic Milkshed Market Access.
  • Expand and improve access for organic dairy farmers to current funding.
  • Create Regional positions for Organic Dairy Market Specialists.
  • Support increased regionally headquartered processing capacity.

• Invest in local and regional food systems.
  • Local Food and Farms Act ( 1205, H.R. 2723)
  • Strengthening Local Processing Act ( 354, H.R. 945)
    
    
• Address consolidation in food and agriculture.
  • Farm System Reform Act ( 271, H.R. 797)
  • Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act ( 272, H.R. 805)
  • Protecting America’s Meatpacking Workers Act ( 270, H.R. 798)
    
    
• The following measures to strengthen organic integrity should be supported, but currently no bill incorporates them:
  • Set a timeframe for the NOP to do rulemaking after receiving a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendation when the recommendation is supported by 2/3 of the board.
  • Require the NOP to clearly state how their rulemaking relates to NOSB recommendations.
  • Authorize funding for the NOP to keep pace with organic industry growth and direct specific resources towards standards development.
  • Allow USDA to expand the definition of reimbursable expenses for farmer members of the NOSB to cover substitute labor on their operations during their Board service. Restore the NOSB procedure for “sunset review” of National List materials, to require a 2/3 vote to re-list a material (as opposed to the current process of a 2/3 vote needed to de-list.)
  • Require the NOP to accredit third-party material review organizations that review agricultural inputs for compliance with the organic standards.
  • Grant the NOP the authority to take enforcement actions against false organic claims on agricultural non-food products.

In addition, the following bills threaten the adoption of pesticide restrictions and organic land care by communities and should be strenuously opposed:

• Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (R. 4288). Threatens to undermine local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from pesticides—effectively overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent.
  
  
• Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act, 2019), not to be confused with the Enhance Access to Snap Act (also abbreviated EATS Act). The EATS Act is virtually identical to the notorious “King amendment,” which former Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tried unsuccessfully to attach to the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, generating overwhelming bipartisan opposition. With the bill’s purpose “To prevent States and local jurisdictions from interfering with the production and distribution of agricultural products. . .,” local and state health and environmental concerns are preempted. An analysis of the King amendment by the Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Program produced a long, but not exhaustive, list of laws in every state that could be repealed by the EATS Act.

Note: We will update this action as more information becomes available to Beyond Pesticides.

Tell Congress to use the Farm Bill to strengthen organic agriculture and our democratic process.    

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

I am writing to urge you to support an open democratic process in creating the 2023 Farm Bill and to use the Farm Bill to address the existential threats to health, climate, and biodiversity, as well as threats to democratic process.

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics to be introduced. The Farm Bill is created through a process of negotiation that largely excludes the public at large. It consists of many sections, championed by a number of different constituencies. The Agriculture Committees negotiate the contents of the Farm Bill, but it reaches Congress as one bill to be considered as a whole. I urge you to support a more open process.

I also urge you to support the following goals, as embodied in these marker bills:

*Increase number of organic farms: Opportunities in Organic Act H.R. 3650 and S. 1582.

*Support beginning and BIPOC farmers: Justice for Black Farmers Act (S. 96, H.R. 1167)

*Promote soil health and climate resilience through conservation policy: Agriculture Resilience Act (S. 1016, H.R. 1840)

*Sustain research that supports organic: Strengthening Organic Agriculture Research Act
(SOAR) (H.R. 2720)

*Provide infrastructure that supports organic: Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act (S. 2023)

*Support for organic dairy is urgently needed, but so far no marker bill has been introduced that covers these areas:

– More detailed organic milk data to reflect the depth of information provided for non-organic milk production.

– An organic dairy safety net program based on organic-specific milk and input cost data.

– Immediate support to address dramatically increased organic input costs for organic dairy farms.

– Investment in organic milk processing infrastructure that serves areas within the US that have large numbers of organic dairies.

– Fund feasibility studies on Regional Organic Milkshed Market Access.

     – Expand and improve access for organic dairy farmers to current funding.

     – Create Regional positions for Organic Dairy Market Specialists.

     – Support increased regionally headquartered processing capacity.

*Invest in local and regional food systems: Local Food and Farms Act (S. 1205, H.R. 2723); Strengthening Local Processing Act (S. 354, H.R. 945)

*Address consolidation in food and agriculture: Farm System Reform Act (S. 271, H.R. 797); Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act (S. 272, H.R. 805); Protecting America’s Meatpacking Workers Act (S. 270, H.R. 798).

*In addition, measures to strengthen organic integrity should be supported, but currently no bill incorporates them, and they deserve public debate.

It is also vitally important to protect democracy and local authority by opposing these proposals:

*Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R. 4288), which threatens to undermine local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from pesticides—effectively overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent.

*Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act, S. 2019), not to be confused with the Enhance Access to Snap Act (also abbreviated EATS Act). S. 2019 is virtually identical to the notorious “King amendment,” which former Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tried unsuccessfully to attach to the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, generating overwhelming bipartisan opposition. An analysis of the King amendment by the Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Program produced a long, but not exhaustive, list of laws in every state that could be repealed by the EATS Act.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2023) The exoskeleton of the black soldier fly (BSF; Hermetica illucens) has the potential to be an effective organic fertilizer. A study in the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment highlights the positive impacts on plant size, flower count, seed production, appeal to pollinators, and resilience to herbivory that the fly’s molted exoskeleton (or exuviae) can have when used as a soil supplement. The use of insect exuviae as an organic alternative to harmful synthetic fertilizers is an important step toward an environment free from chemical contaminants, and BSF are uniquely equipped to contribute to a regenerative organic agricultural system.

The study set out to determine the impacts of BSF exuviae on plant growth, resilience to herbivory, and pollination. The scientists divided black mustard plants into four different treatment groups: 1) grown in soil amended with BSF powdered exuviae; 2) control group planted in chemically-treated (conventional) soil; 3) grown in amended soil and subjected to increased herbivory from caterpillars (Pieris brassicae) and aphids (Brevicoryne brassicae); and 4) planted in conventional soil and subjected to increased pest exposure. Scientists measured plant growth, flowering status, seed production, herbivore abundance, and pollinator activity.

After three weeks, the supplemented soil grew plants with enhanced height, width, and leaf length compared to the control. The supplemented plants produced more seeds and flowers, attracting a greater number of pollinators. Moreover, the plants maintained their enhanced growth despite herbivore attacks, signaling a heightened level of resilience. The study authors note, “When infested, plants grown in amended soil were better able to compensate for tissue or assimilate loss and resisted the attack better, not only maintaining their larger size, but also their enhanced seed production.”

Plants interact with a large variety of organisms above and below ground. On the surface, mutualistic plant-pollinator interactions are crucial for successful reproduction, but plant herbivory can negatively affect a plant’s survival. Underneath the soil, plant roots interact with countless microbes that can be both beneficial and harmful to the plant. BSF exuviae contain large amounts of the natural biomolecule chitin, which enhances the growth of beneficial microorganisms. Chitin increases the concentration of plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), a microorganism useful to the plant’s defense system in fighting plant pathogens and insect pests. Moreover, PGPR leads to faster regrowth by enhancing nutrient and water uptake.

The idea of a “circular agricultural system” is often discussed in advocating for a more sustainable future. But what is circular agriculture, and how exactly does it address the issues of pesticide use and climate change today? “Circular agriculture aims to minimize inputs of concentrate feed and chemical fertilizer as well as outputs of harmful substances and waste. Residual products from one chain are feedstocks for another.” In a circular system, inputs and outputs are localized as much as possible, removing the need for chemical soil additives. For example, instead of cultivating a monoculture field, a farmer grows a variety of crops, including livestock feed. Rather than importing animal feed from an external source, the farmer’s cows can eat feed locally grown on the farm. Cows produce manure, and manure is an effective fertilizer. Rather than importing chemical fertilizers from an external source, the farmer can use the manure as an organic fertilizer—and the cycle repeats. Circular agriculture works toward a more self-sustaining approach in contrast to industrial farming today. This system “can reduce resource requirements and the ecological footprint of agriculture. It can also help ensure a reduction in land-use, chemical fertilizers and waste, which makes it possible to reduce global CO2 emissions,” according to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Black soldier flies are already the “most widely used insects produced for animal feed” and are known for their ability to break down organic matter. Along with their most recent use as soil supplements, BSF can contribute to a circular and organic agricultural system. BSF are a nutritious source of protein for livestock; insect farming inevitably produces molted exuviae, which fertilize the soil and allow flies to break down any organic waste produced throughout the process. A consistent food supply of organic waste ensures BSF will reproduce, and the cycle can begin again.

To broaden the use of BSF as an organic fertilizer, society needs to invest more in scientific research and development and encourage insect farming practices. Not only does BSF fertilizer benefit the natural environment through sustainable crop development and conservation of ecosystem services, but the boost in crop yield and productivity enhances economic gains as well. Additionally, the use of harmful pesticides has drastic consequences for human health. By eliminating pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, we can alleviate the disturbing prevalence of health risks from chemical exposure.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the transition to organic agriculture and offers resources on the website highlighting insects and other pollinators’ role in the global food system. Click here if you want to learn more about the dangers of chemical-intensive agriculture, and here to learn about its threats to food security. Take action to support organic farmers and an agricultural system free of harmful pesticides. Land management of public spaces, including parks and play fields, also plays an important role in reducing pollution and mitigating threats to biodiversity and climate. To convert your community to organic land management, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future.

