(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2015) The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued tickets to six companies in Rockland and Westchester counties for violating state laws on pesticide applications, most on residential lawns. Eight other companies were issued warnings. The violations, which occurred between 2013 and spring 2015, ranged from unlicensed businesses to uncertified workers and unlabeled toxic pesticides. These fines and warnings came about after complaints and anonymous tips, and highlight the many instances where pesticide law enforcement and compliance falls short.

In September of last year, a complaint was called into the DEC, reporting that a Jonathan Landscaping (of Rockville, NY) truck was spraying pesticides with no labels, and was missing triangle decals that indicate a valid state pesticide permit. The DEC inspector went out and found the truck, issuing four tickets for operating an unregistered pesticide business and unlabeled poisons. Rafael Hernandez, the owner of Jonathan Landscaping, pleaded guilty to violating environmental laws in March and was fined $350, according to The Journal News.  In April, SavALawn, another landscaping company, was found to be missing triangle decals and had unlabeled pesticide poisons, and was also issued a ticket, of value unknown. Another investigator from DEC took action against OCS Chemical Engineering (of Cortlandt) after receiving an anonymous tip. OCS, which treats water systems (like cooling towers) with pesticides, was found to have been operating without a pesticide application permit for over five years. The company was fined $4,000 for its violations.

There is serious  question as to whether the (i) level of enforcement for pesticide use and label violations is adequate, (ii) fines must be significantly  higher given the nature of the harm, (iii) applicators conducting the treatments should be certified, and (iv) longstanding limitations  deter noncompliance. Recent cases emphasize the horrific outcomes of pesticide use violations.  In April 2015, four members of a Delaware family were hospitalized after being exposed to  methyl bromide, a highly neurotoxic pesticide, while on vacation at their luxury condo in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide and is  not registered for residential use, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2013 Methyl Bromide Preliminary Workplan (pg. 6). The media is reporting that a 10-year old boy suffered traumatic brain injury  in mid-August after his family’s home was treated with sulfuryl flouride, presumably for termites.

In 2014, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) issued two civil penalties totaling $16,000 in connection with a pesticide application of imidacloprid on linden trees, a chemical in the neonicotinoid class of insecticides  connected to widespread bee decline, this summer that resulted in the death of nearly 1,000 bees. When the incident in Eugene occurred, the trees were in full bloom and attracting pollinators.  In this case, ODA determined that the company and its applicator knew or should have known of this standard of care, yet disregarded it. The reasonable standard of care for pesticide application activities in Oregon includes anticipating the presence of pollinators in Oregon. In 2013,  ODA adopted a label requirement on pesticide products containing imidacloprid, stating that the application of these products on linden trees was prohibited.

Unfortunately, the details above paint a picture of the many issues that go unaddressed under pesticide law and regulations. Company employees  applying toxic pesticides may treat homes, offices, and schools without certification if they are “under the supervision” of certified applicators who are not required to be on site, but may only  be in phone contact. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pesticide manufacturers claim that pesticide labeling keeps consumers safe, there are many instances, demonstrated above, where labels are discarded and taken off, with no way of knowing the correct and legal way of applying the pesticide, or disregarded completely and not followed by the applicator. In addition, pesticide applicators who are unlicensed are not subject to any system of checks and balances. The state departments don’t have records of them being current applicators, and therefore cannot check in with due diligence. While enforcement action is a critical piece in protecting public health and the environment, advocates point to the use of warnings, repeated violations, and low fines.

Advocates say pesticide offenses like these need to be met with fines that cannot just be considered a cost of doing business —they must be large enough to cause the businesses to change their practices. In New York, business registrations are valid for three years, and commercial pesticide applicator certifications must be renewed yearly or every three years, depending on the type of certification. If state residents are concerned that an applicator is applying illegally, they can check the DEC’s website to make sure the company has a proper application permit, or ask to see their licenses on site.

Pesticides are widely used in homes and communities without complete public knowledge about the harm that they cause to children, pets and the environment. The best way to reduce pesticide exposure is to implement organic approaches to lawn care. There are alternatives to pesticides for managing insects, rodents and weeds effectively without exposing your family to harmful toxic chemicals. Visit our Safer Choice page for more information. For safer lawn care and weed management, read Beyond Pesticides’ “Read Your ”˜Weeds’ — A Simple Guide to Creating a Healthy Lawn” and “Least-toxic Control of Weeds.”

Source: The Journal News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2015) Research into neonicotinoid insecticides, a class of bee-toxic chemicals, and their effects on bees, needs to be more comprehensive in order to better reflect their global use, concludes a recent review of the current literature. The authors of the review state that despite considerable research efforts, there are still significant knowledge gaps concerning the impacts of neonicotinoids on bees. Since 2006, honey bees and other pollinators in the U.S. and throughout the world have experienced ongoing and rapid population declines. The science has become increasingly clear that pesticides (especially the  neonicotinoid class of insecticides), either acting individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of honey bees and wild pollinators. Neonicotinoids can be persistent in the environment, and have the ability to translocate into the pollen and nectar of treated plants.

The systematic review, titled Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Their Impacts on Bees: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and Identification of Knowledge Gaps  and published in the journal PLoS ONE, took a look at over 200 primary research studies in order to identify knowledge gaps. While there is a growing body of science examining the impacts of neonicotinoid use, knowledge gaps need to be addressed to better capture the full extent of the impacts these harmful chemicals have on bees. For example, studies on crops are dominated by seed-treated maize, oilseed rape (canola), and sunflower, but more needs to be known about the potential side effects on bees from the use of other application methods on insect pollinated fruit and vegetable crops, or on lawns and ornamental plants. Furthermore, most of the 216 studies conducted are  in Europe or North America, so relatively little is known about neonicotinoids and bees outside of these regions. The authors add that because there is considerable variation in ecological traits across bee taxa, studies on honey bees are not likely to fully predict impacts of neonicotinoids on other species. Recommendations from the study authors include opportunities for methodological improvements, such as using information from field studies in laboratory approaches, as well as more studies that link effects at the individual level to mechanisms at the sub-individual level, and also to consequences for colonies and populations. The authors state that while bees are subject to multiple, interacting environmental pressures, such as the promotion by neonicotinoids of additive or synergistic effects when combined with pathogens or parasites, the importance of neonicotinoid-pathogen interactions under field-realistic conditions might have been overemphasized. However, it should be noted that there is strong evidence that indicates that  neonicotinoid exposure makes bees  more susceptible to pathogens.

New research into the consequences of neonicotinoid use are being published at an unprecedented rate. A recent study provided supporting evidence to previous work showing that sublethal doses of  imidacloprid, a toxic neonicotinoid insecticide, impairs olfactory learning in exposed honey bee workers.  A January 2015 study that also looked at sublethal exposure to imidacloprid found that it leads to  mitochondrial dysfunction  in bumble bees, which then negatively impacts navigation and foraging skills. For example, exposed bees will have greater difficulty in recognizing the smell of a flower, or how to find their way back to their colony, which in turn can affect the colony as a whole. Two other  recent studies  found that, not only does neonicotinoid exposure result in reduced bee density, nesting, colony growth, and reproduction, but also that bees actually prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides, despite their adverse effects.

Although these data gaps need to be addressed, the link between widespread neonicotinoid use and pollinator decline is clear and grows stronger every day. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. While EPA  announced  a moratorium on new bee- and bird- harming neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses, farm, beekeeper and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the European Union’s footsteps and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.  We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of neonicotinoids. See how  you can  help through  Bee Protective.

Source: PLoS ONE

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 3, 2015) A study published this week reveals that ants are a cheaper, more effective means to managing pests than toxic chemical pesticides. The review was conducted by Aarhus University’s Joachim Offenberg, Ph.D., a plant and insect ecologist who has studied ants for over 20 years. His review focuses on Oecophylla smaragina and O. longinoda, commonly referred to as weaver ants, and their beneficial effects on various crops in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Australia. In this review, Dr. Offenberg finds weaver ants to be as or more effective than synthetic pesticides for pest management in a variety of cropping systems. This evidence brings renewed vigor to the argument that natural, biological pest management can act as a viable alternative to the use of toxic pesticides that endanger health and the environment.

Weaver ants, often found in tropical climates, are tree-dwelling ants with characteristics that are ideal for biological pest management. They are categorized as a “superorganism,” meaning the colony itself is like an   organism, with individual ants acting as “cells” that can move around independently. Dr. Offenberg sees this as a strength because the colony is able to prey on targets much larger and stronger than itself.

He explains, “Most ant species”¦deploy a wide range of prey types. They may exert pressure on several pest species and life stages; small workers may handle eggs, whereas larger workers may engage larger sized individuals. On top of this, their territorial behaviour makes them attack and deter pests that are far beyond the size of potential prey.”

And they are quick to respond to intruders. The basis for this ability is an ant colony’s recruitment system, which is used to bring nestmates to some point in space where work is required, or prey is present. This is done based on trail-laying, tandem running and alarm pheromones. Consequently, they can bring large numbers of ants to respond when pest populations escalate. Recruitment behavior can, moreover, be utilized to attract ants to focal points where their services are most needed. This type of behavior can be lethal to unwanted agricultural pests.

Dr. Offenberg suggests that utilizing weaver ant colonies as pest control is more cost-effective than pesticide use. He notes that the heftiest investment when managing an ant colony is the time spent up front. Building a colony can be tedious work, but worthwhile in the end. After transplanting a colony onto one’s farm, farmers can increase the quantity and quality of the ants in a few ways:

• Limiting insecticide use
• Providing intra-colony host tree connections (via rope, poles, lianas, etc.)
• Pruning trees to reduce fighting between neighboring colonies
• Providing supplementary feed (sugar, water, and sometimes protein)
• Providing artificial nesting sites
• Applying sticky barriers to the base of trees to limit the action of competing ant species

Once established, ant colonies can thrive without aid for extended periods of time. Ants are able to store protein in the form of trophic eggs and brood that may be cannibalized, making their colonies stable and a predictable service with low management costs. One study showed that colonies of  Temnothorax rugatulus  survived 8  months without food. This behavior also means that colonies show high prey satiation levels. At high prey densities, ants continue to forage beyond the limits of other arthropods, as they may utilize prey to build up populations of larvae and trophic eggs. Thus, ants can exert continued pressure on pests even after prolonged periods with high pest densities.

Limiting or prohibiting pesticide use is generally a requirement for using weaver ants as pest control. Dr. Offenberg’s analysis shows that weaver ant pest control is comparable to even the most popular pesticides and insecticides on the market. For example, scientists studied the cashew in Ghana, and compared the use of weaver ants with two chemical insecticide treatments (cypermethrin+dimethoate and lambda-cyhalothrin) and a control treatment (water). They found pest damage was negatively correlated with the number of weaver ant nests and trees, and the two chemical treatments had <6% pest damage on shoots, panicles, and fruits, while water-sprayed control trees showed damage as high as 37.8%. The abundance of sap sucking bugs, like mosquito bugs and beetles, was more than fourfold lower in the ant and chemical treatments compared with the control treatment and, correspondingly, nut yields were significantly and more than four times higher in ant and chemical treatments. In Punjab, India it was found that mango and citrus trees with ant nests produced 18% and 20% higher yields than trees without nests in mango and citrus, respectively. Another study looked at Beninese cashews and compared weaver ants alone, weaver ants fed sugar, and weaver ants in combination with spinosad were contrasted with a control treatment. They, respectively, produced yields that were 78%, 122%, and 151% higher than the control treatment.

