(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2017) European health and environmental groups Global 2000 and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) have announced plans to sue European Union authorities over their assessment of the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup products produced by the chemical company Monsanto. The groups claim that the German regulatory authority, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) used material directly from Monsanto in their report over the safety of glyphosate without making clear that the data came from Monsanto itself.  “Both the BfR and the EFSA were in breach of the requirement obliging them to make an independent, objective and transparent assessment,” the groups said in a statement provided to Reuters.

PAN and Global 2000 filed legal complaints with investigators in both Berlin and Vienna, and plan to follow up with suits in France and Italy. The groups cite Austrian criminal code in their complaint, which indicates that “incorrect or falsified data” could be cause for commercial fraud. The two groups are also alleging that EFSA and BfR willfully endangered the public and the environment. Although the next steps are unclear, groups indicate to Reuters that they plan to work these cases through domestic courts and eventually toward the European Court of Justice.

The lawsuit against these agencies comes as the European Commission of 28 member states voted late last month to extend the allowed use of glyphosate in the continent for five years. The close vote, which saw nine against, and one abstention, pitted Germany against France, with the former country winning out after swaying the vote in favor of continued allowance of the chemical. Despite the decision, France announced it remains committed to eliminating the herbicide from use within its home county as soon as possible, and will continue to engage at the pan-European level to abolish glyphosate use.

Both EFSA and BfR have been accused of working closely with Monsanto to sway their final decisions on the controversial chemical. In 2015, reports indicated that BfR based its glyphosate renewal assessment almost solely on industry science and classified industry reports from an industry greenwashing group called the Glyphosate Task Force. It was also found that three scientists on Germany’s scientific panel on pesticides work for the pesticide industry.

In 2017, another report found that EFSA copied “dozens of pages” of documents submitted by the Glyphosate Task Force when it released its renewal assessment report recommending continued use of the chemical. Beyond concerns over collusion is the fact that neither BfR nor EFSA looked at formulated glyphosate products like Roundup. Both evaluations, including of course the Glyphosate Task Force evaluation, only considered pure, technical grade glyphosate in their assessment of the chemical’s health impacts. When the World Health Organization deemed glyphosate carcinogenic, it looked at the health effects of both the active ingredient and formulated products such as Roundup.

Monsanto indicated at the time of the report that EFSA wrote it the way it did because of the large number of studies that it needed to assess. However, both EFSA and the German regulatory agencies continue to refuse to disclose two key chronic toxicity studies that were pivotal to the decision, citing them as confidential business information.

While the EU five-year authorization is a setback, environmental and health groups will continue to challenge these decisions in the courts, as well as at the national level within EU member states. The U.S. is no less subject to the influence of multi-national chemical companies like Monsanto. Eliminating glyphosate and other toxic chemical use in the U.S. may also require continued court action, such as the numerous personal injury lawsuits against Monsanto’s Roundup, as well as sustained grassroots advocacy. Start your own local movement to stop toxic pesticide use in your community by arming yourself with the latest science on toxic chemicals and their alternatives, building a coalition of concerned residents, and taking your concerns to elected officials. Contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450 for assistance.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2017) Last week over 100 conservation and environmental groups urged the federal government to increase funding to protect and conserve monarch butterflies. These iconic butterflies, native to North America, have seen drastic declines in their populations. Surveys report over 80 percent reductions in populations over the last 20 years. Pesticide use, habitat loss, and climate change have all been identified as stressors to these butterflies.

The groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Humane Society, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to do more to help the imperiled butterfly. The letter requests the agency increase the allotment of conservation funds from $4 million- spent last year- to $100 million. The increase in funds is needed for efforts to increase milkweed habitat. In contrast, the government spent over $500 million on sage grouse initiatives to prevent that animal’s listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), even though the Trump Administration is seeking to overturn these initiatives.

Currently, the agency has taken some steps to protect monarchs. These include the implementation of the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Development Project and support of the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund. But, according to the letter, “Restoring the monarch butterfly and its habitat will require a substantial contribution from the agricultural sector and strong leadership…” Monarch populations have fallen more than 80 percent over the last 20 years, and it is estimated that there is a 60 percent chance the multigenerational migration of these butterflies would completely collapse in the next 20 years. Milkweed, the only forage for monarchs has decreased by 21 percent, especially in the midwest, where agricultural fields and pesticide use have expanded. Monarch butterflies are hatched on milkweed plants and spend much of their juvenile periods foraging there. The letter notes that to restore millions of acres of milkweed, it would cost at least $100 million per year, according to government assessments.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is set to determine whether to protect monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. An agreement was made with Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity in July 2016 that requires the agency to decide by June 2019 whether the butterflies will receive federal protection. This agreement came in response to a lawsuit earlier that year to force the agency to set a legally binding deadline for a decision on a 2014 petition calling for protection of the species. Many see FWS’ consideration of federal protection for monarchs as a positive step toward improving habitat and raising awareness about the decline of the butterfly, as well as the plight of other pollinator populations.

The monarch butterfly is one of many important pollinator species that have experienced drastic declines in recent years. Along with threats from glyphosate use and habitat loss, the use of pesticides, like neonicotinoids, has also been linked to monarch declines. The use of genetically engineered (GE) crops (Roundup-ready crops) allows the use of Monsanto’s glyphosate in cropland, an important factor in the decline of the monarch. Glyphosate eradicates milkweed and the dramatic surge in Roundup use and “Roundup Ready” crops has virtually wiped out milkweed plants in midwestern corn and soybean fields. It is estimated that these butterflies have lost more than 165 million acres of habitat.  A 2016 study found that the increasing use of neonicotinoid insecticides is correlated with a steep decline in butterfly health and reproductive success. This study looked at 67 species of butterfly in Northern California and found a correlation between butterfly population decline and increasing neonicotinoid applications, which also appeats to be more severe for smaller-bodied species. According to the researchers, the results suggest that neonicotinoids could influence non-target insect populations when applied nearby. Pesticides like neonicotinoids also harm other non-target pollinators like honey bees and other bee species. Studies show an association with decreased learning, foraging and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites, in bees.

Critical to the survival of monarchs, other pollinators, and organisms essential to ecological balance is the large-scale adoption of organic farming practices. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture  as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2017) Fungicides are likely playing an important role in the decline of North American bumblebee populations, according to new research published by a team at Cornell University. While overwhelming data continue to indicate that insecticides, particularly the neonicotinoid class of chemicals, are the leading factor in overall pollinator declines, Cornell scientists discovered that fungicides, in particular the chemical chlorothalonil, are likely compounding risk and toxicity for U.S. bumblebee species. As new studies continue to expand the chemical culprits in pollinator declines, calls for a wholesale change in agricultural practices toward more sustainable organic production are reinforced.

Cornell researchers began their investigation by focusing on what land use factors had the most impact on eight bumblebee species, many of which have been declining in the U.S. Bumblebee species were sampled at nearly 300 sites in 40 states during the summer months, and at each of the sampling sites, landscape variables were characterized and quantified for land use (urban v rural), habitat (high vs low latitude), and pesticide (insecticide, fungicide, herbicide) usage.

The strongest indicator of declining range within the selected bumblebee species was found to be overall fungicide use, with those in the northern U.S. undergoing the most rapid decline. Scientists focused in on the prevalence of Nosema bombi, a fungal pathogen that has also been closely linked to declining bumblebee species. They found that the use of the fungicide chlorothalonil at a site was the most accurate predictor of N. bombi prevalence.

“Nosema can be devastating to bumblebees and honeybees,” said lead author Scott McArt, PhD. “Since fungicide exposure can increase susceptibility of bees to Nosema, this may be the reason we’re seeing links between fungicide exposure, Nosema prevalence and bumblebee declines across the United States in this data set.”

Research from 2013 found that fungicide exposure honey bees encountered through normal pollination was linked with increased vulnerability to a close cousin of N. bombi, the pathogen N. ceranae. “Insecticides work; they kill insects,” Dr. McArt noted in a press release. “Fungicides have been largely overlooked because they are not targeted for insects, but fungicides may not be quite as benign — toward bumblebees – as we once thought. This surprised us.”

Previous studies back up claims of chlorothalonil affecting the health of bumblebee populations. In 2015, a study published by entomologists at the University of Wisconsin found that bumblebee colonies kept in field enclosures where flowers were sprayed with field-realistic doses of chlorothalonil significantly diminished the colonies’ size and health.

Other fungicides have also been found to have negative impacts on pollinators. Myclobutanil, a commonly used fungicide found in the product Eagle 20, was linked to damage in the muscles that honey bees use to fly and keep warm during the winter in a study published earlier this year.  Scientists inferred that complex interactions between the fungicide, natural compounds in flowers, and the honey bees’ detoxification system, known as the cytochrome p450 system, ultimately resulted in the muscle damage.

A similar mechanism is likely in place with bumblebees and recorded declines. “While most fungicides are relatively nontoxic to bees, many are known to interact synergistically with insecticides, greatly increasing their toxicity to the bees,” Dr. McArt said.

Beyond Pesticides and other health and environmental groups are calling for an end to the synthetic pesticide experiment first documented in detail by Rachel Carson in the 1960s. Since that time, the pesticide industry continued to ‘innovate’ by producing synthetic chemicals with different, though no less deleterious, impacts that fit into U.S. Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment models, but have other impacts that are characterized as novel or ‘mysterious.’ Only after investigation and published research from independent scientists do the mechanisms behind these effects become apparent.

It’s time to end the cycle of shifting from one health or ecological catastrophe to another by establishing real protections from pesticide use and a positive vision for the United States’ agricultural future. Organic production is a viable, scalable, cost-effective method without any of the long-associated harm of conventional agriculture, but it requires moving government support away from chemical corporations and towards more sustainable practices. Representative Earl Blumenauer’s Food and Farm Act, proposed as an amendment to the 2018 Farm Bill, is a good start towards moving agriculture in a safer direction. Tell your Congressional leaders to join Rep Blumenauer and support sustainable systems by signing Beyond Pesticides Action of the Week.