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

Source: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2023) A study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research finds exposure to p-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB), a chlorophenol compound with uses as an insecticide, disinfectant, repellent, fumigant, fungicide, and deodorizer, can increase the risk of common endocrine (hormone)-mediated reproductive cancers (i.e., breast, uterine, and ovarian) in women. P-DCB or paradichlorobenzene has carcinogenic (cancer-causing) properties and the chemical has been banned in the European Union (EU) since 2005 for air fresheners and 2008 for mothballs. Being a chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon (with benzene) compound (chlorobenzene), in addition to its cancer-causing properties, p-DCB can cause acute illnesses like headaches, numbness, sleepiness, nausea and vomiting and chronic effects like nervous system disorders leading to depression, and impact on the brain, birth outcomes, reproductive system, liver, and kidneys.

Pesticides have a long history associated with endocrine-disrupting properties that induce various molecular changes, prompting disease development. Adding to the science, a similar review published in Environmental Exposure, Biomonitoring, and Exposure Assessment highlights how specific estrogen-mimicking pesticides increase the risk of disease, particularly hormone-related cancers among women (e.g., breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer) and men (i.e., testicular, prostate cancer).PDCB, also known as para-dichlorobenzene, contains the carcinogen benzene and is chlorine-based (a chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon compound), which in December 2019 gained it the status of EPA’s “High-Priority Substance for Risk Evaluation” under the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is long-lasting in the environment. According to EPA, the chemical is mainly used as a fumigant for the control of moths, molds, and mildews, and as a space deodorant for toilets and refuse containers. Importantly, it is also used as an intermediate chemical in the production of other chemicals, including those for tree-boring insects, and in the control of mold in tobacco seeds. It shows up in ambient air testing, in drinking water, and in factories producing or processing the product.

Exposure to past and current-use endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), like pesticides, have a long history of severe adverse human health effects. Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem) present in nearly all organisms and ecosystems. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause cancer, among other health issues.

The study “provides insights on the potential role of environmental exposures in the etiology of gynecological cancers. Further exploration of the epidemiological and pathophysiological interactions between p-DCB exposure and endocrine-related female cancers is warranted to expand upon these findings.”

Exposure to p-DCB can disrupt metabolic and endocrine effects associated with endocrine-related female cancers (breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers). Using the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2016, the study analyzed the urinary components of 4,459 women aged 20 years or older for concentrations of 2,5-dichlorophenol (2,5-DCP), the primary metabolite of p-DCB, to determine the association between p-DCB exposure and widespread endocrine-related cancers. Of the participants, 202 women have an endocrine-related reproductive cancer diagnosis with a significantly higher urinary concentration of 2,5-DCP than women without these cancers. Additionally, women experiencing moderate and high exposure to p-DCB have urinary concentrations of 2,5-DCP significant enough to increase the risk of endocrine-related reproductive cancers compared to low-exposure groups.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can disrupt normal hormonal function, even at low exposure levels. The endocrine system consists of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal, and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline). These glands and their respective hormones guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Past research shows exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely impact human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural hormones responsible for conventional fertile, physical, and mental development. Research demonstrates that endocrine disruption is prevalent among many pesticide products like herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and pesticide manufacturing by-products like dioxin (TCDD). EDCs can enter the body and interfere with normal bodily function by mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body, blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones.  

Endocrine disruption is an ever-present, growing issue that plagues the global population. Overall, endocrine disruption can negatively impact reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, hormone-related cancers, and fetal/body development. Thus, the connection between cancers and EDCs has a historical establishment. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) classify many EDCs as possible carcinogens based on epidemiological studies identifying instances of kidney, ovarian, testicular, prostate, and thyroid cancer, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma and childhood leukemia. However, the variations in EDC exposure levels and duration can make it challenging to investigate among humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to evaluate the depth and scope of chronic health and environmental concerns regarding exposure to EDCs. In addition to cancers, exposure to EDCs has links to infertility, early puberty, other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more. EDCs can also wreak havoc on wildlife and their ecosystems. Hence, advocates maintain that policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

This study adds to the little scientific literature concerning the probable link between p-DCB exposure and female reproductive cancers via endocrine disruption. Although endocrine-related cancers have genetic and behavioral components, the environmental components, like chemical exposure, are also essential to understand, especially since there is an incomplete understanding role the endocrine system plays in the development of these cancers has incomplete understanding. As an endocrine disruptor, p-DCB causes a dose-dependent increase in estrogenic activities, directly affecting the size and function of reproductive organs. Additionally, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorizes p-DCB as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B), warranting further investigations into the carcinogenic potential of this chemical to humans upon chronic exposure.

Studies directly link obesity with an increased risk of hormone-regulated endocrine cancers in women, finding an association between obesity/metabolic disorders and increased 2,5-DCP concentrations. This finding is unsurprising as p-DCB is a compound with lipophilic properties, accumulating in adipose (fatty) tissue. Like other EDCs and hydrocarbons, p-DCB may impair fatty acid metabolism and lipid synthesis, indicating a potential underestimation of toxicity effects on human, animal, and environmental health. Considering products in the U.S. containing p-DCB are frequently used in households and workplaces, the potential risk to the metabolic and endocrine system among individuals is infinite.

The endocrine-disrupting effects of pesticides and other chemicals have extensive documentation that Beyond Pesticides tracks through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Endocrine Disruption and other diseases.

EPA has been severely criticized for its failure to evaluate pesticides in wide use for their endocrine-disrupting properties. See Inspector General Rips EPA for Failure to Test Pesticides for Endocrine Disruption. For a deeper dive into EPA’s failure to meet its statutory responsibility to evaluate pesticides for endocrine disruption fully, see  While France Bans a Common Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides, EPA Goes Silent: EPA ignores statutory mandate to review pesticides that cause deadly illnesses at minute doses, defying classical toxicology.

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning, as current measures restricting pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. For instance, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide biomarker (including parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Environmental Science and Pollution Research

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2023) A study by University of Delaware entomologist Thabu Mugala and colleagues finds that modifications to their farming methods can reduce slug damage when those changes also encourage natural slug predators, allowing farmers to avoid the endless cycle of pesticide dependency, pest resistance, genetically engineered crops, and synthetic fertilizers. With insects as the target for tens of millions of pounds of agricultural use, growers of the highest-production crops in the U.S., corn and soybeans, continue to find slugs to be a serious problem. Corn and soybean growers who have adopted no-till or conservation tillage and cover crops often think these practices worsen the problem by increasing moisture and decaying plant material in fields, which slugs love. But the cause-and-effect picture is more nuanced and requires strategies that nurture ecological balance.

Slugs are the most damaging non-arthropod pest in no-till corn production in the U.S., and truly effective chemical deterrents do not exist at agricultural scale, as Beyond Pesticides noted here, although biological methods may be on the horizon, such as a parasitic nematode already used in Europe that shows promise. The most voracious natural slug hunters are ground beetles, but harvestmen (daddy longlegs), and wolf spiders also eat them.

The Mugala study, “Ground beetles suppress slugs in corn and soybean under conservation agriculture,” investigates 41 fields in Mid-Atlantic states through two growing seasons. The researchers looked at the interactions among cover cropping, tillage, pre-plant insecticide applications, weather, and natural enemies on slug populations and activity.

Slugs are mollusks and generalists, making use of both living and decaying plants, and cool, wet weather often triggers a slug outbreak. Farmers dealing with slugs know that tillage disrupts the soil microclimates that slugs like, and are tempted to use it, especially because, once started, a slug outbreak is difficult to suppress by chemical means. The available chemicals are expensive, do not work well in damp environments, and kill wildlife, according to Mugala et al., who also observe that while “there is no commercially available biological control agent for slugs in North America, there is an array of native and exotic predatory and parasitic natural enemies of slugs present.” Many of the pesticides used against insects, including neonicotinoid seed treatments, also kill these other beneficial arthropods, as well as other soil invertebrates important to cycling nutrients naturally.

Some slug baits are also problematic. Many contain metaldehyde, which as Beyond Pesticides reported in March, hampers the growth of vegetables and is quite toxic to many animals. Other anti-slug weapons may be difficult to use on field scales, such as bread-dough or beer bait. One Lithuanian study found that invasive Spanish slugs would not eat a lethal dose of either metaldehyde or iron phosphate pellets, and about 17 percent of the pellets were removed nightly from the study area by earthworms.

Less toxic regenerative methods may help slugs, but they also help their predators, and some tweaks to tillage and cover cropping may discourage slugs while encouraging their enemies. Mugala et al. report that the timing of cover crop removal affects slugs’ depredations—doing it too soon before planting gives slugs a leg up, so to speak. While a 2022 study of chemical-intensive corn production found reduced need for slug bait with the use of row cleaners to remove plant debris in seed rows and the application of nitrogen fertilizers at night, this approach ignores the value of natural predators and ecosystem services (see more).

Adding to the uncertainty about the best way to deal with slugs, some of the research data can appear contradictory; a 2013 survey of Shenandoah Valley farmers found that 13 percent of no-till fields planted with corn and soybeans showed slug damage, while only 1 percent was reported for conventionally-farmed fields. But another study found that farmers who always used insecticide at planting reported the most slug damage, independent of their tilling practices. This may be because their arthropod predators suffer sharp declines in fields applied with pesticides and where seeds have been treated with neonicotinoids. Farmers may be blaming regenerative methods for damage that is actually caused by pesticides.