While these studies do not suggest that weaver ants are more effective than chemicals, they do, however, suggest that they can do the same job with added benefits and decreased risk. With Northern Australian cashews, scientists found that not only were weaver ants more efficient in controlling all major pests, but also the technology was cheaper than using chemical insecticides. Despite high costs of the weaver ant technology during the first year where ant colonies were transplanted (colonies persist for 3 years on average), the cost of the ant technology over 4 years was only 43% of the cost of using chemicals. At the same time, yields in ant plots were 49% higher, leading to an increased net income of 71%. The added benefits of ants are endless as well. Ants live in dense societies, and to combat diseases, they produce antibiotic compounds in glands or via fungal and bacterial symbionts. These compounds may end up on plant tissue and potentially protect plants against diseases. Several plant species associated with ants have shown less microbial pathogen loads and less damage inflicted by fungi and bacteria when ant partners were present compared to plants where ants were removed.

The cost of Weaver ants is lower than insecticide applications, and the difference only increases when the consolidated costs of insecticides are included as, for example, costs on human health. They are unlikely to be unique in their abilities to provide effective pest protection; many other species are likely to hold similar properties. Because ant pest management limits or restricts the use of pesticides, there is a smaller or zero chance of pesticide residue and exposure. Avoiding detrimental health effects associated with insecticides is becoming an increasing concern for consumers across the globe. A move toward organic farming is a growing trend for both farmers and consumers. Not only is the production of organic food better for human health and the environment than conventional production, emerging science reveals what organic advocates have been saying for a long time””in addition to lacking the toxic residues of conventional foods, organic food is more nutritious. The best way to avoid toxic pesticide residues is to switch to organic foods.
Visit Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture program page to learn more about the benefits of alternative pest management techniques.

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

Source: Journal of Applied Ecology

(Beyond Pesticides, September 2, 2015) Germany intends to “opt out” of the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) crops under new European Union (EU) rules regarding GE approvals, moving Germany one step forward to prohibiting GE crops. EU member states have until October 3, 2015 to inform the European Commission whether they wish to opt out of the new EU GE cultivation approvals. GE crops, which have divided Europe regarding their safety, remain a hot button issue across the continent. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted nonregulated status to the “Innate” potato, approving yet other GE crop for U.S. agriculture that has insufficient testing and no labeling.

According to Reuters, a new EU law approved in March 2015 clarifies the process for approving new GE crops after years of previous deadlock. Now this new law gives individual EU countries more flexibility over the cultivation of GE crops and the right to opt out by prohibiting GE crops even after they have been approved by the European Commission. Previously, EU-approved GE crops had to be permitted in all EU states. In a letter obtained by Reuters, the German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt has informed German state governments of his intention to tell the EU that Germany will make use of the new “opt-out” rules to stop GE crop cultivation, even if varieties have been approved by the EU. Further, Germany will request that manufacturers of GE seed exclude Germany when applying to sell seeds in the EU. Scotland has also taken advantage of the new EU rules by also stating its intention to opt out of GE cultivation. Both Germany and Scotland have cited food, drinking water and environmental concerns, as well as consumer opposition to GE crops as the reasons for their recent decision.

Although widely grown and accepted by farmers in the U.S., GE crops have not been well received in Europe. Currently, there is one GE corn crop (MON 810) grown in the EU and eight pending applications for other GE crop varieties. According to the European Commission, MON 810 is cultivated in only five EU countries with a total coverage (in 2013) of almost 150,000 hectares (including 137,000 hectares in Spain). This contributes to less than 1.5% of the Europe’s corn cultivation. However, 58 GE commodities are authorized for food and feed.

The EU has adopted a precautionary approach when it comes to the cultivation of engineered crops. The European Commission states, “The approach chosen in the EU as regards GMOs is a precautionary approach imposing a pre-market authorisation for any GMO to be placed on the market and a post-market environmental monitoring for any authorised GMO. This approach ensures a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment.” The commission also notes, “”¦in order to provide consumers with information and freedom of choice, traceability and labelling obligations are imposed for any authorised GMO.”

Meanwhile in the U.S., new GE crop approvals continue to be made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The latest is a variety of the Russet Burbank, “Inmate” potato, developed by the J.R. Simplot Company, and dubbed ”˜concealer potato’ because its genes are modified to reduce the naturally occurring browning from bruising and resist late blight.   The potato processing industry supports this new GE variety because without browning, bruised potatoes do not need to be discarded for cosmetic reasons. The potato also reduces the levels of acrylamide, a chemical produced at high temperatures (e.g., potato chips and French fries) that  some studies show is linked to cancer.

Several varieties of GE crops are allowed in the U.S., including GE corn, soybean, alfalfa, cotton and sugar beets, and the federal government has been criticized by environmental and food safety groups of not adequately analyzing the environmental risks associated with their use, including increased pesticide use. Just this year, both USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) paved the way for increased 2,4-D use by approving 2,4-D tolerant corn and its companion herbicide, Enlist Duo. Since the arrival of GE crops to U.S. agriculture, pesticide use has only increased despite to industry promises of the contrary. Last month, Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., released a new study, GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health, in the New England Journal of Medicine  that outlines  the hazards associated with food residues of  elevated pesticide use in the production  of GE crops. The paper discussed  the significance of the increase in herbicide use and weed resistance in herbicide-tolerant crops. Of particular concern, according to the study, is that farmers, processors, infants, and children are most at risk, given the exposure to the herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant GE crops.

In Congress, industry interests are campaigning to derail any attempt to have GE food labelled. The bill H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, often referred to by opponents as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, which as its name implies would negate state mandatory labeling laws, has already been passed in the House. But according to a recent study by Consumer Reports National Research Center, more than 70% of Americans said they do not want GEs in their food, and 92% of consumers believe that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients should be labeled.

Currently, the best way to avoid GE food is to support organic agriculture and eat organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and  research shows  that organic farmers do a better job of protecting biodiversity than their chemically-intensive counterparts. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and biotechnology, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

For more on genetic engineering and GE crops visit the program page Genetic Engineering. Make sure to also visit the Organic page for information on organic food, gardening and what you can do.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2015) A  research study published in the journal Environmental Health  links chronic, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. The study, Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure, is the latest in a string of data showing unacceptable risks resulting from exposure to glyphosate and products formulated with the chemical, like Monsanto’s Roundup.

Researchers conducted the study by exposing rats to minute (0.1 parts per billion) doses of Roundup in drinking water for a period of 2 years. After noting tissue damage and biochemical changes in the blood and urine of exposed animals that was indicative of organ damage, the authors attempted to confirm their findings by analyzing changes in gene expression within liver and kidneys. Of 4,447 gene transcript clusters analyzed by scientists, 4,224 showed some alteration. Compared to non-exposed rats, “[t]here were more than 4,000 genes in the liver and kidneys whose levels of expression had changed,” said Michael Antoniou, PhD, senior author of the study to Environmental Health News.

Authors indicate that the changes in gene expression observed in the study are associated with the type of organ damage observed in the rats. “The findings of our study are very worrying as they confirm that a very low level of consumption of Roundup weedkiller over the long term can result in liver and kidney damage. Our results also suggest that regulators should re-consider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides,” said Dr. Antoniou.

Data gathered from this new research reinforces the results of a controversial study published in 2012 by lead author Gilles-Eric Séralini, PhD, which, in addition to tumor growth in exposed rats, showed adverse impacts to liver and kidneys. The study was retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and later republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.

“[A]s a country that uses a lot of glyphosate and it’s found widely across U.S. streams, this study should have some kind of public health influence,” said Nichelle Harriott, science and regulatory director at Beyond Pesticides. Levels of exposure tested in the recent study are far below what EPA sets as the maximum contaminate level (MCL) in drinking water throughout the U.S. While rats in the study were chronically exposed to .1 parts per billion Roundup concentrations, EPA allows 700 parts per billion. The agency notes that “some people who drink water containing glyphosate in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their kidneys or reproductive disorders.” Although the current study looked at rats, the authors note that, “[A]s the dose of Roundup we investigated is environmentally relevant in terms of human, domesticated animals, and wildlife levels of exposure, our results potentially have significant health implications for animal and human populations.”

Beyond direct impacts to the kidney and liver, glyphosate has recently been implicated as a having sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based upon an analysis of laboratory animals studies conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Co-author of the report, Christopher Portier, PhD, recently told a scientific briefing in London, “Glyphosate is definitely genotoxic. There is no doubt in my mind.” Genotoxicity is the ability of a chemical agent to damage the genetic information within a cell, causing mutations that may lead to cancer.

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.

In the face of these widespread health impacts, and in the absence of real action to restrict this chemical at the federal level, it is up to concerned citizens to advocate for changes in public land management practices within their community. Whether it’s your local government, homeowner’s association, or child’s playing field, concerned residents can make positive change and get glyphosate and other unnecessary toxic chemicals out of your community. It takes a lot of work and commitment, but it can be done with perseverance. Get your community campaign going with Beyond Pesticides’ “Start Your Own Local Movement” fact sheet. Although glyphosate is an important chemical to remove from use in your community, recall that a range of chemicals are linked to public health impacts, and a comprehensive approach that encourages organic land management is the best long-term solution.

For more information about how to address pesticides in your drinking water and community at-large, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides in My Drinking Water?  and refer to the Tools for Change webpage for information and inspiration, including a list of pesticide reduction policies passed in communities throughout the country. Contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected] for more information.

Independent scientists throughout the world have come under fire from chemical industry interests looking to discredit their work and reputation for revealing the dangers associated with chemicals they produce. Help us fight back against these attacks by supporting the Fund for Independent Science, which seeks to support scientists like Tyrone Hayes, PhD, whose groundbreaking research on another herbicide, atrazine, has been the subject to attacks from the chemical company Syngenta.

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

Source: Environmental Health News, Environmental Health
Photo Source: Flickr

(Beyond Pesticides, August 31, 2015) A study published in Environmental Science and Technology, funded in part by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), has found that almost 2 million people are living near aquifer sites contaminated with uranium that is mobilized by human-contributed nitrate. Nitrate is a common groundwater contaminant that is sourced mainly from chemical fertilizers and animal waste. Chronic exposure to elevated levels of uranium can lead to kidney damage and cancer. These findings emphasize the dangers of synthetic fertilizer overuse, and highlight the need to switch to safer alternatives.

The study, “Natural Uranium Contamination in Major U.S. Aquifers Linked to Nitrate,” analyzed approximately 275,000 groundwater samples from the Great Plains regions and California, finding that many residents often live less than a mile from uranium-contaminated wells that exceed guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the High Plains aquifer, researchers find uranium concentrations up to 89 times EPA standards, while the Central Valley aquifer measure up to 180 times EPA standards. The study also reports that 78% of these uranium-contaminated sites are linked with the presence of nitrates. Nitrate mobilizes naturally occurring uranium through a series of reactions that oxidize the material, making it water soluble. This means that the uranium is released into the aquifers due to the interaction with nitrates.

In the High Plains and Central Valley aquifers, nitrate concentrations are 189 and 34 times the EPA standard, respectively. A 2013 study found that the loss of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer in groundwater occurs at low rates over many decades, which means it could take years to reduce nitrate contamination in groundwater, including in aquifers that supply drinking water and irrigation. The High Plains aquifer is the largest in the U.S., providing drinking and irrigation water to eight states, while the Central Valley aquifer is California’s largest, and sits just below the state’s most fertile agricultural lands. Previous studies have shown that food crops can accumulate uranium when irrigated with contaminated water, according to the researchers of this study.

Synthetic fertilizers not only release nitrates, but they also have a tendency to be high in phosphorus, due to the fact that it is a critical nutrient for plant growth and development in synthetic systems that focus on delivering soluble nutrients to the plant while ignoring and harming  microbial life in the soil. The synthetic fertilizers are also a major source of non-point pollution in U.S waterways because much of the soluble nitrogen is not taken up by the plant. Non-point pollution occurs as a result of runoff from diffuse sources moving into rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands or groundwater. On the other hand, organic soil fertility methods deliver insoluble nutrient nitrogen through the work of soil organisms that release the nitrogen at about the rate that they are used by the plant. Similarly, soil high in organic matter produces phosphorus that is stable in the soil and taken up by the plant.

