(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2017) A collection of long archived documents dating back to the 1920s were released last week showcasing the efforts of the chemical industry and the federal government to conceal from the public the real dangers associated with the use and manufacture of chemical products. The Bioscience Resource Project and the Center for Media and Democracy released more than 200,000 pages of these documents now accessible on the “Poison Papers” website.

First reported in The Intercept, the project, “Poison Papers,” makes publicly available documents obtained through legal discovery in lawsuits against Dow, Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Forest Service, the Air Force, and pulp and paper companies, among others. Activist Carol Van Strum stored much of these documents in her rural Oregon barn. Ms. Van Strum’s activism on pesticides and other toxic chemicals began in the mid-1970s, when she and her neighbors in Oregon filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service to stop the spraying of 2,4,5-T, a dangerously toxic herbicide that made up one-half of the ingredients in the deadly Agent Orange (the other ingredient was the still widely used herbicide 2,4-D). The spraying directly doused her four children, who developed headaches, nosebleeds, and bloody diarrhea. Miscarriages among local women and deformities in the wildlife were also seen after the spraying. Between 1972 and 1977, the Forest Service sprayed 20,000 pounds of 2,4,5-T in the 1,600-square-mile area that included Ms. Van Strum’s house and the nearby town of Alsea. Ms. Van Strum’s suit led to a temporary ban in 2,4,5-T in their area in 1977. 2,4,5-T, which is unavoidably contaminated with the carcinogenic dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was formally banned in the U.S. by 1985.

Over the years, Ms. Van Strum conducted research and assisted others in lawsuits against chemical companies, and accumulated hundreds of documents on chemical industry practices in the manufacture, disposal, and marketing of these products. According to the Intercept, there are two documents that detail experiments that Dow contracted a University of Pennsylvania dermatologist to conduct on prisoners in the 1960s to study the effects of TCDD.

Another 1985 document shows that Monsanto sold a chemical that was tainted with TCDD to the makers of Lysol, who, apparently unaware of its toxicity, used it as an ingredient in their disinfectant spray for 23 years. A never-released study undertaken by EPA on the relationship between herbicide exposure and miscarriages showed the samples from water, various animals, and “products of conception” were significantly contaminated with TCDD. In one transcript from the cross-examination of Monsanto’s George Roush, PhD, in Kemner et al. v. Monsanto No.80-I-970, Dr. Roush admits that data from TCDD-exposed workers were deliberately included with data from the unexposed workers to purposely weaken any association between the chemical and cancer deaths.

The Poison Papers include documents featuring dioxins, pesticides like 2,4-D, dicamba, permethrin, atrazine and Agent Orange, all, with the exception of Agent Orange, are still used in the U.S. The Bioscience Resource Project and the Center for Media and Democracy, which obtained Ms. Van Strum’s collection, said that the project offers a unique opportunity for researchers, the public, and the media to discover what exactly was known about chemical toxicity, when, and by whom.

Specifically, the papers (1) disclose EPA meeting minutes of a secret high-level dioxins working group that identifies dioxins as extraordinarily poisonous chemicals, (2) demonstrate EPA collusion with the pulp and paper industry to “suppress, modify or delay” the results of the congressionally-mandated National Dioxin Study, which found high levels of dioxins in everyday products, such as baby diapers and coffee filters, as well as pulp and paper mill effluents, (3) show that EPA colluded with pesticide manufacturers to keep pesticide products on the market by covering up massive problems with many of the tests conducted for these chemicals by concealing and falsifying its own studies that found high levels of dioxin in environmental samples and human breast milk.

These documents provide tangible evidence of EPA’s and other agencies’ close relationship with the industries they are regulating. EPA’s failure to take action against chemicals that are known to pose harms to humans and wildlife continues today. Just this past spring, EPA’s new administrator Scott Pruitt rejected the scientific conclusions and reversed a proposed decision from 2015 to revoke food residue tolerances of chlorpyrifos, even though it has been shown to lower IQ, mental development delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders in children. It was revealed that Administrator Pruitt met privately with the CEO of Dow, maker of chlorpyrifos, several weeks before reversing EPA’s tentative decision to ban on the chemical. In a similar case, the New York Times reported on Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators, which suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research on glyphosate (Roundup) that was later attributed to academics. There is now an investigation by the Inspector General for EPA into whether or not an EPA official engaged in collusion with Monsanto regarding the agency’s safety assessment of glyphosate.

Poison Papers are just one part of the larger DocumentCloud, which contains over a million documents. “Cloud” is truly appropriate because the site is filled with documents, with little structure to aid users beyond that supplied by their own searches. Searches that go beyond the dioxin and related chemicals will be more fruitful on the larger database.

As for Ms. Van Strum, she lost her four children in a house fire in 1977, an investigation into which was never completed. She suspects some of her opponents might have set the fire. But her commitment to the battle against toxic chemicals survived the ordeal, and she now feels it is time to pass on her collection of documents, some of which pertain to battles that are still being waged, so “others can take up the fight.” The seeds of many of the fights over chemicals still going on today can be traced to the documents in her barn.

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

Source: The Intercept; EcoWatch

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2017)  At a time when the U.S. market demands more organic corn and soybeans than are supplied by domestic organic growers, those same growers are threatened by the flooding of the market with cheaper fraudulent grains. The resulting impacts of eliminating market opportunities while at the same time threatening the value of the organic label hurt organic farmers in this country.

The National Organic Program (NOP) must take action to protect the organic label.

According to the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM), the U.S. currently produces only about 60% of the organic corn and 10-30% of the organic soybeans the market demands, while demand is increasing by about 14% per year. Meanwhile, the U.S. market is being flooded with fraudulent “organic” corn and soybeans. In May, the Washington Post documented three large shipments –totaling 7 percent of annual organic corn imports and 4 percent of organic soybean imports— originating from questionable overseas certification and fraud.

>>>Act now to tell NOP Deputy Administrator Miles McEvoy, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, and your Congressional delegation to protect the organic label for the sake of farmers and consumers!

OFARM says, “For over two years, organic grain producers have seen their prices, market opportunities and bottom-lines on their farms decline due to fraudulent imports. The losses to the twelve Midwestern state organic grain producers (ND, SD, NE, KS, MO, IL, IA, WI, IN, MI, MN, OH) totals over $150 million in lost income for the crop years 2015 and 2016 and if all 48 states and 2017 income losses are included, it is over $250 million. This situation is unsustainable and will not grow the domestic supply of organic grain.”

USDA must exercise its authority to enforce existing regulations and develop additional stringent regulatory oversight procedures to fulfill its obligations under the Organic Foods Production Act and safeguard the integrity of the USDA organic seal. USDA must immediately:
⦁    Enforce the currently enacted regulations to ensure imports comply with the U.S. organic standards;
⦁    Implement additional regulations to deter and prevent the import of fraudulent organic products; and
⦁    Regulate third-party certifiers and equivalent agencies in other countries administering USDA organic standards.

If you are a farmer who has been harmed by import fraud, please add your story to the letter.

>>>Act now to tell NOP Deputy Administrator Miles McEvoy, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, and your Congressional delegation to protect the organic label for the sake of farmers and consumers!

Thank you for taking action to protect organic farmers and consumers from fraudulent imports.

Source: Washington Post

(Beyond Pesticides, July 28, 2017) According to a report released earlier this month by the Coalition for Safer Food Processing and Packaging, a national alliance of leading public health and food safety groups, toxic, hormone disrupting, industrial chemicals have been found in 10 varieties of macaroni and cheese products. The coalition is calling on food companies, especially the Kraft Heinz Company, maker of the iconic boxed mac and cheese, to eliminate sources of these chemicals from their cheese products.

The tested mac and cheese products contained elevated levels of phthalates, chemicals used in industrial processing of plastics, adhesives and rubber, among other things, as well as “inert” ingredients in pesticide products. The study tested 30 items of individual cheese products from various manufacturers that were purchased at retail grocery stores in the U.S and shipped to the lab, unopened, in their original packaging. The cheese product items tested include nine of Kraft’s many cheese products. Results found that nearly every cheese product tested contained 10 different phthalates, with six found in a single product. Eight of the nine Kraft mac and cheese products tested contained phthalates. DEHP, a phthalate currently banned in several countries, was found in 10 of the mac and cheese products and accounts for 60 percent of all phthalates found in the tested cheese products. Phthalate levels were about four times higher in the powdered cheese when compared to regular, hard cheeses.

Phthalates are used to soften plastic and are found in homes across the U.S. in a wide range of products, including shower curtains, shampoos, perfumes, toys and pesticides, to name a few. Phthalates are a ubiquitous class of chemicals and are found in most of the population. Studies have found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited changes related to low sperm count, undescended testicles, and other reproductive problems. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer. They are associated with adverse developmental and reproductive health effects, including low sperm counts. Scientific research has indicated that phthalates act as hormone disruptors and children can ingest these toxicants by acts as simple as chewing on their plastic toys and contaminated food. Several phthalates have already been listed as potential endocrine disruptors. These chemicals also cross the placenta during pregnancy, and prenatal exposure has been linked in studies to problems with attention and intellectual deficits.

Scientists reported this year that up to 725,000 American women of childbearing age may be exposed daily to phthalates at levels that threaten the healthy development of their babies, should they become pregnant. Many agree that for most people the greatest exposure to phthalates comes from the food we eat. Phthalates area not added to food directly, but can migrate into food from plastics or adhesives during processing, packaging and preparation.

The European Union (EU) has already banned six phthalates from children’s products, and more than a dozen other countries have done the same. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has banned the use of six phthalates in toys and child care products, but they are still widely used in all kinds of products, from food packaging to personal care products and building materials in the U.S.

