(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2016) Unable to come to a formal decision on glyphosate, the European Commission has issued a limited license extension for  glyphosate,  the pesticide in Monsanto’s flagship product Roundup. The decision also comes with some restrictions, including obligations for member states to minimize use on playgrounds, and a ban on formulations with the ingredient POEA. The  18-month interim license will allow glyphosate-containing products to remain on the market until the European Chemicals Agency rules  on glyphosate’s safety, an action  due by the end of 2017.

According to the European Commission, “Despite repeated efforts from the Commission to address concerns expressed about the re-approval of glyphosate, Member States were not prepared to take responsibility for a decision  as no qualified majority was reached”¦” Debate has been raging in Europe about the continued use of glyphosate in light of the 2015 classification by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” However, confusion peaked when a few short months later the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its report finding that glyphosate is  “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” However, EFSA’s report is  limited in that it reviewed glyphosate alone, unlike IARC which reviewed glyphosate and its formulated products (Roundup) which are more relevant for evaluating risks to human health.

Now the Commission waits on another agency, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to conduct and complete another assessment of glyphosate, due in 2017. In the meantime, the Commission did offer some restrictions to the European use of glyphosate. These include a ban of the co-formulant polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA from glyphosate-based products, obligations to reinforce scrutiny of pre-harvest uses of glyphosate, as well as to minimize use in specific areas like public parks and playgrounds. POEA, commonly used in glyphosate products and listed as an “inert” ingredient, has been shown to be even more toxic than glyphosate itself, and responsible for the elevated toxicity of glyphosate products.

Earlier this year, a European poll reported that the majority of people across the EU’s five biggest countries, including  three-quarters of Italians, 70% of Germans, 60% of French and 56% of Britons, support a ban on glyphosate. The herbicide is the  most widely used chemical in the world, according to reports, and as a result is being detected in food and  human bodies. Tests have detected  glyphosate residues in German beer, at levels higher than allowed in drinking water. Last year,  glyphosate residues were found in  bread  being sold in the UK. The  results of the  bread study  also shows that glyphosate use in the UK increased by 400% in the last 20 years and is one of the three pesticides regularly found in routine testing of British bread -appearing in up to 30% of samples tested by the UK government. A pilot study conducted by the group Moms Across America in 2014  found that glyphosate  may also bioaccumulate in the human body, as revealed by high levels of the chemical in the breast milk of mothers tested.

Glyphosate, created by Monsanto, is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by industry. But glyphosate has been shown to have  detrimental impacts  on humans and the environment. Given its widespread use on residential and agricultural sites, its toxicity is of increasing concern. In addition to IARC’s findings, previous studies  have linked the toxicant to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma. It is also an endocrine disruptor, causes reproductive effects, kidney and liver damage, and is toxic to aquatic organisms, according to studies.  In September 2015, a study published in  Environmental Health News  found that  chronic, low-dose exposure to glyphosate  led to adverse effects on liver and kidney health. Roundup formulations can also induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a key role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. Human cell endocrine disruption on the androgen receptor, inhibition of transcriptional activities on estrogen receptors on HepG2, DNA damage and cytotoxic effects occurring at concentrations well below “acceptable” residues have all been observed.

In the U.S., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated it will release its preliminary risk assessment of glyphosate for public comment later this year. However, the agency found itself embroiled in some controversy after pulling its cancer risk assessment for glyphosate, which was noted as concluding that the chemical is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.  After  pulling the report, the agency stated that the document was not final.

EPA also indicated that federal testing will  begin for glyphosate residues in food. However, although a positive step, this move is largely seen as political —a response to growing public pressure and not focused on evaluating health concerns. A  scientific review,   released in February 2016 by a group of 14  scientists, expressed concern about the widespread use of glyphosate-based herbicides, the lack of understanding regarding human exposure, and the potential health impacts. According to the report, U.S. agencies, such as the National Toxicology Program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and EPA, have not adequately kept up with cutting-edge research. The researchers call for the global science and regulatory community to step back and take a fresh look at glyphosate due to widespread exposure patterns.

Beyond Pesticides urges individuals concerned about glyphosate exposure to support organic systems that do not rely on hazardous carcinogenic pesticides. In agriculture, concerned consumers can  buy food with the certified organic label, which not only disallows synthetic pesticides like glyphosate, but also the use of sewage sludge and genetically engineered ingredients. Beyond Pesticides also urges the adoption of organic lawn and landscape programs.

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

Source: European Commission Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2016) Last week, Malibu City Councilmembers, in a unanimous decision (5-0), voted to make Malibu, California’s (CA) public spaces poison free, which means an immediate ban on all pesticides, rodenticides and herbicides. During a marathon meeting that ran into the early hours past midnight, more than 24 Malibu residents and stakeholders came to give public comments on pesticide use on public parks and city property. You can view the city council meeting here. The entire discussion and vote is included, starting at 3:29:37 (or section 6.A.).

Many of the residents were with an community  group called Poison Free Malibu, which is a group that advocates for the elimination of toxic pesticide use in the area. According to the Malibu Times, Kian Schulman, RN, founder of Poison Free Malibu, gave a presentation on the effects of pesticide chemicals and their connection to diseases such as cancer and neurological issues like ADHD and Alzheimer’s. Ms. Schulman’s presentation included a picture of a city worker spraying pesticides on Legacy Park, while wearing a full hazmat suit as a child rode their bicycle close by. Several Poison Free Malibu supporters attended the meeting and gave a presentation on the adverse effect of the chemicals and the failures of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public.

The Malibu Monarch Project, a group dedicated to bringing the monarch butterfly population back to Malibu, also showed support for the pesticide removal. “Malibu should be the leader of environmental protection,” said Anya Jessup of the Malibu Monarch Project. Other non-affiliated residents expressed a desire for Malibu to lead the charge on environmental issues. “We say we’re environmentally conscious. Now we need to start acting like we’re environmentally conscious,” said local activist Jennifer deNicola, “Malibu needs to be this beacon of what cities can be.”

According to the Malibu Times, council members had met with Poison Free Malibu prior to the meeting, receiving additional information about the issues. All five members of the council showed support in their comments and provided potential additions on top of the suggested actions. “The City of Portland has a 60-page document of all the things they’ve looked at and tried. We ought to be doing that,” said Council Member John Sibert. He also cited the Environmental Sustainability Committee that was created in Malibu a year ago to specifically look at environmental sustainability policy.

Because of the state’s regressive pesticide preemption law, the city is barred from passing legislation that halts the use of pesticides on private property. However, Malibu joins dozens of communities across the country that have not let the issue of state preemption get in the way of passing policies that are still protective of human health and the environment, even if they are unable to restrict pesticide use on privately owned land. Concern over unnecessary cosmetic pesticide use has been echoed across the nation by grassroots coalitions of health and environmental advocates. In Montgomery County, Maryland, legislation introduced by Councilmember George Leventhal,  successfully  advanced  by the parent group Safe Grow Montgomery, allows only lawn care products to be used on private and public property that are compatible with organic practices. Maryland is one of only seven states that has not preempt local jurisdictions from  restricting pesticides more stringently than the state.

In 2012, Ohio’s Cuyahoga County Council voted to limit the use of chemical insecticides, weed killers and other pesticides on county property. That same year, Richmond, California’s City Council unanimously approved a pesticide reform ordinance targeting the use of toxic chemical pesticides within city boundaries. In February 2016, the  city council of St. Paul, MN adopted a resolution to make the city more pollinator friendly by banning bee-toxic neonicotinoids and other pesticides “proven  to be harmful to pollinators” and require an  updating of its  Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program,  mandating  non-chemical methods. That same month, the City Council of Irvine, CA, with a population of over 250,000 people, voted unanimously to stop the use of hazardous pesticides on city property. Just this month, Howard County, Maryland has taken the initiative to restrict the use of neonicotinoids on parklands.

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are linked with cancer or carcinogenicity, 11 are linked with birth defects, 19 with reproductive effects, 24 with liver or kidney damage, 14 with neurotoxicity, and 18 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds. With numbers like this, the only logical question becomes: is this really necessary and what can we do to stop or prevent this kind of contamination?

For more information on organic-based, pesticide-free lawn and landscape management, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes program page. Beyond Pesticides encourages concerned citizens to stand up and make their voices heard in their community. If you’d like to join Malibu, CA and help ban pesticide use in your community’s public spaces, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or at [email protected].

Source: Malibu Times

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

(Beyond Pesticides July 1, 2016) Lawmakers in France approved plans to totally ban neonicotinoid pesticides by 2018, based on their link  to declining populations of pollinators, specifically bees. This new restriction would go above and beyond current European Union (EU) restrictions on neonicotinoids, which limit the use of neonicotinoids, but do not ban them. The outright ban on neonicotinoid pesticides in France was adopted by a narrow majority of the  country’s  National Assembly, as part of a bill on biodiversity. While the bill must still gain the approval of the French Senate, which rejected it in a previous reading, passage by the Assembly is significant, as France becomes the first country to join state and local movements to eliminate the use of these toxic chemicals.

Neonicotinoids have been found by  a growing body of scientific literature  to be linked to honey bee and other pollinator declines. In light of these findings, in 2013 the European Commission  voted to suspend  the use of neonicotinoid pesticides for two years. The ban came several months after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  released a report  identifying “high acute risk” to honey bees from uses of certain neonicotinoid chemicals.   Along with recent reports and studies highlighting the role these chemicals play in pollinator decline, there is evidence that the use of neonicotinoids are not efficacious or even necessary in agriculture. In August of 2015,  figures for the first oilseed rape harvest  since the European-wide ban was introduced show that the yield so far is higher than the average for the previous decade, when the chemicals were used on the majority of oilseed rape grown in the UK.   In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a  report  concluding that soybean  seed treatments with neonicotinoid insecticides provide little or no overall benefits in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in soybean production.  The seed treatment market has  more than tripled in size  between 1990 and 2005, with neonicotinoids making up 77 percent of the market share.

While France has established itself a leader in protecting pollinators, other European countries have not followed suit. The United Kingdom (UK) has raised opposition to EU efforts to limit the use of neonicotinoids at every turn. It  opposed the two year moratorium on neonicotinoid use, citing a study published in 2013 by Britain’s Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA), which found  “no clear consistent relationship” between exposure to neonicotinoids and the growth of bee colonies and the number of queens they produce. However, a  new analysis of the FERA data was conducted and it was concluded that the data clearly showed substantial negative effects of neonicotinoids on the performance of colonies. As a result, Britain was required  to comply with the ban under EU rules, though it did not stop FERA from approving an emergency application for the use of neonicotinoids in 2015. With UK’s recent decision to leave the EU, it is uncertain whether it  would continue the EU-wide restrictions currently in place on neonicotinoid pesticides.

France’s environment minister, Segolene Royal, is in favor of the proposed neonicotinoid ban, though he acknowledges that getting it past the Senate remains a significant obstacle. He is also  in favor of phasing out glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup. He said in a statement: “This decision will prepare us for the future and protect bees and the role they play. Research and development of substitute products has to accelerate.”

Earlier this month, a proposal for a temporary ”˜technical extension’ of the EU approval of the herbicide glyphosate failed to secure the support of a majority of EU governments at a meeting of the EU standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed, putting the chemical’s chance for re-approval up in the air. Glyphosate  has been subject to widespread public scrutiny since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as a  2A probable carcinogen  based on animal studies.

In the U.S., the struggle to address the pollinator crisis  continues to face obstacles, even in face of  a growing number of Americans  who believe bee declines are critical and linked to pesticide use.  Last week,  advocates delivered over four million signatures  to the EPA calling for decisive action on the rampant use of  neonicotinoids  and similar systemic insecticides, which scientists say are a driving factor in declining bee populations.  See more information on the serious decline of honey and other pollinators at www.beeprotective.org.

All unattributed positions are those of Beyond Pesticides

Source: Natural Society

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2016) In a move that goes one step further than the recently passed state-wide bill restricting consumer sales of neonicotinoid (neonics) products, Howard County, Maryland has taken the initiative to restrict the use of neonicotinoids on parklands. The new policy, announced June 16, cites the growing number of studies linking neonicotinoid use to adverse effects on pollinator species.

The Department of Recreation and  Parks (DRP) manages approximately 10,000 acres of parkland within Howard County. According to the new policy and procedure, DRP is restricting the use of neonicotinoids, “due to recent research suggesting that there is a link between pesticides that contain neonicotinoids negatively effecting populations of pollinator species, such as; honeybees, native bees, butterflies, moths and other insects.” Neonics were often used on parklands for grubs on turf, Japanese beetles on trees,  and aphids on flowers and are now prohibited on all County parkland, including sports fields, garden plots, golf course and open space. Exemptions exist for agricultural uses and invasive pest infestations. Read the new neonicotinoid policy.