High phosphorus loads increase water turbidity, spur toxic algae blooms, and decrease light penetration. Once algae dies off, aerobic bacteria consume the dead algae, resulting in dangerously low oxygen levels, which further decreases biodiversity and can stress or even kill aquatic wildlife. The residential use of lawn fertilizers is responsible for a significant amount of the non-point pollution of nitrate and phosphorus. Legislative efforts to reduce this harmful runoff have fallen short, although states are increasingly adopting measures that restrict the application of high levels of phosphorus.

While organic  turf and lawn management nurtures natural sources of soil nutrients and reduces hazardous runoff, the chemical industry repeatedly claims that the source (whether organic or synthetic) of nutrients in a fertilizer is irrelevant. However, because of the harm they cause  to soil life and the environment, synthetic fertilizers are prohibited in certified organic systems under the national Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).

What Can You Do?

Preventing soil erosion and preforming soil tests should be a focal point for concerned citizens working to stop nitrate and phosphorus pollution. In this context, the source of a fertilizer is extremely relevant to these efforts. While organic production methods build a lawn’s capacity to hold soil, synthetic systems weaken this ability. From a holistic soil management perspective, organic management yields the optimum environmental safeguards, while nurturing healthy plants. The goal of an organic production system, whether in agriculture or turf management, is to feed the soil by utilizing methods that build organic matter and encourage microbial diversity. This is achieved through cultural practices, such as mowing, aeration, irrigation, and over-seeding, without the use of synthetic inputs, including chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, or fungicides.

There are a few simple steps that can make a difference in preventing non-point source pollution and subsequent harm to waterways, the environment, and the public’s health:

• Prevent Soil Erosion — Preventing soil erosion keeps phosphorus from entering local rivers, lakes, and streams. Mulch bare soil with straw or wood chips, and edge your yard with native trees and shrubs to prevent the loss of topsoil. Also, be careful not to over-water your lawn.
• Keep fertilizer, leaves, and grass clippings off of impermeable surfaces and on your lawn — When left on impermeable surfaces, these materials have a greater chance of running off into local waterways where they degrade and contribute to excessive nutrient loads.
• Keep fertilizers away from ponds, rivers, lakes, and streams — Be careful when applying fertilizers near water. Create a buffer of at least 25 ft. in order to minimize runoff. Additionally, keep an eye on the weather forecast in order to prevent applying fertilizer before a heavy downpour, as heavy rain can cause recently applied fertilizers to runoff before being incorporated into the soil.
• Maintain  a healthy organic lawn — By maintaining a healthy lawn through proper care, you can cut down on your overall fertilizer needs. Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes webpage has all the information you need to maintain a healthy lawn.

Clean water is essential for human health, wildlife, and a balanced environment. Check out Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters webpage for more information.

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

Source: phys.org

Photo Source: phys.org

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2015) The European Union’s food safety agency confirmed Wednesday that foliar spraying of neonicotinoids (neonics), the widely-used bee-toxic insecticides, poses a risk to bees, bolstering previous research that led to a two-year moratorium on the chemicals in the EU.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which guides EU policymakers, said leaf spray containing three neonicotinoid pesticides — clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam — could harm bees. Previous research found that these chemicals pose a risk as seed treatments or granules, which prompted the European Commission to limit their use in  December 1, 2013. The use of the three neonicotinoid substances in seed or soil treatments is prohibited in the European Union for crops attractive to bees and for cereals other than winter cereals except in greenhouses.

“They (the EFSA conclusions) confirm that the Commission was correct to take precautionary measures in 2013,” a Brussels-based EU executive said in a statement.

Neonicotinoids have been found by  a growing body of scientific literature  to be linked to honey bee and pollinator decline. Recently, a  study  performed by the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) in the United Kingdom provides evidence confirming the link between neonicotinoid pesticides and continually increasing honey bee colony losses on a landscape level.  Along with recent reports and studies highlighting the role these chemicals play in pollinator decline, there is evidence that the use of neonicotinoids are not efficacious or even necessary in agriculture. Earlier this month, figures for the first oilseed rape harvest since the European-wide ban was introduced show that the yield so far is higher than the average for the previous decade, when the chemicals were used on the majority of oilseed rape grown in the UK.   In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report  concluding that soybean  seed treatments with neonicotinoid insecticides provide little or no overall benefits in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in soybean production.  The seed treatment market has more than tripled in size between 1990 and 2005, with neonicotinoids making up 77 percent of the market share.

“Questions need to be asked about how these products were ever approved for use,” said Paul de Zylva, a campaigner at the environmental group Friends of the Earth in the UK. The group this month launched a legal challenge to a British decision to allow some farmers to use neonicotinoids after the UK won an exemption from the EU restrictions.

As part of a two-year review process, EFSA has asked national authorities, research institutions and other interested parties to submit new relevant information by Sept. 30. Based  on an evaluation of the information, the Commission says it could change the rules.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. Although EPA  announced  a moratorium on new bee- and bird- harming neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses, farm, beekeeper and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in EU’s footsteps and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.  We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of neonicotinoids. See how  you can  help through  Bee Protective.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2015) Last week, Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., released a perspective article, GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health, in the New England Journal of Medicine  that outlines  the hazards associated with food residues of  elevated pesticide use in the production  of genetically engineered (GE) crops. While mainstream media continuously misses the central issue  in the GE debate by asserting that these crops are merely an extension of selective breeding and effect a reduction in pesticide use, the authors  focus on  the significance of the actual increase in herbicide use and weed resistance in herbicide-tolerant crops. Drs. Landrigan and Benbrook offer two main recommendations in their article: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should delay implementation of its decision to permit the use of Enlist Duo (the 2,4-D herbicide used with  Monsanto-engineered GE herbicide-tolerant  crop), and  the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should  require labeling of GE foods and couple it with adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.

Dr. Landrigan, Dean for Global Health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, is an epidemiologist and pediatrician and one of the world’s leading advocates of children’s and environmental health. Dr. Benbrook is a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Genetically engineered crops have been at the forefront of conventional farming for decades. Corn and soybeans were originally genetically engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s glyphosate (Roundup) in the mid-1990s. Today, these crops account for 90% of corn and soybeans in the U.S. leading to a dramatic increase in herbicide use. In fact, the researchers point out that glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250 ”” from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. This not surprisingly allows herbicide-resistant superweeds to emerge, which leads the industry to turn to stronger, more dangerous chemicals like 2,4-D and glufosinate.

Of particular concern for the two authors is that farmers, processors, infants, and children are most at risk, given the exposure to the herbicides used with herbicide-resistant GE crops. The hazard for children is especially elevated since they eat more food pound for pound. Children  are biologically more vulnerable because their cells are still growing and they have many more years to develop. Research has shown that increased levels of pesticides in the body is linked to exposure through the diet, particularly for vulnerable segments of the population like children and pregnant women. In 2012, AAP weighed in on the debate, recognizing that organic foods (which do not allow for use of GE ingredients) reduce exposure to pesticides, especially for children.

The classification by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  of the  GE crop herbicide glyphosate as a human carcinogen, based on laboratory animal studies, brings the safety issue into sharper focus. Dr. Benbrook and Dr. Landrigan cite IARC  research as a reason  to reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. In their article, they state: These classifications were based on comprehensive assessments of the toxicologic and epidemiologic literature that linked both 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicides to dose-related increases in malignant tumors at multiple anatomical sites in animals and linked glyphosate to an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in humans. Dr. Landrigan insists that we should not wait to do something about these issues. In an audio interview, he says, “If one reasons from the prospective of prudence, it would seem wise not to allow large numbers of children to be exposed unwittingly to a probable human carcinogen.”

In addition to the recent IARC findings, the timing of Drs. Landrigan and Benbrook’s positions  is critical as both the U.S. and Europe examine GE labeling laws. In the U.S., Congress is considering H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, often referred to by opponents as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, which as its name implies would negate state mandatory labeling laws. The European Union (EU) is approaching a deadline for a GE crop opt-out program, decided individually by its member states. Consumers are increasingly demanding that the U.S. and EU governments take restrictive action as they make national  decisions on GE crops.

Advocates have argued that  EPA’s decision to allow Enlist Duo is flawed. In their piece, the authors address this with the following position:

The science consisted solely of toxicologic studies commissioned by the herbicide manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s and never published, not an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These studies predated current knowledge of low-dose, endocrine-mediated, and epigenetic effects and were not designed to detect them. The risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law. It failed to consider ecologic impact, such as effects on the monarch butterfly and other pollinators. It considered only pure glyphosate, despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the pure compound.

This flaw, the authors  say, has led to a hasty decision by EPA, which is proving to be a bad one given the recent classification of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” and 2,4-D as a “possible human carcinogen” (another IARC finding).

This spring, the European Union voted to allow its  member states to allow or prohibit some GE crop use for food and feed. Based on the new provision, member states will make their determination on  14 GE crops authorized by the EU. Scotland has vowed to utilize its  opt-out authority and is  being followed  Germany, which has previously taken a pro-GE position.  Each member state has until October 3, 2015 to give the EU its  decision.

Beyond Pesticides urges consumers to pressure our government officials to guard the safety of their citizens. Legislation like the DARK Act, which has passed in the House, will place a prohibition  on states’ authority to require labeling of GE ingredients in food products, instituting federal  preemption of state and local authority. To get involved, contact your Senator to tell them to vote against the H.R. 1599.

In the meantime, while we wait for the National Academy of Sciences to release a new GE report    (expected in 2016), the best and currently only way to avoid GE food is to support organic agriculture and eat organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and  research shows  that organic farmers do a better job of protecting biodiversity than their chemically-intensive counterparts. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and scheduled sprays, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, set action levels for pests based upon monitoring, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective. The conservation of biodiversity is both a core premise of organic land management. For more on how organic management preserves biodiversity, visit  Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture webpage. For a hands on approach on how you can protect biodiversity, see  Do-it-Yourself Biodiversity.

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

Source: New England Journal of Medicine

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2015) A  study performed by the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) in the United Kingdom (UK) provides evidence of confirming the link between neonicotinoid pesticides and continually increasing honey bee colony losses on a landscape level. The study, Evidence for pollinator cost and farming benefits of neonicotinoid seed coatings on oilseed rape, was published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports. This is a significant study, as the UK government has always maintained that neonicotinoid pesticides do not threaten bees, and that honey bee losses are instead caused by the parasitic varroa mite, siding with industry arguments that pesticides are safe when used properly. However, this new study indicates otherwise, confirming a direct link between neonicotinoids and honey bee colony losses at a nationwide level.

This study distinguishes itself from  a previous study in the U.S. that extrapolated real world neonicotinoid exposure levels  to  test hives by analyzing actual fields in a  long-term assessment. To a large degree, the new study addresses industry critics of the earlier study design who have tried to discount previous findings of bee decline associated with neonicotinoid use (see Beyond Pesticides’ Sowing the Seeds of Doubt, which addresses these industry myths). In the wake of the new findings, the authors call for more large-scale field-based research to determine the impact of the use of a newer generation of neonicotinoids on pollinators.