Source: Cornell University Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2017) You told the Arkansas Plant Board to exercise its authority to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment from use of the herbicide dicamba on genetically engineered (GE) soybeans, and the board listened. Now, we need to ask the board to stop the use of 2,4-D on GE cotton. The action of states is critical as the federal government ignores basic safety concerns. Action in Arkansas will influence other states.

Tell the Arkansas Plant Board to adopt the proposed rule and to prohibit use of 2,4-D on cotton!

The decision concerning 2,4-D use on herbicide-tolerant cotton goes to the Arkansas Plant Board on December 12. The choice has many similarities to the decision to allow — and then prohibit — the use of dicamba on herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties. Both 2,4-D and dicamba are phenoxy herbicides — 2,4-D being the infamous ingredient (along with 2,4,5-T) of Agent Orange. Our voices were heard when the Arkansas Plant Board considered dicamba, so please weigh in on 2,4-D.

At this December 12 meeting, the Arkansas Plant Board is holding a hearing on a proposed regulation that would allow the Board to request more information from pesticide registrants, which could support restrictions based on conditions within Arkansas. The proposed regulation is a straightforward authorization to seek further information, with a requirement to disclose how it is used. Arkansas law allows the state to restrict or prohibit use of a pesticide to prevent unreasonable adverse effects caused by drift.

Both phenoxy herbicides (2,4-D and dicamba) are noted for their propensity to drift — both as droplets during application and as vapor afterward. Their application causes a wide range of health effects, as well as environmental impacts. Broad-leaved crops, including soybeans, non-GE cotton, grapes, and vegetables are susceptible to damage by phenoxy herbicides. The State of Arkansas has a growing wine industry that deserves to be protected from 2,4-D drift. The proposed rule will enable the state to request information from registrants that enables it to protect farms and communities more effectively from drift.

Like dicamba in soybeans, 2,4-D use in cotton represents movement in the wrong direction — toward harm to productivity and ecosystem services. Reliance on toxic herbicides and GE crops has failed farmers in a world where organic production is a viable alternative. The predictable problems associated with 2,4-D can and should be avoided.

Tell the Arkansas Plant Board to adopt the proposed rule and to prohibit use of 2,4-D on cotton!

Thank you for taking action!

(Beyond Pesticides, December 1, 2017) Ichneumonid wasps (family Ichneumonidae), are a widely distributed parasitoid wasp family within the order Hymenoptera. The name “ichneumonid” comes from Greek words meaning “tracker” and “footprint.” And females do indeed hunt for suitable “hosts” by first identifying the organism’s food source. Once a suitable host is found, females deposit eggs onto the unsuspecting insect larvae where, within ten days to several weeks, the Ichneumonid larva kills the host by feeding on its body fluids before it emerges. They are also known as “scorpion wasps” for the extreme length and curving motion of their segmented abdomens. Note: both adult males and females are stingless, and feed on nectar.

The discovery of Ichneumonidae was so troubling to many that, in 1860, Charles Darwin wrote a letter to the American naturalist Asa Gray, saying:

“I own that I [should wish to] see as plainly as others do…evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us…I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

The parasitic behavior of Ichneumon wasps was the inspiration behind the “Alien” movies’ “face-hugger” and “chest-burster” alien species.

Range

The Ichneumonidae, arguably the largest animal family, contains about 4,000 species in North America alone. There are an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 ichneumonid species distributed worldwide, more than any other Hymenoptera family including ants and bees. Though considered to be especially species-rich in high latitudes, ichneumonids can be found in North America during spring and summer in a majority of wild habitats including forests and wetlands, as well as urban lawns and green spaces.

Physiology

Ichneumonids look like slim stinging wasps, having long legs and noticeably longer antennae containing 16 or more segments whereas other wasps have 13 or fewer segments. Both sexes can be found tapping their antennae across logs or tree trunks.

Ichneumonid wasps are some of the larger parasitic wasps. Adult size, form and color varies widely based on the size and food source of its larval host. Consequently, some may be brightly colored, while others are brown or tan. The largest ichneumonids of North America, those of the genus Megarhyssa (or giant ichneumonids) can reach 5 cm in length.

While their wings may be shaded blue or brown, ichneumonid wing structure varies slightly from other wasps – the main distinguishing feature being the added “venation” (or, vein arrangement) on its forewings.

Female ichneumonid wasps have a long “ovipositor,” or egg-laying organ. (In stinging hymenopterans, the stinger is a modified ovipositor.) The female’s ovipositor has a tiny ionized manganese or zinc (metal) tip which allows her to drill through bark to reach wood-boring hosts. Interestingly, such high metal concentrations are also found in the wasp’s hardened mandibles, allowing the newly emerged adult to chew a way out of the wood in which the prey larva was encased.

She uses her long ovipositor to inject eggs into a host’s body. The length of the ovipositor allows the female to inject eggs into leaf-rolling or stem-boring insect larvae remarkably (to a human’s viewpoint) hidden from view. A female will use her antennae to sense vibrations made when grubs or pupa feed.

Males tap their antennae only when in search of mates. They have neither stingers nor ovipositors.

Ecological Role and Threats to Existence

Being effective insect parasitoids, ichneumonid wasps play an essential role in the majority of ecosystems. Acting as biocontrol agents, they have been incorporated into managed biocontrol programs.

When in search of hosts to parasitize, female ichneumonid wasps target a wide variety of larvae or pupae of so-called “pest” insects. Ichneumonid wasps are considered highly beneficial as they are immensely helpful in decimating crop-damaging insects before they reach the adult, reproductive stage. Such hosts include tomato hornworms, boll weevils, forest yellowjackets, wheat stem sawflies, cutworms, birch leafminers, cabbage loopers, as well as both corn and wood borers.

When not in search of hosts, solitary ichneumonid wasps can often be seen feeding on nectar and sap of native flowers, shrubs and trees. Foraging adults prefer members of the carrot family Apiaceae (or Umbelliferae). These plants are usually aromatic and contain an umbrella-shaped “inflorescence.” Multiple broad-faced flowers (acting like a welcome mat, or landing pad), enables ichneumonid wasps to clamber across multiple flowers in a single visit, which effectively pollinates the plants.

Ichneumonid wasps travel up to 625 m. These lengthy journeys allow for wider pollen dispersal. However, some adults have been shown to revisit certain locations within days or weeks.

Like other insects, including those providing biological control and pollination services, ichneumonid wasps can be poisoned by the spraying of insecticides. In addition, the cosmetic application of toxic herbicides along the perimeter of our lawns, or across large swaths of farm fields, can destroy ichneumonid waps favorite plant food source, the Apiaceae. Without a viable food source, ichneumonid numbers dwindle, as adults become weak, inactive, and are more susceptible to disease.

How to protect the species

Learn to recognize insects. Learn how to identify and conserve flowering plant species. (Stop to appreciate their smell, color, and allure.) Protect biodiversity in every way you can using Integrated and Organic Pest Management. Remember: Exterminating pests does not mean similar pests will not return. Use least-toxic pesticides only as a last resort, carefully choosing the product least likely to harm insect predators and parasitoids. To keep pests at bay, start by identifying and eliminating pest entry ways as well as food and water sources. Toxic chemicals used on your lawn, parks, or sports fields, devastate the microbes needed to sustain a well-balanced food web.

To ensure a healthy and biodiverse environment for ichneumonid wasps to mate and feed, work collaboratively with neighbors to enliven microbial activity in your lawns or gardens. Replace a portion of your grass lawn with the native plants adapted to your region. Over-seed and apply “top-dressing” (ex- compost) to your lawn, or garden. Aerate soil to allow water to permeate through and stay where it should.

When wishing to incorporate ichneumonid wasps into an IPM strategy, remember, if the goal is to encourage beneficial ichneumonid wasps to deposit their parasitoid eggs into “pest” insect larvae, you need to offer ichneumonid adults sustained access to nectar plants. As ichneumonid wasps are attracted to aromatic plants in the carrot family, try adding varieties such as fennel, parsley, parsnip, dill, cumin, coriander, or chervil to your garden, or grow these plants in pots.

Further research in natural as well as biological control is always needed! Support the Organic Agricultural Research Act. Find out about quantitative biodiversity surveys in your area and their data on ichneumonid species diversity and habitat-hotspots. Keeping such records today will help future conservationists and entomologists make informed ichneumonid wasp protection decisions.

Remember: Avoid using insecticides indoors (or in your garden) as residues can persist in homes for over a year. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe database to learn about least-toxic alternatives for indoor and outdoor pest problems.

Citations
Brisbane Insects and Spiders: www.brisbaneinsects.com
http://www.brisbaneinsects.com/brisbane_parawasps/ICHNEUMONIDAE.htm
Waspweb.org
Bug Guide: https://bugguide.net/node/view/150
Washington State University, Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (Orchard Pest Management Online): http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/opm/displaySpecies.php?pn=920
Missouri Deparment of Conservation: https://nature.mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/field-guide/ichneumon-wasps
www.britanica.com: https://www.britannica.com/animal/ichneumon
McGill University, Quebec Biodiversity Website: http://redpath-museum.mcgill.ca/Qbp/2.About%20Biodiversity/surveys.htm
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumonidae

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2017)  A French court suspended the license of two pesticide products citing their toxicity to bees. The products, Closer and Transform, both contain the active ingredient, sulfoxaflor, which is highly toxic to bees. The ruling overturned the decision by France’s health and environment agency, ANSES, to allow the use of the sulfoxaflor products. Sulfoxaflor use was also challenged in the U.S. by beekeepers concerned about its impact on already declining bee populations.