The pesticide industry has long tried to monkey-wrench agricultural independence; Monsanto introduced Roundup-Ready soybeans in 1996 and claimed genetically modified seeds would enable sustainable (and now regenerative) agriculture by eliminating the need for tillage. Unfortunately (but inevitably) the target weeds became resistant to Roundup, and many farmers returned to tillage and even stronger chemicals. The first insect resistance to a pesticide (sulfur-lime) was noted in 1914.  With each iteration of this Darwinian process, the industry’s response is to develop a variant of the failed pesticide rather than developing ecologically-based pest management and abandoning chemical-intensive agricultural practices that ignore the ecosystem in which they operate.

Where once the industry touted the Green Revolution and the utter dependence of agriculture on its products to feed the world, now it is trying to convince people that it is on the sustainability bandwagon, all the while continuing to market its non-regenerative products. In Syngenta’s words, “Although the green revolution has been successful in feeding a rapidly growing human population, it has also depleted the Earth’s soil and its biodiversity and contributed to climate change. These extractive practices are not sustainable. We must move quickly to transform agriculture by employing a suite of practices known as regenerative agriculture.” The company manufactures the herbicide atrazine, a notorious endocrine disrupter.

Even as it claims progressive goals, the industry also continues its old-school scaremongering. CropLife America, the agricultural chemical industry’s powerful lobby group, claims that “Without pesticides, farmers would need twice as much land to grow the same amount of food due to reduced yields.” This is not true. Many farmers have reduced or eliminated pesticides without significant loss of yields or profits.

Despite the industry’s use of the right buzzwords and its attempts to clothe itself in the virtues of regenerative practices, pesticide use has not decreased. Just the opposite. In the U.S. about 196 million pounds of pesticides were used in agriculture in 1960; by 1981 it was 632 million pounds; by 2020 it was up to more than a million tons. The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization put global usage in 2022 at just over four million tons, with the U.S. in the lead and Brazil second. 

Farmers are already familiar with Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which looked like a step in the right direction when President Richard Nixon directed federal agencies to integrate it into agriculture in 1972. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) update in 2018 describes IPM as “a science-based, sustainable decision-making process that uses information on pest biology, environmental data, and technology to manage pest damage in a way that minimizes both economic costs and risks to people, property, and the environment.” But it took two decades for the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to jointly agree to get IPM in place on 75% of U.S. acres by 2000. IPM has not been universally popular, and it has not weaned agriculture off pesticides. By 2001, some kind of IPM had been practiced on 70% of crop acreage, but pesticide use increased during the same interval, with little decline in the use of the most toxic pesticides.

More recently, organic and regenerative agriculture has been expanding. Between 2012 and 2017, U.S. cover crop usage increased by 50%. Still, cover crops are in use in less than 5 percent of croplands nationwide, reflecting a stubborn resistance to a core practice of regenerative agriculture. There remains among many farmers a fear, encouraged by the pesticide industry, that abandoning pesticides will result in pest apocalypse, yield reduction, and penury.

Agriculture will likely only survive and thrive if pesticide use declines rapidly. Nontarget effects of pesticides ranging from neonicotinoid insecticides to dicamba are wreaking havoc with the balance between plants, animals and humans. It should not take yet another generation to make the transition to sustainable food production, whether you call it integrated pest management or regenerative agriculture. See Beyond Pesticides webpages on Organic Agriculture and Keeping Organic Strong.

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

Source: Mugala T, Brichler K, Clark B, Powell GS, Taylor S, Crossley MS. Ground beetles suppress slugs in corn and soybean under conservation agriculture. Environ Entomol. 2023 May 26:nvad047.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37235638/

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2023) A study published in Parkinsonism & Related Disorders finds high exposure to household pesticides increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) two-fold. There is a multitude of epidemiologic research on Parkinson’s disease demonstrating several risk factors, including specific genetic mutations and external/environmental triggers (i.e., pesticide use, pollutant exposure, etc.). However, several studies find exposure to chemical toxicants, like pesticides, has neurotoxic effects or exacerbates preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. Past studies suggest neurological damage from oxidative stress, cell dysfunction, and synapse impairment, among others, can increase the incidence of PD following pesticide exposure. Despite the widespread commercialized use of household pesticides among the general population, few epidemiologic studies examine the influence household pesticides have on the risk of PD, although many studies demonstrate the association between PD onset via occupational (work-related) pesticide exposure patterns.

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with at least one million Americans living with PD and about 50,000 new diagnoses annually. Alzheimer’s ranks first. The disease affects 50 percent more men than women, and individuals with PD have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control and trembling, anxiety and depression, constipation and urinary difficulties, dementia, and sleep disturbances. Over time, symptoms intensify, but there is no current cure for this fatal disease. While only 10 to 15 percent of PD incidents are genetic, PD is quickly becoming the world’s fastest-growing brain disease. Therefore, research like this highlights the need to examine alternate risk factors for disease development, especially if disease triggers are overwhelmingly nonhereditary.

Using an observational cross-sectional study, the researchers explored the association between household pesticide exposure and PD risk. The researchers selected patients with PD from the Latin American Research Consortium on the Genetics of Parkinson’s Disease (LARGE-PD), and specialists evaluated movement disorders associated with PD. The study extracted data on sex, age at evaluation (for all participants), age at onset for patients with PD, and lifetime smoking history (at least 100 cigarettes during lifetime). To determine household pesticide exposure, researchers asked participants whether they used chemicals to kill various types of pests (e.g., insects, weeds, fungi) in or around the house/apartment during their lifetime (four categories of answers: 1–5 days/year, 6–10 days/year, 11–30 days/year, more than 30 days/year). The study categorizes high exposure to household pesticides as more than 30 days per. Men tend to have higher instances of PD relative to household pesticide exposure. After adjusting for sex, age, smoking, or region of origin, researchers find the risk of PD is independent of these factors, and the odds of developing PD increase two-fold upon from (>30 days/year) household pesticide exposure.

Parkinson’s disease occurs when there is damage to dopaminergic nerve cells (i.e., those activated by or sensitive to dopamine) in the brain responsible for dopamine production, one of the primary neurotransmitters mediating motor function. Although the cause of dopaminergic cell damage remains unknown, evidence suggests that pesticide exposure, especially chronic exposure, may be the culprit. Occupational exposure poses a unique risk, as pesticide exposure is direct via handling and application. A 2017 study finds that occupational use of pesticides (i.e., fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides) increases PD risk by 110 to 211 percent. Even more concerning, some personal protection equipment (PPE) may not adequately protect workers from chemical exposure during application. However, indirect nonoccupational (residential) exposure to pesticides, such as proximity to pesticide-treated areas, can also increase the risk of PD. A Louisiana State University study finds that residents living adjacent to pesticide-treated pasture and forest land by the agriculture and timber industry have higher incidence of PD. Furthermore, pesticide residues in waterways and on produce present an alternate route for residential pesticide exposure to increase the risk for PD via ingestion. In addition to PD, pesticide exposure can cause severe health problems even at low residue levels, including endocrine disruption, cancers, reproductive dysfunction, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma, bronchitis), and other neurological impacts. Nevertheless, direct occupational and indirect nonoccupational pesticide exposure can increase the risk of PD. 

This study adds to the research that associates pesticide exposure with PD. A history of high exposure to household pesticides increases the risk of PD regardless of the age at PD onset. Insecticides are the most commonly used household pesticides, particularly synthetic pyrethroids, and organophosphates. Several studies identify various pesticides as involved in the pathology of PD, including the insecticides rotenone and chlorpyrifos and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat. A Washington State University study determined that residents living near areas treated with glyphosate—the most widely used herbicides in the U.S.—are one-third more likely to die prematurely from Parkinson’s disease. In the Louisiana State University study, exposure to 2,4-D, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from pasture land, forestry, or woodland operations, as prominent risk factors for PD, with the highest risk in areas where chemicals quickly percolate into drinking water sources. Overall, research finds exposure to pesticides increases the risk of developing PD from 33 percent to 80 percent, with some pesticides prompting a higher risk than others.

This study adds to the large body of scientific studies strongly implicating pesticide involvement in Parkinson’s disease development. In addition to this research, several studies demonstrate autism, mood disorders (e.g., depression), and degenerative neurological conditions (e.g., ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s) among aquatic and terrestrial animals, including humans exposed to pesticides. Pesticides themselves, mixtures of chemicals such as Agent Orange (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) or dioxins, and therapeutic hormones or pharmaceutical products can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Therefore, the impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Considering health officials expect Parkinson’s disease diagnosis to double over the next 20 years, mitigating preventable exposure from disease-inducing pesticides becomes increasingly essential.

Parkinson’s disease has no cure, but preventive practices, like organic agriculture or Parks for a Sustainable Future, can eliminate exposure to toxic PD-inducing pesticides. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate toxic pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices and consumers to purchase organically grown food. A complement to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. Those affected by pesticide drift can refer to Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency and contact the organization for additional information. Furthermore, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parkinson’s Disease article from the Spring 2008 issue of Pesticides and You.

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

Source: Parkinsonism & Related Disorders

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2023) [Editor’s note to readers: The local, democratic decision-making process to adopt restrictions on pesticide use, now under attack in Congress, has historically been critical to the protection of health and the environment when federal and state governments have failed in their responsibility. This local democratic right has not only protected communities where action is taken, but it has driven state and federal policy to do better—to do what is required in a society that cares about a sustainable future.

While federal and state pesticide policy sets a floor on minimum protections and rights, there is nothing more important than nurturing the local democratic process to increase and strengthen protections that elude government agencies that are unduly influenced by the powerful chemical industry. As we face existential crises of health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency resulting from gridlock in legislative bodies that ignore the scientific facts documenting harm and solutions that are within our grasp, there is nothing more important than empowering local communities to embrace meaningful changes that eliminate pesticides and adopt organic land management practices. These changes embrace nature and ecosystem services.