Neonicotinoids have been found by  a growing body of scientific literature  to be linked to honey bee and pollinator decline. In 2013, the European Commission  voted to suspend  the use of neonicotinoid pesticides for two years after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  released a report  identifying “high acute risk” to honey bees from uses of certain neonicotinoid chemicals.  However, this action was opposed by the UK government. Despite this opposition, Britain was required  to comply with the ban under European Union (EU) rules. This did not stop the UK from trying to find ways around the ban, with chemical industry giants like Syngenta applying for emergency applications to allow the use of neonicotinoids in order to avoid “irreparable damage” from pests. A 2014 request for an emergency application was eventually withdrawn in the face of public outcry, but just this past July the UK approved an emergency application to allow the use of neonicotinoids on oilseed rape crop, despite the continued moratorium put in place by the EU. This emergency exemption is disheartening in light of these recent findings connecting neonicotinoid use with pollinator declines, and calls into question  UK government decisions, which have, in the past, been found to allow unacceptable industry influence  regarding  research and decisions on pesticide products.

In this new study, researchers at FERA in the UK studied pesticides as seed treatment on oilseed rape crops (known as canola in the United States) across nine different regions in Wales and England. When  neonicotinoids are used as a seed treatment (or applied to the seed), the chemical, which is highly toxic and persistent, stays in the crop as it grows. The 11-year study found that mortality rates were 10 percent higher for bee colonies that had high levels of exposure to imidacloprid (a neonicotinoid) than for those with low field exposure.

Other noteworthy findings in this study include insight into the role of neonicotinoid treated seeds in agriculture. Industry proponents of coated seeds claim that applying such a coating reduces the subsequent applications of foliar insecticide sprays necessary, while at the same time increasing yields. However, the benefits of using these treated seeds, the study finds, is negligible, and may lead to further problems for pollinators down the road as the neonicotinoids used to treat seeds become incorporated into the plant as it grows. These findings are consistent with a  report released  by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  that determined soybean  seeds treated  with neonicotinoid insecticides provide little or no overall benefits in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in soybean production, confirming  scientific findings  that these chemical treatments are unnecessary and inefficacious.

The honey bee is the most important commercial pollinator, globally responsible for pollinating at least 90% of commercial crops. Given that one in every three bites of food is dependent on pollination, and that commercial beekeeping adds between $20 to $30 billion dollars in economic value to agriculture each year in the U,S., it is imperative that action is  taken to protect bees and other pollinators all over the world. In the UK, honey bees are the most frequent flower visitor to oilseed rape.

The report’s authors say, “As long as acute toxins remain the basis of agricultural pest control practices, society will be forced to weigh the benefits of pesticides against their collateral damage. Nowhere is this tension more evident than in the system with the world’s most widely used insecticide, the world’s most widely used managed pollinator and Europe’s most widely grown mass flowering crop.”

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. Although EPA  announced  a moratorium on new bee- and bird- harming neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses, farm, beekeeper and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to also suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.  We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of neonicotinoids. See how  you can  help through  Bee Protective.

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

Source:  The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2015) Last Friday, the City Council of Minneapolis, MN unanimously passed a resolution declaring Minneapolis a pollinator-friendly community and urging city residents to take steps to protect dwindling pollinator populations. A groundswell of public support from a wide range of local and national groups, including Beyond Pesticides, resulted in swift passage of the resolution, the latest in a long string of local government action to safeguard pollinators from harmful pesticides, as federal proposals fail to address the magnitude of the crisis. “With the passage of today’s resolution, Minneapolis is now doing its part in the global effort to protect and grow the pollinator populations,” Mayor Betsy Hodges said to CBS Minnesota.

The resolution, introduced and written by Councilmember Cam Gordon, assigns a number of bee safe actions to various city departments. While the Health Department’s Environmental Services Unit will maintain a list of pollinator-friendly plants, the Community Planning and Economic Development Department and Property Services Division of the City Coordinator’s office will create habitat for local pollinators. The Minneapolis Public Works Department will pursue both increased bee habitat and adopt clear guidelines against the use of pesticides, including but not limited to systemic neonicotinoid  (“neonic”) insecticides, and pesticide treated plants.

In addition to polices that apply to government-owned property, the city also urges private residents and businesses to forgo the use of toxic pesticides, plant more pollinator forage on their property, and use organic or chemical-free lawn and landscaping practices. “Minnesota used to be a really amazing place to be a bee, and it isn’t anymore,” said Erin Rupp, executive director of the group Pollinate Minnesota, to KSTP.com. “Beekeepers in Minnesota this past year lost 50 percent of our hives … This is kind of a big deal, it’s an alarming number.”

“Pollinator populations are in sharp decline because of an ongoing loss of habitat coupled with a simultaneous large-scale expansion of pesticide use by homeowners, landscapers, property managers and farmers,” noted a press release from the city. “Many Minneapolis residents and businesses are already managing their land in a way that helps pollinators,” said Councilmember Gordon to the Southwest Journal. “We urge all Minneapolis property owners to plant habitat where they can and avoid pesticides that are known to kill bees.”

Like numerous other states, Minnesota is preempted from enacting an ordinance which restricts the private use of harmful pesticides. However, the city’s resolution addresses this, stating “the City of Minneapolis will continue to advocate at the State and Federal level for increased authority to address the non-agricultural use of pesticides, and for other pollinator friendly practices.” A bill currently in the Minnesota State Legislature would exempt Minnesota’s “first class cities” (including Duluth, Minneapolis, Rochester, and St. Paul) from state preemption.

“[This resolution] takes a strong stand,” said Joan Hargrave, head of local group Minneapolis Citizens for a Lawn Pesticide Ban, “[it] not only says yes to pollinator forage and organic turf management and no to neonics, but no to pesticides — which is all inclusive.” Ms. Hargrave’s group garnered over 2,750 signatures from local residents requesting the city take action on dangerous lawn care pesticides.

“The Minneapolis City Council’s Pollinator Friendly Community resolution is a huge step forward toward making Minneapolis a healthier city not only for pollinators, but also for people and their pets,” said Pat Kerrigan, retail education coordinator at Organic Consumers Association, which supported activists on the ground. “By urging citizens, businesses and institutions to support organic seed, plant and lawn care products and their producers, this resolution has the power to redirect our collective purchasing power away from international corporations, such as Monsanto and Bayer, whose product have had a devastating effect on human and environmental health.”

Although the Minneapolis resolution represents a big victory for organic land care and pollinator protections locally and throughout the country, there’s still more work that needs to be done. “The people of Minneapolis want to live in a pesticide free city, and we expect to be safe from pesticides in public spaces,” said Russ Henry of the Homegrown Minneapolis Food Council, and official advisory body of the City of Minneapolis. “The first step was to get the city departments to agree to go pesticide free, now it’s time for activists to turn their attention to the independent school board and park board that we have in Minneapolis. The Minneapolis Park Board is a heavy user of pesticides and this needs to be put to a public debate.  Please join me at the Sept 23rd Minneapolis Park Board meeting to let your voice be heard about the use of pesticides in Minneapolis parks.” Information on the September 23 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board meeting will appear on this webpage.

Further action at the state level in Minnesota is also needed. Although the state legislature passed a bill disallowing nurseries and other retailers from labeling plants containing neonics as “pollinator friendly” in 2014, the bill was weakened last session to the point where retailers could maintain the “pollinator friendly” label as long as levels of neonics in the plant were not acutely toxic to bees.

However, Minneapolis’ move as the largest and most recent Minnesota city to take action to protect pollinators will have a positive impact in influencing federal efforts to restrict bee-toxic neonic pesticides. EPA is accepting public comment on a proposal to create “temporary pesticide-free zones” for honey bees, but it falls far short in providing the protections needed for this important species. Moreover, the effects of pesticides to wild pollinators are simply being ignored by the agency. Tell EPA to get serious about protecting bees from toxic pesticides by signing Beyond Pesticides’ petition to EPA. Afterwards, elevate your voice by writing a public comment to the agency at regulations.gov.

For more actions you can take to protect pollinators, and to get started on creating change in your own community, visit Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective webpage, or email or call our office (202-543-5450, [email protected]).

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

Source: City of Minneapolis Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 24, 2015) At the start of the  school year, it is critical to check in with school administrators to make sure that students and teachers will not be exposed to hazardous pesticides used in the school’s buildings or on playing fields. Whether a parent, teacher, student, school administrator, landscaper or community advocate, there are steps that  can taken to make sure the school environment is a safe from  toxic chemicals, as the new  school year begins.

For Parents and Teachers:
Because children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure due to their small size and developing organ systems, using toxic chemicals to get rid of insects, germs, and weeds can harm students much more than it helps. Studies show children’s developing organs create “early windows of great vulnerability” during which exposure to pesticides can cause great damage. This is supported by the  findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) which concluded that, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.”  The report also discusses how children  are exposed to pesticides every day in air, food, dust, and soil. Children also frequently come into contact with pesticide residue on pets and after lawn, garden, or household pesticide applications. You can help to eliminate children’s exposure to toxic chemicals by urging school administrators to implement organic management practices that use cultural, mechanical and biological management strategies, and, as a last resort, defined least-toxic pesticides.

Find Out About Your School’s Pest Management  Program

One way to best protect children is to find out if the school has a pest management policy in place already, and identify key allies. Evaluate programs that are already in place, and if need be, work with administrators to create a new policy. Since toxic pesticides are not necessary to effective pest management, it’s important that schools and school districts have a written organic pest management program. This will ensure that the program is institutionalized and will continue to flourish over time. See here for more details and practical steps on how to get organized and improve a  school’s pest management program. For additional information, see Beyond Pesticides’  School Organizing Guide.

Non-Toxic  Lice Management

Just as children go  back to school, research has reported  that lice in 25 of 30 states in a  U.S. study have developed resistance to common over-the-counter treatments like the insecticide  permethrin, and therefore are not effective. Utilizing non-toxic approaches and products is  critical, especially since  lice are not a vector for insect-borne disease, and typical pesticide products used to treat them can be  neurotoxic or carcinogenic. Fortunately, this nuisance insect  can be managed utilizing a number of alternative lice treatment methods that do not include the use of toxic chemicals. One method for eliminating head lice is the use of hot air, which desiccates the insects and eggs, killing them. Lice and their eggs (or nits) can be combed and handpicked, and then destroyed in soapy water. Beyond Pesticide’s ManageSafe Database has a comprehensive webpage dedicated to safe management of lice, in addition to preventive practices.

Pack Organic Lunches or Start an Organic Garden

Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure and children who eat a  conventional diet  of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of neurotoxic organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet.  The effects of pesticide exposure have been well documented, particularly for vulnerable segments of the population like children and pregnant women. In 2012, AAP weighed in on the organic food debate, recognizing that lower pesticide residues in organic foods may be significant for children. In addition to direct health effects, the Academy also noted that choosing organic is based on broad  environmental and public health issues, including pollution and global climate change  —a position  that is supported by Beyond Pesticides. Ask the  school to adopt an organic lunch program, starting with organic produce, milk or juice. See, School Lunches Go Organic, for more information.

In addition to serving organic food in the cafeteria, it can be both helpful and a valuable part of the lesson plan to grow food in an organic school garden. For more information, The Organic School Garden (or Grow Your Own Organic Food for technical advice). School gardens teach children where food comes from and establishes healthy relationships with food and the natural world.

Promote Biodiversity with Organic Landscapes and Turf

Biodiversity helps bees and other pollinators; diverse plants produce a supply of nectar throughout the growing season, and biodiversity of soil organisms promotes healthy plants that grow well without the introduction of poisonous pesticides.

Playing fields that are intensively managed with chemicals are at greater risk for disease and weed infestation (leading to a dependence on chemical inputs), compared with practices that build healthy, balanced soil. Similarly, chemically-managed fields are generally harder and more compacted due to a loss of natural soil biology, while organic management focuses on cultural practices, such as aeration that alleviates compaction, improves moisture retention, and provides a softer, better playing surface. See the factsheet, Pesticides and Playing Fields, for more information.