Sulfoxaflor is a relatively new active ingredient whose mode of action is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides. Even though it has not been classified as a neonicotinoid, it elicits similar neurological responses in honey bees, with many believing that sulfoxaflor is a new generation of neonicotinoid. Its initial 2013  U.S. registration was challenged by beekeepers and subsequently vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals due to overwhelming risks to bees and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inadequate review of the data. The court concluded that EPA violated federal law when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide may have on honey bee colonies. By vacating EPA’s unconditional registration of the chemical, sulfoxaflor could not be used in the U.S. However, EPA then amended its registration conditions for the chemical, reducing the number of crops for which use is permitted, or only allowing post-bloom applications. This included prohibiting use on bee-attractive crops such as citrus, cotton, cucurbits, soybeans and strawberries. With this move, EPA stated that sulfoxaflor would have minimal impact on bees, much to the dismay of beekeepers and against mounting scientific evidence.

The French environmental organization, Générations Futures, brought the lawsuit on sulfoxaflor, arguing that the two products that contain sulfoxaflor persist in the environment, and are therefore a threat to bees. The group complained that sulfoxaflor is part of the neonicotinoid family of substances, which are being phased out in France due to concern over their link to declining bee populations. But ANSES claimed sulfoxaflor remains in soils and plants for a much shorter period of time. The ban is only temporary, however, until a French court hears detailed arguments from both parties. Currently, sulfoxaflor use is permitted for straw cereals such as wheat and fruit and vegetable crops but prohibited for crops that attract pollinating insects. The French court said it was unclear whether restrictions set out by ANSES on the use of sulfoxaflor would be followed. The European Union approved the use of sulfoxaflor in 2015.

Générations Futures praised the ruling and called for an end to all neonicotinoid products. Bee-toxic pesticides like sulfoxaflor continue to be a danger to bees due to their systemic nature —an issue regulatory officials continually ignores or underestimates, according to beekeepers and environmental advocates. Sulfoxaflor is closely related to neonicotinoid pesticides —it acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects, and like neonicotinoids, it is a “systemic” insecticide, which means that when applied to plants, it is absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen, and nectar.  Residues will remain in pollen and nectar and even contaminated soil and water long after initial application, sometimes for months and years. Bees and other pollinators will continually be exposed, exacerbating the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations.

A recent study published in Scientific Reports finds that bees exposed to field-realistic levels of neonicotinoid insecticides have problems with “buzzing” that results in reduced pollen collection. While this research is the first to quantify changes in buzzing, it is not the first to show that these notorious chemicals inhibit bees’ pollination skills. Research in early 2017 found that realistic exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid resulted in worker bees spending less time caring for young and pollinating flowers. This research is consistent with other studies that link neonicotinoid use to reduced learning in bees, as well as other impacts, such as those on colony size, and reproductive success. Another study looking at effects on birds reports that songbirds exposed to widely used insecticides, like neonicotinoids, fail to properly orient themselves for migration, the first such study that adds weight to arguments that pesticides are a likely cause in the decline of migratory bird populations.

Again and again, the pesticide industry attempts to dismiss and criticize independent science that shows the harm of its products. Rather than support the whack-a-mole approach that powerful chemical companies continue to foist on the public, where one chemical is replaced with another, consumers have the opportunity to support a different kind of agriculture. When making your decision at the grocery store, support a food production system that does not rely on toxic chemical use that causes untold harm to the natural world. Whenever possible, purchase organic, which does not allow these toxic insecticides.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2017) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, responded to the latest industry-fueled attacks on its reputation in the wake of its 2015 determination that glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the world, is a probable carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity found in laboratory studies. Despite strong evidence against continued use of the chemical, the European Union voted this week to extend its allowance in member countries another 5 years. However, the extension is not the 15 years that Monsanto and other chemical companies sought, and France remains committed to banning the product in its home country and throughout the EU as soon as possible.

On November 1, Chairmen Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) of the U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and Environment Subcommittee, respectively, sent a letter to IARC questioning the integrity of its determination that glyphosate has carcinogenic properties. This is the latest in a long string of assaults on the agency encouraged by chemical companies, like Monsanto, which have an economic interest in keeping its toxic products on the market and away from restrictions or regulations that would limit its use. The letter represents the sort of actions Monsanto is undertaking in the U.S. with its allies in Congress, necessitating that local communities and advocates take action to protect health and the environment.

In their letter, Reps. Smith and Biggs asserted that IARC altered initial drafts of its glyphosate determination by removing research that questioned links between the chemical and cancer. However, in IARC’s response letter, the agency indicates that the draft in question highlighted a review article that is currently being investigated by journalists as being “ghostwritten” by Monsanto employees. The revelation of the company’s ghostwriting comes from internal memos released by Monsanto during the course of ongoing litigation by private individuals who claim that glyphosate use resulted in their cancer diagnosis. Nonetheless, the IARC letter notes, “[T]he Working Group considered that information in the review article and its supplement was insufficient for independent evaluation of the individual studies and the conclusions reached by the Monsanto scientist and another author. As a result, the draft was revised, and the text in the published Monograph is the consensus opinion of the Working Group.” The letter further points Reps. Smith and Biggs to pages 34-35 and 40-41 of the glyphosate monograph, which reviews the study in question.

In the same vein, the Congressmen claim that Aaron Blair, PhD, withheld critical information from the review committee, including results from the U.S.’ ongoing Agricultural Health Study. However, in its response, IARC simply notes that it is required to follow its preamble and not include any unpublished or “secret” data in its review. The data in question from the Agricultural Health Study was unpublished.

The Congressmen also singled out Christopher Portier, PhD, for conflict of interest by assisting in private litigation against Monsanto while working with the IARC committee review glyphosate. However, IARC notes in its letter that Dr. Portier was an invited specialist, but had no role in drafting text or participating in the evaluation process. He did recommend glyphosate for review during the 2015-2019 period, however that was prior to his involvement in litigation against Monsanto.

IARC further emphasized that its glyphosate review was conducted transparently by noting that all draft documents are available to all scientists that attend the meetings, including observers from industry. Monsanto’s observer, Tim Soran, PhD, DSc, is quoted as saying, “The  meeting  was held in accordance with IARC procedures. Dr Kurt Straif, the director of the Monographs, has an intimate knowledge of the rules in force and insisted that they be respected.”

Congressmen Lamar and Biggs indicate in their letter that they may call hearings to further question IARC representatives. Interrogating IARC officials is ultimately in line with the interests of chemical companies like Monsanto, which have continuously sought out new angles to flex its power and discredit IARC and its glyphosate determination. Monsanto’s aim is likely an attempt to intimidate IARC by using powerful members of Congress to threaten its funding, of which the U.S. contributes a substantial sum to the IARC review process. Actions like these are a message to IARC that it should not take on pesticides or other substances that threaten the economic interest of multinational chemical companies.

Fight back against Monsanto’s attempt to undermine the scientific and democratic process by getting involved at the local level. Work to pass policies that restrict not only glyphosate, but the entire range of toxic synthetic pesticides registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Beyond Pesticides has resources to help you get started, including an organizing guide, model policy, and list of less toxic, organic compatible products. For more information on IARC’s glyphosate cancer classification and the IARC review process, see Beyond Pesticides’ article in our newsletter Pesticides and You.

Source: IARC letter to Congress

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 28, 2017) Bumblebees exposed to field-realistic levels of neonicotinoid insecticides have problems with “buzz pollination” that results in reduced pollen collection, according to new research published in Scientific Reports. This is the latest science to tease out the complex ways in which neonicotinoids interfere with these important pollinators, providing yet another reason to eliminate these highly toxic, systemic insecticides from the environment.

Flowers that bumblebees pollinate require the insects to emit soundwaves, or ‘sonicate’ to release their pollen, and bumblebees must perfect their techniques over time in order to maximize the pollen they are able to collect. Researchers tested the effect of neonicotinoids on bumblebees’ sonication abilities by exposing them to field realistic doses of the insecticide thiamethoxam at rates of 2 parts per billion (ppb) and 10 ppb, and observing their ability to successfully collect pollen. A control group that never came in contact with thiamethoxam was also used to compare the progress of the exposed group.

Lead author of the study, Penelope Whitehorn, PhD, indicated, “We found that control bees, who were not exposed to the pesticide, improved their pollen collection as they gained experience, which we interpreted as an ability to learn to buzz pollinate better.”

Dr. Whitehorn continued, “However, bees that came into contact with pesticide did not collect more pollen as they gained more experience, and by the end of the experiment collected between 47 percent [in the 2 ppb group] and 56 percent less pollen [in the 10 ppb group] compared to the control bees.”

Bumblebees exposed to the insecticide had a buzz that was shorter than control bees, and they displayed less effort in their attempts to sonicate. “Our result is the first to demonstrate quantitative changes in the type of buzzes produced by bees exposed to field-realistic levels of neonicotinoid,” Dr. Whitehorn said.

While this research is the first to quantify changes in buzzing, it is not the first to show these notorious chemicals inhibit bumblebees’ pollination skills. Research in early 2017 found that realistic exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid resulted in worker bees spending less time caring for young and pollinating flowers. This research is consistent with other studies that link neonicotinoid use to reduced learning in bees, as well as other impacts, such as those on colony size, and reproductive success.

When this study was presented preliminarily at the British Ecological Society’s annual meeting in 2016, the chemical company Syngenta, a major manufacturer of neonicotinoids (along with Bayer), argued that exposure to thiamethoxam in the field was usually closer to 3 ppb than 10 ppb, as researchers had only observed the impacts of 10 ppb exposure. Researchers took that suggestion, and indeed found similar effects at an even lower level of 2 ppb, which, as Dr. Whitehorn noted, decreased pollination collection by 47% compared to unexposed bees.

