(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2016) On Friday, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) released a rule titled, Pesticide Use Near Schoolsites, that proposes limited restrictions for certain agricultural pesticide applications near schools and child day care facilities. CDPR, whose proposal  has been criticized by advocates as not adequately protective of workers and communities, is accepting public comments on the proposal until November 17, 2016.

The  proposed rule, effective October 1, 2017, will require farmers to notify public schools and child day care facilities when “certain pesticide applications made for the production of an agricultural commodity near a school site are planned in the coming year and also a few days prior to the applications.” For pesticides applied via aircraft, airblast sprayer, sprinkler chemigation, and fumigation, there must be a minimum ¼  mile buffer around the school or child day care facility. While the move by CDPR is a step in the right direction, it is not rigorous enough and does not adequately protect the most vulnerable populations from pesticide exposure, according to advocates. The rule does not include private K-12 schools or family day care homes, a move that according to CDPR documents is due to the potential for increased costs to businesses and regulated entities. Additionally, the rule only applies to pesticide application activities Monday through Friday, during the hours of 6am to 6pm. Advocates say that these are unacceptable holes in this proposed rule and must be addressed before the final rule is published.

California officials told the Associated Press that “roughly 34 people were sickened in five instances throughout the state between 2005 and 2014 when pesticides drifted onto campuses, demonstrating a need for stricter regulations.” The rule will cover 3,500 schools and day cares and affect approximately 2,500 growers in California.

The stakes are high for families living in the Central Valley of California, where agricultural pesticide use is widespread. According to a 2014 report by the California Department of Public Health, Fresno, Tulare, and San Joaquin counties having the highest numbers of schools within ¼ mile of pesticide application. Additionally, of the top 10 pesticides applied within ¼ mile of the schools assessed, 6 are restricted use and all have been associated with at least one negative effect on children’s health, including cancer, endocrine disruption, developmental delays, and neurotoxicity. California schools began implementing new pesticide reporting and use requirements at the beginning of 2015. All schools and child day care centers statewide are now required to report their annual use of pesticides to CDPR.

While the new limits and restrictions are a step in the right direction, farmworker and advocacy groups believe that more needs to be done, as they fall short of scientists’ recommendations. Increased buffer zones may provide some reprieve from pesticide trespass, but it will not eliminate health concerns for children in the region. Virginia Zaunbrecher, JD, of UCLA’s Science and Technology program remarked to Fresno Bee earlier this year, “In general, a buffer zone is going to decrease exposure, but it’s not going to eliminate exposure.” Beyond Pesticides has long encouraged a minimum two mile buffer zone for agricultural pesticide use around sensitive areas. The proposed rule does create a route of communication and notification for when pesticide applications will be taking place, which is an important component for communities.

More than a decade ago, six families filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that details the dangerous levels of pesticides at Latino public schools throughout California that exposed Latino kids to chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, neurodevelopmental disorders and other serious health problems. The complaint urged EPA to enforce the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funds from engaging in discriminatory practices. In 2011, as a result of a settlement agreement EPA reached with CDPR, EPA found that CDPR’s past renewal of the toxic fumigant methyl bromide discriminated against Latino school children whose schools are located near agriculture fields, conceding that unintentional adverse and disproportionate impact on Latino children resulting from the use of methyl bromide during that period could have occurred. Little was done to remedy these exposures and so a lawsuit was filed in 2013 against EPA’s continuing failure to protect Latino students. The case was subsequently moved for dismissal in federal court in part due to lack of jurisdiction. Methyl bromide is still widely used in California to grow strawberries, despite its ban under the Montreal Protocol, but it will no longer be eligible for a critical use exemption after 2016.

Ultimately, what is needed to truly protect community health is a transition away from toxic pesticides toward agricultural practices which promote pest resilience and eliminate  the need for toxic chemicals. A wide variety of alternative practices and products are available to assist growers in preventing pest problems before they start. Organic agriculture, which requires farmers to improve soil health and craft an organic system plan to guide pest control decisions, represents a viable path forward for agriculture in California and beyond.

Any interested person may present comments in writing about the proposed action by the CDPR to the agency contact, Linda Irokawa-Otani. Written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 17, 2016. Comments regarding this proposed action may also be transmitted via e−mail to [email protected] or by fax to 916−324−1491.

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

Source: Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, September 30, 2016) Stand up for organic! The public comment period has opened on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) proposed recommendations affecting  organic standards, materials and policy. The fall 2016 meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by October 26, 2016. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label. Make your voice heard before the comment period closes. We’ve made tremendous progress in creating an organic food production system. Let’s not let USDA turn back the clock.

Beyond Pesticides has  begun to analyze the numerous recommendations and are providing you  with our positions that we hope you will use as the basis for your comments. We will provide positions on additional topics in the near future. Please feel free to develop your own comments or cut and paste ours. If you cut and paste our comments into regulations.gov, please first put a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance if these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer or other concerned party.

Some of the major issues before the fall 2016 National Organic Standards Board include:

• Chlorine Dioxide Gas: Beyond Pesticides is appalled that the NOSB Handling Subcommittee (HS) would propose adding chlorine dioxide gas to the National List and we maintain that the petition should be rejected because it fails to meet all Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) criteria. The petitioned product has a conditional registration from the Environmental Protection Agneyc (EPA), meaning that not all essential data have been submitted. It is not labeled for this use. The necessary tolerances or exemptions from tolerances do not exist. It is a hazardous chemical used to take the place of care in handling and less hazardous materials. Because the petitioner created confusion around the petitioned substance, important information about the hazards of chlorine dioxide gas and its regulation by EPA were hidden from the HS in its deliberations. The NOSB should not approve more sanitizers —particularly chlorine-based sanitizers””until performing a comprehensive review of sanitizers’ adverse effects to health and the environment and their need (essentiality) in organic production.
• Carrageenan: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of carrageenan on §205.605(a) and believes that the substance should be removed from the National List. Carrageenan should be reclassified as a synthetic. The NOSB must take a precautionary approach when assessing the studies that refute findings of health effects as they were performed by the same group of industry-supported scientists. Even giving equal weight to industry-supported and independent research, the NOSB must accept the existence of science pointing to serious health consequences associated with the consumption of carrageenan and act to protect organic consumers. The evidence summarized by the 2015 Technical Review came up with a verdict of mixed results on virtually every issue regarding food grade (high molecular weight) carrageenan. However, there is widespread agreement that poligeenan, which contaminates food grade carrageenan at unknown and uncontrollable levels, does cause adverse effects, including cancer. The production causes adverse environmental impacts. And it is not necessary —organic processors have been moving away from the use of carrageen because of consumer pressure since it was last considered for sunset.
• Hydroponics: Beyond Pesticides supports the view of the majority of the Crops Subcommittee to recommend that hydroponics, aeroponics, bioponics and aquaponics methods should not be considered eligible for organic certification. Organic production depends upon the “Law of Return,” which together with the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant,” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic systems. Hydroponic/aeroponic/bioponic/aquaponics systems are not consistent with these principles in organic production. Somewhere along the continuum between in-ground production and bioponics is a line separating those methods of production that can be certified organic from those that cannot. We can say that the line is somewhere along that continuum —in-ground production can be certified organic, while hydroponics/aeroponics/bioponics/aquaponics cannot.
• EPA List 3 — Inerts of Unknown Toxicity: The NOSB must take the sunset review of List 3 “inerts” seriously. Although List 3 “inerts” are included in the annotation change approved at the fall 2015 NOSB meeting, it may be several years before that annotation takes effect. The NOSB has identified the three List 3 “inerts” in use in organic production, and should review them according to OFPA criteria as required by law rather than simply waiting for the annotation change to take effect. The former “List 3 inerts,” which were approved for use only in passive pheromone dispensers, have received special treatment —the law did not intend for “inerts” on List 3 to be allowed in organic production. The definition of “passive polymeric dispenser products” that was included in the spring 2012 NOSB recommendation was refused by the National Organic Program NOP. Therefore, this small group of chemicals has questionable status. From Beyond Pesticides’review of these chemicals, we think it quite likely that at least some will be found to be acceptable when reviewed by the NOSB, but the existence of such an exceptional listing does not support the integrity.

Please go to Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage to learn more about these and other substantive issues, and to provide a unique public comment to the NOSB.

We ask that you submit comments on as many issues and materials as you can by the October 26 deadline. For help crafting your comments, view Beyond Pesticides’ commenting guide.

Thank you for helping to protect and uphold organic integrity!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2016) A study released last week shows that Miami-Dade County’s aerial spraying of naled for Zika virus produced little reduction on the female Aedes aegypti populations throughout the area. According to the study, Efficacy of Aedes aegypti population control methods in the first two mosquito-borne Zika transmission zones in Miami-Dade County, Florida, within three days of spraying, the mosquito population were virtually identical to the pre-spray levels. The author, Philip Stoddard, Ph.D., is a biology professer at Florida International University and mayor of South Miami.

“Application of permethrin, a persistent pyrethroid adulticide, had no effect whatsoever on mosquito counts. Naled, a potent organophosphate adulticide applied aerially, produced a transitory suppression in Wynwood but lost efficacy after two or three applications,” said Dr. Stoddard. “In Miami Beach, aerial  application of naled produced no significant reduction of the Aedes aegypti population.”

Naled is an organophosphate insecticide with the highest acute toxicity of any mosquitocide. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), naled can cause cholinesterase (an enzyme necessary to the transmission of nerve impulses) inhibition in humans, meaning that it can overstimulate the nervous system, causing nausea, dizziness, confusion, and, at very high exposures (e.g., accidents or major spills), respiratory paralysis and death. Local residents throughout Miami-Dade have repeatedly expressed their concerns about the county’s use of toxic chemicals to combat Zika, worried especially about the health of their children. Dr. Stoddard’s study puts further emphasis on how rushing to use ineffective pesticide spraying to solve Zika problems exposes both humans and wildlife  to unnecessary danger.

Earlier this month, Beyond Pesticides wrote a letter to the EPA, urging the agency to alert local and state officials to the fact that key data reviews on the safety of widely used mosquito control pesticides, including naled and synthetic pyrethroids, are outdated and incomplete. According to EPA documents, the agency did not meet a planned 2015 deadline for a final review decision evaluating residential exposure to naled, and its highly toxic breakdown product dichlorvos [DDVP]. In addition to the toxic properties of naled, EPA has stated in review documents that it “has determined that the adverse effects caused by DDVP that are of primary concern to human health are neurological effects related to inhibition of cholinesterase activity.”

Many researchers question the efficacy of spray programs for adult mosquitoes, especially given the biology of the targeted mosquito, Aedes aegypti. This mosquito stays close to its breeding sites in residential areas and inside homes, suggesting that community spray programs are the least effective control measure. Harvard Medical School Scientist and Zika expert, Michael Callahan, Ph.D., believes that aerial spraying could potentially make the Zika problem worse by killing natural predators of the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Dr. Callahan stated in a video interview:

“We can tell you what hasn’t worked in the past with aerial spraying with this mosquito. There’s been a lot of money wasted in Singapore, Taiwan and Japan and several Central American countries, trying to control aedes aegypti with aerial spraying. It does not work. It is an indoor resident. About 60-70 of our total community population is indoors and it is not flying around at night when the aerial spraying controls. What you see in Florida is the adaptive plan for West Nile mosquito… Aerial spraying with naled or many of the other insecticides have been proven systematically to be less effective. For Aedes aegypti you need on the ground spray, houses and yards and absolutely control breeding sites by getting rid of standing water.”