Protect biodiversity through organic turf, playing fields and landscape policies. Encourage the  school to plant pollinator-attractive plants in its garden as part of its biology class. If the  school does not have a garden, request one be integrated into the curriculum. Wildflowers, native plant and grass species should be encouraged on school grounds. For more information on attractive flowers, see the  BEE Protective Habitat Guide. Also see the  Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity factsheet and Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind for resources on building and protecting biodiversity.

For College Students:
On college campuses nationwide, grounds crews and landscapers maintain the land with toxic pesticides, even though safer alternatives exist. College students across the country want their campuses to be a  safe and healthy environment. To assist with college studies, Beyond Pesticides has developed the BEE Protective Ambassador Program.

BEE Protective College Ambassador Program

The widespread use of systemic pesticides in agriculture and landscaping, specifically, a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids (neonics), has been implicated in causing poor pollinator health and widespread bee deaths. Therefore, a key focus of the program is to eliminate the use of  neonics on college campuses.  A critical part of being a BEE Protective Ambassador is to engage with college  administrators in the creation of a pollinator-friendly campus.

“BEE” prepared: you may get some pushback about phasing out toxic pesticides on campus. But contrary to what some administrators and groundskeepers may tell you, a college campus can be maintained successfully without toxic, systemic pesticides!

With the fall semester rapidly approaching, now is a great time to take the BEE Protective Ambassador Pledge. With assistance from  Beyond Pesticides, BEE ambassadors will be given  educational information to with college  administrators. Students who are interested in joining the movement to protect pollinators and save the bees, can become a Bee Protective Ambassador and sign the  pledge!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2015) Neonicotinoid insecticides contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the United States and Puerto Rico, according to a study released earlier this week by the U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS). Neonicotinoids (neonics) are bee-toxic insecticides that have been linked to the global decline in bee populations by a large body of science.

The study, titled “First national-scale reconnaissance of neonicotinoid insecticides in streams across the USA” and published in Environmental Chemistry,  was conducted from 2011 to 2014 and spans 24 states and Puerto Rico. Researchers found that at least one of the six neonicotinoids tested by USGS researchers was found in more than half of the sampled streams. Detections of the  six  neonicotinoids varied:    imidacloprid  was found in 37 percent of the samples in the national study, clothianidin in 24 percent, thiamethoxam in 21 percent, dinotefuran in 13 percent, acetamiprid in 3 percent, and thiacloprid was not detected. Both urban and agricultural uses contributed to neonic concentrations in streams, with imidacloprid occurrence significantly related to the amount of urban land-use and clothianidin and thiamethoxam significantly related to the amount of cultivated crop.

“In the study, neonicotinoids occurred throughout the year in urban streams while pulses of neonicotinoids were typical in agricultural streams during crop planting season,” said USGS research chemist Michelle Hladik, Ph.D., the report’s lead author, in a press release.

“The occurrence of low levels in streams throughout the year supports the need for future research on the potential impacts of neonicotinoids on aquatic life and terrestrial animals that rely on aquatic life,” added USGS scientist Kathryn Kuivila, Ph.D., the research team leader. “These results will serve as an important baseline for that future work.”

The recent study expands on a previous USGS report that found the chemicals to contaminate Midwest waterways.

Neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing class of insecticides in agriculture. They are now the most widely-used class of insecticide chemicals and are registered in more than 120 countries. Studies continue to question the efficacy of these chemicals in pest control, showing  no yield increases  as a result of their use. Beyond food production, neonics are  frequently detected in nursery plants  sold at big box home and garden centers throughout the United States. And recent research also produced by the Harvard School of Public Health finds these chemicals to be ubiquitous in our environment  during flowering season, present in a vast majority of pollen samples taken throughout the state of Massachusetts.

The impacts these chemicals have on  birds  (a single kernel of neonic-coated corn  is enough to kill a songbird),  honey bees,  wild pollinators, and other  beneficial organisms  are  clear and has been  well-researched. Large-scale use of neonicotinoids can also alter and harm aquatic communities. Aquatic invertebrates, which  play an important role in ecological diversity, are especially susceptible –  neonicotinoids can exert adverse effects on survival, growth, emergence, mobility, and behavior of many sensitive aquatic invertebrate taxa.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which, of course, prohibits the use of neonicotinoids. See how  you can  Bee Protective.

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

Source: US Geographical Survey

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2015) Just as children go  back to school, research  finds that lice in 25 of 30 states in a  U.S. study have developed resistance to common over-the-counter treatments like permethrin, calling into questions the justification for exposing children to a neurotoxic and carcinogenic pesticide and elevating the need to consider nontoxic alternatives. The  research was presented Tuesday at the 250^th National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), by Kyong Yoon, Ph.D., of Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

Classified as a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, permethrin is “likely carcinogenic” and a suspected endocrine disruptor, immunotoxic, neurotoxic, and highly toxic to fish, aquatic animals, and bees. Dr. Yoon and his colleagues describe the threefold mutations that lice have developed over time due to the constant use of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides. This new finding builds on his team’s previous research, which found that 99.6% of lice are resistant to chemical treatment, adding weight to the fact that chemical treatments not only are unnecessary given effective least-toxic alternatives, but also are not able to provide the lice control that manufacturers claim.

“We are the first group to collect lice samples from a large number of populations across the U.S.,” said Dr. Yoon. “What we found was that 104 out of the 109 lice populations we tested had high levels of gene mutations, which have been linked to resistance to pyrethroids.” That translates to ninety-five percent of all lice populations with high resistance to common chemical treatments. The other five percent may have resistance as well, but not in all three areas of mutation.

The reduced efficacy of head lice treatments has been questioned and studied since the 1990s, however, in this study, Dr. Yoon and his team of researchers studied the issue nationwide. To determine  resistance, Dr. Yoon’s team tested lice  for a trio of genetic mutations known collectively as kdr, or  “knock-down resistance.” Kdr mutations had initially been found in house flies in the late ’70s after farmers and others began using  pyrethroids as an alternative to organochlorines like  DDT and organophosphates like Dursban  (chlorpyrifos).

While the researchers identify  other chemical alternatives, such as  prescription treatments of  malathion, spinosad, and lindane, they are urging caution. “If you use a chemical over and over, these little creatures will eventually develop resistance,” Dr. Yoon says. “So we have to think before we use a treatment. The good news is head lice don’t carry disease. They’re more a nuisance than anything else.”

In addition to concerns about resistance, when it comes to children, exposure to permethrin and other common lice treatments has proven to be dangerous. Malathion, an organophosphate insecticide, is a nerve poison that acts by inhibiting enzymes, causing long-lasting polyneuropathy and sensory nerve damage. It has recently been recognized as a toxic hazard to school children in California, leading to stronger restrictions on its use in the state. Lindane, on the other hand, was discovered by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to be a Group 1 “carcinogenic to humans” earlier this year, the highest cancer category. Most alarming is that despite these known hazards, and the fact that there are viable least-toxic alternatives that do not build resistance or put children in danger, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows the use of these lice treatments, including lindane products on children over the age of two.

A 2009 study, Pesticide exposure resulting from treatment of lice infestations in school-aged children in Georgia, found that children treated with common chemical lice shampoos containing permethrin and lindane showed levels of the chemical’s metabolites up to seven days after the first treatment. This is especially concerning given that environmentally relevant levels of pyrethroids are also common in many homes, where they are used as a household insecticide. Young children who play on the floor can come into chronic contact with these chemicals through skin or hand to mouth activities. A 2013 study, Urinary metabolites of organophosphates and pyrethroid pesticides and behavioral problems in Canadian children, found that high levels of pyrethroid metabolites correlated with a two-fold increase in parent-reported behavioral problems, including inattention and hyperactivity. These chemicals can also damage children before they are born. A 2013 study, In utero pesticide exposure and leukemia in Brazilian children less than 2 years of age,” found that a mother’s exposure to permethrin at any time raises the cancer risk for infants.

The constant cycle of insecticide use has created the “super” lice we are seeing across the country, creatures that  can easily be prevented by avoiding chemical options. Fortunately, there are a number of alternative lice treatment methods that do not include the use of toxic chemicals. According to researchers on alternative lice treatments, one method for eliminating head lice that will not lead to resistant strains of lice is the use of hot air, which desiccates the insects and eggs, killing them. In fact, recent research shows that the extra chemicals in lice shampoo are completely unnecessary. Researchers in Belgium, who studied  nit removal on 605 hairs from six different children, found that ordinary conditioners are just as effective at removing lice. “There were no significant differences in measured forces between the ordinary conditioner and the commercial nit removal product,” authors of the 2014 study published in the Journal of Medical Entomology wrote. The researchers found that commercial nit removal products tested in that study did not seem to have any additional effect.

For additional information on controlling head lice without toxic chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides’ Head Lice Factsheet or Getting Nit Picky About Head Lice. See also our comprehensive page on head lice in our ManageSafe database.

Source: ACS Press Release

Image: States highlighted in red contain the highly resistant lice.  

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2015) Local fogging for  mosquito control turned tragic for a Palo Alto, California beekeeper who lost hundreds of honey bees from his backyard hives. The beekeeper, who also produces organic honey, now fears his honey is contaminated. The fogging, which occurred last month, was in response to positive tests for West Nile virus in mosquito samples. Many mosquito control pesticides are toxic to honey bees and given the declining populations of pollinators, vector control officials are being asked to carefully consider the risks associated with pesticide spraying.

According to the local NBC affiliate, beekeeper Rondolph Tsien believes he was not given sufficient time to protect his bees from the mosquito fogging and, despite trying to cover his hives with a tarp to protect his bees from drifting pesticides, many were lost. A mosquito sample tested positive for West Nile virus about one mile from Mr. Tsien’s home, putting his property in the catchment area for fogging. Mr. Tsien worries the surviving bees will produce contaminated honey that can no longer be labeled organic.

A Santa Clara County Vector Control representative stated during an interview that the county uses  an “extremely low dose” of pesticides during fogging and are only sprayed “when necessary.”   But recent scientific data finds that even extremely low doses of pesticides can negatively impact bee behavior, even causing death. On its  information page, the county notes that it uses the insecticide etofenprox (Zenivex), a pyrethroid-ether insecticide in  the pyrethroid class that is known to be highly toxic to honey bees. Ground and aerial pyrethroid applications for mosquito control result in in-situ and off-site exposures. Pyrethroids, due to their toxicity to bees, are thought by some researchers to be a major contributor to the significant decline in bee populations after neonicotinoids. In fact, some scientists are finding that honey bees’ olfactory receptor neurons, which are responsible for inter-individual communication, are affected by pyrethroid exposures. Studies find that sublethal concentrations of the pyrethroids can significantly reduce bee fecundity and decrease the rate at which bees develop to adulthood and reproduce. Several field and laboratory studies using pyrethroids have consistently documented decreases in foraging activity and activity at the hive entrance after exposure. In addition, pyrethroids like etofenprox are suspected endocrine disruptors, have been linked to certain cancers, and are particularly dangerous to aquatic life even at low concentrations.
Mr. Tsien’s concerns about contaminated honey are well founded. A wide array of pesticides have been detected in hives, wax, pollen, and honey. Formal recommendations by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to the National Organic Program in 2010 on organic apiculture state that organic standards should prohibit producers from foraging in areas where there is “a significant risk of contamination by prohibited materials within a 1.8 mile (3 kilometer) radius of the apiary,” in order to avoid risks of honey bee exposure and contamination of honey due to pesticides.

Pesticides like neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides highly toxic to honey bees, have been receiving public  attention as a result of their widespread use in agriculture, environmental contamination, and overwhelming scientific evidence of their role in pollinator decline. Neonicotinoids are systemic (moving through the vascular system of the plant and expressed through pollen, nectar and guttation droplets) and persistent.