Just this past May, Maryland officially became the first state in the nation to pass legislation  against neonicotinoids. The state legislature passed the  Maryland Pollinator Protection Act  (Senate Bill 198/House Bill 211), under which consumers will not be permitted to buy pesticides that contain neonicotinoids starting in 2018. Certified pesticide applicators, farmers and veterinarians will still be allowed to use neonicotinoids. Numerous studies  confirm that neonics contribute to bee mortality and colony health deterioration, as well as to declines in native pollinators, including birds and butterflies. At the national level, beekeepers lost an average of 44% of their colonies over the past year.  Last year, Maryland lost more than 60 percent of its beehives as commercial beekeepers – of which there are more than 1,800 statewide. These are losses are higher than the average reported national losses.

In an official statement, Howard County Executive Allan H. Kittleman said, “Many of us have heard about the decreasing numbers of both honey bees and monarch butterflies. While the EPA continues to look at the potential negative impacts of neonicotinoids, the Department of Recreation and Parks has crafted a policy that is practical and sets forth guidelines for those instances when there is no other option but to use neonicotinoids. We hope that this new policy will encourage the entire community to use alternative means to control pests.”

The policy incorporates feedback from the Recreation and Parks Board, the Howard County Bird Club, the Sierra Club and others. DRP began developing the policy after discussions between Mr. Kittleman and environmental advocates during fall 2015.

Other states like  Connecticut are also taking action to restrict the use of these harmful pesticides. Numerous  local communities,  universities, and  retailers  have also taken steps to remove neonicotinoid pesticides from use. At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to suspend the use of  neonics  until they have been proven not to result in unreasonable adverse effects on pollinators through the  Saving America’s Pollinators Act. Last week, the White House released its  Pollinator Partnership Action Plan (PPAP),  a follow-up to its 2015  National Pollinator Health Strategy, which outlines action that can and are being taken to provide pollinators with more forage and habitat. However, the plan continued to fall short of meaningful action for pollinators, calling for very little protections from pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides and its allies have called for suspensions on neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly the most widely used and toxic: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. These pesticides are used in a variety of home and garden products, and most commonly in corn and soybean seed coatings, where they remain in plant tissues, including pollen and nectar, for long periods of time. Along with suspensions of registrations, groups have urged EPA to conduct broader reviews on the impact of these systemic pesticides on ecosystems and organisms, including endangered species and biodiversity.

For more information of pesticides and pollinators visit, www.beeprotective.org.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2016) A new report published by Regeneration Vermont finds that herbicide and chemical fertilizer use on Vermont dairy farms nearly doubled from 2002 to 2012, increasing from 1.54 to 3.01 pounds of herbicide per acre, respectively. The report, Vermont’s GMO Legacy: Pesticides, Polluted Water & Climate Destruction, by Will Allen, Ph.D. of Regeneration Vermont and Cedar Circle Farm, focuses on the failed promises of genetically engineered (GE, or GMO) crops to reduce chemical inputs required for crop production. While Vermont leads the nation on the GE labeling front, with its  law set to go into effect on July 1, the report, which highlights the flawed exemption on dairy and meat products, is a sobering reminder that this is only a part of the solution to the effects of GE crops and chemical-intensive agriculture.

“While the law will force mainstream food corporations to label GMOs in products like Cheetos and Spaghetti-os before coming into the state, it turns a blind eye to the GMO-derived dairy that is the primary ingredient in, for example, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and Cabot’s cheddar cheese,” says Dr. Allen. “This is about more than the consumer’s right to know. It’s also about the impact GMO-centered agriculture is having on Vermont’s environment and wildlife, its role in the continued monopolization of the food supply, and the roadblocks it creates in the path toward a truly regenerative, eco-sensitive, and socially-just form of agriculture in the state.”

At issue is the fact that the law specifically exempts dairy and meat products, though the state’s number one crop is feed corn, with over 92,000 acres of GE feed corn grown in Vermont. In fact, it finds that in a span of 13 years, there was a 12-fold increase in the adoption of GE corn in Vermont, from 8% of corn acreage planted with GE seed in 2002 to 90% in 2012.   The report finds that from 2002 to 2007, when GE production was at 47%, herbicide use averaged 160,201 pounds per year. From 2008-2012, when GE production was planted on 67-90% of corn acreage, herbicide use nearly doubled, with an average of 262,096 pounds per year.

Further, the report finds that eight highly toxic herbicides dominated pesticide use on Vermont corn crops, including atrazine, metholachlor, simazine, pendimethalin, glyphosate, acetochlor, dicamba,and alachlor. In light of findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that  glyphosate is a human carcinogen  based on laboratory animal test data, consumers have even more cause for concern about the health risks that these products pose. Beyond Pesticides has long ascertained that consumers have a right to know whether the foods they buy contain GE ingredients, not only because of concerns over the safety of eating GE food, but also because of the direct and indirect effects of GE agriculture on the environment, wildlife, and human health. Furthermore, there are many environmental consequences of reliance on chemical-intensive, genetically engineered agriculture. Repeated spraying of these herbicides destroys refuge areas  for beneficial insects, such as the monarch butterfly, and  leads to resistance  in the very weed species that GE technology is intended to control. Yet, despite rampant glyphosate resistance and the presence of organic management practices that are  more protective of human health and the environment, the agrichemical industry continues to resort to increasingly toxic combinations of chemicals.

On the positive side, the report offers encouragement in the fact that more than 20% of Vermont’s dairies are organic, which is the highest percentage in the U.S. About 200 of the 970 Vermont dairy farms have adopted sophisticated organic rotational grazing systems, according to the report, which enhance the quality of the forage, and sequester large amounts of carbon that can help reverse climate change. Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides unnecessary.

“Vermont is blessed with abundant water, lush pastures, and an environment where pastured cows can thrive,” concludes Will. “All of Vermont’s dairies could adopt a more sustainable form of dairy management, and the government and private businesses could help farmers make the transition and curb the pollution. We have the technical knowledge to make these management changes, but we urgently need to accelerate the transition to cleaner, safer, and more environmentally friendly dairy farming systems.”

Will Allen, Ph.D., is a longtime educator, activist and farmer dedicated to organic agricultural techniques that benefit the environment, farm workers and consumers. He was the founder of the Sustainable Cotton Project, a group that promoted organic growing practices and organic clothing, and the author of the seminal work on the history of toxic pesticides, The War on Bugs. Dr. Allen is currently the co-founder and co-manager, along with his wife, Kate Duesterberg, of Cedar Circle Farm in East Thetford, Vermont, a pioneering organic farm and education center. Will and his wife both spoke at the 34^th National Pesticide Forum, Cultivating Community and Environmental Health, in Portland, Maine. You can hear about his personal experience on GE contamination and many of the issues brought forth in the report in the video of their talk, Regenerative Agriculture: Farming as if the Earth Matters.

The only way to truly avoid food produced with genetically engineered crops or processed with genetically engineered ingredients  in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture and 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. To learn more about organic agriculture, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture, and Eating With a Conscious pages. For more information on GE foods and labeling issues, see Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering  website.

Sources: VT Digger, Regeneration Vermont

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2016) In an effort to block the impending implementation of Vermont’s genetically engineered (GE) food labeling law, Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MO) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) have struck a deal aimed at continuing to keep consumers in the dark about the ingredients in the food they eat. Vermont’s law, signed on May 8, 2014 by Governor Peter Shumlin (D), is set to go into effect on July 1, 2016. After the state defeated a legal challenge brought by the Grocery Manufacturers of American and other industrial food companies, opponents pivoted their efforts to Congress, where they pushed for the so-called DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act, which would have codified a voluntary labeling system nationwide and preempted Vermont’s law. The DARK Act was passed through the House, yet failed to secure enough votes in the Senate.

Despite Senator Stabenow voting against the DARK Act earlier this year, she has now reached a DARK deal that, in effect, would continue to deny Americans important information about the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in the food we eat. While proponents this DARK deal say it will require a mandatory national labeling scheme, the Senate bill includes no mandatory standards. Instead, it preempts Vermont’s law through a discretionary process that will be determined by a future Secretary of Agriculture. It also does very little to ensure consumers will actually have access to this information because the bill would allow for a range of labeling options that will not warn consumers – quick response (QR) codes, 800 numbers, websites and on-package labeling. This approach leaves poorer Americans at a disadvantage in receiving this information, as QR code labels require the use of a smartphone to read. Allowing food companies to decide how to label all but ensures they will work to misinform the public about their products; we have already seen big food links to websites that extol the safety of GE foods. The bill also contains a very weak definition the term “biotechnology” that may permit exemptions for a number of genetically engineered foods. There are no penalties for companies that do not comply with the conditions of the law. If passed, the bill would create a toothless, national charade and instantly extinguish forever the strong GE labeling laws passed overwhelmingly in recent years across New England.

Please let your Senators know you’re paying close attention to this issue, and demand the right to know what’s in your food!

Despite the illusion of compromise from members of the Senate, Vermont Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has indicated he will make every effort to stop the DARK Deal from passing. “I am very proud that Vermont has led the country in GMO labeling,” he said in a statement published on his Senate website. “This bill would preempt what Vermont and other states have done. GMO labeling exists in dozens of countries around the world. It is not controversial. Already major food companies in our country have begun labeling their products. People have a right to know what is in the food they eat. I am going to do everything I can to defeat this legislation.”

An alternative approach to federal labeling, the Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act (S.2621), led by Senators Jeff Merkley (OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) requires that all consumer food packaging visibly display GE ingredient labeling. While ensuring nationwide labeling, the legislation would preempt states from requiring labeling, such as a warning, which is stronger than the language in the legislation. Beyond Pesticides beleives it is important that even a positive, mandatory labeling requirement not preempt states from setting a higher bar regarding information provided on GE ingredients in food.

Beyond Pesticides believes that consumers have a right to know whether the foods they buy contain GE ingredients, not only because of concerns over the safety of eating GE food, but also because of the direct and indirect effects of GE agriculture on the environment, wildlife, and human health. GE agriculture is associated with the increased use of herbicides —particularly glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup— that crops are developed to tolerate. In light of findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that  glyphosate is a human carcinogen  based on laboratory animal test data, consumers have even more cause for concern about the health risks that these products pose. See Beyond pesticides Genetic Engineering program page for more information on GE agriculture and alternatives to this toxic system of food production.

The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation before July 1st.
Help us stop this DARK deal from getting the 60 vote majority it needs by sending a letter to your Senators today!

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

Source: Press Release: Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Press Release: Senator Bernie Sanders

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2016) A new report released last  week by the Organic Seed Alliance (OSA) found that the supply of organic seeds is not keeping up with the rising demand for organic products. The organic sector grew 11 percent between 2014 and 2015, with sales last year totaling $43 billion. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s National Organic Program (NOP) does require the use of organic seed when commercially available, but because the organic seed sector was almost nonexistent when the program began, it is still working to meet demand. In cases where organic seeds are not commercial available, organic farmers are allowed to turn to conventional seed alternatives.

According to OSA’s State of Organic Seed report, funded by the Clif Bar Family Foundation’s Seed Matters Initiative, the UNFI Foundation, and New Belgium Brewing Company, the biggest organic operations actually use a relatively small amount of organic seed. They found that vegetable farmers that grow on less than ten acres use, on average, 75 percent organic seed, while growers that farm over 480 acres use only 20 percent organic seed. The authors of the report surveyed 1,365 organic farms, 16 seed companies, 46 researchers and 22 accredited organic certifying agencies. OSA did find an increase in the number of farms using 100 percent organic seed (from 20 percent to 27 percent), and across all crop types, more than 30 percent of farmers use more organic seed presently than they did three years ago.

The report outlines some challenges preventing greater adoption of organic seed, such as the price of organic seeds over conventional. Conventional seed is cheaper to produce and buy, according to data from 473 vegetable varieties from 21 companies, provided by the seed-buying search engine Pick A Carrot. Organic seed costs, on average, 65 percent more than conventional. While price is not an allowable reason for not sourcing organic seed under organic standards, this remains as an obstacle for organic farmers.

Then, there is the issue of coexistence between farmers using genetically engineered (GE) crops and non-GE farmers. Some organic farmers struggle with maintaining organic seed purity due to contamination. GE crops pose a constant threat to the livelihood of organic farmers and undermine the burgeoning growth of the organic industry. A 2014 study released by Food and Water Watch and the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship and Marketing (OFARM), in response to USDA’s Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) report in 2012, found that one-third of organic farmers have experienced GE contamination on their farm due to the nearby use of GE crops . Over half of these growers have had loads of grain rejected because of unwitting GE contamination. These rejections can lead to big income losses for farmers, with a median cost of approximately $4,500 per year per farmer, according to the survey. Additionally,  several farmers report annual losses of over $20,000 due to the need to establish buffer zones, limiting the threat of contamination from their neighbors by taking contiguous farmland out of production.

Beyond Pesticides believes that shifting the responsibility of contamination away from small-scale and organic farmers to the GE patent holder and GE farmers  —a polluter pays principle—  is an important first step in leveling the playing field and achieving the desired level of coexistence between growing operations. A system in which organic farmers are forced to expend resources to protect themselves from the choices of others, while potential trespassers are merely allowed to go about their business regardless of consequences is not equitable coexistence and is not a permanent solution.