The underlying philosophy of mosquito control is based on the fact that the greatest control impact on mosquito populations will occur when they are concentrated, immobile and accessible. This position is reflected in the Joint Statement on Mosquito Control in the United States from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  (September 2012).    The most effective strategy emphasizes habitast management and controlling the immature stages before the mosquitoes emerge as adults.    

CDC said in 2001, “Adulticiding, the application of chemicals to kill adult mosquitoes by ground or aerial applications, is usually the least efficient mosquito control technique.”  See also page 15, section VI, of Beyond Pesticides’  Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy.

In light of the identified hazards and unknown effects of exposure to naled and synthetic pyrethroids, Beyond Pesticides urges local and state officials to consider more closely the lack of efficacy associated with massive spray programs. Beyond Pesticides encourages an integrated approach to mosquito management that focuses on prevention through public education encouraging frequent removal of standing water, larviciding, and use of repellents. If prevention measures are enforced, the need to spray should be extremely limited, and balanced against the potential public health impacts of hazardous pesticides.  Community based programs should encourage residents to employ these effective techniques, focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, and promote monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed.  Consider contacting Beyond Pesticides for 25 free mosquito doorknob hangers to encourage best management practices in your neighborhood.

Dr. Stoddard spoke at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum in Orlando, Florida. He  spearheaded an initiative to address mosquito-borne diseases while limiting environmental damage from over-application of broad-spectrum insecticides, designating the city of South Miami as a wildlife sanctuary in order to prevent mosquito spray by the county. Learn more by watching his talk here.

Sources: Miami New Times, Miami Herald

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

(Beyond Pesticides September 28, 2016) This summer, Beyond Pesticides teamed up with The Bees Waggle to develop pollinator curriculum with the intent of making it widely available for public use. The goal of the curriculum is to provide a fun, hands-on lesson about pollinators and their importance to food production. Through the lesson, students learn about biodiversity, soil health, and the negative effects of pesticides on pollinators, while participating in a variety of activities on these issues. In addition, Beyond Pesticides  will offer small grant opportunities for teachers in school districts that serve low-income students in order to offset the cost of materials and supplies required to conduct the pollinator lesson plan.

The launch of this educational  program is an expansion  of the classroom lessons  that Beyond Pesticides’ staff and Jessica  Goldstrohm, owner and head educator of The Bees Waggle, brought to District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) this  June as part of the lead up to  National Pollinator Week. The education team visited two first-grade DCPS classrooms, where students participated in lessons outlined in  Beyond Pesticides’ pollinator curriculum. Students gained a deeper understanding of the issues facing honey bees and other pollinators, and learned about ways they and their families can help stop pollinator decline. The students built small bee houses to take home, helping to spread pollinator friendly habitat throughout Washington, DC neighborhoods.

The Curriculum

The Pollinator Curriculum features many different elements, including several hands-on activities, all of which are designed to help students use critical thinking to draw connections between pollinators and themselves.

It starts with a  LESSON PLAN  designed to give teachers background information on the topic of pollinators and biodiversity, and the crucial role they play in food production. The lesson plan coordinates with a pre-designed POWERPOINT  presentation, which can be used as a visual tool for students and teachers. Educators can feel free to add or delete slides depending on their scholars’ grade, age, and ability level, in order to make a presentation that is exciting and accessible to all learners.

Finally, teachers will download and print the lesson activities, which include the  POLLINATOR POSTER, biodiversity web,  POLLINATOR PUZZLE, and instructions for making  BEE HOUSES, designed by Ms. Goldstrohm, for the students to build and take home. Teachers download and distribute a  STUDENT ACTIVITY SHEET  as a take-home activity, along with the PARENT INFORMATION SHEET that shares with  parents the lesson their child participated in and how they can get involved as a family to help protect pollinators. Also provided are resources on  BACKYARD BEEKEEPING  and building a  NATIVE BEE HOUSE  that can be added to schoolyards or gardena in order to create additional pollinator habitat

Educating local school children is just one of the many ways that Beyond Pesticides works to protect pollinators. By teaching children about the importance of bees and other pollinators early in life, the curriculum  instills the understanding  that bees are helpful organisms in the  larger food system, as opposed to ”˜scary’ insects. Beyond Pesticides believes this knowledge will remain with the children as they grow older, creating a new generation of adults who fully understand the importance of biodiversity and the negative impacts pesticides have on our ecosystem. To view and download the Pollinator Curriculum, click here. Be sure to email [email protected] to Beyond Pesticides know if you used this lesson with your students!

Grant Opportunities

In order to facilitate the adoption of this curriculum in school districts and classrooms that serve low-income communities, Beyond Pesticides is offering “Materials Grants” to enable teachers who wish to conduct  the pollinator lesson, but may not have the resources for the supplies. To take advantage of this grant program, please  fill out the online APPLICATION for more details.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 27, 2016)  Multinational pesticide manufacturer Syngenta Crop Protection was handed a  $1.2 million fine last week for multiple violations of federal pesticide law, according a settlement reached with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA charged Syngenta with three major violations of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), including: (1) Failure to have repackaging agreement and/or maintain records on registered pesticides; (2) Distributing misbranded pesticides, and; (3) Failure to maintain data submitted for pesticide registration. However, under the consent agreement reached with EPA, the company neither admits nor denies the allegations. The settlement comes at a time of increased scrutiny of Syngenta, as the company is in the process of reregistering the herbicide atrazine, and Chinese National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) continues its attempts to complete a $43 billion merger. While the plan appears to have cleared U.S. regulatory hurdles, European lawmakers have yet to sign off on the deal.

“The repackaging, sale and distribution of unregistered and misbranded pesticides is illegal and puts people and the environment at risk. Users rely on accurate, up-to-date information about ingredients, directions for use, hazards and safety precautions,” said Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator for the Southeast in an EPA press release.

EPA found  that Syngenta distributed and/or sold over 19 pesticides to over 222 pesticide refillers (companies that receive bulk pesticide products from manufacturers and then repackage the products for sale to users) either without having repackaging agreements in place with these companies, or without maintaining records of repackaging agreements. After inspections of multiple facilities throughout the country, EPA also found that  Syngenta sold pesticide products with outdated labels. One product cited in both violations includes Expert Herbicide, a restricted use product that  contains a mixture of the herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and S-metolachlor. With EPA focused on mitigating risks through product label instructions and warnings, it is critical that manufacturers’ products comply with current EPA registration requirements  to meet the agency’s acceptable risk standards. In the case of Expert Herbicide, Syngenta was found by EPA to have  sold its  product to refillers under a label from 2004 that was missing required information under “precautionary statements,” “directions for use,” and a “storage and disposal statement,” and without a formal agreement with the product’s repackager.

EPA’s findings  are particularly concerning because Syngenta  settled a lawsuit in 2012  with over 1,800 Community Water Systems (CWS) over contamination of drinking water with atrazine. The company was required to pay $105 million to CWSs throughout the country to assist them with removing this highly toxic chemical from drinking water.

Syngenta’s final set of violations came from an inspection of laboratories the company used to test pesticides to support their registration. EPA discovered that Syngenta, as required by  FIFRA,  did not maintain study records that  characterized  food residues after the application of the widely used fungicides azoxystrobin and propiconazole.

Under the consent agreement, Syngenta will pay $766,508 in civil penalties and will spend $436,990 to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The SEP requires Syngenta to conduct within four  years an education campaign to train pesticide users, manufacturers, and refillers about regulatory requirements under FIFRA. EPA will oversee the program’s implementation to ensure manufacturer compliance with the law.

Ms.  Heard said,  “This settlement sends a strong message to pesticide companies to maintain compliance with all federal environmental laws.” It has been suggested by  Beyond Pesticides that  EPA adopt  a more aggressive enforcement strategy, that the settlements on penalties do not appear to affect corporate behavior.  Only 2 years ago, while EPA was still conducting its Syngenta investigation, the agency announced the largest ever pesticide fine ($1.7 million) for violations that included mislabeling pesticide products. It does not appear that the few penalties have not created enough of a disincentive. The agency brought four cases  leading to civil penalties in 2014, and two  cases in 2015.

Without strong enforcement and oversight, companies may  feel little pressure to adhere to regulatory  requirements under  federal law. For the protection of public and environmental health, it is critical that state and federal agencies vigorously enforce current law, and update their current enforcement policy, which has not been revised since 2009, to allow higher penalties and expanded use of criminal proceedings.

Take the most effective action to protect public and environmental health by telling EPA to ban uses of the toxic herbicide atrazine. You can also work to reduce demand for pesticides by going organic in your yard and community, and purchasing certified organic food whenever possible.

Source: EPA Region 4 Press Release, Syngenta Consent Agreement and Final Order

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

(Beyond Pesticides September 26, 2016) Last week, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed a lawsuit against Dow Agrosciences LLC, also known as Dow Chemical, charging  that the “chemical manufacturing giant” fails to warn communities across California about the dangers associated with wide use of the chemical Telone. A trade name for the chemical 1,3-Dicholoropropene, or 1,3-D, Telone is a known carcinogen and is the third most heavily used pesticide in the state. The case focuses on the air pollution caused by the pesticide, as it has been found to linger in the air for multiple days after application, disproportionately impacting the rural communities, often with large minority populations, that live in the immediate vicinity. The case was filed in the State of California Alameda County Superior Court, and Dow has yet to comment or release a statement addressing the allegations against the company.

Routinely applied to strawberry fields, almond orchards, vineyards, and an array of other crops, 1,3-D is a restricted use soil  fumigant, used to kill nematodes, insects, and weeds that has strong links  to cancer and other serious health issues. The use of the chemical in the production of strawberries came into prominence with the forced reduction of another fumigant,  methyl bromide. Scientists became concerned about  methyl bromide in the 1970’s, when it was linked to serious effects on the ozone and was blamed for between 5 and 10 percent of ozone depletion. With the signing of  Montreal Protocol  in 1987, a treaty signed by  President Reagan, methyl bromide became the only pesticide to be banned in the U.S. by treaty, a ban meant to be in full effect by 2005.  Though the U.S. continues to allow the use of methyl bromide through a “critical use exemption,” the ban gave rise to a new class of fumigants, which included 1,3-D, the chemical in Telone.

In time, 1,3-D was revealed to be no better than its predecessor, raising concerns about  the public health and environmental risks associated with its use. A 2014 publication by the Center for Investigative Reporting,  Dark Side of the Strawberry,  revealed increased uses of 1,3-D  results in  unsafe levels of the chemical in the air and that decisions behind 1,3-D monitoring and application rates are fraught with industry manipulation and risk reduction work-arounds. Specifically, California regulators allowed growers to exceed  the 1,3-D health limits, despite documented concerns from state scientists, and turned to Dow Agrosciences, the defendant in the current lawsuit, to figure out how to fix the problem.

The Center for Environmental Health’s lawsuit focuses on the air pollution caused by the use of Telone, and the disproportionate impact it has on minority communities. Telone was initially banned in California in 1990 after studies showed air pollution from the chemical lingered near farms. But the toxic fumigant was later allowed back on the market after a strong lobbying effort lead by Dow. In 2002, California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) loosened the restrictions on Telone over the objections of its own scientists who stated, “Department of Pesticide Regulation scientists do not agree [with the decision to re-allow Telone] and suggest that [the new rules] may actually increase cancer risk.” According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, more than one  million people live in 100 California communities where Telone use surpasses the original safety limits.