Again and again, the pesticide industry attempts to dismiss and criticize independent science that shows the harm of its products, as its profits and CEO salaries soar. As evidence mounts that the Trump Administration is working closely with chemical companies, the best way to increase the pressure is to get active in your local community. Work to pass pesticide policies that protect both honey bees and wild pollinators, as numerous communities (see yellow boxes) have done. For assistance, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

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

Source: University of Stirling Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2017) Congress is working on the 2018 Farm Bill, which will determine how $956 billion of our tax money will be spent over the coming years in shaping our food system. This year, U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has introduced a bill that, if passed, will implement many of the food policy reforms that sustainable agriculture policy advocates have long supported.

Ask Your Congressional Delegation to Support the Food and Farm Act!

The bill, which is co-sponsored by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Don Beyer (D-VA), is a result of a two-year conversation, “Sing Your Own Farm Bill,” in which the U.S. Representative engaged a diverse group of farmers, ranchers, fiscal hawks, food and agriculture policy experts, environmentalists, animal welfare advocates, and others to brainstorm ideas for shaping future farm and food policy.

According to Farm Forward, factory farms receive approximately $4 billion in annual benefits under the current Farm Bill –which result in many negative impacts, such as:
•    Diet-Related Disease – A diet high in food commodities subsidized by the Farm Bill is linked to a greater probability of diabetes, heart disease and stroke.
•    Climate Change –The top five factory-farm mega-corporations combined emit more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than Exxon, or Shell, or BP (formerly British Petroleum).
•    Water Pollution – Farm Bill subsidy programs contribute to the pollution of drinking water, imposing billions of dollars in healthcare and water cleanup costs on downstream communities.

Highlights of Rep. Blumenauer’s Food and Farm Act include:

Title I: Commodities and Crop Insurance
Title I cuts, caps, and clarifies the farm subsidy programs available in the commodity, conservation, and crop insurance titles of the Farm Bill. It expands coverage for non-commodity farms and ensures that farmers who receive subsidies reduce their environmental impact.

Title II: Conservation
Title II reforms existing conservation programs to focus on performance by distributing resources based on how effectively a project achieves conservation goals and minimizing the environmental impact of agriculture practices.

Title III: Food Assistance
Allows more flexibility in determining what food aid works best for each situation, providing USAID’s implementing partners the ability to use either U.S. commodities or local and regional procurement as they see fit, while eliminating the process by which 15% of non-emergency donated food is sold in local food markets, disrupting local food prices.

Title IV: Nutrition
Title IV expands access to healthy food in schools and underserved areas and at farmers markets through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other initiatives.

Title V: Future of American Farmers
Title V provides support for beginning farmers and ranchers to enter and stay in the agriculture sector. It also assists those in the business who are ready to retire by helping them transition out of farming while keeping the industry vibrant.

Title VI: Food Waste
Title VI establishes the first Food Waste Title of the Farm Bill, which focuses the federal government on food waste reduction and directs USDA to develop methods for measuring, aggregating, and disseminating food waste information to the public.

Title VII: Research, Extension, and Related Matters
Title VII invests in research and education programs that improve sustainable agriculture practices, while also supporting research to help farmers and ranchers succeed in a changing climate.

Title VIII: Animal Welfare
Title VIII establishes the first Animal Welfare Title in the Farm Bill, incorporating reforms to ensure that the treatment of animals is a central part of the country’s food and agriculture policy.

Title IX: Regional Food Systems
Title IX invests in existing programs and creates new ones to support vibrant local and regional food systems, increases transparency within USDA’s existing programs, and streamlines grant program application procedures to make them more accessible.

Ask Your Congressional Delegation to Support the Food and Farm Act!

(Beyond Pesticides, November 22-23, 2017) As we sit with friends and family this Thanksgiving, let us appreciate how our delicious meal got to your table. The turkey, potatoes, stuffing, and cider all originated in fields far from our homes, and those working in those fields deserve our thanks. They deserve our thanks because many of these workers work long hours, under deplorable conditions, and are exposed to pesticides that put their health and that of their families at risk. So, as we enjoy our pumpkin pie, cranberry sauce, and apple crumble, remember all the hardworking farmworkers who have helped to bring our meal to the Thanksgiving table. At the same time, we give thanks for the environment that is so plentiful and nurturing of life, and remember the importance of pollinators and biodiversity in sustaining life.

Celebrating Thanksgiving and looking toward another year coming to an end, provides an opportunity for us to remember to remain vigilant, and raise our voices against efforts to erode our environmental protections that safeguard human health and preserve biodiverse ecosystems.

Thanking Farmworkers

Farm work is hard and dangerous work. Each year millions of farmworkers, including seasonal and migrant workers, toil in fields across the U.S. to bring food to dinner tables across the country. But in spite of their hard work, farmworkers and their families experience unjust hazards from pesticides utilized in agriculture. This is a serious environmental justice issue that requires urgent attention from consumers, producers, retailers, and policymakers. This Thanksgiving, we would like to highlight this community and the challenges they face.

The scientific literature confirms that farmworkers, their families, and their communities face elevated hazards from pesticide exposures, and existing farmworker data finds that the incidence rate of pesticide poisoning is extremely high. An average of 57.6 out of every 100,000 agricultural workers experiences acute pesticide poisoning, illness or injury each year. Pesticides like the herbicide 2,4-D, and organophosphate (e.g., chlorpyrifos), and pyrethroid insecticides are routinely detected in the bodies and homes of farmworkers. The risks of exposure from these chemicals have long-lasting impacts on farmworker communities. The recent reversal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the banning of chlorpyrifos allows the continuation of unacceptable toxic pesticide exposure to farmworkers and their families.

After more than 20 years, improvements to the Farm Worker Protection Standard (WPS) were finally made, and include many recommendations from farmworker advocates, including requiring a minimum age of 18 to work. Workers and handlers will now be made aware of their rights under the WPS and of the resources available to them in the event of a suspected act of retaliation or noncompliance with the standard. Despite the necessity for worker protections, some states and industry groups have demanded a delay in the implementation of the new standards.

Let us give thanks to farmworkers and the many farmworker organizations that have worked tirelessly to finalize the new WPS, so that workers can put food on our tables without jeopardizing their health. Find out more about the new WPS here.

Being Thankful for Pollinators

Pollinator dependent crops are critical to U.S. agriculture, accounting for one-third of every bite we eat, including most fruits and vegetables. Pollinators are beneficial organisms and include a wide range of species such as honey bees, native bees, beetles, birds, butterflies, and moths. But widespread pesticide use, habitat loss, climate change, parasites, and disease all threaten pollinator health. Pesticides like the neonicotinoids (neonics) are linked with the dramatic decline of pollinators and other wildlife. Studies have shown they elicit debilitating effects in bees including impaired foraging and learning behavior, reduced queen production, immune suppression, and death. In fact, U.S. beekeepers lost an unsustainable 33% of their hives between 2016 and 2017. Neonics are also detected regularly in the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. Along with impacts on pollinators, neonic contamination poses detrimental effects to keystone aquatic organisms, resulting in a complex cascading impact on ecosystems. Just this year, Maryland took action to protect pollinators found in designated state pollinator habitat by passing the Pollinator Habitat Plans- Plan Contents- Requirements and Prohibition, with bipartisan support. The bill requires pollinator habitat plans developed by any state agency to be as protective of pollinators.

Knowing how important these organisms are, let us thank them for their services by pledging to eliminate toxic pesticide use, and planting pesticide-free habitat to provide them with a place of forage and refuge. Find out more at BeeProtective.

Choose Organic this Thanksgiving and Beyond

Our food choices have a direct effect on the health of our environment and those who grow and harvest what we eat. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, protection of farmworkers and farm families, and stewardship of the earth. This Thanksgiving, avoid exposure to harmful chemicals, and protect your family, pollinators, and farmworkers by striving for a 100% organic, healthy meal.

To help better explain the benefits of organic food consumption, Beyond Pesticides invites you to use the Eating with a Conscience database, which evaluates the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals allowed for use on major food crops.  You can continue to fight for the well-being of organic by helping to defend organic standards against USDA changes that will weaken public trust in the organic food label. Organic practices follow tough standards that do not compromise the health of people and the planet.

Learn more at Save Our Organic webpage.

Have a Healthy and Happy Thanksgiving, from Beyond Pesticides!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2017) Both the active and inert ingredients in common herbicides induce antibiotic resistance in human pathogenic bacteria, according to the latest research from New Zealand scientists, published in Microbiology this week.  Previous research from the same team found in 2015 that commercial formulations of Roundup (containing glyphosate and inert ingredients) and Kamba (containing 2,4-D, Dicamba, and inert ingredients) caused antibiotic resistance to develop in Salmonella eterica and Escherichia coli, but this new research drills down into what ingredients in these formulations resulted in the effect. Lead author of the study, Jack Heinemann, PhD, University Canterbury’s School of Biological Sciences, explains that ultimately this research indicates that, “The sub-lethal effects of industrially manufactured chemical products should be considered by regulators when deciding whether the products are safe for their intended use,”

Scientists parsed out the effects of individual active and inert ingredients by obtaining pure, technical grade dicamba, 2,4-D, and glyphosate, as well as the inert co-formulants “Tween80” and “CMC,” which are respectively, used to reduce surface tension and regulate the viscosity in a formulated herbicide, though also used as emulsifiers in foods like ice cream and in medicines. The technical grade herbicides were first applied to S. eterica, and then a range of antibiotics including ampicillin (Amp), chloramphenicol (Cam), ciprofloxacin (Cip), kanamycin (Kan) and tetracycline (Tet) were used to treat the bacteria. Inert ingredients were applied to both S.eterica and E. coli and then the same antibiotics were tested. Researchers measured the ability for the bacteria to live in a petri dish when compared to unexposed bacteria, a term called efficiency of plating.