In response to these results, the Coalition for Safer Food Processing and Packaging has requested that Kraft identify and eliminate any sources of phthalates in the production of its cheese products, and use its leadership position to change the industry. Kraft has agreed to review the test results. The company has already been responsive to concerns regarding food dyes and preservatives in its mac and cheese, and announced phase-out in 2015.

“Kraft Heinz must take action now because the federal government has not done so. The European Union already banned most phthalates for use in food contact materials. They followed the science, but here, Trump’s Food and Drug Administration has yet to act,” said Peter Lehner, Senior Attorney at Earthjustice, a member of the Coalition for Safer Food Processing and Packaging. “Parents and their children should not have to wait longer to know that their food does not contain toxic chemicals. We are asking manufacturers to act now.”

Detailed information and a public petition are available at http://www.KleanUpKraft.org

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

Source: Earthjustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 27, 2017) Earlier this week U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced a bill that would ban use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos. The Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act, S. 1624, comes one week after an appeals court refused to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make a decision over whether to ban the chemical. Removing this neurotoxic insecticide from the environment would significantly reduce health risks for children and farmworkers in underserved rural communities, build pressure to address all toxic organophosphates, and help push U.S. agriculture in a more sustainable direction.

As with other organophosphate class chemicals, chlorpyrifos, first registered in 1965 by Dow Chemical, is derived from nerve agents used during World War 2. The chemical is linked to a range of negative health and environmental outcomes that warrant its prohibition. Children are at particular risk from the chemical due to their developing immune, organ, and nervous systems.  As with other organophosphate nerve agents, the chemical acts on the body’s nervous system, inhibiting the movement of neurotransmitters called cholinesterase. Chlorpyrifos chemically binds to the site where cholinesterase would in the body, preventing normal nerve impulse transmission. While the outward display of this effect is seen as incessant twitch of the body, the internal effects can lead to long-term decreased motor function, impaired cognition, behavioral disorders, and lower IQ.

Many organophosphates like chlorpyrifos are also endocrine disruptors, which mimic naturally produced hormones, and block hormone receptors in cells. As one may expect, this effect is particular concerning for children. Health risks of endocrine disruptors range from learning disorders to obesity, infertility, early-onset puberty and childhood cancers. These impacts, as shown by an international team of scientists led by researchers New York University, result in organophosphate-exposed children having lower lifetime earnings, causing a ‘brain drain’ for the economy that costs the U.S.  over $44.7 billion annually.

In March 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reversed a tentative decision from 2015 to revoke food residue tolerances of chlorpyrifos due to the chemical’s neurotoxic impacts. This would have effectively banned the chemical from use in agriculture. This decision stemmed from a petition and lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)  ten years ago, calling for EPA to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances and cancel all registrations. A Federal Appeals court mandated that EPA take final action by March 31, 2017. Administrator Pruitt’s decision indicated the agency will continue to study chlorpyrifos, yet as Senator Udall said in a statement, “The science hasn’t changed since EPA proposed banning chlorpyrifos in 2015 and 2017. Only the politics have.”

Given the multitude of health risks associated with the chemical, many Americans are sickened by the current Administration’s decision to play politics with children’s health. Late last month, reports surfaced that Administrator Pruitt met privately with the CEO of Dow Chemical only weeks before reversing the agency’s decision on chlorpyrifos.

Ultimately, a federal ban on chlorpyrifos should be the beginning of the end of the use of organophosphate insecticides in pest management. Like DDT and organochlorine chemicals before it, it has taken decades for EPA, under the previous administration, to acknowledge the full extent of the dangers these chemicals pose to human health and the environment. And even once those dangers are brought to the public, again and again the pesticide industry uses all available means – media spin, disreputable science, and political influence- to slow the tide towards safer practices.

As a result of greater public awareness and actions to restrict a number of organophosphates, recent EPA data show declining uses of these chemicals. In the year 2000, roughly 70 million pounds of organophosphates were applied in the U.S, representing 71% of all insecticide use. While this number dropped to 33% by 2012, there are still 20 million pounds of these neurotoxic, endocrine disrupting chemicals applied each year, and disproportionately in low-income and vulnerable communities, where children and farmworkers are most greatly impacted.

Banning chlorpyrifos, as proposed by the sponsors, must be accompanied by additional measures to encourage practices that do not replace the chemical with other organophosphates, or lead farmers to turn to newer insecticides like synthetic pyrethroids and neonicotinoids, chemical classes for which a robust body of documented hazards is already available. As Beyond Pesticides continues to argue, organic production practices represent the only real sustainable path forward for U.S. agriculture. By creating a system that fosters natural resiliency through biodiversity, pest populations do not reach the point where toxic pesticides are necessary. These practices lead to healthier working conditions for farmworkers, their families, and children in rural agricultural communities.

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

Source: Sen. Tom Udall Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2017) Campbell Soup Co. announced that it will leave the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) by the end of the year over concerns that the trade association no longer represents its views concerning labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food. Campbell’s President and CEO Denise Morrison said that while the company does not question the safety of GE food, it recognizes that most consumers want to see GE ingredients on the label. Meanwhile, Campbell’s has supported the GMA digital disclosure and lists ingredients that “may be derived from crops grown from genetically engineered seeds” on its website.

The move by Campbell Soup comes as USDA is pondering possible disclosure options under the “compromise” bill on labeling genetically engineered food passed last year by the U.S. Congress. The company says, “While this legislation offers a range of disclosure options for manufacturers, we will introduce an on-pack statement as we know that’s what the overwhelming majority of Americans support. We’re working on language that provides specific ingredient information and supports the science that GMOs are safe.” A number of other companies have also announced their intention to label GE ingredients, while similarly maintaining their safety.

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has extended to August 25 the comment period for responding to 30 questions regarding the implementation of the law. The law includes labeling options other than on-package labeling, such as QR codes and websites, which would only serve to hide the information this law was passed to provide. It also allows USDA to decide which GE ingredients must be disclosed. Commenting provides a chance to help shape USDA’s proposal. So far, more than 3100 people have sent comments to AMS in response to a Beyond Pesticides alert.

Beyond Pesticides is telling USDA the following:

• The definition of “bioengineering” must include all forms of genetic engineering including newer forms like CRISPR and RNA interference (RNAi). Definitions should be compatible with those recommended by the National Organic Standards Board.
• Each GE ingredient must be identified, including highly refined GE sugars and oils and processed corn and soy ingredients. Even if they are so highly processed that the GE ingredients are present only at undetectable levels in the final product, they are still GE foods.
• GE ingredients must be identified on product labels, or product shelves in the case of raw foods. All products required to have labels should included identification of GE ingredients on the label.
• There must be no delays in making regulations effective. Manufacturers have already had years’ worth of notice and preparation to provide this information, at the state and federal level. Indeed, many major food companies have been labeling for some time.

Send your comments to AMS in support of your right to know now! Deadline extended until August 25, 2017.

USDA regulations will determine whether genetically engineered (GE) ingredients are identified on product labels, or hidden behind high-tech codes. Genetically engineered foods pose risks that are not considered by regulators. Consumers have a right to know whether the products they buy contain GE ingredients. This information should be on the product label.

Send your comments to AMS in support of your right to know now!

Genetically engineered foods pose risks that are not considered by regulators. The most dependable way to avoid GE ingredients is to buy organic, but all consumers have a right to know what is in their food.

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

Sources: Food Business News

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2017) With the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana in dozens of states, the question of pesticide use in commercial cannabis production and resulting residues in a range of products is a burning issue. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) injected itself into this question when last week it issued a notice of intent to disapprove the planned registration of four pesticides for cannabis production by the state of California.

Given cannabis’ narcotic status by the federal government, EPA does not register pesticides for use in marijuana production. However, states and previously EPA have considered using a Special Local Needs (SLN) permit under the nation’s pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Section 24c), to allow this unregistered pesticide use to meet an “existing or imminent pest problem.” While reports suggest that EPA’s rejection is likely politically motivated based on the current administrator’s opposition to cannabis legalization in general, the agency’s determination is consistent with Beyond Pesticides’ letters to states and EPA, which encourage the burgeoning industry to root itself in organic production, without the use of toxic pesticides. “The cannabis industry has the opportunity to develop with organic soil management and fertility practices that prevent pest problems and the need for pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Under review by EPA were four pesticide products submitted by the California Department of Pesticide regulation for planned use on cannabis. The manufacturer of the products, General Hydroponics, was seeking guidance from the agency on specific use directions for pests and diseases of cannabis. Although the products in question contain active ingredients that are of lower toxicity than conventional pesticides, federal approval of these pesticides would provide a pathway for the registration of more toxic products on cannabis.

Over the past several years, cannabis production has been marred by consistent reports of contamination with illegal pesticides. States where the substance is legal have experienced large recalls over contamination. In 2015, the Governor of Colorado issued an executive order declaring pesticide-tainted pot “A threat to public safety.” The pesticide most often cited for illegal use on cannabis is a fungicide called Eagle 20, which contains the active ingredient myclobutanil. Myclobutanil is an endocrine (hormone) disruptor that can turn into cyanide gas when ignited. It is also listed as a reproductive toxicant under California’s Proposition 65: Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity.

Federal approval of registered pesticides under state SLN regulations could quickly lead to approval of products containing myclobutanil, in addition to other toxic pesticides, including insecticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic pyrethroids. Rather than approve the use of toxic chemicals, advocates urge states to step up enforcement to ensure that consumers, and particularly medical patients with underlying conditions, are not subject to toxic exposure.