“Telone is a serious health threat to families who deserve environmental justice now,” said Michael Green, CEO of CEH. “For decades, Dow and state regulators have put profits ahead of our health. It is long past time for California to protect children and families from Dow’s dangerous chemical.” The CEH lawsuit aims to limit the use of Telone in and require Dow to warn area residents of Shafter, California before applying the pesticide.

Telone was also recently the subject of a University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) study that found mixtures of pesticides to be more harmful than individual pesticides. The report, titled  Exposure and Interaction — The Potential Health Impacts of Using Multiple Pesticides: A Case Study of Three Commonly Used Fumigants, was published by the Sustainable Technology and Policy Program, based in the UCLA School of Law and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. The case study looked at three commonly used fumigants — chloropicrin,  Telone, and  metam salts, and found that:

1. These pesticides may interact to increase the health risk for California farm workers and residents,
2. Workers and residents are regularly exposed to two or more of these pesticides simultaneously, and
3. DPR does not regulate the application of multiple pesticides to prevent or decrease risks to human health, despite having authority to do so.

In light of these findings, the lawsuit advances  the quest to reduce or eliminate the use of Telone in California, and in turn to protect some of the most vulnerable populations from risks of exposure. CEH mentioned in its  press release that, as recently as two weeks ago, parents and staff at an elementary school in Watsonville, CA learned that Telone and other fumigants were scheduled to be applied on a Monday morning just before school began, at a farm less than 1,000 feet from the school. A 2014 report by the California Department of Health found that Latino schoolchildren are 91% more likely than white students to be exposed to the highest levels of hazardous pesticides, a harrowing statistic this lawsuit hopes to end.

The  lawsuit, reports like the  Dark Side of Strawberries,  and other documented hazards  associated with  fumigants and strawberry production  emphasize the need to shift away from dependency on toxic chemicals and seek sustainable, organic solutions to crop production and feeding families. There are less toxic ways to grow strawberries and other crops that have relied on these toxic fumigants. Growing strawberries organically has been shown to create  healthier soils, higher quality fruit, and  improve pollination success. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ website to learn more about  supporting organic agriculture  and  making sustainable choices in the foods we eat.

For more information on pesticide synergy, see  Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure. For information on individual pesticide health effects, see the  Pesticide Gateway.

Source: Center for Environmental Health Press Release, Associated Press

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2016) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed listing the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This is a victory for environmental groups who have fought to protect the rusty patched bumble bee from widespread threats such as habitat loss and pesticide use. The FWS proposal opens a 60-day public comment to allow agencies, groups and interested people to comment and provide new information. The public comment period is open through November 21, 2016. You can submit comments soon by visiting the docket, here.

According to FWS, the rusty patched bumble bee was once widespread across the United States and parts of Canada, but declined dramatically in the 1990s. Their populations dwindled and have declined by 91 percent. FWS acknowledged  that the bumble bee populations considered for this proposal have not been reconfirmed since the early 2000s, meaning that currently there may be even less of the species left. Threats to the rusty patched bumble bee include diseases introduced by commercial bumble bees that are not free of pathogens and are released near wild populations. Climate change plays a part, along with habitat loss from industrial agriculture and other modernization that decreases wild lands. There is also an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that neonicotinoids insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators.

Neonicotinoids affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and eventual death. These pesticides have consistently been implicated as a key contributor  in pollinator declines, not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal exposure that causes  changes in bee reproduction, navigation, and foraging. Pesticide exposure can impair both detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, rendering bees more susceptible to viruses, parasites, and other diseases, and leading to devastating bee losses.

In 2015, a study coauthored by Christopher Connolly, Ph.D., with the University of Dundee, found that bumble bees exposed to field-relevant levels (2.1 parts per billion) of the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin suffer poor navigation and foraging skills. Clothianidin exhibits an acute effect on the bumble bee’s brain, breaking down the mitochondria in its brain cells. At the time, Dr. Connolly stated, “Our research demonstrates beyond doubt that the level of neonicotinoids generally accepted as the average level present in the wild causes brain dysfunction and colonies to perform poorly when consumed by bumble bees.”

In another study,  Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees, Swedish scientists reported that wild bees and bumble bees foraging in crops treated with a commonly used insecticide seed coating, a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, are  less likely to reproduce when compared to bees in untreated fields, and that bumble bee colonies in treated fields gain less weight. Additionally, fewer wild bees and bumble bees are found in treated fields than in untreated ones.

While it is a victory that FWS has proposed to list the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species, other agencies continue to lag behind when it comes to addressing the threat of pesticides to pollinators. In March 2016, a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that U.S. regulatory agencies are falling short in addressing the multiple threats contributing to declining pollinators. The GAO report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) increase the monitoring of wild, native bees, while U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts thus far on  pesticide restrictions (label amendments and restrictions) have been limited and accomplished little to change pesticide exposure patterns to pollinators. GAO identified the need for EPA to develop a plan to assess pesticide risks to a range of bee species beyond honey bees, as current EPA evaluations only use honey bees as a surrogate for wild bee species.  Further, the report finds that the impact from exposure to chemical mixtures also needs to be investigated.

Similarly, in February, a United Nation’s assessment of pollinators and the global food supply warned that many species of wild bees, butterflies, and other pollinators are on a dangerous path toward extinction, further threatening the  food supply if the human-made causes of these declines are not halted. The assessment found that an estimated sixteen percent of vertebrate pollinators are threatened with global extinction.

For these reasons and many others, Beyond Pesticides works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. Organic law requires farmers to foster soil health, and create a strategy to deal with pest populations before they become a problem. Because of these factors, many organic farms do not require the use of even organic-compatible pesticides, opting instead to increase pest and disease resiliency through an increased diversity of pest predators.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees, other insects, and birds for pollination, the decline in pollinators due to pesticides, and other human-made causes, demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage.

For further information about the decline of the rusty patched bumble bee, you can watch A Ghost in the Making, a short film about the species disappearance.

Source: FWS, Xerces Society

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2016) Yesterday, the United Nations (UN) gathered to address the alarming rise of antibiotic resistance at a day-long meeting in New York. The UN General Assembly, made up of delegates from 193 countries, has only convened health-related meetings on three other issues: Ebola, HIV, and noncommunicable diseases. According to the World Health Organization, which collaborates with the UN on health-related priorities, “Antimicrobial resistance has become one of the biggest threats to global health, such as human development.” At this high-profile meeting, Heads of State and Heads of Delegations addressed the urgency of the situation and discussed multisectoral approaches to addressing antimicrobial resistance. This UN meeting elevated the discussion to a historic level and led to the approval of a declaration, but did not result in legally binding actions and failed to include language to eliminate excessive antibiotic use in animal agriculture.

In an interview with Vox, Kevin Outterson, Professor of Law at Boston University, stated that “it has taken 15 years to get [antimicrobial resistance] back on the global agenda” since the UN last tried to take action in September 2001. Experts are warning that we may be entering or have already entered a post-antibiotic era and immediate global action must be taken.

The development of resistance by bacterial, viral, and fungal microorganisms to antimicrobial medicines is primarily due to management practices, the improper and overuse of these medicines in human, agriculture and aquaculture, as well as antimicrobial residues that make their way into water, soil, and crop systems. In the U.S., antibiotic-resistant microorganisms cause over two million illnesses and approximately 23,000 deaths each year as a direct result of antibiotic-resistant infection. Many more people fall ill or die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection.

The vast majority of antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to non-organic livestock. According to Physicians for Social Responsibility, the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock production accounts for nearly 80% of all antibiotics used in the United States. Typically, low levels of antibiotics are administered to animals through feed and water to prevent disease and promote growth. This is generally done to compensate for overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions, as is common in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and to fatten livestock to get them to market sooner. This process increases the risk of infectious disease outbreaks that would be averted under living conditions appropriate to each species.

Under the Organic Foods Production Act, (OFPA) certified USDA livestock producers cannot use growth promoters and hormones, whether implanted, ingested, or injected, including antibiotics. Additionally, certified USDA Organic livestock producers cannot use subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics, meaning they cannot administer low-dose antibiotic treatments that are not for the purpose of treating sick livestock. The standards also require that producers maintain living conditions that prevent infectious diseases from becoming established and adversely affecting livestock health.

In the spring of 2014, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted to uphold the phase out in apple and pear production of the antibiotic streptomycin, which was set to expire on October 21, 2014. This vote came after a similar proposal to extend an exemption for oxytetracycline, another antibiotic used in apple and pear production, was rejected at the spring 2013 NOSB meeting. Beyond Pesticides, with other organizations, led the effort to remove antibiotics from organic apple and pear production because of their contribution to antibiotic resistance, organic consumer expectation that antibiotics are not used in organic food production, and the availability of alternative practices and inputs.

Additionally, the wide use of triclosan, an antibacterial in antimicrobial soaps and personal care products, also has led to an increase in bacterial resistance. In a decision that was long overdue, on September 2, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned triclosan in soaps, while EPA continues to allow for its use in common household products and toys. Beyond Pesticides raised concerns about the health effects of triclosan in 2004 in its piece, The Ubiquitous Triclosan, and petitioned the agency to ban the chemical in 2005. In 2015, triclosan was banned in the European Union. For nearly two decades, scientific studies have disputed the need for the chemical and linked its widespread use to health and environmental effects and the development of stronger bacteria that are increasingly difficult to control. For more background, see Beyond Pesticides’ triclosan page.

Through the support of organic agriculture and in pressing  for even stronger organic standards and continuous improvement, consumers are moving the market away from hazardous chemicals, including antimicrobial use. For more information on what you can do to advance organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong website, which provides a number of resources for people to participate in the organic review process.

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

Sources: Vox, World Health Organization, The Toronto Star

(Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2016) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs released last week  its Glyphosate Issue Paper in which the agency is proposing to classify glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant for human health risk assessment.” Glyphosate, the controversial active ingredient in Roundup, was classified in 2015 by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a “probable carcinogen” and numerous studies have associated the chemical with cancer and other human health issues. However, EPA’s proposed a classification that is contrary, not only to WHO’s, but also a position  it had previously held. The issue paper was released in preparation for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting, October 18-21, which convenes to review EPA’s evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate.

Glyphosate, produced by Monsanto, is one of the most popular weedkillers in the U.S., and the active ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet 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.

The carcinogenic potential of glyphosate has been reviewed and disagreed on many times. EPA, in 1985, originally classified glyphosate as a chemical ”˜possibly carcinogenic to humans,’ based on tumors in laboratory animals,  but changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans years later, allowing the chemical to grow to  the most widely used pesticide in the U.S.  But now, according to EPA’s document, in September 2015, the agency reviewed relevant glyphosate data, including studies submitted by the registrant and studies published in the open literature. This evaluation resulted in a classification of glyphosate as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.”  However, many of these industry studies are not publicly available, and their findings may not have been peer-reviewed.

To clarify, EPA’s hierarchical  categories of carcinogens,  recognized by the 2005  Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment  are:

• Carcinogenic to Humans
• Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans
• Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential
• Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential
• Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans

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. The European Commission has since issued a  limited license extension for glyphosate, after member states were unable to come to a formal decision. The extension also comes with some restrictions, including obligations for member states to minimize use on playgrounds, and a ban on formulations with the ingredient POEA,  which can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

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. Similarly, a study released this year finds that glyphosate  can cause changes to DNA function resulting in the onset of chronic disease, including diabetes, obesity, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The  FIFRA SAP  is made up of biologists, toxicologists, and other scientific experts who consult the EPA on “a wide-range of health and safety issues related to pesticides.” EPA’s selection of advisory board members and past FIFRA SAP nominees have been criticized because of conflicts of interest, but it is not known how this particular panel will react to EPA’s proposal. After their meeting, the FIFRA SAP will have 90 days to submit a written report to the EPA for their review. All of this action is a part of EPA’s most current effort to publish glyphosate’s human health and ecological risk assessments, scheduled for release in spring 2017.