OSA released some top recommendations on how to move the organic seed sector forward, and to serve as a road map for organic seed stakeholders over the next five years:

• Invest more public and private dollars in organic seed research. Organic plant breeding and other organic seed research must be a funding priority in agricultural research grants, including government programs and private and non-private foundations.
• Train more organic farmers in seed production. Organic farmers who produce seed, or want to produce seed, need more training, resources, and research to support their success.
• Advocate for organic seed. Educating and working with organic certifiers and NOP to support consistent enforcement of the organic seed requirement. Priorities also include addressing risks to organic seed integrity and innovation, including genetically engineered crops and restrictive intellectual property rights.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship, and 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. It is impossible to discuss the ecological and economic benefits of organic agriculture without discussing the devastating effects of conventional agriculture. Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides unnecessary.

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. Organic agriculture has been proven time again to be equally viable for both farmers and consumers while also providing significant health and environmental effects over conventional industrial agriculture.

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

Source: Civil Eats, State of Organic Seed, 2016

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2016) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), during its Pollinator Week Festival at the “People’s Garden” on Friday, has shut out environmental public interest groups that are advocating pesticide restrictions to protect bees. Instead, the agriculture agency is teaming up with other federal agencies and chemical industry groups that advocates say have been tone deaf to beekeepers’ pleas for federal government action. This new controversy emerges in the midst of an escalating pollinator crisis with 44% bee colony losses in the last year.

Advocates, who bring the voice of independent science and point to the dangers of bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides as a major contributor to the decline in pollinator populations, have been disinvited to the event. Meanwhile, the Pollinator Partnership, an organization closely affiliated with the chemical industry (Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, CropLife, have all been previously listed as sponsors) will be in attendance. Groups like Beyond Pesticides, which bridges environmental, consumer and farm interests, have participated for several years in the Festival.

“The foundation for a constructive dialogue between federal agencies and the public regarding the decline of our critical pollinator populations rests upon the free exchange of information and viewpoints,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “We are disappointed that USDA has decided to rescind the offer to participate in the Pollinator Week Festival.”

Last month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are falling short in their efforts to protect honey bees and other wild pollinators from catastrophic declines. According to the report, USDA has not begun to coordinate with other agencies to develop a plan for monitoring wild, native bees because they were focused on other priorities, although charged to do so by the White House Pollinator Task Force. USDA was also chastised by GAO for its inability to evaluate its conservation programs. Although the agency has dedicated millions of dollars to conservation programs, USDA does not have the internal expertise to evaluate the effectiveness of its methods, according to GAO.

Last spring, the White House released its much awaited plan for protecting American pollinators, which identifies key threats, but falls short of recommendations submitted by Beyond Pesticides, beekeepers, and others who stress that pollinator protection begins with strong regulatory action and suspension of bee-toxic pesticides. The Pollinator Health Task Force, established by President Obama in June 2014, brought together most federal agencies to “reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels,” and involved developing a National Pollinator Health Strategy and a Pollinator Research Action Plan. On Wednesday, the White House released its Pollinator Partnership Action Plan (PPAP), which is being criticized as falling short of meaningful action for pollinators, calling for very little protections from pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides and its allies have called for suspensions on neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly the most widely used and toxic: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. These pesticides are used in a variety of home and garden products, and most commonly in corn and soybean seed coatings, where they remain in plant tissues, including pollen and nectar, for long periods of time. Along with suspensions of registrations, groups have urged EPA to conduct broader reviews on the impact of these systemic pesticides on ecosystems and organisms, including endangered species and biodiversity. Just yesterday, environmental advocates and beekeepers delivered over 4 million signatures to EPA urging an immediate ban on bee-killing pesticides.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2016) A truck full of dead bees made its final stop yesterday at a rally outside the headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), culminating a coast-to-coast tour to raise awareness about recent massive declines in pollinators. While the millions of dead bees stayed on the truck, advocates and beekeepers, including Beyond Pesticides, delivered over 4 million signatures urging an immediate ban on bee-killing pesticides.

“In the five years since I started keeping bees, I’ve seen many hives killed by pesticides,” said James Cook, a Minnesota-based beekeeper who has been driving the truck across the country since last Monday. “If some fundamental things don’t change, it’s going to be really hard for beekeepers to adapt to the environment around us.”

Beyond Pesticides staff and friends, including Scott Nash from Moms Organic Market

Bees pollinate most of the world’s most common crops, including summer favorites like peaches and watermelon. But over 40 percent of U.S. honeybee hives die each year, costing the farming and beekeeping industry more than $2 billion annually.

The most significant culprit in the bee die-off is the widely-used class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, or neonics. Last spring EPA began a process to assess four types of neonics and their impacts on pollinators. In January the Agency acknowledged that imidacloprid does indeed harm bees, but the remaining assessments are still outstanding.

“Bees are the most important thing for sustainable food growth, which is one of the reasons I have always sourced 100 percent organic food, free of pesticides that may cause pollinators harm,” said Nora Pouillon, owner and founder of Restaurant Nora, America’s first certified organic restaurant.

“What’s happening today to pollinators is no different than what happened 50 years ago with the collapse of the osprey, bald eagle, and other bird and aquatic animal populations due to the use of DDT,” said Scott Nash, CEO of Mom’s Organic Market. “If we allow the chemical agribusiness industry to continue these short-sighted practices, food costs will increase as food supplies diminish.”

To wrap up their Keep the Hives Alive Tour, farmers, beekeepers and food advocates will meet with officials from EPA, members of Congress, and representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, delivering letters from nearly 200 businesses and organizations urging action on bee-killing pesticides and support for sustainable agriculture.

“The science is clear and convincing. To be truly effective, we need a nationwide policy to protect our pollinators before the crisis gets completely out of control,” said Del. Anne Healey, sponsor of Maryland’s Pollinator Protection Act, the first bill passed in the United States to eliminate consumer use of neonics.

Over the past two weeks Keep the Hives Alive has made stops in California, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. It comes to a close during National Pollinator Week, at a rally where environmental advocates, farmers, restaurant owners and others joined beekeepers to call for action.

“I have never seen any compelling reason to use systemic insecticides,” said Jim Goodman, farmer and owner of Northwood Organic Farm in Wonewoc, Wisconsin. “Crop rotation as part of a diverse mix of crops, pasture and native plants  seems to work quite well. Of course it makes little profit for the corporations that manufacture agricultural chemicals — and there is the rub.”

“We have so many losses it’s worse than break-even. It is getting harder and harder to keep bees and make a living,” said Roger Williams, president of the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association. “And if we stop keeping bees, who’s going to pollinate your fruits and vegetables? This can’t go on.”

Additional Action for Pollinator Week

Made by Pollinators Campaign. All week long, select restaurants in the DC-area will celebrate pollinator week by identifying ingredients that are pollinator dependent and showcasing the importance of pollinators to our food system. These restaurants also support local, organic and sustainable practices that take into account whole food and ecological systems. Given that every one in three bites of food is reliant on pollination, the campaign will educate the public on the importance of pollinators and ways to become more involved in protecting bees and other pollinators. For more information, visit www.beeprotective.org.

Participating restaurants include:

• Busboys and Poets
  1025 5th St NW (and at other select locations)
• Founding Farmers
  1924 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 (and at other select locations)
• Lavagna
  539 8th St SE, Washington, DC 20003
• Tabard Inn
  1739 N St NW, Washington, DC 20036
• Restaurant Nora
  2132 Florida Ave NW, Washington, DC 20008

Organize a Meeting in Your Community. Utilize a public space, such as your local library or community center, have a house party, or host a pollinator-friendly dinner and view the talk Pollinators, Biodiversity and Scientific Integrity, by Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D. from Beyond Pesticides’ 34th National Pesticide Forum. This is a perfect opportunity to have a discussion with your friends and neighbors about the serious issue of pollinator decline and what you can do.

Support pollinator friendly legislation. Ask your U.S. representative to support the re-introduced  Saving America’s Pollinator Act  (SAPA). This is a bill that would suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of scientific evidence and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators.  Contact your Representative now.

Support retailers that are providing safer alternatives. Local ACE franchises are already proving that hardware stores don’t need to sell neonics or any other toxic pesticides in order to be financially successful. Eldredge Lumber and Hardware and Kittery ACE of York, Maine are  consciously stocking their shelves with organic compatible products, and providing seeds and nursery plants that are not treated by bee-toxic chemicals. Visit your local hardware or garden retailer and ask them to also to stop selling neonicotinoids and other bee-toxic pesticides, and source more organic alternatives, or give them a call today! You can also find your own source of organic seeds and plant starts by going to Beyond Pesticides’  Pollinator Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory.

Tell EPA to do more for pollinators. EPA has acknowledged that pesticides are a problem, but little meaningful action has been done to reverse pollinator declines. Bees need real protections from toxic pesticides now. It’s time for EPA to get serious about protecting bees by suspending neonicotinoids.

Make Change Happen in Your Community.  Armed with allies and resources from your video screening party, go to your elected official and ask them to introduce the Model Pollinator Resolution and/or our Model Lawns and Landscapes policy.
—Get the  Model Community Pollinator Resolution  here, and our  Model Lawns and Landscapes Policy  here.
—For more information, see our  BEE Protective webpage, or  get in touch with us.

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2016) In a ruling that organic advocates say is critical to the integrity of the USDA organic label, a U.S. District Court judge found Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated public process when it decreed that pesticide-contaminated compost is allowed in organic production. Three groups that bridge environmental, consumer, and farmer interests sued USDA for ruling that green waste compost, which comes from lawn clippings and plants, may contain levels of the insecticide bifenthrin and other pesticides that have not been approved for use in organic systems through proper public hearing and comment procedures. The case focused principally on whether USDA, in failing to conduct a formal public review, was operating “at its whim.” The court found that is exactly what USDA did and ordered the agency to stop allowing the use of contaminated compost by August 22, 2016.

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California found that USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) operated without the required notice and comment. She explained, “the reach of the Agency’s  new rule stretches beyond bifenthrin and instead allows green waste or green waste compost used in organic production to contain any synthetic pesticide of which bifenthrin is just one example.” The plaintiffs in the case are Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Center for Food Safety (CFS), and Beyond Pesticides. See Press Release

“The court decision upholds an organic industry that has been built on a foundation of consumer and farmer investment in ecologically sound practices, principles, and values to protect health and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “USDA has violated a basic requirement of public accountability in the standard setting process, which is fundamental to public trust in the organic label and continued growth of the organic sector,” he added.

“The decision is a vital victory for organic integrity, on behalf of organic consumers, organic farmers, and the environment,” said senior CFS attorney George Kimbrell, counsel for the plaintiffs.

In 2009, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) found compost contaminated with the insecticide bifenthrin and stopped the use of three compost products. Bifenthrin, a synthetic pyrethroid, is a possible cancer causing agent, endocrine disruptor, and neurotoxic chemical. After the UDSA contamination allowance in 2010, the California prohibition was lifted.

The Organic Trade Association, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) [a certifying agency], and Western Growers Association intervened in the case, claiming that a decision that vacates the contamination rule would cause “profound disruptions to the organic industry” and require an “astronomical. . .testing regime.” The judge responded with, “Amici’s testing argument makes no sense.”

As the Judge points out, testing previous to the USDA allowance had been done “when there is reason to believe that the agricultural input or product has come into contact with a prohibited substance or has been produced using excluded methods.” Testing performed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (which tests for pesticide contamination to comply with Canadian organic certification) found that of the 13 tested composts, five had pesticide residues, according to court records. The Judge cited testimony that other compost was found during the prohibition of contaminated compost in California and the contamination is avoidable.

Advocates argue that when registering pesticides like bifenthrin, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be required to protect against contamination of the green waste stream because of pesticides’ adverse environmental and public health effects, as well as the adverse economic impact that contamination may have on the now $40 billion organic industry.

“We applaud the court’s decision to protect the integrity of the  organic program,” said Caroline Cox, Research Director of CEH. “We will continue to watchdog the USDA to insure that the program meets consumers’ expectations for meaningful organic standards.”

Background

Before the challenged decision, organic producers were prohibited from using compost contaminated with pesticides or other synthetic substances not allowed in organic farming. National Organic Program (NOP) regulations specifically prohibit use of “[a]ny fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contains a synthetic substance not included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.” 7 C.F.R. § 205.203(e)(1). However, after California organic regulators, acting with the then-approval of NOP, banned several pesticide-contaminated composts, the producer of that compost, along with other members of the waste management, composting, and large organic industry, insisted that the rule be changed. After consultation with members of these industries, but without public participation, USDA ultimately issued the new decision, allowing the use of greenwaste (e.g. like lawn clippings) compost contaminated with prohibited substances, such as the residential pesticide bifenthrin.