EPA’s denial of these four registrations provides an opportunity for the industry to flourish based on organic principles. As Cary Giguere of the Vermot Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets told Bloomberg BNA, “It’s a minor hindrance. It isn’t slowing the industry down, it’s not slowing states working with the industry down.” Beyond Pesticides has long encouraged limiting the allowance of pesticides on cannabis to products that are allowed under organic production and exempt from federal pesticide registration (25b minimum risk).

This regulatory approach has only been completely realized in the state of New Hampshire. Given EPA’s position on SLNs for cannabis, other states may follow New Hampshire’s lead on allowed pesticides, and go further to foster organic practices by requiring growers submit a system plan. By mandating the submission of a systems plan, states ensure: a detailed description of the practices and procedures that will be undertaken by the certified producer,  substances to be used as production inputs will be listed, a narrative description of how practices will be monitored, and recordkeeping requirements to confirm the plan is followed. This process will assist in orienting producers towards a pest prevention strategy, rather than a reactive approach that may result in toxic or illegal pesticide use when pest or fungal outbreaks occur.

For more information on safety issues and sustainable solutions to the use of toxic pesticides on cannabis, see Beyond Pesticides’ report.

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

Source: Bloomberg BNA

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2017) A new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) is recommending to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a strategy to evaluate the evidence of adverse human health effects from low doses of exposure to chemicals that can disrupt the endocrine system. NAS believes that EPA’s current process, which utilizes traditional toxicity testing, would miss some effects that occur at doses lower then what EPA evaluates. EPA’s Endocrine Disruption Screening Program (EDSP) is currently screening chemicals for their potential to interact with the endocrine system, but the program is years behind schedule and has been criticized for using outdated methods.

Endocrine disruptors are substances that can cause a variation in normal hormone function. Even small alterations in hormone concentrations, particularly during embryonic development and developmental phases of life, can have lasting and significant effects. Mounting science is showing that disruptions to the hormone system can occur at very low doses that according to NAS, are lower than those used in traditional toxicity testing by EPA. This means that some effects may be missed. EPA’s methodologies have been criticized over the years for failing to adequately capture impacts at low doses.

EPA requested NAS develop at strategy to evaluate evidence of low-dose effects. A systematic review of human and animal data on select chemicals was conducted by a committee of scientists and medical researchers to demonstrate how low dose results can be integrated and assessed. The resulting report proposes a strategy to evaluate evidence of adverse human health effects from endocrine disrupting chemicals at low doses that is arranged in three broad steps:

• Surveillance– Surveillance can detect signals of possible health effects by actively monitoring new data, scientific literature, nontraditional information sources, and stakeholder input to ensure health effects are being identified and analyzed on a regular basis.

• Investigation and Analysis– To further investigate the signals, the agency should analyze existing data, generate new data to fill gaps, conduct a systematic review of evidence, or integrate evidence from human and animal studies.  One or more of these options might be needed to answer questions about potential signals.

• Action– Possible actions the agency could take include updating chemical assessments, regularly monitoring for new data, requiring new data or models to reduce uncertainties, or updating toxicity-testing designs and practices. Additional considerations, such as the public health significance and available resources, would also factor into the decision making

According to the report, EPA is already conducting many activities consistent with the strategy proposed, but its efforts may not be aimed specifically at evaluating low-dose toxicity testing. EPA had previously defended its testing procedures saying its current system is adequate for evaluating low dose effects, but that low dose effects were not common. NAS notes that the conclusions of previous toxicity assessments done by EPA may need to be updated to reflect the new results from the recommended strategy, as well as toxicity-testing practices that may need to be updated as new data are generated.

“The systematic review examples demonstrate how these approaches could be used in a strategy to evaluate low-dose toxicity of [endocrine disrupting chemcials] and also to identify lessons learned that could help EPA employ these methods successfully,” said David Dorman, PhD, professor of toxicology at North Carolina State University and chair of the committee.

As recommended in the proposed strategy, systematic reviews can be an important component in investigating evidence on low-dose adverse effects, and NAS notes EPA can build on existing systematic reviews that are published in peer-reviewed literature, and  recommends  performing meta-analyses of the animal and human evidence when appropriate. This allows data from several studies to be combined and used to evaluate confidence in the body of evidence, and to characterize the relationship between exposure and effect.

Endocrine disruptors can be found in common household products such as detergents, disinfectants, furniture, plastics, and pesticides, interfere with the body’s hormone system either by mimicking naturally produced hormones, blocking hormone receptors in cells, or effecting the transport, synthesis, metabolism or excretion of hormones. These impacts can result in devastating effects on one’s health, including behavioral and learning disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), birth defects, obesity, early puberty, infertility, cardiovascular disease, and childhood and adult cancers. In 2013, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals a global health threat. A 2016 report concluded that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually in  health care costs and lost wages.

For more information on the effects of pesticides on human health, including endocrine disruption, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

 Source: NAS News Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2017) A March 2017 review of studies on the agricultural use of glyphosate (the active ingredient in “Roundup” and other formulated herbicides) points to widespread persistence in soils subject to long-term, intensive glyphosate use, and myriad resulting concerns about impacts on soil and environmental health. The review, by Robert J. Kremer, PhD, of the University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, cites concerns that include: reduction of nutrient availability for plants and organisms; disruption to organism diversity, especially in the areas around plant roots; reductions of beneficial soil bacteria; increases in plant root pathogens; disturbed earthworm activity; reduced nitrogen fixing at plant roots; and compromised growth and reproduction in some soil and aquatic organisms.

Globally, glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide compound: in 2017, worldwide use is estimated to be approximately 1.35 million metric tons. Use in the U.S. has risen dramatically — from 2.72–3.62 million kg in 1987 to approximately 108 million kg in 2014, and 15-fold since 1996, when genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced. Use has grown for a number of reasons, including more-intensive use as resistance to the herbicide grows.

Researchers have found that, after years of consistent application to agricultural crops, the chemical accumulates and persists in area soil, particularly at the root zone and in the top few millimeters. In part, the accumulation is due to the fact that only 5% of any applied dose tends to reach the weed it is intended to kill, while the rest lands on the soil. In addition, the chemical is likely released in soil from the roots of plants that have absorbed the compound, as well as from decomposing plants that have been exposed to it. This finding of persistence belies the common assumption that the chemical rapidly degrades in soil.

A 2016 study examined whether soils exposed to frequent and high doses of glyphosate might yield negative effects on non-GE crops grown in the same soils. The study reaches the conclusion that, although the probability of plant injury was not high, increased monitoring should be deployed in areas where glyphosate use is intensive. Dr. Kremer concurs, suggesting that possible effects this compound may have not only on soil and water, but on any future crops — particularly, non-GE plants — planted in the same soil should be the subject of further research.

Glyphosate and/or its primary metabolite now commonly show up in groundwater and surface water testing, as well as in some marine environments. Yet monitoring for glyphosate in soils is practiced neither consistently nor with sufficient attention to exacerbating factors. (Research over the past decade has shown that soil characteristics and crop management protocols influence the behaviors of glyphosate.)

Dr. Kremer speculates that strategies such as use of crop rotation (to non-GE crops), shifts to non-glyphosate herbicides, and use of cover crops might ameliorate long-term negative impacts of glyphosate residues. He suggests that such protocols could restore microbe diversity in soil, which can boost degradation of the compound, and which is important to nutrient cycling, plant growth, pathogen suppression, and improved soil and environmental health.

Such tactics could help mitigate accumulation of glyphosate in soils and marine environments, but would not sufficiently address the mounting, and legion, concerns about this compound’s use in agriculture and its resultant impacts on public health. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” California recently listed it as a human carcinogen. It has been implicated in endocrine disruption. Animal studies demonstrate neurotoxic, endocrine, reproductive, tumorigenic, growth-disrupting, and other impacts. Because glyphosate is patented for its antibiotic properties, its use results in bacterial resistance to antibiotics commonly used to fight human pathogens. It also exhibits antimicrobial effects that could impact the human gut biome — the community of biota that mediates much of human health, including immune function. Imbalances in composition and/or function of these gut biome organisms have been associated with neurologic, respiratory, gastrointestinal, metabolic, cardiovascular, and hepatic diseases. Further, glyphosate poses risks to pregnant women, including shorter gestation and lowered neonatal birth weight.

In addition, adjuvants and other components of glyphosate herbicide formulations may amplify toxicological impacts or be even more toxic than the active ingredient (glyphosate) alone, suggesting that other ingredients work synergistically with glyphosate, and pointing to a problem with current chemical regulatory frameworks. Beyond Pesticides urges municipalities to ban or restrict the use of this chemical to protect public health, and encourages people to avoid it in food by purchasing and eating as organically as possible.

In the context of glyphosate’s growing pervasiveness, studies have looked at its presence in the post-harvest food supply. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) published results of glyphosate testing that found traces of the chemical in approximately one-third of food products, and residue levels above the acceptable limits in nearly 4% of grain products; bean, pea, and lentil products were particularly likely to show residue. Yet in March of 2017, the USDA canceled scheduled plans to test for glyphosate in the U.S. food supply.

Unsurprisingly, the best ways to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides are (1) to support organic practices for lawns and landscapes, (2) purchase and eat organic food, which is not permitted to be treated with glyphosate compounds, and (3) support organic agriculture through your food dollars, contributions to nonprofits working in the sector, and/or your advocacy.

Source: MedCrave: Advances in Plants & Agriculture Research

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2017) In its recently released 2017 Preliminary Aquatic Risk Assessment for Imidacloprid, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that this neonicotinoid insecticide is not only toxic to bees but also, is destroying life in the nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes. This assessment finds that aquatic invertebrates, especially aquatic insects basic to aquatic food chains, are sensitive to imidacloprid, and that current imidacloprid levels detected in streams, rivers, lakes, and drainage canals exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints. Impacts occur at low concentrations, and can result in decreased species abundance, altered predator-prey relationships, and reduced nutrient cycling. Impacts to other wildlife that depend on these species raise serious cause for concern.