We encourage you to submit written comments for the FIFRA SAP to review and consider during their meeting. This can be done using identification docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385; online  here, by mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, or in person  following these instructions.  More details on how to submit comments can be found  here.

Given the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller, like Tracy Madlener, a mother of two,  successfully did last year. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through our  Tools for Change  page. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to  organize a campaign  and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our  factsheets. See Beyond Pesticides’ article  Glyphosate Causes Cancer  for more information.

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

Source:  NPR  ,  American Council on Science and Health

(Beyond Pesticides, September 20, 2016) Honey bee colonies are declining as the total number of pesticide products they are exposed to increases, regardless of the amount of exposure, according to research published last week from scientists at the University of Maryland (UMD). The study aimed to look at honey bee colonies’ exposome, a term traditionally used in cancer research, defined as the measure of all exposures over an individual’s lifetime and how those exposures relate to health. In their investigation, researchers did not look at individual honey bees but instead treated the colony as a single super-organism, and based results on lifetime exposure to agricultural chemicals.

The 91 honey bee colonies studied by researchers were exposed to a total of 93 different pesticide compounds throughout the course of their pollination season. Of these residues, 13 different compounds were found in bees, 61 in beebread (packed pollen within the hive), and 70 were found in wax. Researchers gauged the effect of pesticide exposure not only by looking at the number of pesticides in colonies, but also their toxicological relevance over a specific threshold, as well as through the calculation of a hazard quotient (HQ), which evaluates  the cumulative toxicity of various pesticide residues. Pesticide detections and HQ spiked when colonies were placed in agricultural fields for pollination (including blueberry, apple, citrus and cucumber production), and decreased when placed in a holding yard or put into honey production.

During the pollination season, colonies that died-off had higher total pesticide residues in their wax over the course of sampling than colonies that survived. While researchers found that insecticides were the greatest contributor of increased hazard to honey bee colonies, elevated levels of fungicides appeared to be correlated with colonies that died within ~30 days after sampling.  “We were surprised to find such an abundance of fungicides inside the hives, but it was even more surprising to find that fungicides are linked to imminent colony mortality,” said Kirsten Traynor, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in entomology at UMD and lead author on the study. “These compounds have long been thought to be safe for bees. We’re seeing them at higher doses than the chemicals beekeepers apply directly to the colonies to control varroa mites. So that is particularly concerning.”

Pesticide load and hazard were also elevated in colonies that experienced a queen event —when a queen is replaced, in the process of being replaced, or queenless. A queen event is a predictor that a colony will die-off within ~50 days. Researchers found levels of synthetic pyrethroids were higher in colonies with a queen event, echoing past research showing adverse effects to bee reproduction from pyrethroid exposure. While scientists did not find a significant contribution from neonicotinoids, a class of chemicals widely implicated in bee and other pollinator declines, co-authors of the research note the study may not have been set up to adequately investigate their impact.

“We just did not find neonicotinoids in the colonies,” said Dennis vanEngelsdorp, PhD, UMD professor and co-author of the study. “There were some trace residues of neonicotinoids in a few samples, but not nearly on par with other compounds. However, it’s possible we did not test the right matrix””we did not test nectar, for example””or that the product breaks down faster than others in the collection process or that neonicotinoids are simply not very prevalent when crops are flowering.” Environmental and beekeeper groups have criticized Dr. vanEnglesdorp in the past for pinning the worldwide decline of honey bees on the varroa mite, and downplaying the role that neonicotinoid pesticides play in pollinator die-offs.

The implications of this research stretch beyond a single class of chemicals. While the body of science on neonicotinoids, including EPA’s own determination that these chemicals are highly toxic to bees, indicates that they should be immediately removed from use, it is evident that chemcial-intensive  agriculture in general is owed much of the blame. Rather than focus on reducing pesticide exposure or refraining from use when bees are present, agrichemical companies, the conventional farming community, and federal regulators must take a long look at what practices are truly sustainable in the long term. It is clear that insect pollination and its subsequent health and economic benefits will not be maintained if measures aren’t taken to drastically shift agricultural production toward safer practices modeled on organic agriculture. By focusing on soil health, biodiversity, cultural practices like crop rotation and intercropping, and limited off-farm inputs, organic systems represent a viable, scalable path forward.

Concerned residents can help facilitate the shift to organic practices right in their own community by encouraging their local leaders to transition from conventional to organic landscaping. Individuals in farming communities can start conversations about safer practices directly with their neighbors and at community meetings. Consumers can help promote the growth of organic agriculture by purchasing organic products whenever possible. For more information on how organic agriculture benefits pollinators, see our BEE Protective and organic program webpage.

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

Source: PRWeb, Nature

(Beyond Pesticides,  September 19, 2016) Last week, a  proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger was announced, as St. Louis-based agrichemical giant  Monsanto Co. agreed to sell the company  to German pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerate, Bayer, in  an unprecedented $66 billion dollar deal. It is the merger of two companies that have been tied to past atrocities against humanity, one whose chemical product was  used  to kill  concentration camp victims under Adolf Hitler and the other a producer of the  deadly defoliant, Agent Orange, which was sprayed by the U.S. government over Vietnam and left a legacy of health damage to the Vietnamese people and U.S. veterans of the armed forces. At the same time, these companies are currently embroiled in controversy on  some of the most hazardous pesticides, including glyphosate (Roundup^TM) and neonicotinoids, used in food production and in communities and home gardens    —continuing a history of profiting from a technology that has adverse effects on human life and the environment, but has been shown to be unnecessary and unsustainable in food production and the management of lawns, landscapes, playing fields, and parks.

In 1995, the Associated Press reported that the then-CEO of Bayer,  Helge Wehmeier, apologized to Elie Wiesel, Ph.D., holocaust survivor, author, activist, and 1986 Nobel Peace Prize recipient,  for his predecessor corporation’s (I.G. Farben) role in chemical testing on and killing concentration camp prisoners. He said, “I have sorrow and regret and apologize for the inhumanity in my country and for what I.G. Farben did to your people.” The AP reported, “Bayer’s parent company, Bayer AG, was part of the German chemical conglomerate I.G. Farben [IGF], which ran slave-labor factories during the Holocaust, including one at which Wiesel worked as a teenager.  IGF also had a decisive share in a company that made Zyklon B gas, used to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz, where Wiesel’s mother and sister died.” More detail, according to Alliance for Human Research Protection: “IG Farben was the most powerful German corporate cartel in the first half of the 20th century and the single largest profiteer from the Second World War. IG (Interessengemeinschaft) stands for “Association of Common Interests”: IG Farben included BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, and other German chemical and pharmaceutical companies.  As documents show, IG Farben was intimately involved with the human experimental atrocities committed by Mengele at Auschwitz.  A German watchdog organization, the GBG Network, maintains copious documents and tracks Bayer Pharmaceutical activities.”

In  reprinting an article from 2005 on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the  Centre for  Research on Globalization published this statement on its website: “It is of particular relevance in relation to the announced merger between Monsanto and Bayer and the worldwide campaign against Monsanto.  Both companies are complicit in crimes against humanity, Monsanto’s agent orange used by the US military in Vietnam,  IG-Farben Bayer’s historical links to Nazi war crimes.”

In order to gain control of Monsanto, Bayer increased its offer to $128.00 a share, up from the $127.50 the  company  offered earlier this month. The pharmaceutical giant has been pursuing Monsanto in an attempt to become the world’s largest biotechnology and pesticide manufacture, raising concerns by those who oppose the mega-merger of limited choices for acquiring seed and increased pesticide sales and dependence. This is just the latest development in a flurry of activity surrounding mergers in the multinational  agriculture and chemical industries in the past year.

In December 2015, chemical giants DuPont and Dow Chemical Compa nies announced that their boards of directors unanimously  approved a merger of their companies  through an all-stock deal, valuing the combined market capitalization at $130 billion. Then, in May of 2016,  Bayer AG made its first bid for Monsanto, worth $42 billion, in an attempt to swallow the global seed and chemical producer and become the world’s biggest farm chemical supplier, though that initial bid was initially rejected in favor of the one approved last week. Finally, in February 2016,  China National Chemical Corp. acquired Syngenta AG, and then cleared a major hurdle to the merger this past August when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) gave the go-ahead for the merger to move forward, a deal worth nearly $43 million. The Bayer takeover of Monsanto will  be the largest merger yet, valued at $66 billion. According to  Vox, the new company will  be the largest agribusiness in the world, selling 29 percent of the world’s seeds and 24 percent of its pesticides. Additionally, it is predicted that if all three deals were to close, the three resulting companies would control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, a harrowing statistic for anyone concerned about the impact chemical-intensive agriculture has on soil quality and overall environmental health.

Many of these big agricultural and chemical companies have been struggling to cope with falling demand for farm chemicals due to falling crop prices and a strong dollar, and many believe that a merger will provide longer-term security. However, for the billion-dollar agrichemical industry, a merger is likely to only provide short-term stability, increase the wealth of top executives, and raise the cost of food, as the new corporation will create a near monopoly that  will allow it  to increase prices. Observers say, however, that in the long-term, the market will reveal that relying on the promotion of chemical-intensive agricultural practices is not a sustainable business practice. Chemical-intensive agriculture depends on chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides that have been shown to  reduce soil organic matter and decrease the diversity of soil biota. These chemical inputs contaminate waterways leading to eutrophication and “dead zones,” where nothing is able to live or grow. Eventually, as chemical-intensive agriculture depletes organic matter in the soil and there is nothing left with which to grow food or sustain life, toxic chemical inputs will become obsolete. Sustainability advocates say that the  only way that the agricultural industry can create a sustainable business model is to produce products that are compatible with  organic agriculture.

On the matter of the cost of food without toxic pesticides, data shows that the cost of chemical-intensive agriculture are far greater than organic production systems, although consumers pay for these in the form of increased taxes for chemical cleanups, emergency response to  accidents, and in health care utility bills, not at the grocery store. Chemical companies are able to externalize the social and environmental costs of their products  in the form of eutrophication, soil erosion, harm to wildlife, illness (lost productivity) and health care costs to consumers, pollination, and numerous other adverse effects. Some researchers calculate the adverse impacts to health and the environment to be as much as $16.9 billion a year (Tegtmeier and Duffy 2004). If consumers paid the true cost of conventional food production, prices for conventionally grown goods would certainly be more expensive than organic products, which are certified through a process that protects human health and the environment.

The merger is not set in stone, however, and several steps  must take place  before the deal can be finalized. As with the ChemChina-Syngenta merger, the CFIUS would have to give the go ahead for the deal, as well as the European Commission, which generally opposed the use of genetically modified seeds, an area Monsanto specialized in. Monsanto readily admits they would have to file for approval in about 30 jurisdictions, diversifying the possibility of finding an unfavorable host. They will also have to withstand scrutiny and challenges from antitrust authorities and regulators with concerns over potential threats to national security, as well as to the food supply.

According to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, “The attempted takeover of Monsanto by Bayer is a threat to all Americans. These mergers boost the profits of huge corporations and leave Americans paying even higher prices,” he  said  in an official statement. “Not only should this merger be blocked, but the Department of Justice should reopen its investigation of Monsanto’s monopoly over the seed and chemical market.”