While the federal regulatory process is skewed toward assumptions of the benefits of toxic chemicals, local communities are able to address problems holistically by asking simple questions like: “Do we need to use toxic chemicals to manage lawns and landscapes, parks and playing fields?”; “Do we have to allow pollinators and waterways to be poisoned to manage land in our community?”; Do we have to expose our children and those with preexisting health conditions to toxic chemicals to achieve our land management goals?; “Why are we being told that the risks are acceptable when the chemicals have not even been regulated for damage to the endocrine system (affecting all organ systems in the body) or for chemical mixtures and synergistic effects with other chemicals, or for impacts on those with neurological, immunological, and reproductive diseases and cancer?; And, most importantly–a question not asked by regulators– “Are there solutions that do not rely on toxic chemicals?” These are the questions being asked in local communities nationwide, questions that are critical to health and safety.

Because of the critical value of local authority to restrict pesticides, we again urge the widest possible outpouring of voices in the halls of Congress to stop the chemical industry from shutting down the local democratic process in our communities to stop the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. Public communication with members of Congress is essential if we are to stop the pro-pesticide lobby from pushing on communities its toxic products. Urge your networks and your elected officials, and your local government officials to take action by using the links below. These are the questions that communities have a right to ask, then answer, and then act on.]

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language | Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.

Amendments to the nation’s pesticide law, the Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the attack on local authority to restrict pesticides have now taken shape with the introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R.4288) in the U.S. House of Representatives. With the pro-pesticide industry advocating for the preemption (or prohibition) of local authority to restrict pesticide use, the battle is focused on these amendments, or a similar attack on local authority, becoming a part of the Farm Bill. Members of Congress are now negotiating on this. However, local democratic authority to restrict pesticides in communities are not negotiable, advocates say.

Any change to local or state authority to restrict pesticides will overturn decades of Supreme Court precedent. Environmental groups and consumer protection advocates have long fought off provisions like those in the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, which seeks to prohibit improved protections from inadequately regulated toxic pesticides. Among the many deficiencies in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review of pesticides is its failure to fully evaluate for endocrine disruption, according to the Office of Inspector General. This bill will hinder state governments from tailoring laws to address the specific needs and concerns of their communities.

While the bill’s language appears to focus on labeling, it actually prohibits any locality or state from imposing restrictions that are more restrictive than the federal labeling on a pesticide product. The bill states that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) will require the “uniformity in national pesticide labeling, and prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof, or a court from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirement. . .different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator. . .” In other words, if a community restricts pesticide use near sensitive areas, like waterways, or seeks to protect children, or those with preexisting health conditions, that action would constitute a restriction different, albeit more protective, from the label. 

For more background on the effect of the legislative language, please see Pesticide Lobby Pushes Farm Bill Amendment to Strip Localities and States from Restricting Pesticides.

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language | Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.

The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier,  the Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government throughout their jurisdiction. According to Mortier, however, states do retain authority to take away local control. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording. 

Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to prohibit localities from developing policies reflecting the unique needs and values of the people living there. In states that do not prohibit local action on pesticides, an ever-increasing number of communities are stepping up to protect their residents and unique local environment from pesticide poisoning and contamination. Having failed to curtail local action and with a growing number of communities deciding to act, the chemical industry is flexing its muscle with an attack in Congress. 

States and localities must retain the ability to inform their residents about product risks, including pesticides like glyphosate. Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to draft a Farm Bill that does not undermine (i.e., preempt) the authority of local communities that are striving to safeguard public health and the environment. 

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language | Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.

The targets for this Action are the U.S. Congress and local elected officials across the United States. 

Thank you for your active participation and engagement!

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2023) The introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R.4288) in the U.S. House of Representatives, expected to be a part of the Farm Bill negotiations, is raising the specter (yet again) of undermining local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from pesticides—effectively overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent. Environmental groups and consumer protection advocates have long fought off provisions, like those in the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, which seeks to prohibit improved protections from toxic pesticides that are not adequately regulated by the federal government. Among the many deficiencies in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), review of pesticides is its failure to fully evaluate for endocrine disruption, according to the Office of Inspector General. Critics argue that this bill will hinder state governments from tailoring laws to address the specific needs and concerns of their communities.

While the bill’s language appears to focus on labeling, it actually prohibits any locality or state from imposing restrictions that are more restrictive than the federal labeling on a pesticide product. The bill states that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) will require the “uniformity in national pesticide labeling, and prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof, or a court from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirement. . .different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator. . .” In other words, if a community restricts pesticide use near sensitive areas, like waterways, or seeks to protect children, or those with preexisting health conditions, that action would constitute a restriction different, albeit more protective, from the label.

The introduction of state pesticide preemption laws has been a growing trend, largely influenced by the pesticide industry’s efforts to limit local and state control since the late 20th century. This has led to an ongoing debate surrounding the balance of authority between local, state, and federal levels of government in pesticide regulation, particularly in areas related to public health.

During the 2018 Farm Bill deliberations, similar efforts by the pesticide industry to limit state control were rejected by the Farm Bill conference committee. However, the introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act now aims to preempt California from issuing cancer warnings on products containing glyphosate, such as Roundup.

In addition to a blanket prohibition of local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the EPA, advocates see the new bill as an attempt to preempt California, and other states, from issuing cancer warnings on products. Under Proposition 65, a right-to-know law in California, residents are provided with information about chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive effects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an internationally recognized authority on the carcinogenic potential of chemicals, classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic in humans.”

The constitutionality of the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is currently being litigated. In a federal district court ruling, Monsanto and others claimed that the warning violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. California appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, and oral arguments were submitted in April 2023.

Despite the IARC finding and a preponderance of cancer findings in the scientific literature, as well as numerous jury verdicts for plaintiffs suffering non-Hodgkin lymphoma, in 2020, EPA released a human health risk assessment for glyphosate as part of the mandatory registration review under the FIFRA that concludes that the weed killer does not pose a cancer risk. However, in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the EPA’s determination, stating that the agency failed to adequately consider the potential cancer-causing effects of glyphosate. The court found that the EPA disregarded evidence, including increased risks of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and tumors in animal studies, as acknowledged by its own experts, advisory panel, and medical professionals. Consequently, the EPA has been ordered to revise its assessments for the final registration review of glyphosate by 2026, with the previous deadline extended by Congress.

The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, the Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government throughout their jurisdiction. According to Mortier, however, states do retain the authority to take away local control. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording.

Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to prohibit localities from developing policies reflecting the unique needs and values of the people living there. In states that do not prohibit local action on pesticides, an ever-increasing number of communities are stepping up to protect their residents and unique local environment from pesticide poisoning and contamination. Having failed to curtail local action and with a growing number of communities deciding to act, the chemical industry is flexing its muscle with an attack in Congress. 

Environmental activists and concerned citizens argue that states must retain the ability to inform their residents about product risks, including pesticides like glyphosate. Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to draft a Farm Bill that does not undermine (i.e., preempt) the authority of local communities that are striving to safeguard public health and the environment.

The introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act has ignited a contentious debate regarding the balance between federal and state control over pesticide regulations. The outcome of this proposed legislation could have significant implications for public health, environmental protection, and the authority of state governments across the United States.

Take action! Click here for the following two steps:

• Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language
• Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.

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

Source: 118th Congress H.R.4288 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2023) A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds concentrations of organophosphate (OP) metabolites in urine during the prenatal phase have links to adolescent/young adult externalizing (e.g., hyperactivity, aggression, attention problems) and internalizing (e.g., depression) behavior problems. Thus, prenatal exposure to OP pesticides can permanently affect behavioral health as children mature into adulthood. This study adds to the growing body of research reinforcing the adverse effects of organophosphate (OP) exposure on cognitive health and neurological development, especially for infants and children. Prenatal development is one of the most vulnerable periods of exposure, as the fetus is most susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical contaminants. Many studies indicate that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to diseases, from learning and developmental disabilities to cancer. Given research links to pesticide exposure and neurological and cognitive development, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the brain elevates health concerns. 

Researchers gathered two urine samples from mothers during pregnancy (at weeks 13 and 26) and five urine samples from offspring from the ages of six months to five years old to measure urinary dialkylphosphates (DAPs) (nonspecific OP metabolites). Subsequently, the study also assesses reports of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems using the Behavior Assessment System for Children ages 14, 16, and 18. The results find an association between maternal DAP concentrations during pregnancy and more behavioral problems, including hyperactivity, aggression, attention problems, and depression. However, after birth, OP metabolite concentrations in the urine of the offspring between six months and five years find less of an association with behavioral problems but suggest an association with mood disorders like depression.

Pesticide use is widespread and direct exposure from applications or indirect exposure from residues threatens human health. Children are more vulnerable to the impact of pesticides as their bodies are still developing. Their bodies also inhale, absorb, and ingest more chemical than adults relative to body weight. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to disease. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal pesticide exposure can increase disease risk. A pregnant mother’s exposure to environmental toxicants can increase the likelihood of developmental disabilities, as most developmental disabilities begin before birth. Many studies link childhood pesticide exposure to lower IQ, but prenatal pesticide exposure even more so. Moreover, women living near areas of highly toxic chemical use have an increased risk of birthing a baby with cognitive function, like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even many long-banned pesticides still cause adverse effects on human health. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID).