Comment by July 24 and tell EPA to cancel these neonicotinoids to protect sensitive species and ecosystems. See sample comment language, below.

Clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran are too toxic for honey bees and native bees

EPA also finds that the other neonicotinoids –clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran– pose risks to bees both on and around treated fields, but the agency has not evaluated risks from soil, surface water, or contaminated seed dust, which underestimates exposure risks and continues to put our native bees at risk. Clothianidin and thiamethoxam are widely used as seed coatings on corn and soybeans, and their residues persist in soil for years, exposing soil-dwelling native bees to harmful levels of these pesticides. Dinotefuran, used mostly on vegetables and fruits, is just as toxic to bees as the other neonics, and has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of bees in recent years.

Still overlooked by EPA are the additive and synergistic effects to non-target communities from exposure to neonics, other pesticides, and so-called “inert” ingredients. Multiple pesticide combinations are used in formulations and tank mixes, and are found in waterways; possible synergistic effects among these chemicals in the environment must be evaluated.

Following the public comment period on this aquatic risk assessment, EPA intends to release additional assessments throughout the remainder of 2017, and make registration review decisions for imidacloprid and three other neonicotinoids in 2018.

The 60-day public comment period in response to the publication of the risk assessments for these neonicotinoids closes Monday, July 24. EPA needs to hear from you!

Comment by July 24 and tell EPA to cancel these neonicotinoids to protect sensitive species and ecosystems. 

[See sample comment language below, or, if possible, start with a personal concern.]

Sample comment:
As a concerned citizen, I am alarmed by the frequency of detection of neonicotinoids like imidacloprid in U.S. waterways and the documented risks they pose to aquatic organisms and other species dependent on them. I have long been concerned about EPA’s inaction to protect bees from neonicotinoids. This recently released risk assessment finds that aquatic invertebrates, especially aquatic insects basic to aquatic food webs, are sensitive to imidacloprid, and that current imidacloprid levels detected in waterways exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints. Canada has proposed to phase out imidacloprid to protect waterways, and the U.S. must do the same!

Additionally, the other neonicotinoids — clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran — are shown to be hazardous to both honeybees and native bees. EPA, however, has not fully evaluated all potential exposure routes, such as contaminated soil and surface water, meaning these creatures will continue to be at risk.

Given the toxicity of imidacloprid to invertebrates crucial to aquatic food webs, synergistic effects, and its movement into surface waters — along with current data deficiencies plaguing the other neonicotinoids — it is imperative that the registration of these chemicals be cancelled until it can be demonstrated that they can be used in a way that does not put bees or aquatic organisms at risk. EPA must initiate cancellation of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and other neonicotinoids.

Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.

Thank you for taking action to protect sensitive species and ecosystems from the harmful effects of neonicotinoids!

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2017) Research connects a healthy environment to overall public health, linking diseases to pesticide caused disruption of ecological balance. A new study, published by University of South Florida scientist Jason Rohr, PhD and colleagues, finds that the use of agricultural chemicals, predominantly in developing countries, is associated with increases in transmission risk for schistosomiasis, a disease caused by infection from a parasitic flatworm that lives in freshwater snails. The findings point to the need for an increased focus on alternative pest management approaches that promote, rather than degrade natural ecological services.

Previous research published by Dr. Rohr and colleagues found that amphibians exposed to pesticides had higher rates of parasitic infection, and increased fertilizer use resulted in an increase in algae that snail parasite hosts feed on. For the current study, researchers investigated the human epidemiologic risks associated with common farm chemicals.

To investigate pesticide effects on the ecosystem, scientists used mesocosms, an experiment designed in a controlled outdoor environment that replicates natural conditions. Algae, parasite-carrying snails, and snail predators (crayfish and water bugs) were added to a series of 60 tanks set up by researchers. The ecological effects of introducing chemical fertilizer, the herbicide atrazine, and insecticide chlorpyrifos were tested in separate mesocosms.

Results show that each agricultural input resulted in its own unique, ecologically disruptive effect. Increased fertilizer into the system showed similar results in previous research, with extra nutrients into the system causing a subsequent increase in all types of algae, including both species that become suspended in the water column and those that attach to smooth surfaces. Introducing atrazine in the system killed much of the suspended algae, however, this permitted increased light penetration to attached algae, the parasite carrying snail’s primary food source. Use of chlorpyrifos resulted in the death and decline of crayfish and water bug predators, which then allowed for an increase in snail populations.

Taking these data, Dr. Rohr and his team plugged their information into epidemiologic models used to assess parasite disease transmission risk in western Africa. While atrazine and fertilizer resulted in a 28% increased risk of transmission as a result of higher snail populations, chlorpyrifos’ effect on snail predators represented the greatest effect. Declines in crayfish and water bug populations increased the risk of human schistosomiasis infection 10-fold, underlining the importance of natural predators in reducing disease risk in vulnerable ecosystems. Indeed, in one test, mesocosm without any outside inputs resulted in increased predator populations that brought transmission risks below minimum thresholds.

This research has important implications for understanding the interaction between food production practices, environmental effects and public health. This study adds to growing evidence that the introduction of outside chemical inputs, like fertilizers and pesticides, result in unexpected trophic (food web) effects. Research published in 2015 by Margaret Douglas, PhD and John Tooker, PhD of Penn State University found that the use of neonicotinoid insecticides undermined overall crop protection efforts in a similar manner. While neonicotinoids are applied in attempts to combat slugs that feed on seedlings, scientists discovered that the insecticides were not affecting the slugs, yet the chemical was bioaccumulating in their bodies. However, ground beetles, the slug’s major insect predator, were actually found to decline in agricultural fields as a consequence of eating the insecticide-contaminated slugs. This process resulted in massive slug outbreaks, perpetuating additional pesticide use to control their population.

Chemical-intensive agricultural production models are highly dependent on chemical fertilizer and pesticide inputs. However, under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, testing of these chemicals focuses primarily on their direct effects on humans, wildlife, or water quality. Indirect effects that take into account the complex interactions that occur in real-world ecological models are generally not prioritized. This results in technical research and innovation that moves in the wrong direction, according to independent scientists. Money is spent on new chemical formulations, application methods, and genetically engineered crops that can withstand these products.

A comprehensive approach acknowledges ecological complexity, fosters biodiversity, and promotes non- and least-toxic pest management approaches that eliminate the need for outside inputs. These practices are regularly employed as part of organic agricultural production, which represents the safest way forward for food production that consumers can support. Protect complex ecological interactions and the broader food web by purchasing organic whenever possible. The authors of the current research indicate that as a result of predictions of increased agricultural activity in areas where schistosomiasis is present, the disease is likely to continue to increase in developing countries. By supporting organic agriculture, you can help put pressure on both domestic and foreign markets to move away from the regular use of toxic chemicals.

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

Source: Science

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2018) The value of the organic label is under attack in the U.S. Congress. If proposed changes are adopted, the public will not be able to rely on the label to identify the stark differences between current organic and chemical-intensive food production practices. Beyond Pesticides has long advanced organic agriculture as a means of protecting  farmers, farmworkers, consumers, biodiversity, and the environment.

The U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee is accepting comments now on Farm Bill proposals that will erode the meaning of organic. Although there are about 400 days to go before 2012 Farm Bill funding ends, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R, KS) is taking the opportunity of Senate hearings to attack those institutions that make organic agriculture standards clear, transparent, and subject to Congressionally mandated public oversight. In particular, Sen. Roberts and others are attacking the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which is an impediment to organic factory farms. Organic production is subject to rigorous oversight through a certification and inspection process, not found in conventional agriculture, but needing continual improvement to keep pace with the tremendous growth of the organic sector. We want to protect and strengthen these standards, not reduce and weaken them.

Part One to this Action:
Send your support for strong organic standards and oversight to the Senate Agriculture Committee now! [See below for suggested language.]

Part Two to this Action:
Click here to tell your U.S. Senators that you want them to protect the value of the organic food label by not allowing the Senate Agriculture Committee to weaken the independence and authority of the National Organic Standards Board.

When the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was written, the authors understood that the program would be housed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has been a big proponent of chemical and genetically engineered agriculture. In order to ensure that regulations implementing the law remained true to organic principles and values, the authors incorporated into OFPA a requirement that USDA consult with an independent National Organic Standards Board in developing the National Organic Program (NOP) and the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. It requires that the National List be “based on” recommendations of the NOSB and prohibits USDA from adding to the National List synthetic materials that are not recommended by the NOSB.

The NOSB is composed of representatives of the organic community: producers, handlers, retailers, certifiers, consumers, environmentalists, and scientists. It was carefully balanced to ensure that the two-thirds majority required to pass a substantive motion could only be attained if the different interest groups work together to build consensus.

Those who would like factory farms to be able to profit from organic certification are frustrated by animal welfare rules and the NOSB opposition to certification of hydroponics operations that are not soil-based and inherently dependent on synthetic chemical inputs. Among the suggestions made by supporters of organic factory farms is changing the composition of the NOSB.

NOSB “reform” is clearly intended to remove the requirement of continual improvement from the National Organic Program. Continual improvement means that new knowledge incentivizes new practices and materials, making old materials and practices obsolete as organic methods constantly evolve. Organic producers have always been on the forefront of changing agriculture to make it more sustainable and regenerative. “Continual improvement” is a threat to those who have a lot invested in an industrial model.

This opportunity for commenting ends at 5:00 pm (EDT) Thursday, July 20. Use the suggested language below, or, better, write your own heartfelt or science-based statement. (If you don’t have a farm or organization name, feel free to insert “organic consumer.”)