The former presidential candidate is not alone in his concern over the potential impact this large scale merger could have on the United States. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has called a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday September 20, 2016) to scrutinize the wave of consolidation. While his concerns likely center around the impact of the merger to conventional farming methods, which are heavily reliant on seeds and chemicals produced by agro-industry players like Monsanto, and not on that of the organic industry, it does offer a chance for individuals opposed to the merger to voice their concerns. If you oppose the Bayer-Monsanto merger, please consider reaching out to your Senators or Representative to ask them to reject the approval of a merger that consolidate seed availability, and encourage them to instead focus on increasing the availability of organic seeds, which do not negatively impact soil, water or human health.

Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and toxic synthetic pesticides obsolete. Claims that organic agriculture cannot feed the world because of lower yields are contested by scientific studies showing that  organic yields are comparable to conventional yields  and require significantly lower inputs. Organic agriculture advocates say that it is not only necessary in order to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals, but to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production.

For further information, check out our webpages on  Organic Agriculture.

Source: Reuters  

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2016) Tell EPA to ban all uses of atrazine in the United States! Atrazine, widely used on food and feed crops, golf courses, and residential lawns, is a potent endocrine disruptor that is  strongly associated with birth defects, cancer, sex reversal and hermaphroditism in many different animals. The European Union and other countries have banned atrazine, however EPA continues to put U.S. citizens and the environment in harm’s way, allowing nonstop use of this toxic chemical. Sign Beyond Pesticides’ petition to ban atrazine by October 5, 2016.

Atrazine is the second-most widely used pesticide in the U.S., with over 73 million pounds applied each year. Atrazine has washed into surface water and leached into groundwater, spurring community water utilities  across the U.S. to file class-action lawsuits to remove the pesticide from drinking water supplies.

Even at levels established as “safe” or acceptable by EPA drinking water standards, atrazine is linked to endocrine-disrupting effects. EPA is not adequately assessing the effects of atrazine by using high dose testing models, which are not appropriate for hormonally-active substances  that  often show effects at minute doses. Studies by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley,  and others have shown that concentrations as little as 0.1ppb impact hormone function in organisms and turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites — organisms  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 in  agricultural areas and from urban streams.

Despite these disturbing findings and the availability of other least-toxic herbicide options, EPA has taken an unacceptably slow and unresponsive approach in the regulation of atrazine. In previous approvals of atrazine, EPA has concluded  that there is no evidence of adverse effects on animal development. However, in April of this year, the agency released a draft ecological risk assessmen that finds atrazine poses unacceptable risks  to fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and even birds, reptiles and mammals. You can submit comments on the draft ecological risk assessment for atrazine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266) in the federal docket until October 5, 2016.

The assessments evaluated risks to animals and plants, including amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic plant communities, and terrestrial plants. 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!

In July, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that atrazine, its chemical cousins propazine and simazine, and its breakdown triazine compounds would be added to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of the state’s Proposition 65.

The evidence is clear. Atrazine harms wildlife, persists in soils, and moves easily through waterways. An EPA official stated years ago that, “The ultimate decision [with atrazine] is much bigger than science, it weighs in public opinion.” Use your voice to #banatrazine!

Take Action: Sign the petition to urge EPA to end the use of atrazine. In order to protect human and ecological health, the agency should take immediate action to eliminate this chemical from our environment!

(Washington D.C. September 15, 2016)  Beyond Pesticides today urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately alert local and state mosquito control officials, elected officials, and the public throughout the U.S. to the fact that EPA’s key data reviews on the safety of widely used mosquito control pesticides, including naled and synthetic pyrethroids, are  outdated and incomplete and the scientific literature raises safety concerns. In a letter to EPA, Beyond Pesticides said, “As local and state officials implement mosquito abatement programs to address the Zika virus, it is critical that they have complete transparent safety information that they are not currently getting from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”

Beyond Pesticides continues, “This information, specific to residential exposure to the insecticides naled and its main degradation product dichlorvos (DDVP), as well as synthetic pyrethroids, is necessary for officials on the ground to make fully informed decisions and for public right to know.”

According to EPA documents, the agency did not meet a planned 2015 deadline for a final review decision evaluating residential exposure to naled, a neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide that is currently being used in community mosquito spraying, and its highly toxic breakdown product DDVP. In addition to the toxic properties of naled, EPA has stated in review documents that it “has determined that the adverse effects caused by dichlorvos [DDVP] that are of primary concern to human health are neurological effects related to inhibition of cholinesterase activity.” There is also “suggestive” evidence of DDVP’s carcinogenicity, as well as concerns associated with its neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive impacts.

Similarly, EPA has recognized in its  documents that synthetic pyrethroids, including permethrin and phenothrin (sumithrin), must also have their assessments updated and completed, calling into question safety statements from EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Several pyrethroids are associated with cancer, hormone disruption, and reproductive effects, and thus have hazard and exposure concerns regarding widespread application for mosquito control. Phenothrin, for instance, “lacks acute, chronic, and developmental neurotoxicity studies that are required to fully evaluate risks to infants and children,” and for permethrin there are outstanding concerns regarding its developmental neurotoxicity.

According to EPA’s final work plan, published in 2009, the agency planned to begin public comment on a registration review decision for naled in 2014, with a final decision in 2015. “Given the widespread use of naled in South Florida, Puerto Rico and other states and territories over fears of the spread of the Zika virus, it is imperative that an updated risk assessment be presented for public review and comment, especially since there are important outstanding data and concerns regarding naled/DDVP exposures to residential bystanders,” Beyond Pesticides told EPA.

The use of naled in a South Carolina community last month also resulted in the death of 2 million bees. In 2012, the European Union banned naled, citing “Official Journal of the European Union” to human health and the environment.

In light of the identified hazards and unknown effects of exposure to both naled/DDVP and synthethic pyrethroids, Beyond Pesticides urges local and state officials to consider more closely the lack of efficacy associated with massive spray programs. Researchers question the efficacy of spray programs for adult mosquitoes, especially given the biology of the targeted mosquito, Aedes aegypti. This mosquito stays close to its breeding sites in residential areas and inside homes, suggesting that community spray programs are the least effective control measure.

Beyond Pesticides encourages an integrated approach to mosquito management that focuses on prevention through public education encouraging frequent removal of standing water, larviciding, and use of repellents. If prevention measures are enforced, the need to spray should be extremely limited, and balanced against the potential public health impacts of hazardous pesticides.

Download a copy of the letter here: http://bit.ly/2cFHThg.
Download a copy of the response from EPA here.
Download a PDF version of the press release here.
For more information on mosquito management, see www.beyondpesticides.org/mosquito.

Contacts:
Beyond Pesticides, Nichelle Harriott, [email protected],  Jay Feldman, [email protected], 202-543-5450.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2016) According to a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), high concentrations of dioxins and furans have been detected in tree swallow eggs collected near several sites around the Great Lakes. Other chemicals detected include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which were at background levels. The study is part of efforts to clean up a toxic chemical legacy around the Great Lakes, and the researchers believe their results are critical to regulators to assess “bird or animal deformity or reproductive problems”

The study, “Concentrations and spatial patterns of organic contaminants in tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) eggs at United States and binational Great Lakes Areas of Concern, 2010—2015,” used tree swallows to quantify current exposure to organic contaminants across all five Great Lakes including 59 sites within 27  Areas of Concern (AOCs)  and 10 nearby  locations. The Great Lakes Areas of Concern refers to a U.S.-Canada  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement  (Annex 1 of the 2012 Protocol) that  defines AOCs as “geographic areas designated by the Parties where significant  impairment of beneficial uses  has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level.” An AOC is a location that has experienced environmental degradation, and includes several water bodies in New York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and others.

Tree swallows in this study were sampled across the Great Lakes basin in 2010 through 2015 where concentrations of organic contaminants in the eggs were quantified and compared with background and reproductive effect thresholds in order to provide a system-wide assessment of current exposure. The contaminants, including   polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and a suite of 26 pesticides (including chlordane, heptachlor and mirex),  were selected because they are listed by the  AOCs  as contaminants of concern, tend to persist in the environment, and are known or suspected to cause reproductive issues.

While many of the contaminants tested in the study  are at or below average background exposure, including PCBs  and PBDEs,  concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and furan (PCDD-F) at the Saginaw River and Bay and Midland, Michigan exceed set benchmarks  associated with reproductive effects (hatching effects). The researchers note that their findings “can be used by States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess ongoing restoration activities intended to reduce wildlife exposures to these contaminants, which can cause deformities or reproductive problems.”

This ongoing biomonitoring work is part of The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,  which was launched in 2010 to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes- largest system of fresh surface water in the world. According to the initiative, federal agencies will continue to strategically target the biggest threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem and accelerate progress toward long-term goals for this important ecosystem. Actions include, cleaning up Great Lakes Areas of Concern, preventing and controlling invasive species, reducing nutrient runoff that contributes to harmful/nuisance algal blooms, and restoring habitat to protect native species.

Legacy chemicals like dioxins and PCBs, longed banned in the U.S., continue to plague wildlife and even humans. In addition to the birds in  this study, river otters in the Midwest have also been found to still be contaminated with these substances. Another study  attributed to DDT the reproductive problems plaguing endangered condors in California, as a result of the birds’ feeding on contaminated sea lions.  A recent study by researchers at Drexel University, which looked at PCB, DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, report that higher levels of some of these compounds during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID).  Dioxins, PCBs and other organochlorines are categorized as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) because they persist for long periods of time in the environment, eventually making their way up food chains, accumulating in the fatty tissues and animals and humans. Their  legacy of poisoning the environment  has been well documented, despite being banned for decades. Recent studies have linked these POPs to  hormonal disturbances, abnormal sperm development, cancer,  diabetes, obesity and environmental contamination.

Efforts to halt the pollution of the Great Lakes and other waterways has been a focus in the region for many  years. Toxicants like  lindane, dioxin, PCB, and  microcystin,  have also been detected as pollutants in the Great Lakes. In 2015, two Michigan Representatives introduced the  Great Lakes Assurance Program Verification Act  (HR 3120)  in an effort to halt the pollution of the Great Lakes from agricultural run-off, which causes dangerous algae blooms and it a major threat to ecosystems in the region ­. Scientists had been  tracking algal blooms  in the Great Lakes  for years and have  recommended region-wide monitoring and a change in farm management practices. In 2014, residents of Toledo, Ohio were advised to stop using tap water after a local water treatment plant found toxic substances in dangerous quantities in the water. 500,000 residents were  instructed  not to drink the water, brush teeth or prepare food with the water, or give it to pets. The contamination resulted from continuously growing algal blooms on Lake Erie, Ohio’s northern water source.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the scientific literature  related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). For more information on the impacts of pesticides, past and present, on human and environmental health, visit our PIDD page.

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

Source: USGS  

(Beyond Pesticides, September 13, 2016) Land suitable for commercial beekeepers in the U.S. Northern Great Plains (NGP) is declining rapidly, according to a new study released earlier this month by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS). The region, which supports over 40% of managed honey bee colonies, is quickly replacing suitable pollinator habitat with more and more pesticide-intensive biofuel crops, particularly corn and soybean, as a result of increased crop prices and federal subsidies for biofuels. The concerning trend adds another layer of stress not only to honey bee colonies, but beekeepers whose livelihood depends on the health of their commercial livestock.