Research on pesticide-induced diseases commonly investigates pesticide exposure concerning the development of various physical illnesses. However, there is a lack of information connecting pesticide exposure to the subsequent psychological (psychiatric) effects on the general population. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), mental health disorders affect 970 million people globally, with the number of people living with these disorders increasing by 26 to 28 percent in the past three years. Although the etiology of psychiatric disorders is often genetic, studies suggest that other etiological factors, like pesticide exposure, play a role in mental health incidents. Poor mental health has a tangible influence on physical health (e.g., depression and cardiovascular disease); therefore, the combination of pesticide exposure and mental illness worsens the adverse effects on human health. If pesticide exposure exacerbates psychiatric disorder symptoms, it is important to evaluate how pesticide exposure affects mental health, in addition to physical health.

For over two decades, research concerning pesticide exposure and psychiatric disorders, such as depression, focused on occupational hazards, especially for agricultural farmworkers. Exposure to agricultural pesticides puts farmers at a six times greater risk of exhibiting depressive symptoms, including chronic anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and sadness. Linear models reveal an association between lifelong pesticide poisoning episodes and the increased risk of developing mental disorders among tobacco farmers. Tobacco farmers using organophosphate pesticides have a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric disorders. However, pesticide exposure from nearby agricultural fields also threatens residential (nonoccupational) human health. Previous studies found that populations living near farms are more likely to have high depressive symptoms. Similarly, a 2019 study found that teens and adolescents living in agricultural areas, where organophosphate exposure is prevalent, are at higher risk of depression. Uniquely, gender (female), physical health, and age (young adult) indicate the likelihood of having depressive symptoms, with the most adverse effects on women, those in poor physical health, and children under 14. 

Whether pesticide exposure is occupational or residential, the development of depression symptoms is of concern. Nearly half of Americans with a mental health diagnosis seek treatment for symptoms every year. Untreated symptoms of depression can increase the risk of suicide, a severe sign of depression. Commonalities between occupational and household pesticide exposure are suicidal thoughts and pesticide provocation as a suicide agent. A study published in the WHO Bulletin found that people storing organophosphate pesticides in their homes are more likely to have suicidal thoughts as the exposure rate is higher. The study found an association between suicidal thoughts and ease of household pesticide accessibility. Geographic areas with more frequent home storage of pesticides have higher rates of suicidal thoughts than the general population. WHO scientists recognize pesticide self-poisoning as one of the most significant global methods of suicide. Robert Stewart, Ph.D., a researcher for the WHO Bulletin, stated that: “Organophosphate pesticides are widely used around the world. They are particularly lethal chemicals when taken in overdose and are a cause of many suicides worldwide.” With that in mind, researchers say it is vital to recognize how pesticide exposure and accessibility can influence mental illnesses. 

Chemical exposure during pregnancy harms the offspring’s health, especially neurological development. Understanding the mental health implications of conventional pesticide exposure can help identify the various physiological mechanisms attributed to psychiatric disorders. Additionally, a past study demonstrates pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples. Thus, pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. This discovery ignites concerns over prenatal exposure to chemicals from consumer and industrial products and sources. The number of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities is increasing in the U.S., and many children in rural areas—where pesticide use is most prevalent—have a higher rate of neurological disabilities. Therefore, it is essential to effectively monitor and assess pesticide exposure for the sake of human health.

The findings of OP exposure and behavioral problems are not new. Therefore, healthcare providers must have sufficient information on signs and symptoms of chemical exposure to address health issues regarding pesticide exposure and mental health incidents. Farmers, landscapers, and other individuals encountering chemical exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and skin (dermal) contact are unaware of the nonphysical side effects. Considering depression related to acute pesticide exposure may persist long after initial exposure, those working with toxic pesticides must have adequate protective equipment to minimize exposure. Advocates urge government agencies to assess the provocation of psychiatric disorders accompanying acute and chronic pesticide exposure to protect human health. Given the rise in mental health problems among agricultural workers and the potential health risks to the general population, analyzing existing studies is crucial.

This research highlights the significance of researching potential mental health detriments resulting from pesticide exposure, especially as society tends to rank mental health risks second to physical health. Mental health is just as—if not more–important than physical health, and reviews such as this highlight the importance of knowing pesticide implications beyond physical ailments. Through its Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD), Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Our choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table daily by purchasing organic products. By buying and using organic products, you not only support an agricultural system that does not heavily rely on the widespread application of dangerous pesticides but also a residential system. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Lastly, suicide is the tenth leading cause of death among adults (3rd for adolescents) in the U.S., with more than 34,000 individuals succumbing to the disease annually. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are dangerous and harmful and are therefore considered a psychiatric emergency. An individual experiencing these thoughts should seek immediate assistance from a health or mental health care provider. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or 911 immediately.

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2023) After nearly 40 years since the Bhopal, India manufacturing facility leaked 47 tons of a chemical used in pesticide production, exposing half a million people and killing thousands, a new study in the BMJ Medical Journal has shed light on the enduring health and human capital effects resulting from in-utero exposure. The study finds significant negative impacts on both economic and health outcomes. Individuals who were in the womb during the disaster exhibited lower birth weights and remain more susceptible to respiratory problems, cognitive impairments, and other health issues later in life. Moreover, those born just after the gas leak were found to have lower educational attainment and reduced earning potential as adults. Over the past four decades, Beyond Pesticides has consistently reported on the Bhopal Gas Disaster, which stands as one of the most devastating industrial tragedies in history [1] [2] [3] [4].

The calamitous night of December 2, 1984, resulted from a gas leak of the highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) from a Union Carbide Corporation (now owned by Dow Chemical Company) manufacturing facility. MIC is an intermediate chemical used in the production of insecticides such as carbaryl (Sevin), aldicarb, and other carbamate pesticides, which are still sold in the United States today. That night in Bhopal, residents living miles away from the site still vividly recall the scene: waking up suffocating, witnessing scenes of chaos, and fleeing through streets filled with lifeless bodies.

While several instances of safety violations contributed to the gas leak, activists often point to the underlying issue—the overwhelming demand for pesticides and industrial chemicals that are unnecessary for effective pest management. Initially, the Indian government reported a death toll of 3,500 within the first few days of the disaster. However, international organizations like Amnesty International claim the number of fatalities to be between 7,000 and 10,000 in the immediate aftermath. Eyewitness testimonies, such as that of Mohammed Karim, who helped handle the bodies in Bhopal, challenge the government’s reported death toll. Karim asserts that 15,000 to 20,000 people lost their lives in the initial days of the disaster. He substantiates his claims by estimating that his team buried around 4,800 bodies per day for four days, with military trucks subsequently disposing of them in the Narmada River.

For those who survived the gas leak, many still experience impacts on their health and their children’s health. This study investigated the causal relationship using spatial difference-in-difference analysis, a well-established method for inferring causality. It examines the effects on adults who were exposed to the Bhopal Gas Disaster while in the womb. The research yields notable findings, including a significant difference in the sex ratio among the 1,260 babies born within 100 km of the gas leak site in 1985, as compared to those born between 1981 and 1984. Additionally, individuals who were in utero during the gas leak and lived near Bhopal exhibit significantly higher rates of cancer in adulthood compared to the cohort living further from Bhopal and the group born before the disaster. Lastly, the study examines differences in male unemployment patterns. Men born in 1985 (in utero during 1984) and residing within 100 km of Bhopal are one percent more likely to report unemployment disability compared to older cohorts. Moreover, men living within 50 km of Bhopal have a two percent higher likelihood of reporting unemployment.

The Bhopal Gas Disaster serves as a stark reminder of the hazards posed by the petrochemical industry, including the production and use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Many advocates firmly believe that eliminating the supply and demand for toxic petrochemical chemicals is the only way to prevent industrial disasters, like Bhopal, as well as other threats to human health, wildlife, and ecosystems. Jay Feldman, the executive director of Beyond Pesticides, emphasized, “The Bhopal Gas Disaster is a tragic consequence of the aggressive promotion and use of hazardous pesticides. Four decades later, the disaster remains etched in our movement’s collective consciousness and underscores the urgent need to eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. Beyond Pesticides, along with our coalition partners, is leading the way by implementing organic land management practices and promoting the transition to organic in 60 communities across the United States.”

As the legacy of the Bhopal Gas Disaster lives on, Beyond Pesticides remains committed to preventing similar environmental and human catastrophes through a just transition to organic practices and the elimination of hazardous chemicals. Tell Congress to eliminate future Bhopal disasters by passing an Organic Green New Deal.

Advance organic management practices to replace dependence on chemical-intensive land and building management practices. See Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe webpage for information nontoxic management of unwanted plants and insects. Also see, information on transition to organic agriculture and Parks for a Sustainable Future for action steps to achieving a future no longer reliant of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

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

Source: BMJ Medical Journal 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2023) Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds.

Tell EPA to eliminate pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply. Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior to protect birds by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them. Tell Congress that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect birds and other mosquito predators.

While the appetite of purple martins for mosquitoes is well known, most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings. Attract these birds to keep mosquitoes from feasting on you.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

On a personal level, you can nurture a safe haven for birds and other mosquito predators. Urge your community to adopt safer mosquito management practices. And, remember there are safer personal repellents. See How To Repel Mosquitoes Safely.

Spread the word to your neighbors on safer mosquito management with Beyond Pesticides’ doorknob hanger, Manage Mosquitoes This Season without Toxic Chemicals.

Tell EPA to eliminate pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply. Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior to protect birds by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them. Tell Congress that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect birds and other mosquito predators.

Letter to EPA:

Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment that should lead to the elimination of these pesticides.

Please eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. At the same time, teach people how to choose safer personal repellents.

Thank you.

Letter to USFWS and DOI:

Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is not consistent with management of public lands to support wildlife.

Please eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. At the same time, teach people how to choose safer personal repellents.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment that should lead to the elimination of these pesticides.