In 2009, NOP circulated internally a first “draft policy for pesticide residues in compost,” and proposed applying the EPA food tolerance standards to compost – the lowest allowable residue level of that pesticide in food. However, NOP rejected this approach citing it would be “too difficult and too time consuming” to set tolerance levels and obtain the scientific justification for them. NOP then adopted the new ruling which provides “no tolerance levels for pesticide contaminants in compost.”

The plaintiffs allege that the USDA’s decision weakens the integrity of organic food production, not only by creating inconsistent organic production standards but also by undermining the essential public participation function of organic policy making under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal law that establishes the  procedures for public input into federal policy making. Since USDA never subjected the contaminated-compost decision to formal notice and public comment, the plaintiffs argue that USDA failed in its duty to ensure that its regulation is consistent with the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) and the standards set forth for approving the use of synthetic substances.

In arguments, defendants contend that the organic industry will likewise suffer significantly if NOP compost action is vacated because organic growers will no longer be able to use green waste compost and composting operations will lose a significant market for their products. However, the court found is insufficient evidence in the record to support their assertion or quantify it.

After the plaintiff organizations initiated the litigation in 2015 challenging USDA’s issuance of the guidance without giving the public and organic stakeholders the opportunity to participate and object, USDA moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it could unilaterally open the new loophole through a guidance document.   Last fall the Court denied that motion and the case proceeded.   Earlier this spring, over a year after the case was filed, several industry groups (including a group with ties to pesticide giants, the certifier group CCOF, and the organic industry lobbying entity, the Organic Trade Association) showed up to argue that the Court should leave USDA’s loophole in place even if it found the agency violated the law in establishing it.

In light of the new ruling, should USDA try to change the law again, it will have to do so with public participation, ensuring that the public can continue to watchdog the integrity of organic.

The organic program has a long history of providing  numerous opportunities for the public to weigh in on allowable practices and materials in organic production and has been central to building public trust in the organic certification program and the USDA certified organic food label. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was set up by Congress to serve as an independent authority with unique and sole powers over organic standards. The board is intended  to safeguard the integrity of the organic food label with independent authorities that operate outside the discretion of the USDA. The proposals of the NOSB, as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, are  published for public comment twice a year before each meeting of the board.

For more on organic standards and how you can play a part in maintaining the integrity of organic, visit the  Keeping Organic Strong webpage  and Save Our Organic webpage.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2016) New regulations issued by the European Commission (EU) last week to regulate endocrine disruptors in pesticide products are being criticized by public interest groups and scientists as undermining the precautionary legal standard governing pesticide use in Europe. Previous  investigations and reports  have uncovered  industry’s attempt to quash efforts to enact robust protections from these harmful chemicals, despite their likely contribution to billions of dollars in lost revenue due to health effects.

EC’s new rules endorse the World Health Organization’s definition of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC). The WHO defines an endocrine disruptor as “an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations,” However, the proposed regulations go little beyond defining the term. “The WHO definition is not a criteria, it is just a definition,” said Andreas Kortenkamp, PhD to The Guardian. “In effect, the commission has decided to place the burden of deciding how to regulate endocrine-disrupting chemicals onto the assessors on a case-by-case basis.”

Of concern is the level to which the rules reflect a hazard or risk-based criteria. While EC asserts that its rules will follow the law’s charge to implement hazard-based criteria, which addresses the inherent risk associated with exposure to a chemical, the new proposal will permit exemptions when risk of exposure is negligible. This would appear to provide a major loophole to the original intent of the law, as it is suggested that the exemption be evaluated in the form of a risk assessment. “It is a total reversal of the intention of the regulation,” Dr. Kortenberg said to The Guardian, “the worst of all the possible outcomes. Risk assessments are precisely what industry has lobbied for, and the commission has given it to them.”

Per Pesticide Action Network Europe’s report, Impact Assessment of the Criteria for Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides, the EC proposal follows what is known as option 2, which would lead to banning only a few pesticides. However, PAN-Europe notes that because of the potential for derogations (exemptions) based on risk of exposure, the proposal “will effectively result in no single endocrine disrupting chemical being banned.”

“There cannot be any other conclusion but that Commission lets the interests of trade and industry prevail over the interests of the public and fails to reduce the millions of health costs and the suffering of people in Europe due to endocrine related diseases,” said PAN-Europe in a press release. Studies prepared for the EC by international teams of scientists and researchers determined that the health care costs imposed by public exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals resulted in over € 150 billion ($162 billion) in health care costs to the European Union each year. The most significant economic drain was attributed to loss of brain function for the next generation, with an estimated 13 million IQ points lost due to prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides. A subsequent study focused on the health care costs of female reproductive disorders in the EU also found costs to be substantial. Attributable cases of DDE-induced fibroids were estimated to be 56,700 and phthalate-induced endometriosis at 145,000.  This was calculated to result in €163 million ($183 million) and €1.25 billion ($1.4 billion) in health care costs, respectively.

“Sadly, today’s package seems to confirm our concerns that the commission has lowered its ambition concerning strong EDC criteria so as not to jeopardise the TTIP [Transatlantic Trade and investment Partnership] talks with the U.S.,” said Sylbia Maurer of the Europe-based consumer group BEUC to The Guardian. Last year, several reports of US-based intervention on behalf of the international agrichemical industry surfaced as negotiations on TTIP wore on. Despite TTIP effectively stalled in the US without support from either major party Presidential candidate, European environmental and consumer groups charge that industry has won the concessions it sought.

If no derogations apply, the pesticides mancozeb, maneb, metconazole, propyzamide, thiophanate-methyl, and tralkoxydim are likely to be banned. In late April, the EU banned its first pesticides as a result of their endocrine disrupting properties.

While the EC  begins a process to regulate endocrine disruptors, the U.S. has taken little action despite a mandate from the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) that requires EPA to screen pesticides for their endocrine disrupting potential. Thus far, the agency has only partially screened some chemicals.

Under EPA’s endocrine disruption screening protocol (EDSP), the agency uses a two-tiered approach  to screen pesticide chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential effect on estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems. EPA’s last publicly released report for tier 1 screening of only 52 chemicals found  no evidence of endocrine pathways for 20 chemicals. For 14 chemicals that the agency said did show potential interaction, EPA stated that it “already has enough information to conclude that they do not pose risks.” Of the remaining 18 chemicals, EPA found that all showed potential interaction with the thyroid pathway, 17 of them with the androgen (male hormones) pathway, and 14 also potentially interacted with the estrogen (female hormones) pathway.

It will take several more years for EPA to completely screen any endocrine disrupting chemicals. Not surprisingly,  EPA’s EDSP has been heavily criticized for decades-long delays and not putting the chemicals through more rigorous testing that includes low dose responses in the interest of protecting human health and the environment. The agency does not evaluate the potential for chemicals to exhibit non-monotonic dose response curves, where a material shows the potential for a harmful response at low, even minute levels of exposure. This effect, confirmed through independent research, challenges the traditional toxicological maxim that “the dose makes the poison.”   The failure to incorporate modern toxicological science has led researchers to criticize EPA’s testing protocol as  outdated, and not keeping pace with advancing science.

Beyond Pesticides supports strong protections from pesticides and endocrine disruptors by pushing for regulatory action that supports and encourages alternative products and practices that do not require these chemicals. Through the  Eating with a Conscience  tool, those concerned about pesticides on their produce and can find out the chemicals that are allowed in their production. Beyond Pesticides’  Lawn and Landscapes  webpage helps property owners manage healthy, weed-free lawns without the use of pesticides linked to endocrine disruption and other ill health effects. The  ManageSafe  database helps homeowners and renters control household pests without toxic pesticides. Ultimately, by supporting  organic agriculture, which  disallows the use of harmful synthetic pesticides, the health and economic burden endocrine disruptors and other pesticides put on our society can be drastically reduced.

See Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., professor at the University of California Berkeley deliver his talk, Learning from an Environmental Tragedy, at Beyond Pesticides’ 33rd National Pesticides Forum.

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

Source: European Commission Press Release, PAN-Europe Press Release, The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides June 20, 2016) As the end of the school year approaches, two first grade classrooms at local District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) got to learn about the importance of pollinators firsthand when DC-based nonprofit Beyond Pesticides visited their school. In a lead up to National Pollinator Week, Beyond Pesticides teamed up with owner and founder of The Bees Waggle, Jessica Goldstrohm, to provide a fun, hands-on lesson about pollination, and why it is important to our food system. Students were given a lesson on biodiversity, soil health, and the negative effects of pesticides on pollinators before building some pollinator-friendly habitat for their schools and homes.

The day of learning kicked off at Brightwood Education Campus, located in Northwest DC, where students listened to a lesson developed by Ms. Goldstrohm, who donned a set of bee wings for the event. After receiving some background on the role of pollinators in our food system, the children participated in several hands on activities that reiterated the key points within the curriculum. Six volunteers stepped to the front of the class to demonstrate the interconnectedness of all living organisms by participating in a biodiversity web simulation. Here, the scholars learned that if one organism in a food system starts to take more than its fair share of resources, the rest of the web find itself out of balance. At the end of the lesson, students each crafted their own small “bee hotel” before heading outside to plant a butterfly box in their garden.

This box will serve as nesting habitat for migrating butterflies, including the monarch, which have experienced rapid population declines over recent years. Loss of habitat around  genetically engineered (GE) cropland, as well as increasingly warm temperatures are responsible for these declines, according to scientists who say populations are the lowest they have seen in two decades. Additionally, in 2015 new research from the University of Minnesota presented some of the first evidence linking the bee-killing insecticides known as neonicotinoids to monarch butterfly deaths. The study found that milkweed plants, which monarch butterflies need to survive, may also retain neonicotinoids from nearby plants, making milkweed toxic to monarchs.

Later in the day, the educational team moved to Northwest DC where they visited first grade scholars at J.O. Wilson Elementary School. Here the children received a similar lesson, this time dividing into groups to apply the information they had learned to solve puzzles about food systems. Working as a team, the students had to figure out how to place several pictures in an order that would represent how a food system worked from start to finish. For example, one puzzle began with a bee, who then pollinated clover seeds, allowing that clover to grow and be fed on by a cow, who eventually provided milk for humans to drink. The children enjoyed using their critical thinking skills to figure out the role of pollinators in providing food, and used that knowledge to draw connections between pollinators and themselves.

The visit to J.O. Wilson was highlighted by the building of a large bee hotel for the school garden. Bee hotels provide natural habitat for native bees, such as the leafcutter and mason bee. These bees are known as “solitary bees” because they make individual nest cells for their larvae, as opposed to living in colonies like the honeybee. They typically nest in small holes or tunnels, and so Beyond Pesticides staff created a hotel structure into which the students placed pieces of wood with holes in them for the bees to use as nesting sites. The class worked together to create a welcoming habitat for native pollinators, and even got to help hammer on the protective screens, which was a huge hit (pun intended). The hotel found a permanent home in the school’s fruit and vegetable garden, where it will help facilitate the pollination of those plants for years to come.

Educating local school children is just one of the many ways Beyond Pesticides is honoring pollinators this month. With National Pollinator Week kicking off today, there are several other events throughout the week designed to promote the work Beyond Pesticides does to protect pollinator health and combat their declines. See below for several ways you can get involved.

National Pollinator Week Events

1) Support Pollinators and D.C. Restaurants through  the ‘Made By  Pollinators’ Campaign.
With one out of every three bites of food reliant on bees, restaurants participating in the ‘Made By Pollinators‘ campaign have created a special menu featuring pollinator-friendly food and will be providing customers with information on what they can do to help pollinators. The restaurants hope to increase public awareness on the importance of pollinators and steps that can be taken to reverse the decline.

Participating  restaurants include Busboys and Poets, Founding Farmers, Lavagna, the Tabard Inn and Restaurant Nora. Have a great meal and save the bees!

Find out more by checking out our ‘Made By Pollinators’ Facebook Event Page!

2) Attend the *FREE* ‘Made By Pollinators’ Event at Busboys and Poets at 5th & K!
Join Beyond Pesticides and our beekeeping allies and experts from the Keep the Hives Alive tour for a National Pollinator Week event focused on declining pollinator populations and the impact of their loss on our food system, with video screening and discussion. The event takes place at Busboys and Poets on 5th and K St NW on Wednesday night, June 22nd from 6:30pm to 8:00pm.

Let us know if you’ll be attending. Please RSVP on Facebook.

3) Help ‘Keep the Hives Alive’
On Wednesday, June 22nd at 1:30 pm in front of EPA HQ, Beyond Pesticides and our allies will be calling on EPA to take immediate action on harmful uses of toxic pesticides to protect bees, butterflies, birds, bats and other pollinators as well as farmers, beekeepers, farmworkers, and consumers.

The rally will be the last stop on the Keep the Hives Alive tour, and will feature local, regional, and national speakers, including beekeepers from across the country, and local progressive business leaders  Nora Pouillon of Restaurant Nora’s and Scott Nash of  MOM’s Organic Market.

At the rally, we’ll deliver sealed containers of dead bees to EPA, making it clear that we need immediate action to save these essential pollinators.