From early summer to mid-fall, roughly one million honey bee colonies make their way through the Northern Great Plains of North and South Dakota. The area is not usually a stop for pollination services, but a place where beekeepers go to generate a honey crop and improve the health of their colonies. Most of the colonies that summer in the NGP are trucked across the country to pollinate fruiting crops like apples, cherries, melons, and almonds during the winter, or are otherwise moved south to produce packaged bee colonies or queens. According to the USGS study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, NGP has long been used by beekeepers as an unofficial refuge for commercial production because of its large area of pollinator-friendly habitat: uncultivated pasture and rangelands, and cultivated flowering crops like sunflower, canola, and alfalfa.

However, increased production of biofuels, driven by policy changes that subsidize the planting of soy and corn, rising prices of these crops, and reductions in conservation programs in  the recent Farm Bill all add up to a significant shift in the landscape of the NGP. Researchers note that 1.6 million acres of land in North Dakota originally enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program have been lost.

Although the study does not attempt to link land use changes with pollinator health criteria, it is clear  that these changes do not benefit pollinators. Corn and soy biofuels are often produced with seeds that are coated in neonicotinoids, a class of highly toxic, systemic and persistent chemicals that multiple studies and sources, beekeepers, and scientists have linked to declines of both wild and managed bees. Neonicotinoids have been linked to a range of both acute and chronic effects on pollinators. Studies have found the insecticides can adversely affect reproduction, impair pollination, and alter behavior. Once these chemicals are used in the environment, their persistence and long half-life means that they remain a problem for beekeepers well into the future. A study published earlier this year found that even when attempting to protect pollinators by planting pollinator habitat and hedgerows around conventional farms, neonicotinoids used onsite can make their way into flowering crops in field margins, putting pollinators in danger.

Replacing uncultivated and flowering crops with biofuels adds additional problems for pollinators. Because most biofuels planted today are also genetically engineered, managed and wild pollinators will continue to lose habitat, as these crops are developed to withstand the use of herbicides, such as glyphosate, and the use of genetically engineered (GE) herbicides continues to increase. Widespread applications of glyphosate to cropland has been implicated in the destruction of pollinator habitat, particularly the monarch butterfly, whose migration route winds through the middle of the U.S.

It is evident that restoring pollinator populations across the country is a complex undertaking that will require a change not only in public policies and incentives for farming, but also chemical-intensive  farming practices. While biofuel subsidies are acting to displace critical pollinator habitat, what is also true is that there are farming systems currently in practice that can grow healthy food, and provide safe, pesticide-free pollinator-friendly habitat at the same time. Jonathan Lundgren, PhD, acclaimed researcher who blew the whistle on USDA’s suppression of scientific findings, is now working to restore sound agricultural practices that protect bees on their  property, Blue Dasher Farm, in South Dakota. As Dr. Lundgren noted in his talk to the 34^th  National Pesticide Forum in Portland, ME this year, the  focus must be on healing the soil and changing on-farm management practices in order to address and reverse the bee problem and our broader biodiversity crisis. Consumers can assist in these efforts by supporting s
afer agricultural practices and only purchasing products certified organic. Under organic certification, farmers are required to maintain or improve the health of the soil, and through defined criteria and a public process under the NOSB, are prohibited  from using highly toxic, systemic, and persistent pesticides such as neonicotinoids.

For help on how you can get involved to reverse pollinator declines, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage. And for more information on why organic is the right path for the future of agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture program page.

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

Source: PNAS, Scienceblog.com

(Beyond Pesticides September 12, 2016) On Thursday, September 8, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit (Case No. 15-cv-01590-HSG) that challenges changes to the rules that review the potential hazards and need for allowed synthetic and prohibited natural substances used in certified  organic food production. Finding that plaintiffs had established both proper jurisdiction and a viable claim, this ruling allows the case to move forward on its merit. The court will now  be able to review the substantive importance of formal notice and public comment regarding  the rules for organic food production, which were changed dramatically by USDA in 2013.

Plaintiffs in this case, recognized  by the court as “approximately a dozen advocacy and industry groups representing organic farmers, retailers, and consumers,” filed a complaint last April asking the court to require USDA to reconsider its decision on the rule change and reinstitute the agency’s customary public hearing and comment process. Specifically at issue in the lawsuit is a rule that implements the organic law’s “sunset provision,” which since its origins has been interpreted, under a common reading of the law, to require all listed materials to cycle off the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances every five years unless the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) votes by a “decisive” two-thirds majority to relist them. In making its decision, the NOSB is charged with considering public input, new science, and new information on available alternatives to the allowed synthetic substances. Under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the Secretary may not allow the use of synthetic substances in organic production unless first recommended  by the NOSB.

In September 2013, without any public input, USDA completely reversed this long established process and announced a definitive change in the rule it had been operating under since the inception of the organic program. Under its  new rule, a synthetic material is allowed to remain on the National List in perpetuity unless the NOSB takes initiative to remove it from the List. The judge, agreeing with the plaintiffs, identified the change as significant, as it now requires a two-thirds vote to remove a substance from the National List, unlike the prior procedure which required a two-thirds vote to renew a substance. Furthermore, he acknowledged that prior to the change in the rule that triggered this lawsuit, “USDA’s regulations required the NOSB to consider public comments and vote on” substances on the National List, a process that stands to be lessened or completely lost with USDA’s unilateral agency action to adopt this major policy change.

The judge also acknowledged plaintiffs’ allegations that USDA’s decision weakens “the integrity of the organic standards, degrading the quality of organically labeled food, and negatively affecting the personal health, economic, environmental, and consumer interests of Plaintiffs’ members” through its failure to allow 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 sunset decision to formal notice and public comment, 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 materials for the National List.

The opportunity to offer public comment on organic stands is historically important to organic consumers and farmers. When it comes to organic food production, consumers expect a high level of scrutiny and are willing to pay a premium with the knowledge that a third-party certifier is evaluating compliance with organic standards. The burgeoning $43 billion organic market relies heavily on a system of public review and input regarding decisions that affect organic production systems and the organic label.   In her declaration to the court, Beyond Pesticides board member Terry Shistar, Ph.D. stated that “USDA’s development and promulgation of the Sunset Notice . . . harms [her] interest in participating in the public process as outlined by the APA [Administrative Procedure Act],” and violates her “interest in ensuring that adequate procedures are in place to protect the integrity of organic food.” Statements like this from a diverse group of  plaintiffs convinced  the judge that the group had sufficiently “alleged that these rules were intended to protect their concrete interests, and that it is ”˜reasonably probable’ that the challenged action will threaten those interests,” squashing arguments from the defendant (USDA) that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

While the judge’s holding in this case is favorable to the plaintiffs, unfortunately this is not the only example of recent attacks to the integrity of the organic label. Another lawsuit recently decided in favor of plaintiffs Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety and Center for Environmental Health challenged  the National Organic Program’s (NOP)  failure to follow proper legal procedures”¯in making a substantial rule change that  allows  contaminants in compost.”¯Though the final decision was a huge victory for organic advocates, it unfortunately was not the end of the road for those fighting to maintain the integrity of the USDA label.

While the courts are understanding that recent actions by USDA  violate  the federal organic law, OFPA, it is critical that the public lets their elected members of Congress (U.S. Representative and Senators) how important organic integrity is and the importance of a strong standard in accordance with the law. To that end, Beyond Pesticides has created the  campaign Save Our Organic, which outlines the USDA  attack on organic and the importance of Congress protecting the integrity of organic standards. Send a letter to your member of Congress and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. It is also important to let the companies that produce organic products know that strong organic standards are critical to public trust in the organic label and the growth of the organic market. Send a letter to companies that often support the weakening of organic standards.

Beyond  Pesticides also tracks the proposals and decisions of the NOSB and assists the public to engage in the public process on reviewing and updating organic standards. See the”¯Keeping Organic Strong”¯webpage to learn more about these and other issues and to find out what you can do to help uphold organic standards.

Beyond Pesticides advocates in its organic food  program and through its”¯Eating with a Conscience  (EWAC)”¯website choosing organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’”¯Organic Food program page.

The plaintiffs in the case, represented by counsel from Center for Food Safety, include: Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Equal Exchange, Food and Water Watch, Frey Vineyards, La Montanita Co-op, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, New Natives, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Northeast Organic Farmers Association Massachusetts, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association,  Organic Consumers Association, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, PCC Natural Markets, and The Cornucopia Institute.

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

Source: Case 3:15-cv-01590-HSG

(Beyond Pesticides, September 9, 2016) On Wednesday, City Council members of South Portland, Maine cast their final votes to pass an ordinance that bans the use of toxic lawn pesticides on private and public land. The ban, which passed 6-1, is an important public health measure in the protecting 25,000 residents,  the largest jurisdiction in the state to-date to adopt such as measure. In 2014, the Town of Ogunquit, Maine was the first jurisdiction to ban toxic lawn pesticides on both private and public land.

Maine’s status as one of only seven states that does not preempt  local governments’ authority to restrict the use of pesticides on land within their jurisdiction empowers local governments to take this kind of protective action. Supporters of this ordinance, led by the local organization Protect South Portland, and supported by statewide organizations and  Beyond Pesticides, put together an effective campaign to educate council members, the public, and the media about the dangers of pesticides, and the effectiveness of organic land management practices that do not utilize toxic pesticides.

Under the legislation, the provisions will be phased in, starting with city property on May 1, 2017, private property beginning May 1, 2018, and to golf courses on May 1, 2019. The law allows time for transition, training, and the development of a public education program. The measure does not establish fines for violations, opting for a community education approach as the city gauges compliance before considering instituting penalties in the future. When first proposed, the ordinance  included  fines of up to $1,000 per violation following an initial warning. The new ordinance puts oversight, outreach, and compliance in the hand of the city’s sustainability coordinator, Julie Rosenbach.

In August, Ms. Rosenbach wrote in a memo to the city council: “Our intention is not to approach implementation of this ordinance in a punitive way, but rather to use education and outreach to promote non-toxic land care practices and help the community to comply with this ordinance.”

Public records will be maintained  detailing how complaints and compliance are handled, allowing officials the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the law. Recognizing the potential limitations of an education program alone, however, some members of the council indicated the possibility of revisiting the ordinance to add other enforcement measures after more data is known about local pesticide use, a tool that could prove very beneficial to bringing South Portland into full compliance with the new ordinance

Because the focus of the ordinance is on prohibiting use of the now banned pesticides, it does not prohibit chemical sales. In defining allowed materials, the ordinance defines allowed materials in lawn care, including “minimum risk” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and those on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s List of Allowed Substances. The local ban exempts commercial agriculture and provides waivers for using pesticides in situations that threaten the public health and safety, such as the presence of disease carrying pests or invasive species.

As  Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McGarthy said  during her presentation to Montgomery County, Maryland that national change starts at the local level. The passing of this ordinance in South Portland is similar to those passed in the town of Ogunquit, ME,  and  Takoma Park and  Montgomery County, Maryland. Ordinances have been adopted in other jurisdictions in Maine and across the country that focus solely on pesticide use on public property. The legislatures  of Connecticut and Maryland  passed laws this year that restrict the retail sale of  products containing neonicotinoid pesticides. And,  the Governor Minnesota issued an executive order restricting neonicotinoid use, while  numerous municipalities across the country  have taken similar step to stop use on their properties.

There is movement across the country to adopt ordinances that stop pesticide use on public property and, where allowed, private property. Pesticides when used move off the target site through drift and runoff, exposing non-target sites and people. For information on this kind of organic lawn care, see  Beyond Pesticides  lawns and landscape program page.