Part One to this Action:
Send your support for strong organic standards and oversight to the Senate Agriculture Committee now! [See below for suggested language.]

Suggested comment language:
As a member of the organic community, it is important to me that I am represented in decisions regarding organic production by members of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The authors of the Organic Foods Production Act created the NOSB to provide balanced guidance to the National Organic Program. Decisions by the NOSB require a two-thirds majority, and hence force consensus among producers, consumers, and others in the organic community. This process protects the value and trust that the public gives to the organic label in the market. Without the independence and authority of the Board, the $50 billion organic market is threatened.

Continual improvement is a basic tenet of organic production. Organic producers have always been on the forefront of changing agriculture to make it more sustainable and regenerative. The NOSB, through a transparent public process, informs USDA of possibilities for improvement and protects the meaning of the word “organic.”

Please support organic production and the NOSB process for ensuring that organic oversight and certification protects and enhance the value of the organic label for farmers and consumers.

Part Two to this Action:
Click here to tell your U.S. Senators that you want them to protect the value of the organic food label by not allowing the Senate Agriculture Committee to weaken the independence and authority of the National Organic Standards Board.

For more information on organic and why it is important for the protection of farmers, farmworkers, consumers, biodiversity, and the environment, see Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture page.

See Action of the Week

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2017) Last week, Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a legal petition demanding major updates and improvements to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s current review of pesticides. The petition specifically seeks to compel EPA to require that pesticide companies provide safety data on all ingredients of a pesticide products, or formulations, both active and inert. The agency generally only requires data on a pesticide product’s active ingredient, despite evidence of potential hazards associated with synergism between ingredients, including inert (undisclosed) ingredients, and other pesticides applied in combination.

According to Amy van Saun, attorney with CFS, “EPA’s job is to ensure pesticides are safe for children, families, and the environment, but numerous pesticides have other ingredients or combined effects that are causing significant risks and harm. EPA’s outdated and insufficient safety assessment endangers the public welfare and must be brought into the 21st century.”

The CFS petition requests the following actions from EPA:

1. Revise pesticide registration regulations to take into account all pesticide ingredients (active, inert and adjuvant) and their effects on the environment.
2. Revise pesticide registration regulations to require whole pesticide formulation and tank mixture testing to take into account synergistic effects.
3. Revise pesticide registration regulations to require inert ingredients and whole pesticide formulations testing for chronic toxicological effects and degradation.
4. Revise pesticide registration regulations to require Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation on the effects of whole pesticide formulations and tank mixtures on threatened and endangered species.
5. Comply with the above requirements in conducting statutorily mandated registration reviews of pesticides.

An inert ingredient is defined as any ingredient that is “not active,” or specifically targeted to kill a pest. According to a 2000 report produced by the New York State Attorney General, The Secret Ingredients in Pesticides: Reducing the Risk, 72 percent of pesticide products available to consumers contain over 95 percent inert ingredients and fewer than 10 percent of pesticide products list any inert ingredients on their labels. The report also found that more than 200 chemicals used as inert ingredients are hazardous pollutants in federal environmental statutes governing air and water quality, and, from a 1995 list of inert ingredients, 394 chemicals were listed as active ingredients in other pesticide products. For example, naphthalene is an inert ingredient in some products and listed as an active ingredient in others.

Despite these uncertainties and potential hazards, pesticide manufacturers are only required by EPA to list the active ingredients in a pesticide, based on the agency’s interpretation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This leaves consumers and applicators unaware of the possible toxicity present in a vast majority of the pesticide formulations they are using unless the EPA Administrator determines that the chemical poses a public health threat.

The failure of EPA to require the disclosure of inert ingredients poses many problems for those trying to protect human health. Failure to disclose the ingredients prevents consumers and decision makers from making informed decisions and comparing hazards. Local and state governments also run into roadblocks in their efforts to protect citizens, as they cannot readily evaluate what is in the pesticides products (formulations) that they are spraying in their communities and make independent safety judgments, putting their residents at risk. Under the law, it is EPA’s duty to assess the harm of pesticide product ingredients and disclose this information on product labels.

Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have consistently urged EPA to follow in the steps of countries like Canada and the European Union by following the precautionary principle, which generally approves products after they have been assessed for harm, not before. Given the lack of complete information and uncertainties, Beyond Pesticides advocates that communities and individuals reject legally allowed uses and exposures deemed acceptable under EPA risk assessment calculations. Instead, the organization asked that decision makers focus on safer alternative practices and product that are proven effective, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals.

Sources: Center for Food Safety

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2017) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is seeking input into draft regulations that will determine whether genetically engineered (GE) ingredients [or genetically modified organisms (GMO)] are identified on products labels, or hidden behind high tech codes. Let USDA know by Monday, July 17 what you think and how important clear and meaningful labeling is.

A “compromise” bill on labeling genetically engineered food was passed last year by the U.S. Congress, leaving it to USDA to decide which foods would be labeled, and how they would be labeled. In preparation for drafting regulations, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has posed 30 questions regarding the implementation of the law. AMS is accepting input until Monday, July 17. Commenting provides a chance to help shape USDA’s proposal.

The law includes labeling options other than on-package labeling, such as QR codes and websites, which would only serve to hide the information this law was passed to provide. It also allows USDA to decide which GE ingredients must be disclosed. Beyond Pesticides is telling USDA the following:

• The definition of “bioengineering” must include all forms of genetic engineering including newer forms like CRISPR and RNA interference (RNAi). Definitions should be compatible with those recommended by the National Organic Standards Board.
• Each GE ingredient must be identified, including highly refined GE sugars and oils and processed corn and soy ingredients. Even if they are so highly processed that the GE ingredients are present only at undetectable levels in the final product, they are still GE foods.
• GE ingredients must be identified on product labels, or product shelves in the case of raw foods. All products required to have labels should included identification of GE ingredients on the label.
• There must be no delays in making regulations effective. Manufacturers have already had years’ worth of notice and preparation to provide this information, at the state and federal level. Indeed, many major food companies have been labeling for some time.

Genetically engineered foods pose risks that are not considered by regulators. The most dependable way to avoid GE ingredients is to buy organic, but all consumers have a right to know what is in their food.

See Action of the Week  —Urgent: Comment on GE Labeling by Monday!

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2017) Over the past week, both Arkansas and Missouri issued bans on the sale and use of the weedkiller dicamba by farmers because of crop damage associated with the pesticide’s drift off treated fields. On Friday, July 7, the Arkansas Agriculture Department announced this emergency 120-day ban, which raised civil penalties for misuse of the toxic herbicide from $1,000 to a maximum of $25,000. The same day, the Missouri Department of Agriculture announced a temporary “Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order” on all dicamba products in the state labeled for agricultural use. Dicamba has been linked to damage of the kidney and liver, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts. The chemical has a strong propensity to volatilize small particles of the herbicide into the air and drift far off-site. Sensitive crop species can be damaged by dicamba at levels in the parts per million.

As of July 7, nearly 600 complaints of dicamba danage have been filed by Arkansas farmers in 23 different counties. In Missouri, as of July 3, there are 123 cases of dicamba injury complaints under investigation and according to the Missouri Soybean Association, “more than 200,000 Missouri soybean acres currently show signs of suspected dicamba damage.”

According to Missouri Agriculture Director, Chris Chinn, the ban means that “distributors cannot sell dicamba products and, more importantly, it means that farmers should not apply dicamba products until we lift this order.”

The move is the latest in a series of crises that began when multinational chemical company Monsanto began selling soybeans genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate a new formulation of dicamba not currently available, leading to off-label uses of older dicamba products.

This ongoing dicamba crisis is a direct result of a chemical-intensive food production system. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deregulated Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans and Bollgard II XtendFlexa® cotton in January 2015, but it was not until November 2016 that EPA registered the use of some dicamba formulations, Xtendimax  and VaporGrip  for use on these crops. Monsanto describes the dicamba-tolerant GE crops as “designed to provide farmers with more consistent, flexible control of weeds, especially tough-to-manage and glyphosate-resistant weeds to maximize crop yield potential.” What was viewed by industry and EPA several years ago as a unique occurrence, weed resistance is now acknowledged to be a serious economic problem for farmers. While the agrichemical industry and its researchers can no longer ignore weed resistance to pesticides, it continues to promote more chemical applications in GE crops as the solution, despite the success of organic systems.

Critics have challenged policy makers to rethink the wisdom of an agricultural system reliant on outside chemical inputs, and destined to result in weed resistance, as the chemical industry decided to add older, more toxic chemicals to the mix. The latest GE soybean varieties are now tolerant of either herbicides dicamba (Monsanto and BASF’s products) or 2,4-D (Dow AgroScience’s product). While Monsanto received allowances from federal regulators to sell its dicamba-tolerant soy and cotton seeds, it had not yet received EPA approval for a dicamba formulation that claimed to be lower volatility. And although the company asked farmers not to use older dicamba herbicides with the new seeds, ASPB’s move appears directly related to rampant herbicide misuse throughout the state and the region.

Dicamba use has stirred up fights between neighbors in a number of agricultural communities. Bader Farms, which grows over 110,00 peach trees on over 1,000 acres in Missouri, is suing Monsanto after its insurance company issued a refusal to pay for damages caused by off-label dicamba drift from surrounding farms. In June of this year, University of Arkansas’ agricultural research station had over 100 acres of soybeans ruined from nearby dicamba use. Shockingly, NPR reports that last October a dispute over dicamba drift led to the murder of one Arkansas farmer.