Please ensure by your oversight that EPA, DOI, and other agencies eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. At the same time, urge EPA to teach people how to choose safer personal repellents.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2023) Exposure to environmentally relevant concentrations of the herbicide glyphosate (GLY) has the potential to induce heart damage (cardiotoxicity) through the aging (senescence) of cells and a reduction of the number of rapidly increasing (proliferating) cells, according to a study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Specifically, glyphosate induces toxic effects on cardiomyocytes (cardiac muscles) responsible for contractions that pump the blood. Cardiovascular (heart) disease (CVD) is one of the leading causes of death in the U.S., with approximately 700,000 people dying annually of heart disease, equating to 25% of all U.S. deaths. Additionally, heart conditions are one leading cause of disability in the U.S.

Research has shown that environmental pollutant exposure can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, including stroke, heart attack, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and cardiac arrest. Considering chemical exposure exacerbates adverse disease effects, reviews like these highlight the significance of evaluating synergism between diseases and toxic chemicals to safeguard human health. The study warns, “Our findings offer important information regarding the potential mechanisms of GLY cardiotoxicity toxicity. Notably, our study provides new insights into the relationship between GLY and senescence. Cardiac dysfunction of GLY to non-target organisms need to be noted in future study. Our study raises concerns about the cardiovascular health of populations chronically exposed to GLY.”

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the most commonly used pesticides globally, readily contaminating soil, water, and food resources. Although GBHs’ ubiquitous nature has links to various chronic diseases, including cancers (e.g., non-Hodgkin lymphoma), and reproductive and developmental dysfunctions, much less research considers exposure effects on cardiovascular (heart) health.

For the experiment, researchers obtained AC16 human cardiomyocytes from American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, Maryland) and the Tg(myl7:nDsRed) and Tg(myl7:eGFP) transgenic line in a male and female zebrafish from the Chinese Zebrafish Resource Center. The researchers exposed the AC16 and zebrafish cardiomyocyte cells to various concentrations of glyphosate. The results find low concentrations (30 μg/L) of glyphosate structurally enlarged AC16 cardiac muscle cells, indicating a senescent (aging) state. Additionally, the increased expression of P16, P21, and P53 proteins following glyphosate exposure further highlights glyphosate’s role in the senescence of AC16 cells (senescence induction). However, the mechanical mechanism involved in glyphosate-induced senescence of AC16 cardiomyocytes was through reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated DNA damage. In zebrafish, cardiomyocyte reduction occurs from the notch signaling pathway (intracellular signaling mechanism that plays a role in vascular development) stimulated by glyphosate, which decreases the proliferation capacity of these cardiac muscle cells. Like AC16 cardiomyocytes, the cardiotoxicity of glyphosate in zebrafish has links to DNA damage and mitochondrial damage. In both human and zebrafish cardiomyocytes, glyphosate causes endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress by hampering ER protein processing signals, thus activating the PERK-eIF2α-ATF4 pathway responsible for autophagy (cellular breakdown of old, damaged, dysfunctional components) gene transcription. Thus, the results suggest the underlying mechanism involved in cardiotoxicity is ER stress from glyphosate exposure.

Overall, symptoms of cardiotoxicity include weakened heart muscles (myocarditis), elevated levels of proteins (troponins) in heart muscles, abnormal electrical activity in the heart (ECG), heart attack (myocardial infarction), heart failure (systolic dysfunction), blood clotting impairment (coagulopathy), inflamed blood vessels (endotheliitis), heart cell death (necroptosis), vascular damage, hypertrophy, fluid leakage around heart sac (myocardial edema) and tissue scarring of the heart (myocardial fibrosis). Although epidemiological studies highlight ambient pollutants, like air pollution at the primary residence, as a major constituent of heart diseases, many individuals continuously experience exposure to contaminants in the workplace. Risks linked to heart diseases and occupational chemical exposure are less studied and lack adequate policies and practices that mitigate exposure, especially for those disproportionately affected by toxic pesticides.

Because of the disproportionate risk in people of color communities, the contamination and poisoning associated with glyphosate is an environmental justice issue. However, pesticide exposure affects a large portion of the population, and the intermediate relationship between heart illnesses and pesticides needs more research. With the range of ever-present environmental hazards, advocates argue that regulators act quickly and embrace a precautionary approach.

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate-based herbicide use (e.g., Roundup) has put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. Glyphosate has been the subject of extensive controversy about its safety for humans, non-human organisms, and ecosystems. Science and environmental advocates have noted the multiple risks that glyphosate use represents, with Beyond Pesticides listing glyphosate as having endocrine, reproductive, neurotoxic, hepatic, renal, developmental, and carcinogenic effects on human health. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion and loss of services). Exposure to GBHs has implications for specific alterations in microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Past studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of various health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and autism. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence, like from the World Health Organization (WHO), demonstrates links to cancers, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Thus, EPA’s classification can perpetuate adverse impacts among vulnerable individuals like pregnant women and infants.

This study provides one of the first understandings of the mechanism involved in glyphosate-mediated cardiotoxicity. Cellular aging and restricted cardiomyocyte proliferation are significant risk factors for heart failure. During the progression of heart failure, the damaged cardiac cells are incapable of regenerating themselves, and thus fibrotic tissue replaces new cardiomyocytes. The notch signaling pathway is essential for the increasing growth and development of cardiomyocytes, playing an important role in cardiac development. However, glyphosate reduces cardiomyocytes’ growth and development capacity through this notch pathway, decreasing the number of cardiomyocytes.

Glyphosate is far from the only pesticide with cardiotoxic effects. Organophosphate (OP) insecticides can disrupt redox reactions (oxidative state changes), Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) responsible for water and sodium (liquid) homeostasis, blood pressure, cardiac physiology, and proteins for signaling cells (cytokine) to produce the cardiotoxic symptoms. Exposure to specific OPs like malathion, paraoxon, and chlorpyrifos stimulates ROS, cardiac-lipid peroxidation (oxidative degradation of lipids leading to lipoxidation, which plays a role in the onset of heart diseases), and protein damage in heart tissues. Like glyphosate-mediated cardiovascular effects, the subcellular alterations in cardiologic function from OP exposure led to various aforementioned heart diseases.

Cardiovascular disease is becoming increasingly prevalent, and understanding the risks pesticide exposure plays in disease development is essential to consider. With too many illnesses in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, eliminating pesticide use is critical for safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities. Policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure, while advancing practices and products that are compatible with organic systems and regenerative. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide-related illnesses, see PIDD pages on cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other diseases. Learn more about how pesticides can adversely affect human and environmental health by reading Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Considering 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide compound in their body, primarily from dietary exposure, including food and drinking water, advocates maintain that current restrictions on their use must adequately detect and assess total chemical contaminants. Thus, Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, chemical occupational workers, and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on the benefits of organic, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2023) In the first major settlement amid an influx of PFAS litigation, industrial chemical giants DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva will pay $1.185 billion dollars to cities and towns across the U.S. to cover the cost of PFAS remediation and monitoring in public drinking water systems. The significance of this nationwide class-action settlement cannot be overstated, as citizens have battled powerful chemical corporations for decades with limited success. Dangerous toxicants have been indiscriminately discharged into the environment by chemical companies since the mid-1900s, and the PFAS litigation is important in the company’s acceptance of responsibility for contamination. Of course, the damage to health and the environment is incalculable, given the pervasive environmental contamination and poisoning that it has caused, and additional lawsuits are pending, with more expected. Advocates maintain that this case exemplifies the inadequacies of regulatory controls that do a poor job of capturing the long-term effects of chemicals before being introduced into the market and a worse job of questioning the essentiality of toxic substances for which there are alternative practices and products. PFAS bring into sharp focus the legacy of chemical contamination and the impact on  future generations—a problem well-documented with pesticides like DDT and its legacy of generational contamination of waterways and the environment.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of chemicals pervasive in our built environment, found in products from nonstick pans to stain resistant carpeting to pizza boxes. PFAS are known as legacy or forever chemicals, as they do not naturally break down once introduced into the environment. Rather, they must actively be remediated or else will linger in soil, groundwater, and our bodies for an indeterminate amount of time. Although an estimated 200 million Americans are exposed through their tap water, and traces of these chemicals are found in the bloodstreams of almost every American (including infants), high-load levels are linked to a multitude of negative health outcomes including kidney and testicular cancer, liver and immune system damage, and developmental and reproductive issues such as low birth weight, thyroid disruption, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and infertility.

The collection of lawsuits to date addresses widespread PFAS contamination from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) or firefighting foam. PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam have seeped into groundwater sources since their introduction in the 1960s for military and firefighting training exercises. Approximately 300 communities nationwide have identified water contamination with PFAS as a result, and, in response, water system facilities are installing PFAS remediation and treatment infrastructure with monitoring capabilities in an attempt to remove or lower the levels of the chemical in the drinking water. Cities such as Philadelphia and San Diego are suing industrial chemical corporations for millions of dollars to cover the cost of the development and upkeep of these treatment plants. More than 4,000 PFAS-related cases have been consolidated and will be overseen by Judge Richard Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Far more lawsuits are on the horizon. The current settlement only accounts for the cost of remediation in water sources already contaminated with PFAS and those with required EPA testing protocols. Moreover, the settlement funds do not resolve personal injury cases of exposed firefighters and military personnel who have personally experienced negative health effects. This settlement only comes from DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva (Chemours and Corteva are both off-shoots of DuPont). Other chemical giants, such as 3M, are facing legal battles of their own.