Wondering how you can create change similar to that taking place in South Portland? Take action! Regardless of whether your local jurisdiction is preempted by state law, you can still work to get toxic chemicals  out of your community. It takes a lot of work and commitment, but it can be done with some perseverance. It’s important to find support —friends, neighbors, and other people who share your concerns about environmental health. It’s also essential to reach out to your local elected officials  and government. Beyond Pesticides has resources and factsheets available to help you organize in your community. You can also call (202-543-5450) or email ([email protected]) Beyond Pesticides for one-on-one consultation about the strategies you can take to effect change.

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

Source: Portland Press Herald

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2016)  According to  a study  published last week by scientists at Iowa State, genetically engineered (GE) crops have not lived up to their promise to reduce pesticide use, and have instead led to an increase in toxic herbicide usage. The research, led by Edward Perry, Ph.D., found “clear evidence of increasing herbicide use by [GE] variety adopters over time for both soybeans and maize,” a finding that they credited partly to the emergence of weed resistance. The detailed dataset analyzed came from the company, GfK Kynetec, which conducts surveys of randomly selected farmers to assess decisions about pesticide and seed choices.

The farm-level dataset that the researchers used was collected over the years 1998-2011 and includes a yearly average of 5,424 corn farmers and 5,029 soybean farmers. One striking trend that was noted since 1998 was the increase in the use of  glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. As of 2011, glyphosate was the primary herbicide used on soybeans, with just over 80% of total herbicide applied, and in corn it made up 40% of herbicide use, representing close to a 20-fold increase since 1998.

Marketed as Roundup and other trade names,  glyphosate  is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined in March 2015  that the herbicide glyphosate is a potential cancer causing agent for humans, based on laboratory animal studies. The finding adds to the literature of adverse affects linked to glyphosate and has triggered a new round of calls to ban its use. 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.

The authors note the fact that the pattern of change in herbicide use over this time period is consistent with the development of glyphosate weed resistance, an issue that  have been widely discussed  in the past. The annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control “superweeds” on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to approximately 90 million pounds in 2011. Heavy reliance on the herbicide Roundup has placed weed populations under progressively intense and unprecedented selection pressure, triggering a perfect storm for the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

In general, in regions of the U.S. where Roundup-tolerant crops dominate, there are now evolved  glyphosate-resistant populations  of economically-damaging weed species. Resistant species like ryegrass and horseweed have been found in crop and non-crop areas, and now grow robustly even when sprayed with four times the recommended quantity of Roundup. Scientists from USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have noted that the relatively rapid evolution of glyphosate-resistant weed populations provides further evidence that  no herbicide is invulnerable  to resistance, and new weed management systems involving GE crops must be evaluated for the potential to create resistant species.

Despite the comprehensive nature of this study, one potential issue, according to Andrew Kniss, Ph.D., a weed scientist at the University of Wyoming, is the use of the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) to compare the environmental impacts of the various pesticides. Dr. Kniss told  NPR  that the EIQ “doesn’t come anywhere close to capturing those large differences among chemicals” that occur from differing levels of toxicity. It is also important to consider the interactive effects of mixtures of multiple pesticides on the environment and human health, also known as  pesticide synergism. By failing to include metrics for pesticide synergisms in their modeling and instead relying on the EIQ as their benchmark, the authors take part in this  long-running blind spot  in pesticide evaluation.

For more information on the hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering webpage. Pursuing sustainable alternatives can prevent the pesticide treadmill that results from the use of GE crops and pesticides like glyphosate. Ecological pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive are the most appropriate and long-term solution  to managing unwanted plants and insects. Additionally, organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, mechanical production practices, and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil health, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving. To learn more about organic agriculture, see  Beyond Pesticides Organic Program Page.

Sources:  Pacific Standard,  NPR

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2016) Industry giant Bayer has increased its offer to acquire Monsanto to $65 billion, making it the largest all-cash takeover bid in history. Bayer is now offering $127.50 per share- up two percent from its earlier bid of $125. The pharmaceutical giant has been pursuing Monsanto in an attempt to become the world’s largest biotechnology and pesticide manufacturer. But many are concerned that should this merger be successful, farmers would have even fewer choices for acquiring seed, ensuring that the American food supply is dominated by a few mega-corporations.

According to The Guardian, Bayer’s proposal will create a global pharmaceutical and farm supplies giant, just as  rival firms are also consolidating. ChemChina earlier this year offered  to buy Switzerland’s Syngenta for $43bn, after the latter rejected takeover approaches from the St. Louis-based Monsanto. This ChemChina-Syngenta merger is all set to move forward after getting approval from the regulatory agency, Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). U.S. firms Dow Chemical and DuPont are pursuing a $130bn merger, to be followed by a breakup into three businesses. Bayer’s previous offers for Monsanto were rejected, but Monsanto remains open to further discussion.

However, Monsanto has faced financial trouble recently. In June, Monsanto reported a 37 percent plunge in profit with farmers under increasing financial pressure due to falling commodity prices. The company’s revenue tumbled 8.5 percent to $4.19 billion, disappointing investors. Further, according to the Chicago Tribune, Monsanto agreed to pay an $80 million penalty under a settlement to resolve Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it had not properly accounted for millions of dollars paid to distributors as Roundup rebates. That had the effect of distorting the company’s earnings reports for 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Additionally, acquiring Monsanto poses a reputational risk for Bayer, the 153-year-old German firm that built a global presence with the invention of aspirin. Monsanto has earned a bad reputation among environmental and public interests groups due to its flagship product, glyphosate (Roundup), which was recently classified by the World Health Organization as a “probable” carcinogen, and has been linked to other adverse human and environmental health impacts, and only given a last minute 18 month license extension in Europe this past June. Additionally, Monsanto’s controversial promotion (and manufacture) of genetically engineered (GE) crops has also earned the company scorn from many in Europe where GE crops and now glyphosate, are not well received.

Many warn that should this merger be successful there will be fewer options for farmers when it comes to accessing seeds. With little competition, the cost of seed, pesticides, and other farm supplies typically used in conventional farming systems could rise, leading to an increase in food prices for the consumer. While some argue that organic is too expensive, the simple fact is that  chemical companies are able to externalize the social cost of their products  in the form of eutrophication, soil erosion, harms to wildlife, health care costs to consumers, and numerous other adverse effects. Some researchers calculate the adverse impacts to health and the environment to be as much as $16.9 billion a year. (Tegtmeier and Duffy 2004) If consumers paid the true cost of chemical-intensive  food production, prices for conventionally grown goods would certainly be more expensive than organic products, which are certified through a process that protects human health and the environment.

Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides obsolete. Claims that organic agriculture cannot feed the world because of lower yields are contested by scientific studies showing that  organic yields are comparable to conventional yields  and require significantly lower inputs. Organic agriculture advocates say that it is not only necessary in order to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals, but to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production.

For further information, check out our webpages on  Organic Agriculture.

Source: The Guardian, Chicago Tribune

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

(Beyond Pesticides,  September 6, 2016) “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision today to remove the antibacterial triclosan, found in liquid soaps (toothpaste use will remain), is a long time coming,” Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, said today. He continued: “The agency’s failure to regulate triclosan for near two decades, as the law requires, put millions of people and the environment at unnecessary risk to toxic effects and elevated risk to other bacterial diseases. Now, FDA should remove it from toothpaste and EPA should immediately ban it from common household products from plastics to textiles.” Many companies had decided under consumer pressure to remove triclosan from its liquid soap products years ahead of the FDA decision today.

FDA’s announcement today indicates that soaps containing the antibacterial ingredient triclosan do not have substantiated germ-killing health benefits. Beyond Pesticides raised concerns about the health effects of triclosan in 2004 in its piece The Ubiquitous Triclosan, and petitioned the agency to ban the chemical in 2005. In 2015, triclosan was banned in the European Union. For nearly two decades, scientific studies have disputed the need for the chemical and linked its widespread use to health and environmental effects and the development of stronger bacteria that are increasingly difficult to control. The chemical offers no more health protection than soap and water, according to studies. In fact, triclosan contributes to antibiotic resistance, which has become an international public health threat.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has jurisdiction over household products containing triclosan (microban), continues to allow the use of this hazardous chemical in numerous plastic and textile products, from toys, cutting boards, hair brushes, sponges, computer keyboards to socks and undergarments. In 2015, EPA issued a long-waited response to a Citizen Petition filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch in 2010, denying the organizations’ request to cancel registered products that contain the antibacterial pesticide. The agency did, however, grant one request, and will evaluate and conduct a biological assessment of the potential for effects on listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the ongoing triclosan registration review.

Triclosan has been linked to hormone disrupting effects, bacterial and antibiotic resistance, and impacts on aquatic organisms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that 75% of the U.S. population contain triclosan in their bodies. Triclosan enters the food chain through use of contaminated water or fertilizer on agricultural crops.

For background, see Beyond Pesticides’ triclosan page.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 2, 2016) Last Sunday, beekeepers in Dorchester County, South Carolina emerged from their homes to find their yards and  farms, once full of busy buzzing, littered with the honey bees. The cause was no mystery — a massive bee-kill had occurred due to aerial spraying of Naled, a highly toxic  insecticide used primarily to control adult mosquitoes. The county announced plans to spray two days before the incident, when four travel-related cases of Zika virus were confirmed in the area by the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. The spraying occurred between 6:30 and 8:30am.

Naled is an organophosphate insecticide with the highest acute toxicity of any mosquitocide. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Naled can cause cholinesterase (an enzyme necessary to the transmission of nerve impulses) inhibition in humans, meaning that it can overstimulate the nervous system causing nausea, dizziness, confusion, and, at very high exposures (e.g., accidents or major spills), respiratory paralysis and death. Naled is highly toxic to honey bees.

In Dorchester County, beekeepers say that the spray announcements did not come soon enough. Flowertown Bee Farm and Supply lost more than 2.3 million insects from 46 hives, according to co-owner Juanita Stanley. “Had I known, I would have been camping on the steps doing whatever I had to do screaming, ”˜No you can’t do this,’”  Ms. Stanley said in an interview with Charleston’s  WCSC-TV.  Ms. Stanley told the Post and Courier that the bees are her  income, but that “it’s not about the honey, it’s about saving the bees.” Andrew Macke, a hobby beekeeper, had two hives that he had been caring for over two years. After the plane flew over, releasing the toxic insecticide onto their property, Mr. Macke’s wife called him to tell him about the “thousands and thousands of bees dead” all around their pool deck and driveway.

The county acknowledged the  bee  deaths Tuesday. “Dorchester County is aware that some beekeepers in the area that were sprayed on Sunday lost their beehives,” Jason Ward, county administrator, said in a  news release. He added, according to the Post and Courier, “I am not pleased that so many bees were killed.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t alleviate the devastation that occurred, nor does it repay the financial loss that some of the beekeepers now face.

Ms. Stanley worried about how to move forward from the incident. “I don’t know where to go from here,” Ms. Stanley said  to the Post and Courier. “I can’t just go out and buy more bees, and right now I’m focused on how do I clean up all this mess? What can be reused and what can’t? What steps do I take?” This can be tricky, as the impacts of mosquito spraying on pollinators can be felt long after spraying has ended. Pesticide residues on vegetation, surface waters, soil and hives, which can last from several hours to months after application, results in continued exposure for non-target organisms.