Results show a range of effects, with the herbicides conferring different levels of resistance based on the antibiotic used. 2,4-D, for instance, decreased antibiotic resistance in Salmonella eterica after Cam exposure, but increased it after Kan exposure. The inert ingredients recorded similar outcomes, although on the whole their effect was weaker than the active ingredients. In general, the effects of the active ingredients on antibiotic resistance were similar to results found in the original research with formulated products. However, with this study, very small, and much larger amounts of active ingredient were used, indicating that antibiotic resistance is conferred even below levels reasonably expected to be seen in the environment.

Dr. Heinemann notes, “These products are sold in the local hardware store and may be used without training, and there are no controls that prevent children and pets from being exposed in home gardens or parks. Despite their ubiquitous use… herbicides may be undermining the use of a fundamental medicine-antibiotics.”

Current pesticide registration protocols under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency require testing on only the active ingredient in a pesticide formulation. Tests also are limited in the health and environmental impacts investigated, and generally only look at acute and chronic pesticide exposure, and subsequent morality as an endpoint. Dr. Heinemann explains that, “Where this information is sought, it is usually only for people or animals. We are unaware of any regulator ever considering the risk of sub-lethal effects on bacteria. That is what makes this new research so important.” Given that inert ingredients conferred differing levels of antibiotic resistance than active and formulated products, it is evident there are complex, and significant mechanisms that are not being investigated by U.S. pesticide regulators.

The stakes are very high. “The United States, for example, estimates that more than two million people are sickened every year with antibiotic-resistant infections, with at least 23,000 dying as a result. By 2050, resistance is estimated to add 10 million annual deaths globally with a cumulative cost to the world economy of US$100 trillion,” Dr. Heinemann says.

Modern science is just beginning to understand the broad range of effects caused by microbes in our body and our environment. In addition to antibiotic resistance, glyphosate has been linked to alteration of gut microbial diversity, as well as the diversity of soil organisms. Exposure to organophosphate insecticides has been linked to changes in the diversity of bacteria in one’s mouth. The G20 earlier this year called on nations to address the rise of antibiotic resistance.

As Dr. Heinemann notes, “More emphasis needs to be placed on antibiotic stewardship compared to new antibiotic discovery. Otherwise, new drugs will fail rapidly and be lost to humanity.” It is evident that more needs to be done from regulators throughout the world to make certain that chemicals permitted into the environment where they make their way into soil, water, and air at minute levels, are not undermining our health in ways beyond those already known.

For more information on the impact of pesticides on the microbes in our bodies and our health, see Beyond Pesticides cover story in the summer 2017 issue of Pesticides and You, and go to our YouTube page to watch the keynote talk from David Montgomery, PhD, at Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum, on his book The Hidden Half of Nature: The Microbial Roots of Life and Health.

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

Source: University of Canterbury Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2017) The pesticide industry is drafting legislation that threatens to remove provisions of the Endangered Species Act that protect species from pesticides.

Tell your Congressional delegation to oppose all efforts to reduce endangered species protections from pesticides.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of America’s most effective and important environmental laws. It represents a commitment to protect and restore those species most at risk of extinction. Recent polling shows 84 percent of Americans support the Endangered Species Act, and 87 percent agree that it is a successful safety net for protecting wildlife, plants, insects, and fish from extinction. Although many species –including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and California condor— have been protected and brought back from the brink of extinction under the ESA, an estimated 500 species have disappeared in the past 200 years.

An important provision of the ESA is the requirement that each federal agency that proposes to authorize, fund, or carry out an action that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. In the case of pesticides, EPA is required to perform such a consultation if it finds that the pesticide may affect endangered species, and the Services may initiate such a consultation if they disagree with EPA’s assessment. In addition, citizens may file lawsuits to ensure that species are adequately protected. These consultation provisions are under attack by pesticide industry lobbyists promoting legislation allowing EPA to “self-consult” on pesticide registrations.

At least 59 legislative attacks on the ESA have been introduced in Congress this year. The pesticide industry proposed legislation strikes against ESA protections of plants and animals from pesticides. See industry’s draft legislation.  It seeks to severely curtail the ESA’s Section 7 consultation provisions from pesticide reviews and eliminate all liability under Section 9 of the ESA, which prohibits the take  injury, death, or harm  of endangered animals.

Tell your Congressional delegation to oppose all efforts to reduce endangered species protections from pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2017) The Trump Administration is asking a federal court to delay a prior agreement that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issue findings on the risk of three highly toxic organophosphate pesticides to endangered species. The move is widely seen by environmental advocates as influenced by the chemical industry, in particular the new agrichemical conglomerate DowDuPont, which completed a megamerger in September. The Trump Administration’s ongoing willingness to do the bidding of the chemical and pesticide industry means that voters must speak out to their elected representatives to stem the tide of chemical poisonings in the U.S.

In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires the agency’s pesticide registration process to include consultations with federal wildlife agencies, including NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service. In this case, the pesticides in question are chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon, three highly toxic chemicals used as nerve agents during WW2 and registered as pesticides since the 1960s. EPA’s failure to consult with these agencies is a chronic problem in the pesticide registration and review process, leaving critical gaps in the protection of endangered species, and costing taxpayers significant sums when a lawsuit is the only option to force agency compliance with the law. CBD’s lawsuit resulted in an agreement that EPA would complete its assessment by the end of 2017.

Under Section 7 of ESA, any agency action must find that it “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat.” Earlier this year, EPA released its first biological evaluation analyzing “nation-wide effects” of the three chemicals, as required by the settlement agreement, finding that chlorpyrifos and malathion are likely to have a detrimental effect on 97% of endangered species, with diazinon likely to adversely affect 78%.

After EPA’s evaluation, NMFS is required to analyze EPA’s data and come up with actions that would limit the effect of these chemicals on endangered species habitat. Earlier this year, Dow Chemical asked the Trump Administration to: (i) ignore EPA’s evaluation; (ii) set aside the development of any NMFS actions that would address concerns in the evaluation; and (iii) file a court motion requesting a delay of NMFS 2017 deadline.

Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to ignore the agency’s own science in its decision to permit the continued use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture. There is no indication whether NMFS continued to work on any actions related to EPA’s biological evaluation (as outlined in request (ii)), but the Trump Administration is now fulfilling its third request from Dow by filing a motion to delay NMFS 2017 deadline. If the court agrees with the Trump Administration and grants a delay, it will be another two years before the roughly 1,800 endangered species throughout the U.S. are protected from these toxic chemicals.

It should be noted that Dow Chemical contributed $1 million dollars to President Trump’s inauguration day festivities, and the company’s CEO held a  closed door meeting with EPA Administrator Pruitt only 20 days before the agency’s decision to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos.

Fight back against industry influence in our governmental decisions by urging your Senator to co-sponsor a bill to ban chlorpyrifos. The “Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act,” S. 1624, will prohibit all chlorpyrifos use in agriculture, and direct EPA to partner with the National Research Council to assess the neurodevelopmental and other low-dose effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides to agricultural workers and children. Introduced by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), current co-sponsors include Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Request that  your Senator co-sponsor this legislation by taking action today.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2017) With a petition signed by over one million people, farming, consumer, and environmental groups called on the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) this week to block the proposed merger of Bayer (BAYN) and Monsanto (MON). The signatures were delivered as two new reports reveal devastating impacts that will be caused by the merger on consumers and farmers, including higher food prices, less innovation, limited seed choices, and escalating dependency of toxic chemical inputs in food production.

 On Tuesday November 14, 2017, Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs and the Open Markets Institute released an analysis, “Bayer-Monsanto Merger: Big Data, Big Agriculture, Big Problems,” which  explores the implications of a combined biotechnology, chemical, and seed platform owned by Bayer and Monsanto and how it may impact competition and farmer choice. The release of the analysis coincided with a hearing on technology in agriculture and data-driven farming in the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation.

Consumer Federation of America also released a report, “Mega-Mergers in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Sector the Political Economy of Tight Oligopolies on Steroids and the Squeeze on Farmers and Consumers.” The report uses the concept of a “tight oligopoly on steroids” to examine how the unique characteristics of the Bayer-Monsanto merger magnify their market power in the seed/agrochemical sector and squeeze farmers and consumers.

In late 2016, Monsanto and Bayer announced a $66 billion merger. The Department of Justice is in the midst of reviewing it, and a decision is expected in late 2017. Should Bayer and Monsanto merge, the entity will become:
•    The world’s largest vegetable seed company, with a virtual lock on broccoli, carrots, and onions.
•    The world’s largest cotton seed company, responsible for the seed for about 70% of all the cotton grown in the US.
•    Along with another company (Dow-DuPont), control 77% of all the seed corn in the U.S.
•    The world’s largest manufacturer and seller of herbicides.
•    The world’s largest owner of the intellectual property/patents for herbicide tolerance seed traits: 69% of all herbicide tolerance traits approved for use in the U.S. for alfalfa, canola, cotton, corn, soybean, and wheat.

Farmers can expect increased seed prices, reduced availability of untreated, non-genetically engineered (GE) seed, greater reliance on pesticides and exposures to farmworkers and the environment. Increased cost of farming will be passed on to consumers, and organic foods will face additional difficulties as the market dominance of GE crops is consolidated and deepened. There are fears that a farming system dominated by GE seeds and pesticide-intensive production will lead to increased contamination of the environment due to pesticide and genetic drift, water contamination, and impacts to non-target organisms.