There are, however, safer and more effective alternatives to pyrethroid-based mosquito control, given that these spray programs are of very limited efficacy. In a study published  in  the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Cornell University professor of entomology David Pimentel, PhD calculated that less than .0001 percent of ultra low volume (ULV) pesticide sprays reach target insects. Further, along with vulnerable honey bees, people with compromised immune systems, chemically sensitized people, pregnant women, and children with respiratory problems, such as asthma, are particularly vulnerable to these pesticide spray programs and will suffer disproportionately from exposure.

Beyond Pesticides believes the ideal mosquito management strategy comes from an integrated approach that emphasizes education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, 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. Individuals can take action by eliminating standing water, introducing mosquito-eating fish, encouraging predators, such as bats, birds, dragonflies and frogs, and using least-toxic larvacides like bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). 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.

For more information on safe and effective mosquito management strategies, see Beyond Pesticides’ page on Mosquitoes and Insect Borne Diseases, or contact us at [email protected].

Let’s BEE Protective and support a shift away from the use of these toxic chemicals by encouraging organic methods and sustainable land management practices in your home, campus, or community.

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

Source: NBC Bay Area

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2015) Research looking at corn production  across the Northern Great Plains finds that fields with lower insect biodiversity are at greater risk for pest problems, showing that insect diversity can reduce the need for pesticides, yet again highlighting the critical need for biodiversity in a resilient and sustainable food production system. The research article, Trading Biodiversity for Pest Problems, is published in the July 31 issue of Science Advances, and explores how current chemical-intensive  practices have resulted in altered pesticide use patterns, land use intensification, and landscape simplification, all of which threaten biodiversity in and near farms. The findings suggest that farming practices that promote insect biodiversity is  an effective way to control pests without the use of harmful pesticides.

Scientists Jonathan Lundgren, PhD, an entomologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), and Scott Fausti, PhD, an economics professor at South Dakota State University looked at insect diversity in cornfields on 53 different eastern South Dakota farms. The researchers evaluate fields that do not use insecticides or crops that are genetically engineered (GE), which may  influence corn insect communities. They also specifically identify insect species during the time in the corn’s life cycle when insect communities are most abundant and pest problems, and document  relative numbers of 106 taxonomic groups of insects on these farms.

In their analysis, the researchers find that more biodiverse cornfields have fewer pests, and those with high species diversity and an even distribution of species abundance had the least amount of pests. “It is the relationships among herbivores and predators that determines whether corn insect pests will be either controlled by the ecosystem or, if the ecosystem has been diminished, then that will allow the corn insect pest to thrive,” Dr. Fausti said to Minnesota Public Radio (MPR News).

According to the researchers, this is among one of the first studies to quantify the importance of insect networks in fields. While previous research shows that diversity, reducing soil disturbance, increasing crop rotation diversity, and including cover crops are important factors in keeping pests in check, we don’t always have a complete picture of how these practices work to reduce pests. (See yesterday’s Daily News story on the effects of glyphosate on earthworms and soil biota, and Beyond Pesticides’ review  of  European Academies Science Advisory Council  report Ecosystem Services, agriculture and neonicotinoids)

The findings suggests that practices that reduce diversity in cornfields will exacerbate pest problems over time. Interestingly, researchers also note that unnecessary pesticide inputs and simplification of agro-ecosystems are destined to require even more pesticides to replace the lost functions of biodiversity and maintain these food production systems.

Recent trends in agriculture, including less diverse  cropping systems coupled with a significant increase in pesticide use on the major crops like corn and soybeans, significantly threaten biodiversity. Corn is one of the most intensively produced crops in the U.S., covering about 5 percent of the land surface in this country, according to the authors. The study authors estimate that, in 2013, U.S. farmers spent $3.2 billion to control corn pests. Systemic insecticides, particularly neonicotinoids, are commonly used on those crops even if there is no pest threat, creating devastating effects on organisms that provide ecosystem services including natural pest control and pollination. The results suggest  that farmers may need to use less or eliminate pesticides once they understand how biodiversity works in farm fields.

“Long-term food security is contingent on inventing production systems that are resilient to stressors like pests,” wrote the authors in an article published in The Conversation. “Biodiversity within food systems provides quantifiable and valuable services to society, of which pest management is one.”

Research strongly indicates that biodiversity promotes environmental productivity, stability, and resilience. In general, the soil community with greater biodiversity generates more biomass (the combined weight of all organisms), is  more resistant to environmental disturbances, such as drought, and bounces back more quickly after being affected by such disturbances. Beyond Pesticides’ report, Preserving Biodiversity, As if Life Depends on it, notes that by targeting individual species —both as commodities to produce and pests to attack— chemical-intensive practices sacrifice the benefits of biodiversity and jeopardize the very species that comprise it. While causing harm to biodiversity, chemical-intensive strategies in agriculture are not proven to be necessary in light of effective organic practices.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and research shows that organic farmers do a better job of protecting biodiversity than their chemically-intensive counterparts. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and scheduled sprays, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, set action levels for pests based upon monitoring, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective. The conservation of biodiversity is both a core premise of organic land management. For more on how organic management preserves biodiversity, visit Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture webpage. For a hands on approach on how you can protect biodiversity, see Do-it-Yourself Biodiversity.

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

Sources: The Conversation, Minnesota Public Radio

(Beyond Pesticides, August 17, 2015) A study published in Scientific Reports has found that glyphosate, the controversial and toxic active ingredient in Roundup, reduces activity and reproduction in two species of earthworms and increases soil nutrient concentrations to dangerous levels. Earthworms are excellent indicators of soil health, and provide vitally important  ecosystem services  by aerating the soil, cycling nutrients, and increasing soil fertility and microbial activity. The findings are especially alarming because this herbicide has been used globally for decades, and its  use has  grown exponentially.  Earlier this spring, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as Group 2a “probable” human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals.

Researchers looked at two species of earthworms: vertically burrowing earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris) and soil dwelling earthworms (Aporrectodea caliginosa). Vertically burrowing earthworms typically feed above ground at night and then burrow close to the surface during the day. Soil dwelling earthworms live and feed in the soil, rather than at the surface. Vertically burrowing earthworms engage in what is known as casting, which is when they ingest soil and extract nutrients from plant litter and other organic matter, emerge from their burrows, and deposit their waste on the surface in small mounds. Researchers found that after the application of glyphosate, the casting activity of vertically burrowing earthworms essentially ceased. Cast mound mass also decreased by 46%. In contrast, casting activity of this species remained constant when there was no application of glyphosate. In the second species, the soil dwelling earthworms, reproduction decreased by 56% after glyphosate application.

As a secondary effect of glyphosate applications, there is an immediate increase of available nitrate and phosphate in the soil. The researchers believe this is due to mass plant die-offs. Plants normally take in these nutrients and, as they die off, the study confirms that there  are more nutrients available in the soil. These pulses of nutrient availability can lead to increased leaching and surface runoff into groundwater systems or nearby waterways. These excess nutrients lead to an increase in algal growth on the surface of waterways. These algal blooms block sunlight from reaching plants that are far from the surface, causing them to die. As these plants die, oxygen is depleted from the water, creating what is known as a “dead zone” where other organisms can no longer survive.

Other studies have demonstrated the detrimental effects that a wide range of pesticides can have on earthworms and other soil biota. One study on worms found that chronic and/or acute exposure to glyphosate and/or mancozeb promotes neurodegeneration in GABAergic and DAergic neurons in Caenorhabditis elegans, a type of roundworm. In 2014, researchers also found that earthworms exposed to fungicides in conventionally farmed soil are at a stark disadvantage to worms in land managed organically. Earthworms exposed to the fungicide epoxiconazole  are able to detoxify the chemical, but gain half as much weight as worms from an organic farm, where their population is also 2 to 3 times higher.

Soil biota are essential to ecosystem functioning because they break down organic matter and enable chemical elements to be reused. They are also nitrogen fixers, which is necessary for plants and the ecosystem as a whole. Earthworms are an intrinsic part of soil biota, providing support for important ecosystem functioning. Their burrows, sometimes deep into the soil, create pores for moisture and oxygen to travel, and their waste becomes part of the soil structure. They also break down dead organic matter and incorporate new organic matter into soil systems. When pesticides reduce species diversity within the soil, it impacts the ecosystem as a whole. The European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) estimates soil organisms and their role in agricultural productivity to be worth $25 billion a year, globally.

One way to protect soil biota, other wildlife, and the ecosystem as a whole from the harmful effects of pesticides is to support organic agriculture over conventional, chemical-intensive farming. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to this serious environmental threat. It is impossible to discuss the ecological benefits of organic agriculture without discussing the devastating effects of conventional agriculture.

Conventional agriculture relies on toxic pesticides that contaminate air, water, soil, and living things, such as the earthworms mentioned in the studies cited above; organic agriculture does not allow the use of toxic pesticides. Chemical-intensive  agriculture relies on synthetic chemical fertilizers that reduce soil organic matter and contaminate waterways; organic agriculture does not permit the use of synthetic  fertilizers and relies instead on nutrient sources that tend to be less soluble and more stable in the soil, because of the expectation that healthy soil will produce microbes that  can make the nutrients naturally available over a longer period of time.

SIGN THE PETITION: Tell EPA and USDA – Stop Glyphosate Use Now!

To learn more about these impacts on wildlife (which includes soil biota), visit Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife Page, where we discuss how organic systems save wildlife from the dangerous impacts of pesticides, encourages them to flourish, and restores the natural balance that is unable to exist in chemical-intensive  agriculture.

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

Source: Nature

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2015) Sublethal exposure to the organophosphate pesticide phosmet results in significant alterations in personality in individual spiders, according to a study published in the July print edition of the journal Functional Ecology.

The study, titled “Under the influence: sublethal exposure to an insecticide affects personality expression in a jumping spider,” examines whether sublethal exposure to an organophosphate insecticide affects the consistency of individual behavior and disrupt behavioral correlations in the jumping spider Eris militaris (Araneae: Salticidae). Researchers measured the behavior of jumping spider adults by scoring them according to an open-field and a prey-capture assay, each conducted both before and after exposure to the insecticide phosmet. Researchers then measured the changes in repeatability, a measure of the extent of personality differences, and behavioral correlations between exposed and unexposed groups. Although there are no discernible effects on the population’s average behaviors, exposed individuals showed an average of 23 percent lower repeatability and the correlation between activity and prey capture is more strongly collapsed in females.

“Bronze jumping spiders play an important role in orchards and fields, especially at the beginning of the agricultural season, by eating many of the pests like the oblique-banded leafroller, a moth that attacks young plants and fruit,” says study author Raphaël Royauté, Ph.D., in a statement. “Farmers spray insecticides on the plants to get rid of these same pests, and it was thought that it had little significant effect on the spiders’ behaviors. But we now know that this isn’t the case.”

“Most individuals have an individual signature in their behaviors,  what scientist call “personality types,” says Dr. Royauté. “Some individuals are willing to take risks when predators are present, explore new territories faster, or capture prey more quickly. But the effects of insecticides on personality types remains poorly described.”

The study results suggest that the effects of insecticide exposure are more complex than previously thought. Exposure to low levels of insecticides may not outright kill the organisms, but can alter their behavior in ways that may ultimately affect the performance of an important arthropod predator in agricultural environments. Simply put, researchers found that, in general, the behavior of spiders became increasing unpredictable, and the individuals behaved less according to their personality type after exposure. There was also a difference in behavior according to the sex of the spider. Exposed males were able to continue to capture prey as they had before, but “lost” their personality type when exploring their environment. Individual females, however, were much more affected in their ability to capture prey.

Based on these results, the study calls for “an increasing focus on individual behavioral variation when testing the effects of pesticides on non-targeted fauna.”