If you haven’t yet, please sign our petition to EPA today!

4) Attend the USDA Pollinator Festival!
Beyond Pesticides will be tabling at USDA’s National Pollinator Festival on Friday June 24th, from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. The festival is held outside USDA Headquarters next to the Headquarters People’s Garden and the USDA Farmers Market along 12th Street, SW in Washington, DC 20250.

The curriculum developed by Ms. Goldstrohm in partnership with Beyond Pesticides will be available this fall on the Beyond Pesticides website. Additional information, including exciting grant opportunities for your school, will also be available at that time.

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2016) The pesticide industry has weakened and delayed pesticide reforms and is shaping new state pollinator “protection” plans nationwide that do little to protect bees, according to a new Friends of the Earth report.  The report is being released in advance of  Pollinator Week (June 20-26, 2016), as people assemble to ask for improved protection for pollinators.

The investigation, Buzz Kill: How the Pesticide Industry is Clipping the Wings of Bee Protection Efforts Across the U.S., reveals an array of pesticide industry tactics to slow urgently needed pollinator protection measures at federal and state levels. The report details how new state pollinator protection plans, many still unfinished, have been heavily influenced by pesticide industry interests. According to the report, industry is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying to delay state and federal action on the chemicals they manufacture. As a result, state pollinator protection plans across the U.S. are falling short in several ways, including:

• State pollinator protection plans currently provide more protections for pesticides and pesticide users than for bee keepers and bee colonies.
• Pesticide industry influence is pervasive throughout states’ legislative and regulatory planning efforts.
• Plans lack metrics to measure effectiveness, improvement or failure.

Industry giants, like Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto, have long been known to influence shaping federal and state pesticide policies to their benefit. In what is known as the revolving door at federal agencies, employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have shuffled between regulatory agencies and pesticide companies. The pesticide industry also directly funds or influences science by donating to education initiatives and building strategic alliances with academics.

Buzz Kill  updates  FOE’s 2014 “Follow the Honey” report, which revealed how chemical companies Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto employ deceptive tobacco-style public relations tactics to manufacture doubt about scientific findings on pollinator die-offs, and protect chemical industry sales and profits at the expense of bees and our environment.

However, in light of federal inaction and industry influence, beekeepers, activists and concerned individuals are gearing up the celebrate pollinators and call for stronger protections this Pollinator Week which run from June 20-26, 2016.

Get Involved this Pollinator Week:

Made by Pollinators Campaign

Select restaurants in the DC-area will celebrate pollinator week by identifying ingredients that are pollinator dependent and showcasing the importance of pollinators to our food system. These restaurants also support local, organic and sustainable practices that take into account whole food and ecological systems. Given that every one in three bites of food is reliant on pollination, the campaign will educate the public on the importance of pollinators and ways to become more involved in protecting bees and other pollinators. For more information, visit www.beeprotective.org
Participating restaurants include:

Busboys and Poets
1025 5th St NW (and at other select locations)
Founding Farmers
1924 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 (and at other select locations)
Lavagna
539 8th St SE, Washington, DC 20003
Tabard Inn
1739 N St NW, Washington, DC 20036
Restaurant Nora
2132 Florida Ave NW, Washington, DC 20008

Keep the Hives Alive Tour

As part of nationwide efforts to raise awareness about the decline of honey bees and other pollinators, the Keep the Hives Alive tour will travel the country urging Congress, EPA, and USDA to take real action to protect these critical species from toxic pesticides. The tour is organized by beekeepers, farmers, farmworkers, scientists and advocates and will stop in South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Washington, DC before and during National Pollinator Week, June 13-23. Beekeepers will drive a bee truck between each stop, with a display of dead bees to demonstrate one beekeepers loss.

Please participate if you are located near any of the stops on the tour!
Use Facebook event pages to get more involved:
o      Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Hackenburg Apiaries, June 18th
o      Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Bayer Headquarters, June 20th
o      Washington, DC: EPA Headquarters, June 22nd.

Other ways to get involved for Pollinator Week and beyond:

Declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly.

You can pledge your green space as pesticide-free and pollinator-friendly this week. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat.  Sign the pledge today. Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The  Bee Protective Habitat Guide  can tell you which native plants are right for your region.

Become a BEE Protective Ambassador   on your college campus. This project taps into enthusiastic environmental activists on college campuses throughout the country wishing to make a positive impact on the health of local pollinators and other wildlife. Student activists can pledge their campus or student organization to become ambassadors which involves creating pollinator habitat on campus, and working to change harmful pesticide use policies on campus.

Support pollinator friendly legislation. Ask your U.S. representative to support the re-introduced  Saving America’s Pollinator Act  (SAPA). This is a bill that would suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of scientific evidence and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators.  Contact your Representative now.
Support retailers that are providing safer alternatives. Local ACE franchises are already proving that hardware stores don’t need to sell neonics or any other toxic pesticides in order to be financially successful. Eldredge Lumber and Hardware and Kittery ACE of York, Maine are  consciously stocking their shelves with organic compatible products, and providing seeds and nursery plants that are not treated by bee-toxic chemicals. Visit your local hardware or garden retailer and ask them to also to stop selling neonicotinoids and other bee-toxic pesticides, and source more organic alternatives, or give them a call today! You can also find your own source of organic seeds and plant starts by going to Beyond Pesticides’  Pollinator Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory.

Tell EPA to do more for pollinators. EPA has acknowledged that pesticides are a problem, but little meaningful action has been done to reverse pollinator declines. Bees need real protections from toxic pesticides now. It’s time for EPA to get serious about protecting bees by suspending neonicotinoids.

Make Change Happen in Your Community.  Armed with allies and resources from your video screening party, go to your elected official and ask them to introduce the Model Pollinator Resolution and/or our Model Lawns and Landscapes policy.

–Get the  Model Community Pollinator Resolution  here, and our  Model Lawns and Landscapes Policy  here.

–For more information, see our  BEE Protective webpage, or  get in touch with us.

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

Source: FOE press release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2016) New research links county-level economic health to agriculture, and finds that organic food and crop production, along with the business activities accompanying organic agriculture, creates real and long-lasting regional economic opportunities. The recently completed White Paper, U.S. Organic Hotspots and their Benefit to Local Economies, was prepared for the Organic Trade Association (OTA) by Penn State Agricultural Economist Edward Jaenicke, Ph.D. It finds organic hotspots —counties with high levels of organic agricultural activity whose neighboring counties also have high organic activity— boost median household incomes by an average of $2,000 and reduce poverty levels by an average of 1.3 percentage points. The research highlights the success of organic agriculture and demonstrates, yet again, that organic agriculture can and must feed the world.

“This research systematically investigates the economic impacts of organic agriculture,” noted Dr. Jaenicke. “Its important findings show that organic contributes to the economic health of local economies. The growing market interest in organic agriculture can be leveraged into effective policy for economic development.”

The White Paper summarizes and discusses three research papers that investigate organic agriculture hotspots in the U.S. and systematically assesses the impact of organic agriculture on local economies. It identifies 225 counties across the United States as organic hotspots, then looks at how these organic hotspots impact two key county-level economic indicators: the county poverty rate and median household income. Organic activity was found to have a greater beneficial economic effect than that of general agriculture activity, such as chemically-intensive, conventional agriculture, and even more of a positive impact than some major anti-poverty programs at the county level.

According to the report, organic hotspots are diverse and represent the various kinds of organic agricultural activity and accompanying businesses: crop production, livestock production, organic processors. Organic hotspots are found throughout the country, but specific examples identified in the report include Monterey County in California, Huron County in Michigan, Clayton County in Iowa, and Carroll County in Maryland.

The report also identifies what factors create organic hotspots, how the effect of organic agricultural hotspots compare with those of general agriculture (combined organic and conventional agriculture). Specifically, the research finds that:

• Counties within organic hotspots have lower poverty rates and higher median annual household incomes. On average, county poverty rates drop by 1.3 percentage points, and median income rises by over $2,000 in organic hotspots. The same beneficial results are not found for general agricultural hotspots. Also, organic hotspots were found to have a greater positive impact at the county level than such major anti-poverty programs as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
• Outreach and knowledge transfer are critical in creating organic hotspots. The prevalence of outreach services by organic certifiers is found to play one of the strongest roles in organic hotspot formation. Also, whether a certifier is government-sponsored, by a state department of agriculture for example, is another key factor in enabling organic hotspots.
• Organic agriculture can be used as an economic development tool. Policymakers at all levels””local, state and national””have a proven economic reason to support organic agriculture and to create more economy-stimulating organic hotspots.

Additionally, the report recommends specific policies to foster more organic economic hotspots throughout the nation as a result of the findings:

• Promote organic agriculture at the federal, state and local level.
• Focus on rural development, organic transition, capital structures and barriers to investment.
• Expand outreach efforts and facilitate network effects.
• Target specific geographic areas for development.
• Build broader coalitions to help promote organic agriculture.

“We know that organic agriculture benefits our health and our environment,” said Laura Batcha, CEO and Executive Director of OTA. “This significant research shows organic can also benefit our livelihoods and help secure our financial future.”

“Organic agriculture can be used as an effective economic development tool, especially in our rural areas,” said Ms. Batcha. “The findings of this research show organic certifiers and the transfer of knowledge and information play a critical role in developing organic. And it provides policymakers with an economic and sound reason to support organic agriculture and to create more economy-stimulating organic hotspots throughout the country.”

Organic is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the U.S. food industry. Organic food sales in 2015 jumped by 11 percent to almost $40 billion, far outstripping the 3 percent growth rate for the overall food market. Organic crops command a significant price premium over conventionally grown crops. As a result, interest in organic at the production level has grown as the demand for organic has risen. More farmers are transitioning to organic production, more organic businesses are sprouting.

Many studies show that organic food is not only better for the economy, but for human health and the environment, and in fact, a  study published earlier this year by researchers at Washington State University deemed organic agriculture essential to a sustainable food system. Other studies that have looked  at organic produce have found better nutritional profiles. A study published in February found that organic dairy and meat were higher in essential nutrients. A similar study, also found that organic farmers who let their cows graze as nature intended are producing better quality milk, with significantly higher beneficial fatty acids, antioxidants and vitamins than their conventional counterparts. Additionally, a ten-year University of California study, which compared organic tomatoes with those chemically grown, found that they have almost double the quantity of disease-fighting antioxidants called flavonoids. A  comprehensive review  of 97 published studies comparing the nutritional quality of organic and conventional foods show that organic plant-based foods contain higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients, including significantly greater concentrations of the health-promoting polyphenols and antioxidants. Also of note, studies  find that consumers are exposed to elevated levels of pesticides from conventionally grown food. Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship, and 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. It is impossible to discuss the ecological and economic benefits of organic agriculture without discussing the devastating effects of conventional agriculture. Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides unnecessary.

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.

Organic agriculture has been proven time again to be equally viable for both farmers and consumers while also providing significant health and environmental effects over conventional industrial agriculture. Meanwhile, OTA has tried to thwart efforts by Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, , a Center for Environmental Health, certifiers, and other farmer and consumer organizations to protect the integrity of the organic label under  the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). OTA has not stood up to USDA’s efforts to end implementation of the sunset provision of OFPA, a provision that requires the rigorous reevaluation of synthetic materials allowed in organic production. In addition, OTA  has opposed public interest efforts to ensure that compost and other farm inputs are protected from contamination through a public process to establish acceptable standards, rather than allow USDA to issue standards that are not vetted. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage to learn more about organic and what you can do to support its growth. See also Save Our Organic.

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

Source: OTA Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2016) A new report released yesterday by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found that up to 420 known or likely carcinogens have been measured in a diverse array of populations, and that exposure to these carcinogens is not limited to on-the-job contact with industrial chemicals, including pesticides. According to the National Cancer Institute, an estimated 1.7 million new cases will be diagnosed in the U.S. in 2016. While some of these cases may be due to genetic makeup, others may be caused by substances in the air, soil, food and other materials in our environment.

Through a review of scientific literature and publicly available biomonitoring studies, EWG compiled a comprehensive inventory of known or likely carcinogens that have been measured in people. According to the EWG report, data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey, or NHANES, conducted annually by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, confirms that many of these carcinogens are in the bodies of Americans not at risk of occupational exposure — indeed, at any given time some people may harbor dozens or hundreds of cancer-causing chemicals. Over half of the people tested had levels of arsenic and acrylamide in their bodies high enough to give them a more than 1 in 10,000 risk of cancer. Arsenic is used in certain pesticides, and acrylamide is sometimes found in food packaging and certain foods ””potato chips and French fries have been found to have higher-than-average amounts of it. Other commonly found chemicals included benzene, found in petroleum, and DDT and DDE pesticides.

“The presence of a toxic chemical in our bodies does not necessarily mean it will cause harm, but this report details the astounding number of carcinogens we are exposed to in almost every part of life that are building up in our systems,” said Curt DellaValle, author of the report and a senior scientist at EWG in a press release. “At any given time some people may harbor dozens or hundreds of cancer-causing chemicals. This troubling truth underscores the need for greater awareness of our everyday exposure to chemicals and how to avoid them.”