“Bayer and Monsanto’s toxic mega-merger is a danger to our planet and everyone living on it,” said Erich Pica, president with Friends of the Earth. “Over on million Americans have called on the Department of Justice to protect our farmers and families from the consolidation of corporate power. Bayer and Monsanto’s merger is a direct threat to the future of people and our environment. The Justice Department must put on the breaks and stop this merger.”

State attorneys general (AGs) have already joined together to investigate federal antitrust concerns related to the mergers of the agrichemical giants. These states are concerned that, following as merger, the entities may increase the cost of farm inputs and have less incentive to compete to introduce better and cheaper products. The involvement of the state AGs will increase scrutiny of these mega deals, as they were previously only being reviewed at the federal level by antitrust experts at the Department of Justice. While it will ultimately be up to DOJ to decide to challenge either of the mergers, the state AG offices will be crucial in providing information on how the mergers fall under their jurisdiction. This method of investigation has worked to stop mergers in the past, when DOJ, with help from the states, sued to stop two controversial health insurance provider deals in Aetna Inc’s plan to buy Humana Inc. and Anthem Inc.’s bid for Cigna Corp. In that case,  11 states and the District of Columbia joined the federal government in the Anthem lawsuit, while eight states and Washington, DC, joined the Aetna lawsuit.

Petitions were collected by Action Aid, Avaaz, Center for Food Safety, Clif Bar Family Foundation/Seed Matters, CREDO, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Organic Consumers Association, Organic Seed Alliance, Pesticide Action Network North America, Rural Advancement Foundation International, Sierra Club and SumOfUS. Beyond Pesticides, through its Action of  the Week, generated thousands of comments to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in opposition to the merger.

Take Action: Tell the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to stop the Bayer-Monsanto merger, which would have severe repercussions for farmers and consumers.

You can also reach out to your U.S.  Senators and  Representative to ask them to oppose the approval of a merger that consolidates seed availability. Encourage them to support the increased availability of organic seeds, which do not adversely affect soil, water or human health. Additionally, reach out to your state AG office  and encourage them to join the merger investigations to ensure that the DOJ takes action to block the mergers.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2017) Songbirds exposed to widely used insecticides fail to properly orient themselves for migration, according to a study published by Canadian scientists in Scientific Reports. With the organophosphate chlorpyrifos and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid applied to millions of acres of farmland throughout North America, this new research adds weight to arguments that pesticides are a likely cause in the decline of migratory bird populations. “Studies on the risks of neonicotinoids have often focused on bees that have been experiencing population declines. However, it is not just bees that are being affected by these insecticides,” said Christy Morrissey, PhD, biology professor at the University of Saskatchewan.

Researchers captured 57 white crowned sparrows in northern Canada, and held them in an outdoor pen for roughly two weeks, during which time all the birds either gained or maintained their weight. The songbirds were then split into three groups, one exposed to imidacloprid, another to chlorpyrifos, and the last untreated and acting as a control. The imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos exposed groups were each further separated by exposing a portion to the insecticide at 10% of the lethal dose that would kill 50% of a given population (LD50), and another to 25% of the LD50. According to the study, at those rates, the 10% dose was like the sparrows eating four treated canola seeds or less than a tenth of a corn seed, while the 25% dose was like the birds eating nine treated canola seeds or two tenths of a treated corn seed. Both insecticides are commonly used to treat the outside of crop seeds before planting. Over 90% of corn and canola seeds are likely to have neonicotinoids dusted onto them, despite strong evidence that it does nothing to improve yields.

Given that the exposure scenarios are similar to what these songbirds would come in contact with during the normal migration season, bird lovers are likely to find the study’s results deeply disturbing. Sparrows in the 10% imidacloprid group lost nearly a fifth of their weight within three days, while those in the 25% group lost over a quarter. Weight returned to normal within two weeks after dosing, but during that time, two birds had to be euthanized due to breathing problems, two birds were found dead, and seven developed excessive salivation and foaming at the mouth. In both the 10% and 25% chlorpyrifos-treated groups, weight decreased slightly, though there was no mortality or outward signs of acute poisoning.

Both insecticides, however, had significant effects on migration. Before insecticide exposure, all groups were able to successfully orient northward. Although, after imidacloprid treatments, both the 10% and 25% groups were unable to orient themselves, or when orienting were 75° off of north. While the imidacloprid treatment group was able to recover orientation abilities after two weeks, the chlorpyrifos exposed group did not orient after exposure and did not recover their orientation at all after two weeks.

A study published in 2013 in PLOS ONE by another group of Canadian scientists found that pesticide exposure ranked above even habitat loss when investigating the cause of songbird declines in the U.S. Coauthor of the study, Margaret End, PhD, noted that, “The effects we saw were severe enough that the birds would likely experience migratory delays or changes in their flight routes that could reduce their chance of survival, or cause a missed breeding opportunity.”

In 1962, Rachael Carson challenged society to envision a world without birdsong, “a spring without voices.” With reports of rapid, global population declines in song birds, pollinators, and the entire insect community, many concerned residents in the U.S. wonder whether we have truly made progress after public backlash removed DDT and certain other organochlorine insecticides from the market. With the range of adverse effects seen from exposure to these newer chemistries, neonicotinoids and organophosphates, the question does warrant consideration.

Consideration, but not despair. Rather than support the whack-a-mole approach that powerful chemical companies continue to foist on the public, where one chemical is replaced with another only after years of research finds it should not have been approved in the first place, consumers have the opportunity to support a different kind of agriculture. When making your decision at the grocery store, your food dollars decide whether to support a production system that relies upon incessant chemical use that causes yet still untold harm the natural world. Whenever possible, purchase organic, which never allows toxic synthetic insecticides to be used, because a silent spring is still a strong possibility.

Source: University of Saskatchewan Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2017) The European Commission has again been unable to come to a consensus over renewing approval for Monsanto’s popular herbicide,  glyphosate.  Member states voted last week, but failed to approve, continued use even after months of deliberation over the controversial herbicide. Glyphosate (Roundup) is also up for review in the U.S., but many expect the herbicide to be reregistered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), despite health concerns.

The proposal to renew the European Union (EU) license for glyphosate for another five years failed to a reach a qualified majority, meaning a decision has again been postponed, according to reports. The current license is due to expire on December 15, 2017, but there is an 18-month grace period. Fourteen countries voted in favor of the renewal, nine against, while five, including Germany, abstained from voting. According to reports, a qualified majority requires that 55 percent of EU countries vote in favor and that the proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 percent of the total EU population. France, which voted against the proposal, said it would only support a renewal for three-year phase-out. The proposal could now be referred to an appeals committee, or alternatively, the Commission could draw up a new proposal for another vote.

Monsanto has been embroiled in controversy after its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research that has found its product to be harmful to humans. In 2015 the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” That conflicted with findings from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency, which said the substance was not likely to cause cancer in humans. But, it was later revealed that EFSA copied dozens of pages from a Monsanto study in reaching its conclusion that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” EFSA’s recommendation is supposed to provide an independent analysis for EU member states. In a similar case documenting Monsanto’s influence, the New York Times reported on Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and U.S. federal regulators that suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research on glyphosate (Roundup), which was later attributed to academics. Just last month, the European Parliament banned Monsanto lobbyists from committee meetings and digital resources, as well as no longer permitting Monsanto lobbyists to meet with any Member of the European Parliament. This was an attempt to limit Monsanto’s influence on the EU review process amid mounting public pressure against the relicensing of glyphosate.

Last month, the European Parliament voted to ban glyphosate by 2022 amid concerns that it causes cancer. The vote was not binding, but it increased the pressure on the European Commission, which had previously recommended renewing the herbicide’s license for 10 years. It then reduced its recommendation to five years, which failed to reach a majority last week. In 2016, 48 members of the EU Parliament from 13 different countries had their urine tested for traces of the herbicide and every test turned up positive. The average concentration was 17 times higher than the European drinking water norm.

Earlier this year, California declared glyphosate a carcinogen under the state’s Proposition 65 law, following the IARC classification of glyphosate. Glyphosate has historically been touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by EPA and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a “probable” carcinogen indicates that glyphosate is anything but safe. According to IARC, being a “probable carcinogen” means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In its report, the agency did note that glyphosate has been linked DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

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 the 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 the judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continues to mount, environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical and other toxic synthetic pesticides.

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

Source: Deutsche Welle;  BBC News

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2017) Proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger is bad for farmers, bad for consumers. Tell the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to Block This Dangerous Merger!

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2017) On the heels of Beyond Pesticides’ campaign to ban the herbicide dicamba –with thousands of people urging the state to act in the of massive crop damage, the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB) voted earlier this week to prohibit the use of the weedkiller in agriculture during the next growing season. If officially approved by a subcommittee of the state legislature, the new regulations will make dicamba applications between April 16 and October 31, 2018, illegal for Arkansas farmers. The move by the State Plant Board is a huge blow to multinational agrichemical companies Monsanto and BASF, both of which have developed genetically engineered (GE) soybean crops tolerant of dicamba herbicides.

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.

According to ASPB, during the public comment period over 29,000 individuals provided input, with the overwhelming majority in strong support of the state’s plan to restrict the herbicide. Perhaps in anticipation of the action, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against ASPB for the temporary ban it passed on dicamba herbicides during this current growing season. Like with the recent determination by the state of California that Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide is carcinogenic, the agrichemical giant appears more than willing to use the courts in attempts to bully states into accepting its toxic products. Advocates hope that the corporation’s lawsuit against ASPB will turn out the way it did in California –a failure.

“It is true that the plant board has looked at exhaustive research. They have taken an exhaustive and thorough look at opinions, and where they are at today is a continued use of restrictions for dicamba in Arkansas,” spokesperson for ASPB Adriane Barnes told Arkansas Public Media.