“By looking at the way that insecticides affect individual spider behaviors, rather than averaging out the effects on the spider population as a whole, as is traditionally done in scientific research, we are able to see some significant effects that we might have otherwise missed,” said Chris Buddle, Ph.D., in the statement. Dr. Buddle, who co-authored the paper, added, “It means we can measure the effects of insecticides before any effects on the spider population as a whole are detected, and in this case, it’s raising some red flags.”

Phosmet is an organophosphate insecticide used in agriculture, forestry, and residential settings to control fleas, sarcoptic mange live, hornflies, and ticks. It has been found to be neurotoxic and cause kidney/liver damage, and is toxic to birds and bees as well. A 2010 Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) found phosmet to be one of 12 organophosphate pesticides to likely jeopardize the continued existence of one or more of the 28 endangered and threatened Pacific salmonids and destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.

To avoid organophosphate and other harmful pesticides in your food, seek out and purchase  certified organic  products, which never allow toxic synthetic insecticides, and take steps to improve soil and habitat for wildlife such as pollinators. To view which food crops have harmful pesticides used on them, view Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience  webpage.

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

Source: Nature World News, McGill University

Photo Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2015) On Monday, a federal appeals court judge mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) respond to a petition filed nearly nine years ago that seeks  to force the agency to restrict  the dangerous insecticide  chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate also known as Dursban). U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit, M. Margaret McKeown,  delivered her opinion on August 10, stating that federal agencies should never practice the “venerable tradition” of putting off statutory requirements  when it comes to human health. The court issued the opinion and order in a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and gives EPA until October 31 to finally respond to the petition requesting to ban chlorpyrifos. EPA took a tentative step towards further regulating chlorpyrifos in a July 2015 announcement to ban remaining agricultural uses by April 2016 date. Unhappy with the uncertainty that EPA delivered, the court felt that a mandated deadline would expedite the process.

On June 8, 2000, EPA administrator Carol Browner announced a voluntary agreement between the agency and industry leaders, including Dow AgroSciences, to ban all home and garden uses of Dursban, which was at the time the most widely used household pesticide in the U.S. This agreement, however, did not include agricultural, golf course, or public mosquito spraying uses. It continues to be heavily used today with an estimated 5 million pounds applied in the U.S. annually, releasing its toxins onto our food and into the lives of farmworkers and their children. In 2007, NRDC and PAN petitioned EPA to revoke all tolerances and cancel registrations for chlorpyrifos. The petition outlines the scientific evidence and public comments that EPA had ignored since they released their cumulative risk assessment for all organophosphates. In 2010, over 13,000 organizations and individuals submitted a letter to EPA calling for a ban. That same year, NRDC, PAN, and Earthjustice appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2012, EPA imposed “no-spray” buffer zones around public spaces, including recreational areas, schools, and homes to reduce bystander exposure risks. In spite of these restrictions, chlorpyrifos still poses risks to human and environmental health. Two months ago, NRDC and PANNA once again petitioned the court of appeals, seeking injunctive relief in the form of a 60-day mandated deadline for EPA. This week, the court finally gave a worthy response: a writ of mandamus, which requires EPA to meet the October 31 deadline and establish a timeline for finalizing the proposed rule if they decide on a ban.

“EPA can’t kick the can down the road any longer. EPA already acknowledges threats of chlorpyrifos to farmworkers and rural families, yet the agency has failed to act. [This] decision should result in meaningful protections for communities from this brain-harming pesticide,” said Margaret Reeves, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America.

Environmental groups want  EPA action to respond to  the scientific evidence on  the dangers of the organophosphate. As groups have pointed out, the failure to ban chlorpyrifos directly violates  provisions  in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) due to the undeniable evidence identified  by EPA earlier this year. In January, the agency published a Revised Human Health Risk Assessment which found risks to some small watersheds used for drinking water, wildlife, and farmworkers who mix, load, and apply chlorpyrifos. Ignoring this and other evidence directly violates FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), something that the 2007 petition points out. Judge McKeown: “EPA’s unreasonable delay in responding to the administrative petition has already been the subject of three non-frivolous lawsuits. There should not be a fourth.”

Chlorpyrifos  is highly  neurotoxic. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor, which means that it can bind irreversibly to acetylcholine esterase (AchE), an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, inactivating the enzyme. Studies have documented that exposure to even low levels of organophosphates like chlorpyrifos during pregnancy can impair learning, change brain function, and alter thyroid levels of offspring into adulthood. The evidence of the neurotoxic dangers associated with chlorpyrifos’ exposure is extensive and consistent. See the Pesticide Induced-Disease Database (PIDD) for more information.

Chlorpyrifos leads a list of numerous toxic chemicals that are central to chemical-intensive agricultural practices that threaten  health and the environment effects. While a ban is  certainly important  as current inaction  reflects a breakdown in the  regulatory process, ultimately the widespread adoption of organic management is necessary to protect consumers and the environment in the long-term. Beyond Pesticides has long sought a broad-scale marketplace transition to organic practices that disallows the use of toxic synthetic pesticides by law and encourages a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment. Even at its worst, this approach never allows the use of highly toxic synthetic pesticides, let alone organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos, and advances  a viable, scalable path forward for growing food.

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

Source: Earth Justice Press Release, Judge McKeown’s Opinion

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12 2015) Last week, the City of Plattsburgh, New York, unanimously approved a policy that encourages city departments and city residents to reduce and eventually eliminate their use of toxic pesticides, such as neonicotinoids and glyphosate. In the same resolution, city residents and department heads are also encouraged to refrain from genetically modified organism (GMO) cultivation, though they recognize there is very little of that taking place within Plattsburgh city limits. While this policy can only be used to discourage the use of pesticides and GMOs, not implement an outright ban, due to preemptive New York state law that occupies the field of pesticide regulation, city officials are hopeful that they will be able to use their influence to implore the state of New York and U.S. legislators to take statewide and nationwide measures on the production of GMO crops and to curb the use of toxic pesticides.

The language of the resolution, sponsored by Councilman Mike Kelly, cites the health of honey bees and other insects as one of the main reasons for encouraging citizens to refrain from the use of pesticides in the practice of lawn care and beautification. It also specifically names neonicotinoids as a pesticide that should be avoided. When asked what prompted Mr. Kelly to propose the resolution, he said  “[o]ur pesticide journey began with a simple question about how the City of Plattsburgh was using neonicotinoids to control pests. It turned out a city employee is a beekeeper and he thanked the City Council for bringing this issue forward. He told us that the combination of GMO seeds and pesticides was killing pollinating insects at alarming rates.”

Neonicotinoids  affect the central nervous system of insects and have  consistently been implicated  as a key factor  in pollinator declines, not only  linked to acute exposure and  immediate bee deaths, but also sublethal exposure that adversely affects  bee reproduction, navigation, and foraging. The science has become increasingly clear that pesticides, either working individually or synergistically,  play a critical role  in the ongoing decline of honey bees. 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. By encouraging citizens and department heads to refrain from using neonicotinoids, the City of Plattsburgh is taking a commendable step to help protect these vulnerable pollinator populations.

The use of glyphosate, a pesticide recently determined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to be a carcinogen in laboratory animal studies is also targeted in this resolution. Citing increased negative health effects, such as cancer, birth defects, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, kidney failure, and autism, the resolution encourages citizens and city departments to refrain from using glyphosate in agricultural and commercial applications. Produced and sold as Roundup by Monsanto, glyphosate is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by EPA and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, the recent classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable carcinogen” indicates that this is anything but the case. In the absence of any action at the federal level by EPA to reevaluate glyphosate’s classification, this resolution from Plattsburgh is an example of how local governments can start taking proactive measures to protect citizens from the harmful effects of this toxic pesticide.  “Most every community in America is wrestling with the question of sustainability” said the councilman. “Will we have good food, clean water, clean air and a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren? It is clearly time to act to ensure the future. The City of Plattsburgh City Council unanimously supported an anti-pesticide/anti-GMO resolution as a building block to help us achieve and maintain a healthy future for our citizens.”

Finally, the resolution also focuses the use of GMOs, otherwise known as genetic engineering (GE), in crops, noting the growing list of nations around  the world that have banned GMOs as a strong reason to reduce or eliminate their use within city limits, and it “encourages [”¦] neighboring jurisdictions to adopt policies discouraging the use of GMO crops.” This policy is very timely, and indicates that local governments and the people they represent may have very different views on GMO use as compared to those acting at the federal level. Just last month the House of Representatives passed the  Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,  H.R. 1599, often referred to as the  “DARK” Act for Denying Americans the Right to Know what is in their food by making it harder for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require mandatory national labeling of genetically engineered organisms. This bill could have devastating ramifications for states, such as Vermont, that have passed laws requiring GE labeling, preempting their decisions to protect their citizens by providing them with as much information as possible about the ingredients in their food. While Plattsburgh’s resolution would not be affected by this bill, mainly because it is not binding to begin with, it does help highlight the vast discrepancies between members of Congress and public opinion, which, according to a recent  study  by Consumer Reports National Research Center shows that more than 70% of Americans said they do not want GE products in their food, and 92% of consumers believe that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients should be labeled.  To fight back against this bill, Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals to take the time to let your Senators know that you oppose the DARK Act and support federally mandated GE labeling by clicking here  to send a letter to your Senators through our website.

As far as creating change on a larger scale, Councilman Kelly believes that, despite its nonbinding nature, the resolution will impact other communities outside the city of Plattsburgh. When Beyond Pesticides reached out to ask him what the broad reaching goals of this resolution were, he replied  “[w]e hope our actions will encourage our elected officials in neighboring municipalities and at the state and federal levels to examine this issue more closely. Jurisdictions across the nation and in Canada are adopting similar measures. Countries around the world are instituting outright bans on GMOs and pesticides. Maybe our actions at the local level will encourage our state and federal legislators to do the right thing. Grassroots efforts effectively shut down fracking in New York state. Maybe we can do the same with pesticides and GMO’s.”

When it comes to protecting pollinators, Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. The City of Plattsburgh’s resolution is an exemplary effort to limit the use of these highly toxic pesticides and encourage citizens and city entities alike to pursue alternatives that promote human health and safety. This resolution is in line with an  approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic land management, which, of course, prohibit the use of neonicotinoid and encourage individuals to  Bee Protective.

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

Source: WNBZ NEWS

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2015) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing new standards for pesticide applicators who apply “restricted use” pesticides, requiring an increased level of training, a minimum age requirement for applicators, and basic literacy. The proposal will soon be available for public comment. Encompassing the highly acutely toxic  pesticides, “restricted use” pesticides are not available for purchase by the general public, and may only be applied by a certified pesticide applicator or an individual working under their direct supervision (which does not require on-site supervision). To highlight the danger associated with the use of these chemicals, EPA estimates that its modest changes in oversight will save $80.5 million, directly attributable to fewer acute pesticide incidents to people.

Jim Jones, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, hosted a conference call, attended by Beyond Pesticides staff, in which he provided an overview of the proposed changes. “We are committed to keeping our communities safe, protecting our environment and protecting workers and their families,” said Mr. Jones. “By improving training and certification, those who apply these restricted use pesticides will have better knowledge and ability to use these pesticides safely.” Although EPA’s actions are intended to further address the risk associated with highly toxic pesticides, “safe” in this context is a loaded term that comes with some specific hazard allowances. See the Mail section in a recent issue of Pesticides and You (p2) for more on what’s in the word “safe” when it comes to pesticide applications.

The proposed EPA rules would cover all individuals that may apply restricted use pesticides, including private applicators (individuals certified to use pesticides in agricultural settings), commercial applicators (individuals certified to use pesticides in non-agricultural settings), and those under the supervision of certified applicators. It is important to note that many states have already implemented a number of EPA’s proposed changes. States have primary enforcement authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and by agreement with EPA. However, these proposed rules provide a new floor from which states can craft further measures to protect public and environmental health from highly toxic chemicals.