The rampant use of this highly volatile chemical has been a factor in regional pollinator losses. A 2015 study published by researchers at Pennsylvania State University found that nontarget damage from dicamba drift resulted in adverse effects on pollinator populations. The impacts were directly related to the effect dicamba has on pollinator-friendly plants, with dicamba-exposed plants negatively influencing flowering and pollen quality.

While pesticide drift is a harmful consequence of chemical-intensive food production, there are alternatives that safeguard the environment and human health, while allowing for the sustainable production of food. Beyond Pesticides has long promoted the importance of organic in a sustainable food system, and works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. By utilizing ecological pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive are the most appropriate and long-term solution to managing unwanted plants. To find out more about the work Beyond Pesticides is doing on organic integrity, check out Keeping Organic Strong, or to see all the reasons to go organic, visit Eating with a Conscience.

Sources: AgWeb

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2017) In a move that threatens to further the spread of antibiotic resistance, researchers at the University of Western Australia (UWA) mining a collection of antimalarial drugs for potential new herbicides. Joshua Mylne, PhD, a senior lecturer in the School of Molecular Sciences (SMS) who directs the project, got started based on work he did while in the Australian Army Reserve. There he discovered that “malarial parasites are actually closely related to plants.” Due to widespread resistance of weeds to the popular herbicide glyphosate, Dr. Mylne began investigating antimalarial drugs as potential replacements.

Malaria parasites are actually protozoans in the genus Plasmodium. Their crucial connection with plants is that the parasite contains a plastid similar to the chloroplast in plants. Like the chloroplast in plants, this plastid is critical for the survival of the parasite.

Along with organic chemist Keith Stubbs, PhD, associate professor in SMS, Dr. Mylne began screening chemicals in the “Malaria Box,” an open source collection of potential anti-malarial drugs that have never been commercialized. Of the 20 chemicals tested on the small weed Arabidopsis thaliana, 11 were found to have some herbicidal activity. They were then compared to the herbicides glyphosate, glufosinate, asulam, and atrazine. The researchers found that ciprofloxacin (LD50 = 0.45 µg/mL), clindamycin (LD50 = 0.9 µg/mL), sulfadiazine (LD50 = 0.86 µg/mL), and sulfadoxine (LD50 = 1.29 µg/mL) had greater herbicidal potency than glufosinate and glyphosate.

Ironically, the herbicide these researchers seek to replace –glyphosate— is also an antibiotic with antimalarial activity. As with glyphosate, an issue that has yet to be addressed with these potential new herbicides is the extent to which the broadcasting of an antibiotic over agricultural fields promotes antibiotic resistance.

The spread of antibiotic resistance is a health care crisis of major proportions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) call it “one of the world’s most pressing public health problems.” Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the need for more expensive or hazardous medications, and inability to treat life-threatening infections. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of the use of antibiotics. Microorganisms evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance.

The use of antibiotics in agriculture can contribute to resistance to the antibiotic in human pathogens. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical” –that is from parent to progeny– but can be “horizontal” –from one bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria or commensal gut bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens.

Herbicide resistance is a serious problem because it results in increased use of hazardous chemicals when growers rely on chemical to meet their management objectives. Soil fertility depends on microbial life in the soil. Spraying a chemical that is toxic to soil microbes is counterproductive. Organic no-till is an example of a successful non-chemical approach to weed management that also builds fertile soil with healthy microbial life.

Sources:

ABC News: WA scientists use malaria chemicals to craft new herbicides; Corral et al., 2017

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2017) South Florida resident Michael Hall, M.D., filed an emergency request in federal court last week to block Miami-Dade County’s continued use of the organophosphate insecticide naled to control mosquito populations. There have been two rounds of aerial naled applications in Miami-Dade this year. Widespread use of the chemical in efforts to control the transmission of Zika last year prompted protests from residents complaining of health effects from the spraying, and calls to focus on less toxic, alternative methods of mosquito breeding prevention and control.

The present use of naled in Miami-Dade is not focused on Zika control, but addressing the native salt marsh mosquito, which does not transmit human diseases, but can be a significant nuisance in shoreline areas. According to WLRN, officials are no longer using naled for Zika control as the mosquito species that carries it, Aedes aegypti, usually stays well hidden under vegetation and shrubbery. A study released last year confirmed that the county’s use of naled did little to reduce mosquito populations. “Naled, a potent organophosphate adulticide applied aerially, produced a transitory suppression in Wynwood but lost efficacy after two or three applications. In Miami Beach, aerial application of naled produced no significant reduction of the Aedes aegypti population,” said Phil Stoddard, Ph.D., Florida International University biology professor and mayor of South Miami.

Miami-Dade is now conducting larvaciding and using backpack foggers with pyrethroid-based insecticides. However, there is no indication that this halt in Zika-focused naled use is anything but temporary, as reports show a recent increase in the number of Aedes aegypti found in the county.

Dr. Hall is alleging that the county has routinely failed to provide residents adequate warning about potential aerial uses of naled, and that it failed to follow federal guidelines for the chemical’s use. The lawsuit also alleges that federal approval of naled poses a health risk, and is asking the court to suspend the use of the pesticide until additional information on its safety can be heard.

“We’re asking, we’re begging, we’re imploring, we’re pleading, we’re really desperate for our community not to be sprayed,” Dr. Hall said to WLRN.

Dr. Hall cites recent studies showing significant risks from the use of naled. In June of this year, an international team of scientists from the U.S. and China found naled to be associated with decreased motor functioning in infants. Last year, Beyond Pesticides sent a letter to EPA citing the inadequacies of its scientific review as outdated and incomplete, leading to significant safety concerns. A 2015 deadline the agency set for a final review decision on residential exposure to naled has still not been met.  Meanwhile, reports of massive bee kills, and sick residents continue to be reported in the news.

While reports of Zika-carrying mosquitoes are up, the Centers for Discase Control and Prevention (CDC) removed all travel cautions for Zika infection in Miami-Dade county as of June 2. “We are so open to doing this however we can get it done,” said attorney Cindy Mattson to the Miami Herald. “The point for us is we don’t even have Zika. The CDC took us off the danger [list] and they’re spraying us anyway. It doesn’t make any sense. We felt like it was an emergency to get them to stop spraying.”

Smart community mosquito management focuses on education and source-reduction as the primary means to manage mosquito-borne disease outbreaks. Community residents are encouraged to dump out standing water at least once a week, and effective vector control operations also eliminate standing water sources to the extent possible and, as needed, treats water bodies with least-toxic larvacides like bacillus thuringiensis. Use of mosquito adulticides have been shown to lack efficacy and should only be as a last resort temporary measure when other options have failed and there is an imminent public health threat – never as a regular course of action. Beyond Pesticides’ Mosquito Management program page provides a list of resources that can help individuals and communities safely manage mosquitoes, including information on least-toxic mosquito repellents, bed nets, and proper clothing that can be used to keep mosquitoes safely at bay. Beyond Pesticides produces educational doorknob hangers available for print out or request, which can be used to educate neighbors on the adoption of pesticide-free methods for reducing mosquito populations in communities nationwide.

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

Source: WLRN

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2017) The state of California has listed glyphosate, the active ingredient in the popular Roundup, as a known carcinogen under its Proposition 65 law. This listing went into effect July 7, 2017. Now, state officials have to develop guidelines for product labels and determine what level of exposure to the pesticide will put people at risk for developing cancer. Some have argued that the state’s proposed levels are not protective enough. Meanwhile, the state continues to face pressure from Monsanto, maker of glyphosate, which continues to challenge the decision to list the chemical as a known cancer-causing agent.

California’s decision to list glyphosate as a carcinogen was prompted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) finding in 2015 that it is a “probable” human carcinogen. This classification was based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Later that year, California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that it intended to list glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).  Under California law, Proposition 65 requires that certain substances identified by IARC be listed as known cancer-causing chemicals. Glyphosate’s listing became effective July 7, 2017. Now, OEHHA has until early April 2018 to work out guidelines for glyphosate product warnings before requirements for such warnings take effect in July 2018.

The issue of contention for the state surrounds what level of exposure California might allow without any warnings. The state has proposed what some see as an overly generous ‘safe threshold’ or “No Significant Risk Level” (NSRL) for glyphosate at 1100 micrograms per day, meaning exposure levels and discharges into drinking water sources below that benchmark would be exempt from warning requirements.  Setting the NSRL is done so that companies will be able to determine whether they need to provide warnings and/or reformulate products. Food products containing glyphosate residues that cause an exposure exceeding the final NSRL would be included in the warning requirement.

However, critics point out that the proposed NSRL is significantly higher than amounts that have been shown to have cancer-causing effects in several animal studies. A letter submitted to OEHHA from a group of scientists and advocates expressed concern that the proposed NSRL is not sufficiently health protective, and identified studies that show statistically significant increases in tumor incidence with oral administration of glyphosate at doses far below 1000 mg/kg/day. The letter urged OEHHA to lower the NSRL and uphold its statutory mission to protect humans from the harmful impacts of glyphosate.

In addition, allegations of possible OEHHA collusion with Monsanto over the setting of the NSRL have cast a dark cloud over the process. It was revealed in legal documents by lawyers for scores of cancer victims currently suing Monsanto over Roundup, that before California regulators set the NSRL they met privately with Monsanto in 2015 to discuss Monsanto’s recommendations for calculating the NSRL and which studies should be considered. Already, there is an investigation by the inspector general for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) into whether or not an EPA official engaged in collusion with Monsanto regarding the agency’s safety assessment of glyphosate.

Monsanto is still challenging the listing of glyphosate under Prop 65. Its lawsuit against OEHHA was dismissed by a Fresno County Superior Court judge in March, but Monsanto appealed the dismissal and that appeal is still pending. The company’s effort to block the listing while the appeal is pending failed. As recently as June 20, Monsanto was continuing to press OEHHA to drop or delay the glyphosate listing, arguing that the IARC classification was invalid.