Organic and conventional non-GE farmers, as well as consumer health and safety groups, are applauding ASPB for moving forward with restrictions, and hope that the action will encourage other states to follow Arkansas’ lead. Over 3.6 million acres of crops in the U.S. were damaged by dicamba exposure this year, according to Reuters, and the crisis stretched beyond Arkansas into neighboring states of Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Earlier this year, Missouri announced a temporary “Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order” on all dicamba products in the state labeled for agricultural use.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced new regulations that would make dicamba formulations applied to GE crops “restricted use,” and only allowed to be applied by state certified applicators, the measure has been widely viewed as insufficient to address the scale of the problem. And evidence is mounting that, despite claims by Monsanto that its older dicamba formulations or improper applications is causing the crisis, Monsanto’s proprietary dicamba and glyphosate formulation, Xtend, does volatilize enough to cause drift damage.

While chemical companies like Monsanto tout their new line of GE products as the solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds, the fact remains that GE agriculture, by developing crops specifically engineered to tolerate repeated sprayings of glyphosate, brought about resistant weeds in the first place. The good news is that more and more farmers are looking to alternative cropping systems to control resistant weeds and improve yields and revenue. Over past couple decades, organic agriculture has grown significantly. Support the future of farming by buying organic products whenever possible. And see Beyond Pesticides Organic program page on why organic is the right choice.

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

Source: Reuters, Arkansas Public Media

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2017) Vietnam veterans suffering from certain Agent Orange-related health conditions will continue to wait for compensation. U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Secretary David Shulkin announced last week he intends to delay a decision to expand coverage to new illnesses. Despite a robust review by the National Academy of Medicine, which recommended expanding disability compensation for bladder cancer, hyopothyroidism, high blood pressure, and Parkinson’s-like tremors due to past exposure to the toxic herbicide cocktail, the VA decided to take no action.

“After thoroughly reviewing the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)’s latest report regarding Veterans and Agent Orange, and associated data and recommendations from the NAM Task Force, I have made a decision to further explore new presumptive conditions for service connection that may ultimately qualify for disability compensation,”  Secretary Shulkin said in a press release last week.  “I appreciate NAM’s work and the commitment and expertise of VA’s NAM Task Force, and look forward to working with the Administration on the next steps in the process.”

Given a promise from VA Secretary Shulkin to provide a decision on the new ailments by November 1^st, Veterans groups are crying foul, and placing blame on the Trump administration, particularly the Office of Management and Budget, which approves new federal expenditures. “If you can afford the goddamn war, you can afford to take care of the warriors,” Rick Weidman, legislative director of Vietnam Veterans for America said to ProPublica.

Under the Agent Orange Act of 1991, NAM was tasked with publishing biennial reports evaluating current scientific evidence linking Agent Orange of adverse health conditions in veterans. These reports are conducted for 10 years after the release of the first report, and the recent NAM update represented the final assessment. Although released in March of last year, because Congress allowed the law to expire, it eliminated a 60-day deadline for the VA to act on new information raised in the NAM report.

Although the VA will currently cover health care related to 14 conditions, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer, ischemic heart disease, type two diabetes and others, the veterans suffering from hypothyroidism, high blood pressure, tremors without a Parkinson’s diagnosis, and bladder cancer have been denied the ability to receive compensation. An exposé by ProPublica revealed the difficulties veterans have experienced in attempting to receive coverage for bladder cancer diagnoses, despite confirmations from multiple doctors.

Veterans groups hope that Secretary Shulkin will provide a final decision as soon as possible. If ultimately approved, the silver lining in a decision on new covered illnesses is that all expenses associated with the disease will be covered retroactively for veterans that qualify.

Agent Orange was given its name because it was stored in orange striped drums and contained the active ingredients 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. This formulation was contaminated with the highly toxic 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (also called TCDD or simply dioxin) and is now banned. However, 2,4-D is still one of the most widely used herbicides on lawns, school grounds and parks today. It has been linked to cancer, liver damage and endocrine disruption in humans in addition to being toxic to wildlife, pets and beneficial insects. Moreover, previous research from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did detect dioxin contamination in a number of 2,4-D herbicide products produced for consumer sale.

For more information about the legacy of Agent Orange, see previous Daily News stories on the issue, or view Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. Help veterans in your community by supporting veteran owned businesses and nonprofit organizations. Veterans looking to go into the organic industry after their service can explore Rodale Institute’s Veteran farmer training program.

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

Source: VA Press Release, ProPublica

(Beyond Pesticides, November, 8, 2017) Farmers who purchased and handled Monsanto’s new treated seed product, NemaStrike, for nematode or roundworm control (nematicide) have been reporting skin irritation, including rashes that occurred after use. Now the seed giant is pausing a full rollout of the product, while blaming farmers for not using gloves and other protective equipment to handle the treated seeds. This is another blunder from Monsanto and the latest incident highlighting the deficiencies in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration process in light of the millions of acres of crop damage from Monsanto products green-lighted by EPA.

While touting that NemaStrike went through three years of extensive field trials and “extensive evaluations” by EPA, Monsanto stated in a bulletin to its customers on its website that it will pause commercialization of the product in light of reports of skin irritation from users. These adverse reactions to the product are being blamed on the failure of users to wear gloves and other protective equipment when handling the treated seeds. This is not the first time that Monsanto has tried to shift responsibility for the toxic effect of its products to users. Last year, Monsanto blamed farmers for drift problems and millions of acres of crop damage caused by its new dicamba product.

NemaStrike is a seed treatment designed to provide broad-spectrum nematode control for corn, soybeans, and cotton. Monsanto said it conducted three years of field trials across the U.S. EPA announced approval of the nematicide, also known as tioxazafen, in May 2017. In its assessment, EPA states that, “Tioxazafen has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is a mild eye irritant, nonirritating to the skin, and is not a dermal sensitizer.” But the incidents of skin irritation clearly challenges the validity of EPA’s conclusions and underscores the deficiencies of EPA’s risk assessment process. Further, EPA classifies tioxazafen as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” and observed evidence of neurotoxicity (decreased locomotor activity) in acute neurotoxicity studies raising questions as to why such a toxic product was approved for use in the first place.

This is not the first time EPA’s pesticide registration and approval process have come under scrutiny. EPA is repeatedly approving expanded uses of herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D (Enlist Duo) that have a history of pesticide drift and plant damage in order to help stem the proliferation of glyphosate (Roundup)-resistant weeds. Despite the dangers associated with their use, and warnings from farmers, advocacy groups, and scientists, EPA continues to sanction the increased uses of more highly toxic and volatile pesticide mixtures. More than 1,400 official complaints of crop damage related to dicamba have been recorded across 17 states this year, leading to questions about the new formulation of the chemical used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. New GE crops developed by Monsanto must be paired with specific formulations of dicamba, thus leading to a vast increase in dicamba use over the last growing season. EPA also “rigorously” reviewed the new dicamba formulations and despite evidence of the high volatility of the chemical and its propensity to drift and damage crops, approved expanded uses of the new formulation. Now Monsanto and others are making label changes to address the rampant drift issues associated with the use of their products – changes criticized for actually  preventing drift. However, this could have been avoided if EPA took a more precautionary and proactive approach to dealing with pesticide drift issues. Now it is left to states to try to protect farmers from dicamba drift. Already, Arkansas and Missouri have issued bans on the sale and use of dicamba.

In 2014, EPA took action against DuPont over the use of its conditionally approved product, Imprelis, which was responsible for the death of millions of trees. EPA contended that DuPont failed to submit in a timely manner field trial studies indicating potential ecological adverse effects from the use of Imprelis. However, many criticized EPA for approving the product without first obtaining all the relevant ecological information, an occurrence that is all too common in registration approvals. That is, EPA routinely approves the sale and use of pesticide products that have not been fully evaluated for all potential human and ecological risks, including impacts to non-target organisms like pollinators.

A large shift in agricultural practices is necessary to ensure the protection of human health and the environment over the long-term. Beyond Pesticides has long supported organic land management as a systems approach that values healthy, biologically active soils to support plant life and provide critical environmental benefits. It is through this soil based systems approach that we will eliminate toxic chemicals in land management, which have been identified as a driver in soil contamination and loss of microbial and faunal diversity.

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 and insects. Beyond Pesticides is working to strengthen organic farming systems by encouraging biodiversity and holistic management practices, and upholding the spirit and values on which the organic law was founded. Underpinning the success of organic in the U.S. are small-scale producers who focus on fostering biodiversity, limiting external inputs, improving soil health, sequestering carbon, and using integrated holistic approaches to managing pests, weeds, and disease.

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

Source: Reuters,  EcoWatch

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2017) At the end of a contentious meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) that resulted in a de facto approval of hydroponics in organic production, retiring board member Francis Thicke, Ph.D., in one of the farmer positions, highlighted ways that big ag has perverted the mission of organic, as originally conceived by organic practitioners, consumers, and environmentalists. Dr. Thicke mentioned “organic” CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) dairies with 15,000 cows in a desert feedlot, “organic” chicken CAFOs without outdoor access, fraud in “organic” grain shipments, and, now, “organic” hydroponics. His frustrations mirror those of hundreds who protested against “organic” hydroponics at the Jacksonville, Florida meeting and in written comments.

Beyond Pesticides continues to believe that organic is the solution to pesticide poisoning and contamination and works to ensure the integrity of USDA organic label, while seeking to strengthen it through the public NOSB process and legislative initiatives. At the same time, we share Dr. Thicke’s frustrations with the influence of big business and continue to promote consumer actions, litigation, and organizing strategies to thwart the takeover of organic by big ag.

We have important work to do to ensure organic integrity. We all play a role in making our voice heard. To that end, Beyond Pesticides maintains a webpage called Keeping Organic Strong, where you can learn about the critical issues before the NOSB and how to participate in protecting and strengthening organic standards.