While counties and mosquito abatement districts across the country gear up to prevent the spread of Zika virus, it is prudent to keep in mind that while mosquito management is a necessary public health service, common methods of control —aerial and ground spraying of pesticides— not only have questionable efficacy, but can also harm non-target organisms like pollinators, whose populations are already suffering elevated losses. In this particular case, the four documented cases of Zika virus that triggered the aerial spray were all travel-related. At the time of spraying, there were no known mosquitoes in the area that were carrying the Zika virus, which means that the spraying did not serve to alleviate a public health risk. With the continuous news coverage on the threat of Zika, many communities are quick to react, despite the fact that there are no mosquitoes in the area that are infected with the virus. Given the potential health risks and environmental impacts of adulticiding, spraying purely to control nuisance mosquitoes should be avoided.

While we do not underestimate the threat from new and current mosquito-borne diseases, an ideal mosquito management strategy adopts an integrated approach that emphasizes education, aggressive removal of breeding sites (such as standing water), larval control, monitoring, and surveillance. Alternative strategies, including introducing mosquito-eating fish, encouraging predators, such as bats, birds, dragonflies, and frogs, and using least-toxic larvicides, like Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), can be applied successfully without endangering pollinators and other organisms.

Widespread spraying is not a solution for these mosquito-borne diseases. These methods fail to sufficiently control mosquito populations, promote pesticide resistance, and kill other species that act as natural predators to mosquitoes. In our attempts to stave off these diseases, we inadvertently harm ourselves, non-target organisms and overall ecosystem biodiversity. We can protect pollinators and manage mosquito populations at the same time. A measured approach is needed for managing mosquitoes that first involves an understanding of the mosquito’s lifecycle, reducing breeding sites, and targeting larval populations. Control of disease-carrying mosquitoes that does not endanger pollinators can be successful when emphasis is placed on public education and preventive strategies.

Individuals can take action by eliminating standing water, using least-toxic mosquito repellents, and talking to neighbors about alternatives. We have created the Mosquito Doorknob Hanger, which has great tips on speaking with neighbors on backyard and community mosquito control. Community based programs should encourage residents to employ these effective techniques, focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, and promote monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed.

For more information, see our article on Mosquito Control and Pollinator Health, and visit our Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases webpage.

Source: The Post and Courier, The Washington Post

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2016) With the apparent mosquito transmission of the  Zika virus in Florida, local officials around the United States have been feeling pressure to step-up preemptive mosquito spraying, prior to the virus actually emerging  locally in infected mosquitoes. The Zika virus has been contributing to public anxiety in the U.S. for several months and, because of this, the state of Maryland has started spraying with hazardous insecticides. The state has made targeting mosquitoes its  number one priority, while many argue that the state’s spraying  puts the well-being of residents at risks.

As of August 24, there are 77 travel-associated cases of Zika in the state of Maryland. Without a finding of infected mosquitoes in the state, the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) Mosquito Control Program is focusing its  control actions on female (the ones that bite) aedes albopictus, commonly known as Asian tiger mosquitoes, the most common type of mosquito in Maryland that studies indicate “has the potential” to transmit the Zika virus.

MDA’s Mosquito Control Program implements the state’s mosquito management, which is conducted in accordance with an undefined  Integrated Pest Management (IPM)  program; basing the  approach broadly on prevention, monitoring, and control of mosquitoes. As a result, recently, MDA has conducted an increased number of unannounced insecticide  sprayings throughout the state, leaving citizens uninformed of spray schedules.  

An ”˜unannounced’ spray is unscheduled and not posted on program’s website, intended to be conducted by state officials after they they detect the “presence of a mosquito-borne disease.” Typically, in order to detect a disease threat, investigators set up mosquito traps overnight, and return to check on them the next day. If there are 12 female aedes albopictus mosquitoes found in a trap, officials define a 450 feet spraying radius around the trap. Despite the agency’s claim that it sprays when a disease is present, in fact, the agency is spraying mosquitoes that do not necessarily have the Zika virus, and are not tested for the virus when caught.

Whoever lives within the radius is then notified about the intention of spraying using a reverse 9-1-1 method via their landline. To notify the general public, a press release is sent out on the MDOA Mosquito Control Program’s website, as well as a ”˜tweet,’ stating the approximate time and general location where the spray will occur. Maryland residents choose to opt out of spraying on  their property because they are labeled as “disease-control sprayings,” necessary for public safety against mosquito-borne disease. Concerned for their health, many Maryland residents  have expressed their frustration at the burdensome process of monitoring twitter for information. Oftentimes, the range of time announced was anywhere from 4-8 hours long, leaving many individuals unsure of whether they are safe in their own house over night. Up until this week, there was no supplemental effort being made to inform chemically sensitive citizens of these sprayings, including those registered on the Maryland Pesticide Sensitive Individual Program list. Starting next week, when a press release is sent out before an unscheduled spray, the chemically sensitive residents who  have previously indicated being a liaison of information to a bigger group of people, along with beekeeping organizations, will be informed as well.

Many communities around the country have a history of using ineffective and pesticide-intensive mosquito management strategies, due to a lack of adequate information. The spraying of pesticides has long been used for mosquito control, but many experts believe that these methods fail to sufficiently manage mosquito populations.

The use of pesticide spraying as a preventive method increases and accelerates the likelihood that mosquitoes will become immune to the chemicals being sprayed once the disease actually arrives in a certain area. The potential for immunity comes from the fact that mosquitoes have a very short life cycle, often times being less than a week. After spraying, each succeeding generation is an opportunity for random mutations to occur that predispose a group of mosquitoes to be immune to the pesticides being used. Spraying of these pesticides also oftentimes kills other species that would have acted as a natural predator to mosquitoes.

Washington D.C., Maryland’s neighbor, has taken a different approach over the years, acknowledging the potential adverse effects chemical usage imposes to human, animal, and environmental health. The D.C. Department of Health has an extensive mosquito monitoring system, capturing and testing over 12,000 mosquitoes this year alone, zero of which have tested positive for any mosquito-borne disease. Of these mosquitoes, less than 20 total have been aedes aegypti, the mosquito most known to carry the Zika virus where it has been found.

Consider contacting Beyond Pesticides for 25 free mosquito doorknob hangers to encourage best management practices in your neighborhood.  For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy (also mosquito management strategy summary), an integrated approach that emphasizes education, aggressive removal of standing water (which are breeding areas), larval control, monitoring, and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. Control of disease-carrying mosquitoes can be successful when emphasis is placed on public education and preventive strategies. Community-based programs should encourage residents to employ these effective techniques, focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, and promote monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed. Through education of proper cultural controls, and least-toxic and cost effective biological alternatives, the use of hazardous control methods, such as toxic pesticides, can be eliminated.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 31, 2016) Last week, a Denver marijuana company went through its first inspection for the Colorado-based Organic Cannabis Association’s (OCA) new “pesticide-free” certification. This voluntary certification program was developed by OCA following an indefinite postponement of the Pesticide-Free Marijuana Bill, HB 16-1079 by the Colorado Senate and the failure of  the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) to implement meaningful regulations to protect  users within the state from pesticides that are not regulated  for use in cannabis production by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states. While the certification program is characterized as “pesticide-free,” it is focused on residues on the finished product, allowing the use of pesticides that do not appear on the narrow list of those restricted by the state of Colorado. The certification is a a step in the right direction for consumers who wish to protect themselves from unwanted pesticides in their cannabis products, however it is important to note that it  does not equate to a USDA organic inspection, as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level and is unable to qualify for certification under the USDA National Organic Program (NOP).

While discussing his inspiration for developing such a program, OCA founder John-Paul Maxfield, told Modern Farmer that “pesticide-free certification is crucial in helping the cannabis industry catch up with food” and “allows consumers to choose their cannabis with the same values they apply to food.” The certification is a process validation to certify that the final product has zero residual pesticides. However, it does not mean that no pesticides were used over the entire cultivation process of the cannabis.  This may raise concerns for consumers who typically adhere to an organic diet or support organic methods of agriculture, as the Organic Foods Production Act and NOP takes a whole systems approach to crop production, as opposed to just testing for pesticide residues in the final product. In order to receive organic certification, growers must develop an Organic System Plan and focus on preventative, not reactive, measures to pest management and control.

In an earlier article in Westword, Mr. Maxfield stated that in order to comply with their certification, cannabis plants must have “zero residual pesticides at harvest” and may not use any products banned by the CDA. In addition, growers that adhere to using products approved by the Organic Material Review Institute (OMRI) will receive higher marks. While CDA’s list of approved products has improved since its inaugural draft, it still raises some concerns as it contains products beyond the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA) list of 25(b) exempt pesticides, a standard Beyond Pesticides has continuously advocated for as states legalize marijuana. One chemical of particular concern is the allowance of the problematic  synergist  piperonyl butoxide  (PBO), which is often mixed with pesticides to increase their potency. PBO is a highly toxic substance that is linked to a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system. It is commonly used as a synergist in pyrethrin-based pesticide products, many of which can be found on Colorado’s allowed pesticide list. Unless future clarifications state otherwise, it is conceivable that the “pesticide free” program could allow the use of products that contain PBO during the growing phase, as long as the product tests negative for the chemical at the end stage of the growing process.

As of March 30, 2016, CDA adopted rules that establish criteria to identify which pesticides are allowed for use in cannabis cultivation in Colorado. As rules for recreational cannabis in Colorado do not mandate laboratory analysis, if testing is not conducted, cannabis products must display a label statement that reads, “The marijuana contained within this package has not been tested for contaminants.” In a recent attempt to protect human health and safety in Oregon, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) issued statewide detainment of 14 horticultural products used in marijuana production and is currently sampling and testing these products. Failing the test and using any of the since-banned products, warn regulators, could lead to products being confiscated and destroyed. This move by Oregon to curb illegal pesticide use on marijuana follows  widespread cannabis recalls  in the City of Denver,  and actions from Colorado’s Governor  to declare pesticide-tainted cannabis “a threat to public safety” is a step in the right direction after ODA released a concerning list of pesticide products available for use on marijuana earlier this year.

As states continue to legalize the production of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes, regulations governing its cultivation may allow the application of pesticides untested for use in the plant’s production, raising safety issues for patients and consumers. In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticides in cannabis production, the use of pesticides not registered by EPA is understood to be illegal. Several states, including New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, have codified this understanding by adopting policies that prohibit all federally registered pesticides. Other states have taken the position that state policy is unnecessary, since EPA, due to cannabis’ narcotic status by the federal government,  has not registered any pesticides for marijuana  production and unregistered pesticide use is illegal. As OCA’s pesticide-free program progresses and more cannabis growers look to change their practices, it is important that these standards reflect a systems-based organic approach.

Taking the Organic Approach

This independent certification system represents an effort to provide growers with a premium market for “pesticide-free” marijuana, but fails to systematically change regulations at the state level to regulate cannabis production.

While state level efforts in Colorado, Oregon, and  previously in California  represent steps in the right direction, they also contain significant pitfalls and loopholes that allow contaminated cannabis to market where it threatens public health. Beyond Pesticides continues to encourage states to take a stronger approach to regulating this budding industry, so that it blazes an agricultural path that protects its most sensitive at-risk users. Three elements must be passed and enforced in order to do so. They are:

1. A prohibition on the use of federally registered pesticides on cannabis;
2. Allowance of pesticides exempt from federal registration, but not those that are only exempt from tolerances and;
3. Requirements for an organic system plan that focuses on sustainable practices and only 25b products as a last resort.

Implementing these three requirements will ensure the sustainable growth of a new agricultural industry and lead to the protection of public health. For more information and background this important issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ report  Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options.

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

Source:  Modern Farmer, Denverite