One chemical that has recently been in the spotlight is glyphosate, classified as a probable carcinogen based on animal and epidemiological studies by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Glyphosate residues have been detected in foods and products that are not typically associated with heavy glyphosate use. In March 2016,  Moms Across America released a report  on glyphosate residues in California wines. The  report  found  that all of the ten wines tested positive for glyphosate. Other recent reports of the widespread presence of glyphosate residues find the chemical in  breast milk,  in German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and  bread, as well as  in nearly 100% of Germans  tested.

When talking about cancer, it should be noted that Congress in 1958 adopted the Delaney Clause, named for its sponsor Rep. James Delaney (D-NY), which sought to prohibit cancer causing pesticides in food. While just beginning to be implemented in the 1990s, the provision was repealed in part with the adoption of risk assessment language in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), passed by Congress to amend both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. We cannot fully understand safety without discussing the limits of risk assessment methods that are used to determine “acceptable exposure” or “negligible risk.” The FQPA requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider available data on the sensitivity of children and other people to pesticides, provide for an extra margin of safety when data is not available, and begin adding up the cumulative impact of exposure to the residue of a single pesticide in all food and water. The act does not require an evaluation of combinations of chemicals or the possible synergistic effects between chemicals, and leaves to the discretion of EPA wide latitude in defining acceptable risk.

The EWG report also outlined research from the Halifax Project, which looks at the potential risks of chemical combinations. In February 2016, a University of California, Los Angeles study found that pesticide mixtures are more harmful that individual pesticides. Pesticide products available for sale are often chemical mixtures of active ingredients that create a cocktail of toxins while studies on pesticide combinations have demonstrated neurological, endocrine, and immune effects at low doses. For example, research conducted by Warren Porter, PhD., professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, examined the effect of fetal exposures to a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba exposure ””frequently used together in lawn products like Weed B Gone Max and Trillion”” on the mother’s ability to successfully bring young to birth and weaning. Researchers began by testing pesticide concentrations diluted to levels that are considered “safe” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The results were striking: Dr. Porter found that, “This common lawn pesticide mixture is capable of inducing abortions and resorptions of fetuses at very low parts per billion. The greatest effect was at the lowest dose.” For more information on pesticide synergy, see Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure.

What Can You Do?

EPA’s risk assessment process fails to look at chemical mixtures and synergistic effects, as well as certain health endpoints (such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups, and regular noncompliance with product label directions. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Now, it is the growth of organic practices and products that is outpacing regulation in shifting us away from cancer causing chemicals and pesticides. Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and calls for alternative assessments. The organization  suggests an approach that focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture. Thus, the best way to avoid pesticide residues in a wide range of food and drinks is to buy and support organic agriculture and the USDA organic label over conventional agriculture. Beyond Pesticides’  database, Eating With a Conscience (EWAC),  provides information on the pesticides that could be present in the food we eat, and why food labeled organic is the right choice. EWAC also includes information on the impacts chemical-intensive agriculture has on farm workers, water, and our threatened pollinators.

Source: Mother Jones, The Pollution in People, EWG Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2016) To celebrate National Pollinator Week, June 20-26, 2016, several Washington, DC restaurants have teamed up with Beyond Pesticides and the Center for Food Safety to launch a campaign, “Made by Pollinators,” to protect pollinators suffering steep declines. With one out of every three bites of food reliant on bees, the participating restaurants’ patrons will be treated to a special menu featuring pollinator-friendly food and provided with information on what they can do to help pollinators. The restaurants hope to increase public awareness on the importance of pollinators and steps that can be taken to reverse the decline. Participating  restaurants include Busboys and Poets, Founding Farmers, Lavagna, the Tabard Inn and Restaurant Nora.
Of the 100 crop varieties that provide 90% of the world’s food, 71 are pollinated by bees. Honey bees alone pollinate 95 kinds of fruits, nuts and vegetables, such as apples, avocados, almonds, and cranberries. The value of pollination services to U.S. agriculture alone amounts to nearly $30 billion and about 80% of flowering plants require animal pollination.

A recent government survey reports that U.S. beekeepers lost 44 percent of their colonies between spring 2015 and 2016 —the second highest loss to date. Numerous studies find that commonly used pesticides — both agricultural and residential pesticides— are a major contributing factor in pollinator declines.

Busboys and Poets said, “Without bees, we wouldn’t be able to serve 99% of our menu. Our participation in Pollinator Week is a small step toward a movement to promote the health of our planet’s ecosystems.”

Nora Pouillon, owner and founder of Restaurant Nora, said, “Bees are the most important thing for sustainable food growth, which is one of the reasons I source 100% organic food, free of pesticides that may cause pollinators harm. . . My business partner takes it one step further and raises bees.” Restaurant Nora is America’s first certified organic restaurant, committed to serving environmentally conscious cuisine for nearly 40 years.

The Tabard Inn said, “We believe it is important for us and our future generations to protect our environment and encourage smart use of our resources . . . By collaborating with local organic farmers, national organizations, and specialized purveyors, we aim to better the quality of our products, and ultimately everyone’s health. We strive to use pesticide-free, environmentally-responsible products.”

Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides said, “We deeply appreciate the leadership of these restaurants in protecting bees by sourcing organic and sustainable food, while educating their patrons on the importance of bees in our food system and what they can do to protect pollinators.”

National Pollinator Week began ten years ago when the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the designation to protect pollinator populations. It has since grown to be an international celebration of the valuable ecosystem services provided by bees, birds, butterflies, bats and all other pollinator species.

#BuildtheBuzz for Pollinator Week with Additional Events

In addition to the “Made by Pollinators” Campaign, here are some things you can do in your community for pollinator week. Here’s what you can do:

1) Organize a Meeting in Your Community. Utilize a public space, such as your local library or community center, have a house party, or host a pollinator-friendly dinner and view the talk Pollinators, Biodiversity and Scientific Integrity, by Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D. from Beyond Pesticides’ 34th National Pesticide Forum. This is a perfect opportunity to have a discussion with your friends and neighbors about the serious issue of pollinator decline and what you can do.

About the video: Dr. Lundgren is an agroecologist, director of ECDYSIS Foundation, and CEO for Blue Dasher Farm. He is formerly a top U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) entomologist, and is the recipient of a prestigious national award for civic courage for his work on neonicotinoids and pollinator decline in the face of agency attempts to suppress his work. One of his priorities is to make science applicable to end-users, and he regularly interacts with the public and farmers regarding pest management and insect biology.

2) Make Change Happen in Your Community. Armed with allies and resources from your video screening party, go to your elected official and ask them to introduce the Model Pollinator Resolution and/or our Model Lawns and Landscapes policy.

>>Get the Model Community Pollinator Resolution here, and our Model Lawns and Landscapes Policy here.

>>For more information, or help with your campaign, see our fact sheet, How to Start Your Own Local Movement, see our BEE Protective webpage, or get in touch with us. Build the buzz in your community to make changes that will protect your local pollinator population!

3) Join the Keep the Hives Alive Tour!
As part of nationwide efforts to raise awareness about the decline of honey bees and other pollinators, the Keep the Hives Alive tour will travel the country urging Congress, EPA, and USDA to take real action to protect these critical species from toxic pesticides. The tour is organized by beekeepers, farmers, farmworkers, scientists and advocates and will stop in South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Washington, DC before and during National Pollinator Week, June 13-23. Beekeepers will drive a bee truck between each stop, with a display of dead bees to demonstrate one beekeepers loss.

Please participate if you are located near any of the stops on the tour!
Use the Facebook event pages to get more involved:

o     Estellinne, South Dakota: Blue Dasher Farms, kicked off yesterday, June 13th.
o     Montevideo, Minnesota: Moonstone Farms, June 14th
o     Ypsilanti, Michigan: Recreation Park, June 16th
o     Detroit, Michigan: D-Town Farm, June 16th
o     Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Hackenburg Apiaries, June 18th
o     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Bayer Headquarters, June 20th
o     Washington, DC: EPA Headquarters, June 22nd.

We hope you’ll be able to attend one of these critical grassroots events before and during Pollinator Week!

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides June 13, 2016) A federal judge in California handed down a decision last week agreeing with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) that it has no responsibility under federal pesticide law to complete rulemaking on the disclosure of hazardous ingredients in pesticide products. That means that if the decision stands EPA will be allowed to keep the public in the dark on the full list of toxic ingredients in pesticides registered by the agency. A lawsuit filed by the Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, and Physicians for Social Responsibility argues that EPA fails to protect consumers from “inert” ingredients found in pesticides.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick stated in his ruling,“The EPA has no mandatory duty to require disclosure of “inert” ingredients in pesticides, even if those ingredients qualify as hazardous chemicals under separate statutes.” Advocates have said for decades that people and communities cannot make informed decisions on pesticide products without full disclosure of all product ingredients and that the stated proprietary interests of chemical manufacturers is bogus, given the burgeoning market of pesticide products exempt from registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 25(b) provision, which are required to disclose all ingredients.

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

Some inert ingredients are even more toxic than the active ingredients. One of the most hazardous ingredients in the commonly used herbicide Roundup, POEA, is a surfactant, which is classified as an inert and therefore not listed on the label. Researchers have found that  POEA can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

A decision in this case has been long awaited, as the dispute began back in 2006 when Beyond Pesticides and other groups petitioned the EPA to require pesticide manufacturers to disclose 371 inert ingredienton their pesticide product labels. After an extended period of time, in 2009 EPA  finally  responded  to the petition asking it to require that inert ingredients be identified on the labels of produc
ts that include them in their formulations. Then, on December 23, 2009, EPA took another promising step forward with an  Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), announcing its intention to seek public input on developing an inert ingredient disclosure rule. Putting forth two proposals, one would require listing of all ingredients already identified as hazardous and the other would require listing of all ingredients. Unfortunately, EPA has taken no further action since then. As a result, some of the original petitioners  filed an “undue delay” complaint  against EPA  in 2014  for failing to complete rulemaking that would require pesticide manufacturers to disclose  the inert ingredients on  their pesticide product labels.

In response to that lawsuit, EPA retracted its previous ANPR and intention to move forward with rulemaking. Instead, EPA issued a  letter  to the original 2006 petitioners describing its intentions to seek non-rulemaking regulatory programs and voluntary disclosure standards, stating, “In sum, [EPA] believe[s] we have identified a more effective and timely way to achieve our common objective; but, because this approach would no longer pursue the rulemaking the EPA initiated via the [ANPR] seeking to mandate the disclosure of potentially hazardous inert ingredients on pesticide labels, as requested in the 2006 petitions, this amended response constitutes a denial of the petitions.”

EPA then used its change of position and denial of the 2006 petition as a basis to have the undue delay lawsuit thrown out because it would no longer be issuing a rulemaking.

In response to this, plaintiffs filed this current lawsuit, advocating against EPA’s current policy to encourage voluntary disclosure by manufacturers, given that it has not been effective to-date in making people aware of what inert ingredients are found in pesticides. They also continue to argue that the toxic ingredients in question clearly meet the standard for “unreasonable risk” which the EPA is tasked with combating under FIFRA.

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

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits hazardous chemical use and requires alternative assessments to identify less toxic practices and products under the unreasonable  adverse effects clause of FIFRA.  Beyond Pesticides was a co”plaintiff in the successful lawsuit Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides et al. v. EPA (Civil Action No. 94”1100, 1996), in which the court ruled that “inert” ingredients should not be given blanket trade secret protection by EPA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In that  case, the plaintiffs successfully argued that EPA must disclose inert ingredients since their secrecy from public disclosure served no proprietary interest for the chemical manufacturer. This same argument holds with respect to the product label.

Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have consistently urged EPA to follow in the steps of countries like Canada and the European Union by following the precautionary principle, which generally approves products after they have been assessed for harm, not before. Beyond Pesticides  suggests an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals.

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

Source: Courthouse News Service

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2016) A proposal for a temporary ‘technical extension’ of the EU approval of the herbicide glyphosate failed to secure the support of a majority of EU governments at a meeting of the EU standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed on Monday. This action may force the withdrawal of the herbicide, widely sold as Monsanto’s Roundup, from shelves if no decision is reached by the end of the month, when its license expires.

After a proposal to renew the license for glyphosate for up to 15 years failed to win support in two meetings earlier this year, the EU executive offered a limited 12 to 18 month extension to allow time for further scientific study. Yet, despite this compromise, the proposal failed to win the support of member states representing at least 65% of the EU’s population, which is needed for adoption, an EU official told The Guardian. Seven member states abstained from Monday’s vote, 20 backed the proposal and one voted against, a German environment ministry spokeswoman said. According to the news source, Germany was among those that abstained from Monday’s vote. Of note is that Bayer, the German chemical company, recently offered to buy the Monsanto.