As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continues to mount, environmental groups like Beyond Pesticides are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical and other toxic synthetic pesticides. These groups maintain that California’s glyphosate listing is certainly a step in the right direction; however, further steps toward a restriction or ban will be needed to protect the public’s health. Being  the number one agricultural producing state, California’s action may help to move glyphosate off the market, which would serve as a victory for the low-income communities in the southern part of the Central Valley that are exposed to glyphosate at higher levels than the general population.

The best way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides is to support organic practices in landscapes and agriculture and purchase organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and research shows that organic land management does a better job of protecting biodiversity than its chemical-intensive counterparts. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and crops bioengineered with insecticides, responsible organic practices focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and ecological balance, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

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

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2017) The active ingredients in commonly used bug sprays such as RAID leave significant residues that persist for over a year in the home, according to a study published by Brazilian researchers in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. The pesticides tested, synthetic pyrethroids, have been linked to a range of health effects, most notably in children. The results of this study add to calls for homeowners to rethink a chemical-based approach to home pest control, in favor of simple, non-toxic practices.

In the recent study, researchers compared the breakdown time of two synthetic pyrethroids, cypermethrin and beta-cyfluthrin, between laboratory conditions and those in an average home. Under lab conditions, with temperature controlled and without sunlight or ventilation, both active ingredients broke down little within the 112 day test period observed. However, the test house, where insecticides were applied according to indoor label conditions, displayed breakdown times similar to the lab results during the first 112 days. Researchers continued their observation of pyrethroids in the home for up to a year, finding after that period 44% of beta-cyfluthrin and 70% cypermethrin remained in household dust samples from the singular, original application.

A 2014 study published by scientists at the University of California, Davis, found that homes with detectable levels of pyrethoids in floor wipe tests were associated with higher levels of pyrethoids in their urine. In their study of both adults and children in California communities, 63% of participants had detectable levels of pyrethroids in their urine. Exposure and presense of these chemicals in the human body has been linked to concerning health effects. A 2013 study published by Canadian researchers found high scores on emotional difficulties tests and conduct problems in children was significantly associated with the use of pesticides in or around the home. Another study published by French scientists earlier this year reinforced the Canadian study’s results, finding strong associations between childhood behavioral problems and pyrethroid pesticide exposure. A 2017 study found that urinary metabolite levels of cypermethrin were associated with an increase in early onset of puberty in boys. In addition to developmental and behavioral problems, past research has connected pyrethroid use to cancer. A 2013 study found that termite applications in the home within a year of pregnancy increased the risk of a child developing a brain tumor by twofold.

The recent study may help explain the high frequency of pyrethroid detections in the general population, as only one application has the potential to remain in the home for a significant amount of time. Based on this, any subsequent applications will only add to concentrations present in a home. This long breakdown time is also more likely to put young children, who are more prone to exposure because of time spent crawling and hand to mouth activities, at greater risk.

Rather than reaching for a spray can or calling a pesticide applicator when a pest is spotted in a home, focus on preventive measures that will eliminate pests and stop them from coming back. These practices do not require chemicals, but instead simple cultural changes. The goal of this approach is to deny pest access to food, water, and shelter. Ants, for instance, can be easily controlled by regular cleaning, not leaving dirty dishes or standing water in the sink, and keeping tight fitting lids on food containers and trash cans. Their access into the home can be prevented by maintaining caulking around windows and doors, and installing doorsweeps. After entrances/exists are sealed and access to food, water, and shelter is denied, remaining pests can be controlled through least-toxic bait stations containing boric acid.

For more information on how to control common household pests without the use of chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe database. And to read more about the connection between pesticide exposure and children, and finds resources on getting these chemicals out of your community and child’s school, see the Children and Schools program page.

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

Source: ScienceDaily

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2017) The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is evaluating a new permit application for the use of imidacloprid, a toxic neonicotinoid, to combat a growing native population of burrowing shrimp that threatens oyster beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor in Washington state. The application was recently submitted to Ecology by a group of oyster farmers from the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association (WGHOGA), who “propose to use the pesticide to treat tide lands to support their aquaculture practices.” Imidacloprid is known to be toxic to bees and aquatic organisms, raising questions on the impacts of its use on the long-term ecological health of the bays.

In April 2015, much to the dismay of activists and concerned local residents, Ecology approved a permit submitted by oyster farmers for the use of imidacloprid to combat burrowing shrimp in these aquatic ecosystems. But with a nationwide public outcry, the permit was withdrawn in May 2015. The recent request that was submitted differs in several ways from this 2015 permit, including:

• The new permit proposes treating 485 acres in Willapa Bay and 15 acres in Grays Harbor, compared to 2,000 acres combined from both water bodies in the 2015 permit.
• The oyster farmers propose applying imidacloprid from boats or ground equipment rather than aerially in helicopters.
• The 2017 Preliminary Aquatic Risk Assessment for Imidacloprid by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and similar risk assessments adds new research to the supplemental environmental review being drafted by Ecology.

In its 2017 risk assessment, EPA finds risks from imidacloprid exposure to ecologically important organisms not previously evaluated as part of its regulatory review. A 2013 comprehensive assessment of the effects of imidacloprid in surface water reports a wide variety of aquatic invertebrates adversely harmed by imidacloprid residues in water. These important findings, as well as others, will need to be considered as Ecology undertakes its environmental review process for this aquatic pesticide permit.

The shellfish industry is important to the Pacific Northwest, injecting an estimated $270 million or more into the region’s economy, and providing jobs for many. Washington’s tidelands, especially those in Willapa Bay. The fisheries have been particularly productive for more than 100 years. However, according to shellfish growers, the burrowing shrimp undermines the industry. The creatures burrow into shellfish beds, making the beds too soft for shellfish cultivation. Their burrowing churns the tidelands into a sticky muck, smothering the oysters. After several years of deliberations and studies, Ecology identified imidacloprid as its preferred choice for eradicating the shrimp. According to the agency, imidacloprid disrupts the burrowing shrimps’ ability to maintain their burrows. A 2013 risk assessment conducted by Ecology concluded that, “The proposed use of imidacloprid to treat burrowing shrimp in shellfish beds located in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor is expected to have little or no impact on the local estuarine and marine species”, and will not significantly impact human health.”

However, in comments submitted by the Xerces Society in 2014, supported by Beyond Pesticides and others, Ecology failed to consider existing published research that demonstrates the potential for wide-range ecological damage from the use of the insecticide imidacloprid. The groups say that the risks, coupled with the lack of data on how imidacloprid will impact sensitive marine environments like Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, warrant greater caution. The comments urged the agency to review existing data that shows imidacloprid’s potential to damage the rich marine ecosystems of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Imidacloprid is water soluble and highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Its persistence and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates make it particularly dangerous in these ecosystems. Further, the comments note, imidacloprid’s impact on these key species can also cause a cascading trophic effect, harming the fish, birds, and other organisms that rely on them for sustenance.

The decision to withdraw the permit in May 2015 was reached in large part due to vocal public outrage over the plan, as consumers, environmental organizations, and prominent local chefs spoke out against the spraying. Retailers, consumers and environmental organizations were not the only ones to raise concern for the use of imidacloprid. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) voiced many concerns over the application of imidacloprid to the bays.

Beyond Pesticides recently released Poisoned Waterways, a report which documents the persistence of neonicotinoids in U.S. waterbodies and the danger they cause to aquatic organisms, resulting in complex cascading impacts on the aquatic food web. The report also highlights current regulatory failures of EPA aquatic standards, which continue to underestimate risks to sensitive species due to a reliance on test protocols that do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities. Further, the impacts of chemical mixtures and synergistic interactions are not considered. Aquatic standards, which continue to underestimate risks to sensitive species due to a reliance on test protocols that do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities. Further, the impacts of chemical mixtures and synergistic interactions are not considered.

Take Action

Once the Washington State Department of Ecology finalizes their draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), a 45-day public comment period will open. However, if you have information you want considered now as they complete this SEIS, Ecology encourages you to send it to Derek Rockett, Water Quality Program Permit Writer, at [email protected].

Sources: WA State Department of Ecology

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2017) The Hoverfly is July’s pollinator of the month. Hoverflies, also known as flower flies and syrphid flies, are members of the “true fly” order Diptera, family Syrphidae. There are roughly 200 genera and 6,000 species of hoverflies throughout the world.

For more information on pollinators and the impact of pesticides on their health, habitat, and the ecosystem in which they live, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective program and be sure to click on What You Can Do.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2017) A two-year long study conducted at 33 sites in multiple European countries to assess the effects of neonicotinoid (neonics) insecticides on three bee species in real-world environmental conditions confirms that these pesticides have a deleterious effect on bee survival. The study, the largest of its kind, explored the role of the agricultural use of neonics as seed coatings on bee health and fnds that the pesticides are persistent in the environment, contaminating pollen and nectar that bees forage, reducing colony fitness. The results of the study support ongoing calls for a ban on neonics, including a European Union (EU) wide ban proposed earlier this year.

The new research, published in the prestigious peer-review journal Science, which was in part funded by Bayer and Syngenta – manufacturers of the pesticides, encompassed large field experiments to assess the effects of neonic-treated crops on various bee species –honey bees (Apis mellifera), bumble bees (Bombus terrestris), and solitary bees (Osmia bicornis)– across three European countries (Germany, Hungary and the United Kingdom). The study examines the impacts of clothianidin and thiamethoxam, the neonics frequently used as seed coatings of oil seed rape (canola), and used in the fields under study. This large-scale field study reports negative effects on honey bees that persisted over winter, resulting in smaller colonies the following spring, including reduced worker bees. In the wild species, reduced reproduction was observed, allowing the researchers to conclude that neonics do cause “a reduced capacity of bee species to establish new populations in the year following exposure.”