Closing comments of Francis Thicke at end of NOSB term
November 2, 2017

There are two important things that I have learned during my five years on the NOSB. First, I learned that the NOSB review process for materials petitioned for inclusion on the National List is quite rigorous, with Technical Reviews of petitioned materials and careful scrutiny by both NOSB subcommittees and the full board.

The second thing I learned, over time, is that industry has an outsized and growing influence on USDA—and on the NOSB (including through NOSB appointments)—compared to the influence of organic farmers, who started this organic farming movement. Perhaps that is not surprising, given the growing value of organic sales. As organic is becoming a $50 billion business, the industry not only wants a bigger piece of the pie, they seem to want the whole pie.

We now have “organic” chicken CAFOs with 200,000 birds crammed into a building with no real access to the outdoors, and a chicken industry working behind the scenes to make sure that the animal welfare standards—weak as they were—never see the light of day, just like their chickens. The image consumers have of organic chickens ranging outside has been relegated to pictures on egg cartoons.

We have “organic” dairy CAFOs with 15,000 cows in a feedlot in a desert, with compelling evidence by an investigative reporter that the CAFO is not meeting the grazing rule—by a long shot. But when USDA does its obligatory “investigation,” instead of a surprise visit to the facility, USDA gives them a heads up by making an appointment, so the CAFO can move cows from feedlots to pasture on the day of inspection. This gives a green light to that dairy CAFO owner to move forward with its plans to establish a 30,000-cow facility in the Midwest.

We have large grain shipments coming into the US that are being sold as organic but that lack organic documentation. Some shipments have been proven to be fraudulent. The USDA has been slow to take action to stop this, and organic crop farmers in the US are suffering financially as a result. I spoke with the reporter who broke the story on fraudulent “organic” grain imports. I asked him how he was able to document the fraud of grain shipments when USDA said it was very difficult to do so. He replied “it was easy.”

We have a rapidly growing percentage of the organic fruits and vegetables on grocery store shelves being produced hydroponically, without soil, and mostly in huge industrial-scale facilities. And we have a hydroponics industry that has deceptively renamed “hydroponic” production—even with 100% liquid feeding—as “container” production. With their clever deception they have been able to bamboozle even the majority of NOSB members into complicity with their goal of taking over the organic fruit and vegetable market with their hydroponic products.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to find that big business is taking over the USDA organic program because the influence of money is corroding all levels of our government. At this point, I can see only one way to bring the organic label back in line with the original vision of organic farmers and consumers. We need an add-on organic label for organic farmers who are willing to meet the expectations of discerning consumers who are demanding real organic food.

A year ago I wouldn’t have supported the idea of an add-on organic label because I, like many others, had seen the USDA organic label as the gold standard, and had hoped that through our vision of the process of continuous improvement we could really make it into that gold standard. Now I can see that the influence of big business is not going to let that happen. The USDA is increasingly exerting control over the NOSB, and big business is tightening its grip on the USDA and Congress. Recently industry representatives have publicly called on the US Senate to weaken the NOSB and give industry a stronger role in the National Organic Program. And sympathetic Senators promised to do just that.

I now support the establishment of an add-on organic label that will enable real organic farmers and discerning organic consumers to support one another through a label that represents real organic food. I support the creation of a label, such as the proposed Regenerative Organic Certification, that will ensure organic integrity; for example, that animals have real access to the outdoors to be able to express their natural behaviors, and that food is grown in soil. My hopes are that this add-on certification can be seamlessly integrated with the NOP certification, so that a single farm organic system plan and inspection can serve to verify both NOP and the higher level organic certification, by certifiers that are accredited by both certification systems.

I also am pleased that organic farmers have recently organized themselves into the Organic Farmers Association (OFA), to better represent themselves in the arena of public policy. Too often in the past the interests of big business have overruled the interests of organic farmers—and consumers—when organic policies are being established in Washington. I hope this will allow organic farmers to gain equal footing with industry on issues that affect the organic community.

In summary, organic is at a crossroads. Either we can continue to allow industry interests to bend and dilute the organic rules to their benefit, or organic farmers—working with organic consumers–can step up and take action to ensure organic integrity into the future.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2017) The next Farm Bill will be up for negotiation soon. Bi-partisan legislation to address two issues that are important for organic agriculture –increasing funding for organic research and strengthening enforcement of the organic standards:

1. The Organic Agriculture Research Act (H.R. 2436) will provide $50 million in funding annually for the USDA’s flagship organic research program, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI).
2.  The Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act of 2017 will improve oversight of organic imports.

This action will allow you to send messages to your U.S. Representative requesting that they co-sponsor the bills or thanking the member if she/he is already a co-sponsor.

Ask your U.S. Representative to support organic in the next Farm Bill by co-sponsoring these two bills. If your Representative is already a co-sponsor, send a thank you.

Organic is one of the fastest growing sectors in U.S. agriculture. The bi-partisan Organic Agriculture Research Act (H.R. 2436) introduced by U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) will help more farmers transition to organic production in response to growing demand in the marketplace. Organic research helps farmers become more productive, efficient, and profitable and leads to the development of new agricultural practices that can be used by conventional and organic farmers alike. Unfortunately, over the past five years, while overall funding for agricultural research has grown significantly, funding for organic research has stagnated. This bill would go a long way toward closing that gap. The Organic Agriculture Research Act has 39 co-sponsors, and the list is growing.

Another bill, the Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 3871), introduced by Representative John Faso (R-NY) is needed to strengthen oversight of the $47 billion organic industry. Strengthening enforcement of the organic standards, especially for imported organic products, is critical to safeguard the integrity of the organic label and to ensure consumer trust. A recent Washington Post investigation and USDA’s own investigations have shown that some imported organic products have been fraudulently labeled. A report from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) revealed areas that need to be improved in the oversight of international organic trade and the enforcement of organic standards for imported organic products. Organic farms and operations that comply with the stringent organic standards are undercut when they are forced to compete with fraudulent products in the marketplace. The Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act has 20 co-sponsors, and the list is growing.

Ask your U.S. Representative to support organic in the next Farm Bill by co-sponsoring these two bills. If your representative is already a co-sponsor, send a thank you

(Beyond Pesticides, November 3, 2017) Eating foods high in pesticide residue is associated with a lower probability of live births and a higher probability of pregnancy loss for women using in vitro fertilization and other techniques in attempts to become pregnant, according to new research published by Harvard University doctors in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Internal Medicine in late October. While eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables remains part of a healthy lifestyle, this new research, the first to evaluate the relationship between dietary pesticide exposure and reproductive success in women, raises serious concerns.

“I was always skeptical that pesticide residues in foods would have any impact on health whatsoever,” says Jorge Chavarro, MD, co-author of the research and professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health to TIME. “So when we started doing this work a couple of years ago, I thought we were not going to find anything. I was surprised to see anything as far as health outcomes are concerned.”

Scientists began with a group of 325 women enrolled in an ongoing research project, called the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study at a fertility research and teaching hospital. Each woman enrolled in the project filled out an extensive questionnaire on their reproductive history and lifestyle habits. Data were also recorded on each participant’s height, weight, and body mass index.

For the current study, researchers collected additional information on each woman’s typical diet, including how often they consumed certain foods, beverages, and supplements over the past year. To measure the impact of pesticide residues in these foods on reproductive success, scientists used the Pesticide Residue Burden Score (PRBS). Using information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program, which tracks pesticide residue on foods sold in the U.S., fruits and vegetables were categorized into distinct PRBS categories, ranging from one -being the least contaminated, to six -being the most contaminated. (See Table 1 in the study, or to the right for the PRBS of each fruit and vegetable.)

Results show, after adjusting for a range of confounders, that women who eat more conventional fruits and vegetables (more than 2.3 servings per day) with a score of 4 or above on the PRBS had a 18% lower probability of clinical pregnancy and a 26% lower chance of live birth. However, participants in the study who report eating the lowest number of high pesticide residue fruits and vegetables (one or less servings per day) do not have any statistical association concerning successful birth outcomes. Researchers found that as consumption of high PRBS foods increases, the chance of total pregnancy loss increases in lock-step.

Scientists found that replacing just one high pesticide residue fruit or vegetable with low PRBS produce each day improves the odds of clinical pregnancy by 79%, and the odds of live birth by 88%.

While the results are currently only associations and causality has not yet been proven, they are nonetheless dramatic. The outcomes of the study align with what is typically seen in rodent studies on birth outcomes, highlighting both the difficulty and crudeness of the current reliance on translating animal models to human exposure in the federal pesticide registration process. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when accounting for interspecies differences in exposure levels between animal and human models, usually applies a simple 5X or 10X safety factor, which has the effect of decreasing allowed application rates by roughly a power of 10. Although many may suspect this translation process is more sophisticated, studies like these highlight that the current methodology for evaluating the toxicity of a pesticide is crude.

While inadequate testing of pesticides by EPA continues to lead to contaminated fruits and vegetables, there are still ways to make sure you’re not consuming toxic produce. Take a tiered approach based on your current lifestyle and resources. Try to buy only organic certified produce, which does not permit toxic pesticides to be applied to fruits and vegetables. If possible, grow your own! That way, you can be sure about what was applied to your food. If you simply can not make the economics work, you could consider focusing on replacing with organic the foods that you eat most and high pesticide residue produce, but keep in mind the true cost. Organic produce is slightly higher because it does not significantly harm health or the environment, while conventional production passes those costs along to the consumer through higher health care bills, or the need for taxpayer-funded environmental remediation projects.

The researchers of the study are rethinking their food choices. “I am now more willing to buy organic apples than I was a few months ago,” said Dr Chavarro to TIME. For more information on why organic is the right choice for you and your family, see Beyond Pesticides article, The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food.

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

Source: TIME, JAMA Internal Medicine