Bart Staes, the Greens/EFA group environment and food safety spokesperson said in a statement:

“We applaud those EU governments who are sticking to their guns and are refusing to authorise this controversial toxic herbicide.  There are clear concerns about the health risks with glyphosate, both as regards it being a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor. Moreover, glyphosate’s devastating impact on biodiversity should have already led to its ban. Thankfully, the significant public mobilisation and political opposition to reapproving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments, who have forced the Commission to back down.”

“Three strikes must mean the approval of glyphosate is finally ruled out. After the third failed attempt, the Commission must stop continuing to try and force through the approval of glyphosate. Such a move would raise major democratic concerns about the EU’s decision-making process. The process of phasing out glyphosate and other toxic herbicides and pesticides from agriculture must begin now, and this means reorienting the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy towards a more sustainable agricultural model.”

Glyphosate, produced and sold by Monsanto, is often touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by industry. But recent research  links chronic, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. Previous epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly  associated  with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s  Lymphoma  (NHL), even though these studies have been discounted. In addition to impacts on human health, glyphosate has been linked to adverse effects on earthworms and other soil biota, as well as  shape changes in amphibians. The widespread use of the chemical on genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops has led it to be implicated in the  decline of monarch butterflies, whose sole source to lay their eggs, milkweed plants, are being devastated as a result of incessant use of glyphosate.

Glyphosate has been subject to widespread public scrutiny since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as a 2A probable carcinogen  based on animal studies.  Months after the IARC review, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an independent agency funded by the European Union, published a different assessment, saying glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” However, EFSA’s report is limited in that it reviewed glyphosate alone, unlike IARC which reviewed glyphosate and its formulated products, which are more relevant for evaluating risks to human health. And, just last month, a joint review by the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) on  glyphosate seemed to contradict those findings, however the review looks at pesticide residues in food, and does not look at other sources of exposure. Separating independent scientific findings or interpretation of data from those influenced by chemical industry interests has been a long standing problem in the public debate and media discussion on pesticide hazards.

On the other hand, one scientist who was a part of IARC’s expert panel that reviewed glyphosate  spoke of glyphosate’s genotoxic potential, stating  that the herbicide can damage human DNA, which can  result in increased cancer risks. And, a  scientific review  was released in February 2016 by a group of 14  scientists, which expressed concern about the widespread use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), the lack of understanding regarding human exposure, and the potential health impacts. According to the report, U.S. agencies, such as the National Toxicology Program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and EPA, have not adequately kept up with cutting-edge research. The researchers call for the global science and regulatory community to step back and take a fresh look at glyphosate due to widespread exposure patterns. A 2008 study confirms that the ingredients in Roundup formulations kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells, even at very low concentrations, and causes total cell death within 24 hrs.

Further, glyphosate residues have been detected in foods and products that are not typically associated with heavy glyphosate use, and  even in organic foods and products, in which the use of glyphosate is prohibited. Recent reports of the widespread presence of glyphosate residues find the chemical in California wines,  breast milk,  in nearly 100% of Germans and  in German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and  bread. Other sources of exposure include agricultural spraying. A 2015 report found that 54 percent of glyphosate spraying in California is applied in eight counties, many of which are located in the southern part of the Central Valley. The analysis finds that the populations in these counties are predominantly Hispanic or Latino, indicating that glyphosate use in California is distributed unequally along both socioeconomic and racial lines.

In addition to impacts on human health, glyphosate has been linked to adverse effects on  earthworms and other soil biota, as well as  shape changes in amphibians. The widespread use of the chemical on genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops has led it to be implicated in the  decline of monarch butterflies, whose sole source to lay their eggs, milkweed plants, are being devastated as a result of incessant use of glyphosate.

Beyond Pesticides urges individuals concerned about glyphosate exposure to support organic systems that do not rely on hazardous carcinogenic pesticides. In agriculture, concerned consumers can  buy food with the certified organic label, which not only disallows synthetic pesticides like glyphosate, but also the use of sewage sludge and genetically engineered ingredients. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and biotechnology, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

For more information, watch Pesticides and Diseases: What Do We Know and What Do We Need? by Aaron Blair, Ph.D. a National Cancer Institute researcher (emeritus), author of more than 450 publications on occupational and environmental causes of cancer,  and the overall chair of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) evaluation panel that found  glyphosate (Roundup) to be a carcinogen. And, see Beyond Pesticides’ article  Glyphosate Causes Cancer.

Source: The Guardian

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2016) The U.S. Congress passed a bill Tuesday to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, the national law that regulates industrial chemicals, but in the process took away the right of state governments to adopt more stringent standards than the federal government. A Senate voice vote late Tuesday passed the bill, following a House vote in late May. The bill will now go to President Obama’s desk for signature or veto, but it is likely that he will sign it into law. Congress has taken steps to address the vast shortcomings of the law to protect human health and safety, and  in the process has created opportunities for serious delays and restrictions on states’ ability to enact their own toxic chemical regulations.  As the bill heads to President Obama, environmental advocates are concerned that they will lose an important tool in the fight for public protections —with the adoption of federal legislation that will  diminish the right of states and communities to establish protective laws, regulations, and standards in the face of involuntary toxic chemical exposure.

Under  current TSCA law, around 64,000 chemicals are not subject to environmental testing or regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In absence of federal reform over the past 40 years, many states, including Washington, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, New York and Vermont, have stepped up to fill the void, taking actions, such as setting exposure limits lower than federal levels and enacting bans on dangerous toxic products like lead-weighted wheels and flame retardant mattresses.

The reform will change existing TSCA in a number of ways, such as:

• establish a health-based safety standard;
• require the EPA to assess the risk of existing chemicals under “judicially enforceable deadlines,” without consideration of cost. This process will include identification of substances on the market, designation of low and high priorities, risk evaluation of high-priority substances, and restrictions for those that  present an unreasonable risk;
• strike the existing statute’s mandate that the EPA implement “least burdensome” regulatory requirements;
• mandate that the EPA make “an affirmative safety finding” before allowing a new substance on the market, under a 90-day review period (which may be extended to 180 days);
• increases the EPA’s authority to order testing, with a requirement to “reduce and replace animal testing where scientifically reliable alternatives exist”;
• trigger an EPA review of all past confidential business information (CBI) claims, and require re-substantiation of approved claims after ten years;
• limit state authority to restrict substances that are undergoing EPA review, have been found by the agency not to pose unreasonable risk, or are subject to federal risk management, unless they seek out a waiver. States’ authority to require reporting and monitoring are preserved, and chemical restrictions enacted prior to 22 April 2016 are ‘grandfathered’ in;
• call for identification and protection of most vulnerable populations;
• require science-based decisions, founded on weight of evidence (WoE); and
• collect fees on  new and existing chemicals that  go directly to the EPA.

While the final bill looks better in some ways than where it started, it does not look good on one of the issues that matters most — state preemption. In addition, the legislation embraces a risk assessment approach to regulating toxic chemicals, similar to the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which has proven to allow the unnecessary use of toxic chemicals under a “health-based safety standard” for which there are safer less-toxic practices and products. Because of the limitations of risk assessment, which is often politicized or subject to political pressure, it is critical that FIFRA does not preempt state or local authority —although the legislatures of 43 states have stripped their local political subdivisions of the authority to adopt more stringent standards after heavy lobbying from the chemical industry in the 1990’s. States have on occasion  used this authority when they determine that federal government action is inadequately protective, as Maryland and Connecticut recently did in restricting the sale of bee-toxic neonicotinoid pesticides and other states consider similar action.

State authorities, public health groups, and environmental advocates alike have cause for concern. Lobbying for  preemption laws that strip states and localities of their authority to restrict toxic chemical use is a tried and true practice of the chemical industry. Arguing under the guise of coherence and a unified national approach, chemical industry leaders would prefer weaker, uniform standards that fail to account for localized needs and sensitive populations. As written, the bill relies on EPA to protect public health, an obligation that the agency continually falls short on, while simultaneously making it more difficult for states to go above and beyond EPA standards. Meanwhile, extreme legislators and public figures, including presidential hopeful Donald Trump, have called for the elimination of EPA, raising questions about the agency’s longevity as a regulatory entity able to protect citizens from the harms associated with toxic chemicals. If the reformed bill is signed into law by President Obama, state authority to act and protect beyond the federal scope would be undermined.

Beyond Pesticides has maintained that it is essential to uphold the basic principle that states and localities have the authority to adopt more restrictive standards than the federal government. In fact, because federal pesticide and toxic laws have upheld the right of states to exceed federal standards for pesticide use, stronger federal law has resulted over time. Pesticides, such as DDT, DBCB, chlordane, EDB, and others were first banned by states, followed by federal action.

In the face of weak federal and state laws, even in states that preempt local authority to restrict toxic chemical use in public spaces and private property, you can work with your local government to adopt an ordinance that stops local government use of toxic chemicals on all public property, land and buildings. See Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change on how to get started with a local campaign, contact us at [email protected], or call 202-543-5450.

Source: Politico, Chemical Watch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2016) With years of data documenting the harmful impacts of the herbicide atrazine on aquatic organisms and other wildlife, a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessment now concludes that this widely used chemical poses risks to fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and even birds, reptiles and mammals. Atrazine is a potent endocrine disruptor with strong associations with birth defects, sex reversal and hermaphroditism in organisms, and whose risk to environmental and human health is exacerbated by pervasive surface, ground and drinking water contamination.

Last week, EPA released its triazine ecological risk assessments for atrazine and its chemical cousins simazine, and propazine. The assessments evaluated risks to animals and plants including, amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic plant communities, and terrestrial plants.  EPA is currently in the registration review process for these chemicals. For atrazine, EPA concludes, “aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risks to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrate in these same locations. In the terrestrial environment, there are risk concerns for mammals, birds, reptiles, plants and plant communities across the country for many of the atrazine uses.” Levels of concerns were exceeded by as much as 200-fold for some organisms! When it comes to amphibians, impacts which have been extensively documented by researchers like Tyrone Hayes, PhD, at the University of California, Berkeley, EPA finds that “there is potential for chronic risks to amphibians based on multiple effects endpoint concentrations compared to measured and predicted surface water concentrations.” Previous scientific reviews, like the 2009 analysis of more than 100 scientific studies conducted on atrazine, found evidence that atrazine harms fish and frogs.

The results are similar for simazine and propazine, since all three triazines show similar effects at similar concentrations. Simazine, which is frequently detected in surface and groundwaters, was found to have potential chronic risks to mammals and birds. Simazine spray drift and runoff can also impact non-target plants. For propazine, which has minimal uses (preemergent control in sorghum and container grown ornamentals in greenhouses only), the agency identified chronic risks to mammals, birds and non-target plants. All three chemicals are mobile and persistent in the environment, which results in water contamination. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), atrazine is one of the most frequently detected pesticides, found at concentrations at or above aquatic benchmarks, and is also frequently detected in shallow ground water in agricultural areas, and in urban streams. Similarly, a 2009 report by the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) “Poisoning the Well,” 97% of surface drinking water systems in Midwestern States show atrazine contamination. Atrazine’s manufacturer, Syngenta, reached a class action settlement in 2012 with water utilities across the country to clean up atrazine in drinking water supplies. This case, City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngenta AG, Case No. 3:10-cv-00188- JPG-PMF, showed that atrazine contaminated community water systems’ raw and finished water. The lawsuit claimed that atrazine at any level injures water supply systems, and requested that Syngenta bear the cost of removing atrazine from water systems.

Since atrazine water contamination is so pervasive, risks to sensitive aquatic species are especially important. Specifically, EPA finds that atrazine chronic levels at or above 5ppb lead to reproductive effects in fish, while exposures to levels of 3.4ppb for 60 days or more can impact aquatic plants’ productivity, structure and function. The agency acknowledges that the observed impacts occur at levels below those that have been found through environmental monitoring, as well as at EPA’s safe drinking water standard (3ppb). Studies by Dr. Hayes and others have shown that concentrations as little as 0.1ppb impact hormone function in organisms and turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics. Research also finds that atrazine interferes with mammary gland development in the breast of mammals and is linked to certain birth defects like gastroschisis and choanal atresia, which are significantly increased for pregnant women with high levels of atrazine exposure.

EPA’s recent triazine assessments are not without challenge from industry groups that  disagree with the findings and the studies EPA used to reach its conclusion. Industry groups still contend that atrazine is “safe” to use despite a wealth of scientific evidence from independent researchers which say otherwise. Atrazine is currently banned in the European Union over concerns of widespread water contamination. Environmental groups have long called for the U.S. to follow Europe and ban atrazine. A 2014 study published in the  International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health  found that  banning atrazine would result in net economic benefit to farmers.  Given that over 70 million pounds of atrazine are used annually, the serious ecological impacts associated with its continued use, and the availability of alternatives, advocates argue that atrazine use must come to an end. View Dr. Hayes’ keynote talk on atrazine and endocrine disruption at Beyond Pesticides’  33rd National Pesticide Forum in 2015.