Although the chemical industry believes “the firefighting-foam complaints are without merit” and claim to uphold appropriate safety standards, this is not the first time that DuPont has been held to account. In 1947, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), a particularly toxic type of PFAS, was invented by 3M and shortly after, used by DuPont. For years, DuPont used this chemical in Teflon products and discharged resulting industrial waste in the small town of Parkersburg, West Virginia, where large amounts of PFOA leached into the groundwater. After a decades-long battle to hold DuPont accountable, lawyer Rob Bilott succeeded in bringing charges against the chemical company for rampant rates of cancer among Parkersburg residents who had spent years drinking PFOA-contaminated water. DuPont finally agreed to cease production of PFOA in 2015, which has since been replaced by other legacy pollutants currently in production.

One of the lead plaintiffs’ attorneys involved in the PFAS litigation states, “This settlement barely scratches the surface of the vast harm inflicted.” The fight against PFAS contamination has a long way to go, but increased awareness and outrage regarding the severe consequences of chemical exposure sheds lights on the shady practices of industrial chemical giants, like DuPont, that have been hidden for far too long, as captured in the film Dark Waters. EPA is working to place federal limits on a variety of PFAS in drinking water and have declared that almost any level of PFAS in drinking water poses a threat to consumers. While EPA had previously advised a PFOA limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in drinking water, it has now set a safety limit of 0.004 ppt, demonstrating the agency’s changing outlook on the dangers of PFAS.

According to Natalie Lewis, an environmental health and toxicology student at Duke University working with Beyond Pesticides, “Tightening restrictions on PFAS chemicals bring hope to the dire dilemma our society faces, but the relief of these initial steps in the right direction must not quell our outrage or soften the resolve for change.” With the understanding that PFAS chemicals are legacy or “forever” chemicals, public calls intensify for their phaseout as quickly as possible.

Studies show dangerous concentrations of PFAS chemicals in pesticides used extensively on crops, meaning food is doused with toxic chemicals that have no natural way of breaking down in the environment. Moreover, PFAS contamination of biosolids used for fertilizer has threatened farming operations.

To learn more about the prevalence of harmful chemicals in our environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ resources regarding Threatened Waters. The Organic Agriculture webpage offers insight into what a pesticide-free future looks like, and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database provides information on potential health consequences of toxic exposure. Explore our Tools for Change resources if you want to help advocate for the health of your community, and click here to take action against the onslaught of legacy chemicals.

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

Sources: JD Supra

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2023) An autopsy report from the Broward County Medical Examiner’s office in Florida found that acute exposure to the fumigant sulfuryl fluoride resulted in the death of two pest control workers from Pompano Beach. After the fumigation of a Pompano Beach warehouse in April, three workers fell ill, and two died after pesticide application. The highly toxic chemical can be used by the chemical pest control industry for killing termites, powder post beetles, old house borers, bedbugs, carpet beetles, moths, cockroaches, rats, and mice. In addition to being highly acutely toxic, sulfuryl fluoride, as a fluoride compound, can cause various chronic adverse health effects, including cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity (reduced IQ), and reproductive damage.

This case represents the broader issue of how toxic chemical compounds can enter the body, causing physiological damage. In fact, just last March 2023, a case report article published in Frontier in Public Health confirms one of the first reported deaths from inhalation of the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone) during work, resulting in acute renal (kidney) failure, hyperkalemia (high potassium levels in the blood), and brain edema (swelling). Considering over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, are chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples, toxicity risk increases when entering the body. Therefore, cases like this highlight the importance of understanding the risk of death associated with acute pesticide exposure and poisoning both to applicators and consumers. 

The autopsy reports 64-year-old pest control operator Leon Johnson, who was found dead in front of his home, suffered from acute sulfuryl fluoride poisoning. Mr. Johnson and his co-worker Jason Lambert started feeling nauseous and vomiting while standing outside the fumigated warehouse. After being sent home, both parties passed away from this exposure. The medical examiner found sulfuryl fluoride in Johnson’s system and on his clothing, ruling his death accidental acute pesticide exposure.

The case of sulfuryl fluoride presents a familiar pattern of widespread chemical use without proper knowledge of health and environmental effects before implementation and a failure to take regulatory action on known hazards after being allowed in commerce. Sulfuryl fluoride, registered for termite and other wood-boring pest extermination in 1959, gained additional attention as a potential alternative to methyl bromide, a broad-spectrum insect fumigant. Ninety-nine percent of structural fumigation treatments use sulfuryl fluoride. However, researchers have identified concentrations of sulfuryl fluoride in the atmosphere due to the chemical’s long half-life and greenhouse warming potential (GWP).

Epidemiological studies show that fumigation workers using sulfuryl fluoride exhibit neurological effects as the chemical is a toxic gas that targets the central nervous system. Studies report reduced performance on cognitive and memory tests, central nervous system depression, diminished sense of smell, respiratory irritation, shortness of breath, pulmonary edema, nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, itching, slurred speech, extremity numbness, muscle twitching, seizures, and death from respiratory failure. Additionally, sulfuryl fluoride is 3.5 times heavier than air, staying closer to the ground or floor, which may present higher exposures to individuals whose breathing zone is closer to the ground.

Despite being outside the warehouse building during fumigation, Mr. Johnson still encountered chemical exposure. Thus, the autopsy report attributes the mishandling of pesticides to the poising incident. This mishandling can incorporate a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for pesticide applicators, improper tenting of the structure, or residues on clothing, skin, and hair. These chemicals do not remain in one place as fumigants and as a class of pesticides are most prone to drift, highly volatile, highly toxic, and have very high application rates. Therefore, those who may consider this issue outside of their concern note that a recent study focusing on the Western United States found that fumigant pesticides (in this case metam sodium) have close links to county-level cancer rates. Not only does sulfuryl fluoride cause respiratory stimulation response and central nervous system inhibition after inhalation, but the volatile organic compound also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and poor air quality.

Recent work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) demonstrates North America is the leading global source of sulfuryl fluoride emissions in 2019. Following the 2022 report, “Termite Fumigation in California Is Fueling the Rise of a Rare Greenhouse Gas,” researchers demonstrate that sulfuryl fluoride increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although most sulfuryl fluoride emissions in the U.S. occur in California, most global emissions also occur in California. According to the most recent data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulations, sulfuryl fluoride is the 12th most used pesticide applied to sites across California, with over 2.9 million pounds used in 2018 for structural and agricultural pest control and over three million pounds used statewide in 2021. Although 50 to 60 percent of sulfuryl fluoride emissions mainly occur in California, reports like this suggest that other states like Florida may also produce emissions that remain unaccounted for by current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chemical tracking. The risk of multiple chemical contaminants in the atmosphere increases as global warming progresses. Melting glaciers can release persistent organic pollutants into waterways. Recently, pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry in environmental sulfur emissions. Thus, health and environmental concerns will increase significantly, especially for individuals and ecosystems more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure.

The history of sulfuryl fluoride has pitted one chemical use against another instead of incentivizing movement away from chemical dependency to viable alternative and organic management practices. Beyond Pesticides and other organizations maintain that without the phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride, there is little incentive to upgrade and adopt modern practices that forego hazardous chemical use.

There are many viable alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide fumigation. These alternatives include temperature manipulation, atmospheric controls, biological controls, and less toxic chemical controls (diatomaceous earth). Many existing commodity storage facilities are too old and outdated to prevent pest infestation. This ineffectiveness leads to a reliance on toxic fumigation. Thus, a clean, regularly-maintained storage or processing facility can easily keep facilities pest-free.

There is a lack of complete understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Pesticides’ impact on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals or during critical windows of vulnerability and development. Although occupational and environmental factors like pesticide exposure adversely affect human health, regulatory reviews have numerous limitations in defining real-world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) and Daily News Blog. The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more research surrounding occupational and residential pesticide exposure to make complete determinations. Existing information, including this report, supports the clear need for a strategic shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the effects of pesticide exposure on neurological health, see Beyond Pesticides’ PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, including dementia-like diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and other impacts on cognitive function. 

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Local 10 News

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2023) Pesticides interfere with biological processes. This is their purpose. Unfortunately, they nearly always have unintended consequences, many of which have been ignored by their manufacturers. A new review article by Irish and Dutch researchers in the ISME Journal adds to the emerging scientific literature examining how pesticides affect the relationship between the human gut and the human brain (the “gut-brain axis”).

Often called the “second brain” because it houses nerve cells and produces neurotransmitters, the gut-brain axis may be the most important locus where microbes and pesticides meet. The human gut plays host to a variety of microorganisms, ranging from bacteria and archaea to fungi, viruses and yeasts.[1] In a healthy person these microbes remain in balance and often cooperate both with each other and with human cells.

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.

Pesticides may exert influence over any or all of these processes. They may also affect the immune system, and some, such as glyphosate, can cross the blood-brain barrier. Pesticides can affect the production of many chemicals by gut bacteria, including serotonin and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), both important neurotransmitters. They are also notorious for disrupting the endocrine system, including reproductive hormones; a 2020 review by Spanish scientists proposed that xenobiotics such as pesticides should be termed “microbiota disrupting chemicals” as they can interfere with microbes’ role in metabolizing steroid hormones such as estradiol, cortisol and testosterone.

Beyond Pesticides has previously reported on numerous studies elucidating the deleterious effects of pesticides on disease risks involving the gut-brain axis. These include the close association between digestive disruption and Type 1 diabetes in children and Type 2 diabetes in adults, and the ability of azoxystrobin (AZO) fungicide to impair the function of the colonic barrier in nutrient absorption and protection from harmful substances. The digestive problems associated with Type I diabetes have been linked to exposure to antibiotics and some pesticides. Such exposures reduce the numbers of certain bacteria in the gut that can help protect against the inflammation triggered by these chemicals. Pesticides’ effects on gut microbes have also been linked to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as has digestive dysfunction.