The results differed between countries, however. The survival of honey bee colonies was reduced by exposure to the neonics in the UK and Hungary, but not in Germany where the bees foraged far less on oil seed rape and had lower levels of disease. The researchers attribute this to the fact that bees in Germany get only 15% of their food from the oil seed rape fields, compared to 40-50% in the UK and Hungary. Bees in Germany are therefore feeding on other flower resources in the landscape and are less exposed to neonics. For wild bees, their reproductive success was reduced in all three countries. Interestingly, wild bees were also found to be exposed to imidacloprid, another neonic that was not part of this study. The researchers believe its presence is “most likely a result of environmental contamination from previous widespread agronomic use.” Overall, the study finds that exposure to low levels of neonics causes reductions in hive fitness that are influenced by a number of interacting environmental factors that can amplify the impact of honey bee worker losses and reduce longer-term colony viability.

“We showed significant negative effects at critical life cycle stages,” said Prof Richard Pywell, Ph.D. of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), and part of the research team. “If the bees are foraging a lot on oil seed rape, they are clearly at risk.”

The results of this study are being used to justify and bolster calls for an EU-wide ban on neonics, which was proposed earlier this year. A vote by member states is still being awaited, and recently French Prime Minister declared France will retain a neonic ban, which is set to go into effect in 2018 and is stronger than the current European Union restrictions. In 2013, the European Commission implemented a moratorium on the use of certain neonics for a limited time in order to protect severely declining and threatened bee populations. The moratorium came several months after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report identifying “high acute risk” to honey bees from uses of the neonicotinoids. But, the researchers of this study say that even if use of neonics were to be restricted, continued exposure to neonic residues persisting in the environment as a result of their previous widespread use has the potential to impact negatively wild bees.

Neonicotinoids are highly toxic to bees and a growing body of scientific literature has linked them to pollinator decline in general. Neonicotinoids are associated with decreased foraging  and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites as a result of suppressed bee immune systems.  In addition to toxicity to bees, neonicotinoids have been shown to also adversely affect birds, aquatic organisms, and contaminate soil and waterways, and overall biodiversity.

Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is finalizing its proposal to phase out imidacloprid after its reevaluation assessment finds that current levels of imidacloprid in aquatic environments pose risks to aquatic invertebrates. PMRA notes that, “Based on currently available information, the continued high volume use of imidacloprid in agricultural areas is not sustainable.” Uses proposed for phase out: trees (except when applied as a tree trunk injection), greenhouse uses, outdoor agricultural uses (including ornamentals), commercial seed treatment uses, turf (such as lawns, golf courses, and sod farms), and lawns.

Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2017 assessment also finds that imidacloprid poses risks to aquatic organisms, and has concentrations in U.S. waters that threaten sensitive species. After much delay, the agency also released its preliminary pollinator assessment for the other neonics, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, which finds that they present “no significant risks” to honey bees, despite finding multiple instances where bees are at risk of toxic exposure, and overwhelming independent data to the contrary.

In light of the shortcomings of federal action in the U.S. to protect these beneficial organisms, it is left up to us to act. You can pledge to stop using neonicotinoids and other toxic pesticides. Sign the pollinator protection pledge today. Beyond Pesticides also advocates the adoption of organic land management practices and policies by local communities that eliminate the use of toxic pesticides in our environment. For more information on what you can do to protect pollinators in your backyard, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign page.

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

Source: The Guardian, Science Magazine

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2017) Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), met privately with Dow Chemical’s CEO several weeks before reversing EPA’s tentative decision to ban chlorpyrifos, according to records recently obtained by the Associated Press (AP). A copy of Mr. Pruitt’s schedule reveals he met with Dow CEO, Andrew Liveris, on March 9 at a Houston hotel and “twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food.”

At a hearing this week, U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) pressed Mr. Pruitt to name a peer-reviewed study that indicates that chlorpyrifos is safe. Mr. Pruitt answered by saying that “he had relied on ‘interagency dialogue’ with USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] before denying the petition to ban the chemical.” In a congressional hearing earlier this month regarding chlorpyrifos’ safety, Mr. Pruitt stated that his decision was founded on “meaningful data and meaningful science.” However, AP followed up with EPA to provide details on this science, and Mr. Pruitt’s office replied with quotes from trade groups and USDA, but failed to provide any scientific studies on the chemical’s safety.

In March 2017, in an about-face, EPA’s Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to side with industry and reject the conclusions of EPA scientists and the independent scientific literature. This decision reversed a tentative decision from 2015 to revoke chlorpyrifos food tolerances that would have essentially banned the chemical in agriculture. Chlorpyrifos, an extremely potent neurotoxicant, was found by agency scientists to lead to mental development delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders in children exposed to high levels of the chemical. However, Mr. Pruitt’s press release stated the “…need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment.” Mr. Pruitt’s decision leaves the door open for continued neurotoxic dangers for humans, especially children, who have been shown to be especially vulnerable to chlorpyrifos.

The path is clear for EPA to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos and ultimately ban this toxic pesticide. Chlorpyrifos is part of the organophosphate (OPs) class of pesticides, which were used in World War II as nerve agents. As potent neurotoxicants, organophosphates are extremely harmful to the nervous system, given that they are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission. Epidemiological data also points to subpopulations that are disproportionately affected by chlorpyrifos exposures. Low-income African-American and Latino families, including farmworker families, continue to suffer the most, and this disproportionate impact creates an environmental justice issue that the agency has ignored. Although organophosphate use has been on the decline in the U.S., EPA has allowed the continued registration of many of these products, and Mr. Pruitt’s recent decision sets a precedent for continued allowance.

EPA’s own assessment, which incorporates recommendations from a 2016 Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), finds that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos have mental development delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders. The SAP agreed with EPA that there is an association between chlorpyrifos prenatal exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. After the 2016 review, EPA concluded that there is “sufficient evidence” that there are neurodevelopmental effects even at levels below the agency’s level of concern, and that current approaches for evaluating chlorpyrifos’ neurological impact is “not sufficiently health protective.”

Organophosphates like chlorpyrifos are a widely used agricultural pesticides, with millions of pounds applied yearly across the country and are acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, aquatic organisms and certain species of algae at low doses. A 2014 study by the U.S. Geological Service determined that an estimated six million pounds of chlorpyrifos is sprayed for agricultural use. In early 2016, a study found that honey bees experience a learning and memory deficit after ingesting small doses of the chlorpyrifos, potentially threatening their success and survival. In January 2017, EPA released its final Biological Evaluations of Three Chemicals’ Impacts on Endangered Species, which found that chlorpyrifos likely has detrimental effect on 97 percent of all species listed and protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Ultimately, the widespread adoption of organic management is necessary to protect consumers and the environment in the long-term from pesticides like chlorpyrifos. Beyond Pesticides has long sought a broad-scale marketplace transition to organic practices that, as a default, prohibits the use of toxic synthetic pesticides by law and requires a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment. This approach never allows the use of highly toxic synthetic pesticides, such as organophosphates, and advances a viable, scalable path forward for growing food. Find out more about why organic is the right path forward for the future of farming by going to Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture webpage.

Sources: Associated Press

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2017) On June 16, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) decided to classify bisphenol A (BPA) as an endocrine disruptor, and as a substance of “very high concern” due to “probable serious effects to human health.” The classification follows a proposal by the French food security agency (ANSES), which was made earlier this year. The committee, comprised of representatives from all 28 European Union EU countries, agreed to the classification unanimously.

With pressure from environmental groups and others, the European Commission (EC) is working to define scientific criteria that will be used to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and lead to more effective regulation in EU countries. In June 2016, the EC issued weak regulations on endocrine disruptors in pesticide products, undermining the precautionary legal standard that governs pesticide usage in Europe. Many scientists and advocacy organizations criticized the proposed regulations for creating an impossibly high burden of proof for defining harm from endocrine disrupting pesticides and other products.

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

A 2015 study, which analyzes the economic impact of a number of EDCs, including BPA, found that exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDC) results in approximately €150 billion ($162 billion) in health care costs in the European Union each year. Results of the study are glaring, and present a grim portrait of the future. The expert panel of scientists agreed on findings of probable causation for EDCs and a number of human diseases, including IQ loss, autism, ADHD, childhood obesity, adult obesity, adult diabetes, cryptorchidism (undescended testes), male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced testosterone. In 2013, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared EDCs a global health threat. A 2012 study by a group of renowned endocrinologists finds that even low doses of EDCs can influence certain human disorders.

As for the U.S., with similar or higher amounts of pesticide use than the EU, the impact is likely just as great. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by law to evaluate chemicals for their endocrine disrupting potential, the agency is still in the process of finalizing a screening protocol. The best way to avoid EDCs in your food is to eat organic ingredients and avoid plastic containers and canned food. Read labels carefully to identify cans that are BPA-free. If using a microwave, avoid heating things up in plastic containers, as they are usually treated and compounds can leak into the food.

Beyond Pesticides has previously weighed in on the use of BPA in packaging materials used in organic food packaging, urging the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to seek other alternatives. According to our comments, “BPA poses serious hazards, and Beyond Pesticides supports its elimination from organic food packaging. At the same time, since known alternatives to BPA may also present similar problems, the NOSB should approach the issue of food packaging in a comprehensive way.” The comments then urged the committee to keep this as a priority issue, and requested a technical review on BPA alternatives.

Source: ECHA, Euractiv

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