EPA’s draft assessments are now  open for public comment  and will be followed later this year by an assessment of atrazine’s  human health effects. EPA will have atrazine’s assessment peer reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Panel in 2017. Submit your comments for Atrazine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266), Simazine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0251) and Propazine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0250) by August 5, 2016.Source: EPA News Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2016) A wholesale change in agricultural practices is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment over the long-term, according to a wide-ranging report authored by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES), “a fully independent panel, without financial or organizational ties to any corporations, governments or intergovernmental agencies.” The report, From Uniformity to Diversity, calls for a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems.

According to the report, diversified agroecology focuses on maintaining multiple sources of food production, and farming by applying ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of food systems. Industrial agriculture, on the other hand, requires highly-specialized production of a single food crop, and, through scale and task separation, focuses on increasing productivity through intensification. While monocultures and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are characteristic of industrial agriculture, agroecological practices embrace spatial and temporal diversification (through practices like crop rotation and intercropping), and focus on multiple outputs.

Oliver De Schutter, Ph.D., former United National special rapporteur on food and co-chair of IPES, notes to The Guardian: “Many of the problems in food systems are linked specifically to the uniformity at the heart of industrial agriculture, and its reliance on chemical fertilisers and pesticides.”

Although the report explains that organic farming practices are often synonymous with agroecological principles, as many organic farms are diversified enterprises that focus on holistic management practices, organic certification does not require this approach. However, Beyond Pesticides points out that there is neither a legal nor standardized definition of agroecology or sustainable agriculture, while certified organic is accountable to a public rulemaking process and defined by law, the Organic Foods Production Act, which  requires an “organic systems plan. . .that includes written plans concerning all aspects of agricultural production or handling described in this title including crop rotation and other practices as required under this title.” Furthermore, by law, synthetic fertilizers are specifically prohibited in organic systems, as are other synthetic materials, except those in limited  categories [7 USC 6527(c)(1)(B)(i)] that are “not harmful to health or  the environment,” are essential to organic systems because of the “unavailability of a wholly natural substitute,” and is “consistent with” organic farming. While the principles of organic can be applied to large-scale operations, the crop production farm plan  “shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.”  A  study published earlier this year by researchers at Washington State University deemed organic agriculture essential to a sustainable food system.

There are efforts underway to attach a social justice component to organic. The Agricultural Justice Project seeks to “ensure fair treatment of workers, fair pricing for farmers, and fair business practices” in organic production. View  speech, Social Justice Labeling -From Field to Table, or written version, on this subject by Michael Sligh, Rural Advancement Fund International. Similarly, the Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems (CASFS) at University of California Berkeley functions  to research, develop, and advance sustainable food and agricultural systems that are environmentally sound, economically viable, socially responsible, nonexploitative, and that serve as a foundation for future generations.

From Uniformity to Diversity argues that industrial agriculture persists due to a concentration of power that “locks in” the current structure, allowing relatively few large companies to dominate markets and profits. “Food systems in which uniform crop commodities can be produced and traded on a massive scale are in the economic interests of crop breeders, pesticide manufacturers, grain traders and supermarkets alike,” says the report. “The mismatch between the potential of agroecology   to   improve   food   systems   outcomes, and its potential to generate profit for agribusinesses,   may   explain   why   it   has   been   so slow   to   make   its  way   onto   the   global   political agenda.”

The authors do identify opportunities and recommendations to begin shifting the current paradigm toward a healthier, ecological based food system. This includes changing the way productivity is measured to reflect resiliency, resource efficiency, nutritional quality, biodiversity, provision of ecosystem services, and impacts on livelihood and equity rather than simply net calorie production, yield and income. Also imperative is a switch from long to short supply chains by way of local markets, which can be facilitated by food policy councils, local exchange and trading systems, and farmer’s markets. Public support must be shifted toward diverse agricultural systems, social movements around sustainable farming systems must coalesce, and holistic approaches must become part of education and research agendas. The report asserts that, “[T]he vicious cycles of industrial agriculture must be replaced with new virtuous circles; the various steps in favour of diversified agroecological systems can and must lock each other in, just as current dynamics act to lock them out.” To counter the industrial model, the report calls for “joined-up food policies” at the regional, national, and global level.

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. As a 2014 University of California Berkeley study determined that  diversified organic agriculture can and must be the approach used to feed the world into the future.

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

Source: The Guardian, IPES Report, Uniformity to Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2016) Bayer CropScience’s appeal of the cancellation of their toxic pesticide flubendiamide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was rejected by EPA’s Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susan Biro on Thursday, June 1. Judge Biro dismissed the complaints, saying that the agency was acting within its authority when it pulled its approval for the pesticide earlier this year after the two manufacturers, Bayer CropScience and Nichino America, failed to meet the terms laid out in a 2008 conditional registration. A startling number of pesticides, nearly 65% of the more than 16,000 pesticides now on the market, were first approved by the process of “conditional registration,” a loophole in which EPA allows new pesticides on the market without the full range of legally mandated toxicity tests for a full registration. Meanwhile, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency finalized its  decision to discontinue granting new conditional registrations, also on June 1.

In 2008, EPA granted Bayer a “conditional” registration for flubendiamide, a classification that allows a new pesticide to be registered and used in the field, despite outstanding data points on its toxicological impact. In this case, original data submitted to EPA by Bayer showed concern over the effect of the chemical and its breakdown product on freshwater benthic invertebrates, species such as crustaceans and aquatic insects that  live in stream sediment and provide important ecosystem services such as decomposition and nutrient cycling. In response, rather than declining to proceed with registration of the chemical, EPA negotiated a deal with Bayer to conditionally register the chemical for five  years with additional label restrictions, while it waited for more  data on the harm to benthic species.

The agency issued a Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC) the insecticide on March 4, finding that the company failed to comply with its conditional pesticide registration, backing EPA’s novel process to quickly cancel pesticides and upholding EPA’s ban on sales of existing flubendiamide stocks. The judge found that the agency’s actions in relation to the pesticide have all been consistent with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

As part of the additional data requirements, EPA requested a study to investigate the utility of 15 foot buffer zones (part of the new label requirements EPA assumed would mitigate hazards to benthic organisms). In a novel move, EPA’s agreement with Bayer indicated that the pesticide’s conditional registration would expire in 2013, and if additional data revealed “unreasonable adverse effects,” it would notify the  company, which would then voluntarily withdraw the chemical from the market.

Judge Biro says the agency’s arguments were essentially “unopposed” in the case, calling Bayer’s arguments untimely and unconvincing. “Petitioners do not dispute that after reviewing the data, EPA made a determination, as evidenced by its January 29, 2016 letter to them that further registration of the flubendiamide products ‘will result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.’”

A Bayer spokesman, in a statement to Inside EPA, said that the order is “disappointing for supporters of science-based regulations and grower choice, but it was not unexpected, given the Judge’s prior preliminary rulings, including her decision to exclude any discussion of the scientific issues raised by EPA’s actions on flubendiamide.”

However, since its conditional registration, studies showed that flubendiamide —which is registered for use on over 200 crops, including soybeans, almonds, tobacco, peanuts, and cotton— is toxic to aquatic organisms, breaking down into a more highly toxic substance that harms organisms important to aquatic ecosystems, especially fish. The insecticide is also persistent in the environment. According to EPA, after being informed of the agency’s findings on January 29, 2016, the manufacturers, Bayer CropScience, LP and Nichino America, Inc., were asked to submit a request for voluntary cancellation by Friday, February 5, 2016.  Bayer has rejected the request and EPA’s interpretation of the science.

But, Judge Biro in her June 1 order faulted that argument as unpersuasive, saying the conditional registration did not require EPA to pursue such a dialogue, yet evidence suggests that “EPA’s scientists did engage in a good faith dialogue.”

“The Petitioners here are intentionally out of compliance, and have no intention of coming into compliance,” Judge Biro stated. “There is no reason to allow them to continue to sell and distribute their pesticides beyond the effective date of cancellation.”

Yet, Bayer says that they will continue with the appeal process: “We look forward to having a careful review when the Initial Decision and the ALJ’s prior preliminary rulings are taken up by the Environmental Appeals Board, which is scheduled to issue the final EPA decision no later than July 6.”

This incident shows that even when conditional registration data is submitted and adequately reviewed, EPA is challenged in its  effective execute of the statutory obligation to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to people and  the environment. In 2013, the Government Accountability Office scolded the agency for its conditional registration process, writing, “Specifically, EPA does not have a reliable system, such as an automated data system, to track key information related to conditional registrations, including whether companies have submitted additional data within required time frames.” A significant issue related to this problem was the handling of the conditional registration for another of Bayer’s products, neonicotinoid pesticides. Despite data showing adverse effects to honey bees, and a leaked EPA analysis indicating a field study provided by Bayer was inadequate, the agency provided the chemical clothianidin with a conditional registration. EPA later reversed its stance on the field study and provided clothianidin with a full registration after it indicated that it was able to generate enough data by combining the defunct field study with other proprietary studies Bayer conducted. Now, as part of a review of another neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, EPA is finally confirming that these chemicals harm pollinators.

Given these problems and the difficulties of removing harmful pesticides from the market, a more prudent approach to protecting environmental health would be to halt the use of conditional registrations, as the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency recently decided to do, which was also finalized June 1. Rather than provide avenues for chemical companies to game the system and poison the environment, advocates maintain that EPA should take strong action to encourage pest prevention and readily available alternatives to toxic pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits hazardous chemical use and requires alternative assessments to identify less toxic practices and products under the unreasonable adverse effects clause of FIFRA. Farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the steps of countries like Canada and the European Union by following the precautionary principle, which generally approves products after they have been assessed for harm, not before. Beyond Pesticides  suggests an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals.

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

Source: Inside EPA

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2016) Despite recent reports of continuing bee losses across the U.S., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to reevaluate the use of the bee-toxic insecticide sulfoxaflor, and is proposing an amended registration. Sulfoxaflor’s initial 2013 registration was challenged by beekeepers and subsequently vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals due to overwhelming risks to bees and EPA’s inadequate review of the data.

Last September, the  Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally rejected  EPA’s registration of sulfoxaflor. 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. The Court vacated EPA’s unconditional registration of the chemical, meaning that sulfoxaflor could no longer be used in the U.S. This decision was in response to a suit filed by beekeepers challenging EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor, which cited the insecticide’s threat to bees and beekeeping. The case:  Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Beekeeping Federation, Thomas Smith, Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson v. U.S. EPA  (9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals,”¯No. 13-7234)

According to the court decision, EPA skirted its own regulations when it ignored risk concerns, even with reduced maximum application rates, which EPA has done before, despite prior reprimands from the Court. The judge ruled  that additional higher Tier (Tier II) bee data was needed to fully assess risks, which EPA did not have. Thus, the court vacated sulfoxaflor’s registration. However, EPA’s new amended registration is for fewer uses and according to EPA, the proposed restrictions reduce the risk to bees below EPA’s level of concern such that no additional data requirements are triggered.

Now, EPA is proposing an amended registration, which the agency claims will be “very protective of pollinators,” to allow the chemical’s use on fewer crops than were allowed under sulfoxaflor’s initial registration. For crops that are attractive to bees, the agency will prohibit sulfoxaflor’s use before and during bloom, when EPA expects that bees will  not be present. Additional measures are being proposed to reduce spray drift. EPA is also specifically requesting public input on other proposals: a buffer zone requirement for when there is blooming vegetation bordering the treated field; and the prohibition of  tank mixing sulfoxaflor with other pesticides. EPA has stated that  these  restrictions will “practically eliminate exposure to bees on the field, which reduces the risk to bees below EPA’s level of concern such that no additional data requirements are triggered.”

Despite these new proposed restrictions, sulfoxaflor will still be a danger to bees due to its systemic nature  —an issue EPA continually ignores or underestimates, according to beekeepers and environmental advocates. Sulfoxaflor is similar to that of 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.

Tell EPA not to register another bee-toxic chemical. Comments are being accepted until June 17, 2016.

Honey bees and wild bees have been suffering elevated population declines over the last few years. A recent government-sponsored survey reports that U.S. beekeepers lost  44 percent of their honey bee colonies between April 2015 and April 2016, one of the highest recorded losses. There is a  growing scientific consensus   that systemic, persistent insecticides like neonicotinoids are a major contributing factor to declines in wild pollinators and honey bee colonies.  A recently published study by researchers at Purdue University  finds that honey bees collect most of their pollen from non-crop plants that are frequently contaminated with a wide range of pesticides. Numerous pesticides, including sulfoxaflor, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and fungicides are highly toxic to honey bees and have a range of effects including impacts on learning behavior, foraging, reproduction and queen production, as well as impairing bee immune systems making them more susceptible to parasites and disease.

In light of the  shortcomings of federal action”¯to protect these beneficial  organisms,  pollinators need pesticide-free habitat  throughout communities.   You can also declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat.”¯Sign the pledge today! Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The”¯Bee Protective Habitat Guide”¯can tell you which native plants are right for your region. For more information on what you can do, visit our  BEE Protective  page.

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

Source: EPA News Release