Adult-onset neurological diseases also involve digestive disruption, which in turn may be related to disruption of the gut microbe balance. In 2022 Beyond Pesticides reported on a study showing that the gastrointestinal disruptions, including damage to enteric glial cells that lead to Parkinson’s disease (the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer’s), are associated with exposure to rotenone, chlorpyrifos, and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat.[2] The Irish and Dutch researchers also reviewed a study showing that glyphosate can enter the brain and raise inflammation levels, a process that has been linked to Alzheimer’s. A 2022 study suggested that chronic exposure to dietary pesticides can affect gut microbes and trigger a cascade of changes leading to these neurodegenerative diseases.

Pesticides’ effects on host-microbe processes are not confined to humans. Importantly, pesticides affect the microbes associated with plants and nontarget insects, often changing the proportions of various species. For example, French researchers in 2022 identified glyphosate’s changes to honey bees’ immune systems and gut microbiota, demonstrating a plausible mechanism for the bees’ susceptibility to certain diseases. Sometimes pesticides have a seemingly perverse—but predictable—Darwinian effect: In 2018, Beyond Pesticides reported on research detailing how insect pests’ gut microbiota contribute to the skyrocketing incidence of pesticide resistance. Microbes are nothing if not adaptable.

One common bacterial genus, Lactobacillus, which lives in the digestive tract and the female reproductive tract, as well as in fermented foods such as yogurt and kefir, demonstrates abilities that could point toward protection from pesticides’ damage to the gut-brain axis. Lactobacillus species are adversely affected by herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides, according to the authors of the current study. They are known to enhance mood and reduce anxiety and depression, and they also provide vital services in the gut, where they produce mucus that lines the intestinal walls and enhance signaling among different types of immune cells. Thus their reduced presence in the gut caused by pesticides may contribute to many, if not all, diseases affecting the brain-gut axis.

However, they may also come to the rescue after pesticide exposure. Interestingly, Lactobacillus and other bacterial genera actually degrade pesticides in the foods they ferment. A combination of L. acidophilus and Bifidus animalus synergistically reduced levels of “up to 48.6% for heptachlor and 54.7% for pp’DDE in goat milk bio-yogurts after 14 days of cold storage when both cultures were used,” according to a recent Bulgarian study.  

A remarkable Chinese study reported in Cell in 2022 exposed human volunteers to high doses of organophosphorus and organochlorine compounds. These triggered inflammatory responses and increased numbers of pathogenic bacteria in the gut. The researchers then dosed a subset of the exposed group with a proprietary version of a lactobacillus strain called Lactiplantibacillus plantarum. Lactobacilli are already present in many probiotic supplements and are used to improve symptoms of eczema, high cholesterol, and bowel inflammation. In the Chinese study’s probiotic group, microbial diversity was reestablished, inflammatory markers decreased—including two factors associated with kidney disease—and the bacteria promoted the breakdown of the pesticides and excretion of their metabolites.

Microbes are everywhere—even in the rocks deep below the seafloor. They are certainly everywhere in the human body, not only the gastrointestinal tract—one study found pesticides reduced the flora in the human mouth—and it appears that pesticides may affect microbes wherever they are. Estimates of the total number of microbial cells in a typical human—about 39 trillion-exceed the number of actual human cells—about 30 trillion. This has led many scientists to adopt pioneering microbiologist Lynn Margulis’s proposal that humans and most other multicellular organisms should be viewed as “holobonts,” that is, a single organism comprising a host and one or more symbionts—generally microbes. It would encourage a paradigm shift away from the pesticide industry’s assumption that its products’ effects are siloed and target only specific agricultural pests. Not even a monoculture field is free of trillions of microbes on its plants, in its soil, and in its water. Many of these are beneficial and may have their own ability to control pests.

The pesticide industry has turned a blind eye to the effects its products have on thousands of non-target organisms, and microbes may be the most significant of all. Although as usual more research is needed, the trajectory of scientific understanding regarding humans and the microbial world curves toward reduction of pesticide use in favor of striking a balance within the biosphere rather than willful disregard of the interrelationship of all life.

Thus the ability of microbes to protect against pesticide exposure offers remarkable potential for mitigating the harms caused by the indiscriminate effects of pesticides. But we do not have to wait until research can offer specific means of using microbes in this way. We can reduce our exposures now. Beyond Pesticides encourages consumption of organic foods to decrease pesticide levels in one’s body, both to reduce risk of chronic metabolic diseases and to ingest a wider variety of beneficial microbes.  Supporting organic agriculture helps farmers and other consumers to make the transition away from pesticide-driven agriculture. Regenerative organic agriculture can restore microbial health to soils, which may ameliorate problems caused by pesticides’ damage to host-microbe relationships in plants, insects, aquatic organisms, and others.

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

Source: Matsuzaki, R., Gunnigle, E., Geissen, V. et al. Pesticide exposure and the microbiota-gut brain axis. ISME J (2023). https://rdcu.be/de4rf.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2023) In view of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws that under threat of U.S. Congressional action in the upcoming Farm Bill.

Tell Congress: Don’t allow the Farm Bill to preempt state and local laws.

The Farm Bill covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—and one provision that the pesticide industry would like to include is preemption of local authority to restrict pesticide use. This attack on local governance  would undercut the local democratic process to protect public health and safety, especially important in the absence of adequate federal protection of the ecosystems that sustain life.

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics—good and bad—to be introduced. Dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It is designed to secure a sufficient food supply, establish fair food prices for both farmers and consumers, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have previously considered and rejected legislation to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide or food production laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as the industrial agriculture, chemical sector, and the pest control industry plan to do, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment. Even if a state is currently preempting local jurisdictions from restricting pesticides throughout their communities, a federal law codifying a prohibition of local rights to restrict pesticides will make it virtually impossible to restore the basic local authority to protect public health and the environment, which has historically been vested in local governments. Remember that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 upheld the right of local communities to restrict pesticides under current pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The most recent of these potential preempting pieces of the Farm Bill is the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS Act), introduced as S. 2619/H.R. 4999 in the 117th Congress by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA), who are expected to reintroduce it soon. The EATS Act is virtually identical to the notorious “King amendment,” which former Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tried unsuccessfully to attach to the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, generating overwhelming bipartisan opposition. An analysis of the King amendment by the Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Program produced a long, but not exhaustive, list of laws in every state that could be repealed by the EATS Act.

A diverse set of more than 170 groups strongly opposed the King amendment, including the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, FreedomWorks, Fraternal Order of Police, National Farmers Union, National Dairy Producers Organization, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, United Farm Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and National Fire Protection Association, plus hundreds of federal and state legislators (bipartisan), individual farmers, veterinary professionals, faith leaders, legal experts, and newspaper editorials including USA Today.

When it comes to pesticides applied in communities on lawns and landscapes, the language contained in a 2022 bill, H.R. 7266 “to prohibit the local regulation of pesticide use” is under consideration in the Farm Bill debate. Incorporation of such preemption language is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities across the country that have passed their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides.

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

As National Pollinator Week draws to a close, it is vital that communities maintain their right to restrict pesticides linked to pollinator decline and ecosystem collapse, cancer and a host of health effects, and water contamination in order to  protect their resident’s health and unique local ecosystems.

Tell Congress: Don’t allow the Farm Bill to preempt state and local laws.

 In addition to contacting your members of Congress through the above link, reach out to your local officials and ask them to sign on to a letter opposing preemption language in the Farm Bill. Click here for a sample letter that you can use to contact your local officials. Only local officials may sign on to this letter.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

As we observe Pollinator Week, we must recognize that in view of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws.

The Farm Bill covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—and one provision that the pesticide industry would like to include is preemption of state and local authorities—which would undercut the local democratic process to protect public health and safety.

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics—good and bad—to be introduced. Dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It is designed to secure a sufficient food supply, establish fair food prices for both farmers and consumers, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have previously introduced legislation to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide or food production laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as some plan to do, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment.

The most recent of these potential preempting pieces of the Farm Bill is the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS Act), introduced as S. 2619/H.R. 4999 in the 117th Congress by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA), who are expected to reintroduce it soon. The EATS Act is virtually identical to the notorious “King amendment,” which former Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tried unsuccessfully to attach to the 2014 and
2018 Farm Bills, generating overwhelming bipartisan opposition. An analysis of the King amendment by the Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Program produced a long, but not exhaustive, list of laws in every state that could be repealed by the EATS Act.

A diverse set of more than 170 groups strongly opposed the King amendment, including the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, FreedomWorks, Fraternal Order of Police, National Farmers Union, National Dairy Producers Organization, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, United Farm Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and National Fire Protection Association, plus hundreds of federal and state legislators (bipartisan), individual farmers, veterinary professionals, faith leaders, legal experts, and newspaper editorials including USA Today. Incorporation of such preemption language is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities.

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have considered and rejected legislation to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide or food production laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as the industrial agriculture, chemical sector, and the pest control industry have advocated, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment. This would be an attack on the nearly 200 communities that have passed or plan to pass their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides. Communities must maintain the right to restrict pesticides linked to pollinator decline and ecosystem collapse, cancer and a host of health effects, and water contamination in order to protect their resident’s health and unique local ecosystems.

Please oppose any attempts to introduce into the Farm Bill any language that preempts state and local authorities.