EPA’s proposal would establish certification categories for specific application methods (ex. soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, and aerial applications). At present, federal rules for private applicators have no categories of certification, and commercial applicators require no additional certification to use specific application methods. Moreover, all certified applicators would be required to re-certify after a three-year period. Under current federal rules, certified applicators are only required to take a certification test once in their lifetime. EPA is also reversing its allowance of a special process administered by states that permits non-readers to become certified to apply restricted use pesticides.

Further, EPA’s proposed rule institutes a requirement that noncertified applicators under the supervision of certified applicators receive pesticide safety training similar to handlers under the Worker Protection Standard. This would ensure that those applying pesticides have at least basic instruction in safety, application techniques in compliance with pesticide labels, responding to spills, and protecting one’s self, others, and the environment from pesticide hazards. While current rules only require those under supervision to receive general guidance from certified applicators, they will now be required to provide specific instructions related to the application.

An important aspect of the proposed rules would require all individuals applying restricted use pesticides to be at least 18 years old. Remarkably, there is currently no minimum age requirement for persons to apply highly toxic, restricted use pesticides.

A current list of pesticides classified by EPA as restricted use is available on the agency’s website. While strengthening requirements regarding the use of these chemicals is an important move, the simple fact remains that in order to truly protect public health, EPA and the federal government must be rapidly investing energy in eliminating the need for these products. The agency perceives “qualitative benefits (p10)” benefits from the move, that include reduced chronic effects, such as Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma to workers, handlers, and farmworker families. See Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

However through experience, Beyond Pesticides has found that nearly every pest problem can be adequately addressed through close adherence to cultural, mechanical, structural practices. Within a  systems approach and as a last resort, biological products and least-toxic pesticides can be employed to address remaining issues.  These products and practices now enjoy wide availability in the marketplace. Organic methods of growing food and controlling pests are now tried and true, and present a stark contrast to the conventional pest control industry, where continuing to abate, rather than eliminate risk, is the is the focus of most efforts. Rarely, if ever, should such highly toxic chemicals that may result in life-altering health effects be employed by any individual.

To learn more about the benefits of supporting organic, see Beyond Pesticides program page. For information on how to deal with pest problems through least toxic means, see ManageSafe database. EPA’s proposed rules will be available for public comment within the next few weeks. Submit your comment by going to regulations.gov and typing in the docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183.

Source: EPA Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2015) It is with great sadness that we report that Louis Guillette, Jr., Ph.D., died from complications of cancer treatment on Thursday, August 6. He was 62.  Lou was an incredible inspiration, communicator, researcher, and teacher. And, beyond that, he was a truly good guy and beloved among students, researchers, and environmental and public health advocates.

Our understanding of biology is deeper and the world is better off because of Lou. His work revolutionized scientific thinking and showed us the real world consequences of toxic chemical contamination and exposure. The first time that Lou spoke at a Beyond Pesticides’ Forum, over two decades ago, he challenged classical toxicology and taught us, with his signature clarity, that our regulations and high dose experimentation missed the mark in assessing low dose exposure to environmental contaminants and their  impact on the endocrine system –and what it all means to healthy living systems.

Lou’s dedication to bringing science to people made him such a special person. We will cherish his talk this past April in capturing the essence of his work and the importance of it to the sustainability of life. See Lou’s talk to the 33rd National Pesticide Forum,  Sentinel Wildlife Species: What they are telling us about our health, (skip to time stamp: 20:31) Also, see Lou’s more indepth workshop. It was extraordinary having Lou as the kick-off keynote speaker after participants visited Lake Apopka (Florida), where Lou began researching the dramatic decline in the alligator population in 1985. As a colleague of Theo Colborn, Ph.D., his research showed that there were hormonal abnormalities in Lake Apopka alligators, finding problems with their levels of testosterone and estradiol, reproductive problems, and abnormalities of the testis and the ovary. Lou worked at the leading edge of science worldwide, disclosing that environmental contaminants were acting as hormones.

In a 1997 interview with PBS Frontline’s Fooling with Nature, Lou spoke with his signature clarity:

“Well, early on, what we were trying to do was to determine the sex of a hatchling, not only by anatomical features of these little guys, but also hormonally. And what we started to note was that the hatchling and the young juvenile males had severely depressed testosterone, the male sex steroid. Females had elevated estrogens. That is, elevated estradiol, the female estrogen.

So we started looking at the gonads and their anatomy. What we found was that the males had what appeared to be advanced spermatogenic activity. That is, the testes of these newborn and six-month old animals had already begun spermatogenesis, the making of sperm. The females, instead of having a single egg per follicle in the ovary, had multiple eggs per follicle. Completely abnormal. But, interestingly enough, a condition very similar to what we see in rodents if they’re exposed to estrogens during embryonic development.

Both abnormalities led us to start looking at the teenagers in the population, to look at the adults in the population. What I can tell you to date is that when we look at the teenagers, the abnormalities we saw in the hatchlings persist. Abnormalities in the ovary. Abnormalities in the testis. Abnormal hormone levels. The abnormal testosterone levels in the males then led us to say, “Well, could we look at something else that is testosterone-dependent?”

And that’s when we began to look at phallus or penis size. And sure enough we were able to show that males from contaminated lakes or lakes that have high levels of agricultural contaminants, industrial contaminants, they have significantly reduced phallus size, or penis size, compared to the reference lake.”

Lou described his work as follows: “The effects of contaminants on wildlife have been studied for more than 50 years, since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Our work over the last decade and a half has focused on the ability of environmental contaminants to mimic chemical messengers (hormones) and alter gene expression and functioning of the reproductive and endocrine systems. Although considered rare until a decade ago, evidence that many types of chemicals (some pesticides, industrial chemicals and personal care products), alter the signaling systems in our bodies and those of wildlife is now common. These chemicals have been widely reported as “Environmental Estrogens,” but have numerous actions beyond mimicry of estrogenic hormones.”

From 1985 to 2006, Lou was professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. In 2006, he was awarded an Endowed Chair in Marine Genomic, and appointed Director of the Marine Biomedicine and Environmental Sciences Center, and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Medical University of South Carolina. You can listen to a recent interview that he did for Food Sleuth Radio here.

We will carry Lou’s message and advance the changes he urged. Please feel free to leave your comments to this article. We will catalog all the comments and share them with Lou’s family, which is working to set up a fund to support student research in field biology, which was  so important to Lou. You may make a tax-deductible donation to Beyond Pesticides’s Fund for Independent Science, which will support future work in Lou’s name  as directed by Elizabeth Guillette and the Guillette family.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2015) Last week, Governor Kate Brown of Oregon announced that this upcoming Saturday, August 15, 2015, will be Oregon Native Bees Conservation Awareness Day, following requests from concerned residents and Beyond Toxics, an Oregon based environmental organization. The awareness day will encourage education and individual action to reverse the decline of native bee populations. According to the proclamation signed by Governor Brown, “Oregon’s native bees are essential pollinators in ecosystems that support the reproduction of flowering trees and plants, including the fruits and seeds that are a major part of the diet of approximately 25% of all birds and mammals.” Native, wild bees across the nation (and the world) have suffered severe losses due to the toxic effects of pesticide overuse, habitat loss due to conventional farming practices, diseases, and other impacts.

The request for recognition of the bees’ plight follows several  recent mass bee die-offs in the state. Earlier this month, the  Oregon Department of Agriculture  released results of investigations into recent bee deaths near a Portland park, as well as two other nearby bee die-offs. Investigators found lethal levels of the bee-toxic insecticide imidacloprid, with uses  banned  in Oregon, in the systems of the dead bees. Imidacloprid is part  of a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, which  affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and eventual death. These pesticides have  consistently been implicated  as a key factor  in pollinator declines, not only  linked to acute exposure and  immediate bee deaths, but also sublethal exposure that adversely affects  bee reproduction, navigation, and foraging.

In June 2015, a major international study on bee pollination involving 58 researchers calculated the value of wild bee pollination to the global food system at $3,000 per hectare of insect-pollinated agricultural land, a number in the billions globally. The study advances our understanding of wild bees’ crucial role in the global food system. About two-thirds of the world’s most important crops benefit from bee pollination, including coffee, cacao and many fruits and vegetables. Wild pollination is increasingly important,  as the instability of honey bee colonies continues to grow. According to the study, wild bees’ agricultural value is now similar to that of honey bees, which are not considered wild due to their intense management.

EPA, through the President’s National Pollinator Health Strategy, has acknowledged that pesticides are a problem. But EPA’s  recent proposal  to create “physical and temporal space” between bees and toxic pesticides overlooks the persistent and systemic nature of the pesticides highly toxic to bees. These pesticides remain in pollen and nectar, soil and water for days, weeks and even years, continuously exposing bees long after the initial application. The proposal showcases the inadequacies of pesticide testing, registration and regulatory standards issued  by EPA. Its  methods fall short by failing to address the multiple  routes of pesticide exposure over time, focusing only on acute contamination rather than the persistent effects of systemic pesticides. This is a continual struggle, as EPA employs a risk-assessment approach for approving or restricting pesticides that involves researching for more data while attempting to mitigate any risks that occur instead of suspending the chemicals, while gathering more data, or not approving them in the first place. While protection for bees continues to fall short at the federal level, local communities are stepping up to create meaningful, positive change.

Communities around the country have begun taking steps to protect bees from the harmful effects of neonicotinoids, as well as other toxic pesticides.  In 2014,  Eugene, Oregon  became the first community in the nation to specifically ban the use of  neonicotinoid pesticides from city property. Eugene had previously set up a pesticide-free parks program and required all departments to adopt integrated pest management (IPM) standards. Other communities passed similar bans, such as  Skagway (Alaska),  Shorewood, Minnesota  and, in Washington State,  Thurston County,  Seattle, and  Spokane. In May 2015, the city of Boulder, Colorado became the most recent locality to restrict the use of neonicotinoids on city property. Even school campuses have joined in, with the  University of Vermont Law School  becoming the first  BEE Protective  campus after announcing that it was going neonicotinoid pesticide-free. At  Emory University, the Office of Sustainability Initiatives not only banned neonicotinoids on campus, but also went a step further by planting pollinator habitats and conducting campus outreach and education on the importance of pollinators. These restrictions on neonicotinoids are especially important because they build pressure at the federal level, and demonstrate to other communities and cities across the country that there are ways to create positive environmental change with their own local actions.

You also can work to get bee-toxic neonicotinoids out of your community. 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 politicians and government; with enough public support, your own state Governor could be asked to declare a Bee Awareness Day to promote safer, non-toxic practices and to encourage more meaningful action. 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]) for one-on-one consultation about the strategies you can take to have an impact.

Source: Beyond Toxics

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2015) Parental exposure to environmental stressors, such as pesticides, before a child is conceived can alter the way genes are expressed in the mother and father, ultimately harming the child’s health when those genes are passed down to the next generation, according to an article published in the Endocrine Society’s journal Endocrinology.

“In regard to environmental stressors, a good start lasts a lifetime,” said Philippe Grandjean, M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Grandjean is Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at the Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and an author of the article. “Unfortunately, current testing paradigms do not properly assess the impact of risk factors during vulnerable exposure windows. Without new policies and guidelines, we cannot have a universal healthy start for children.”

The article, titled Life-Long Implications of Developmental Exposure to Environmental Stressors: New Perspectives, summarizes the newest science and key insights from the 4^th  Conference on Prenatal Programming and Toxicity (PPTOX IV). More than 300 people attended the event in Boston, MA in October 2014. The meeting featured poster presentations discussing the impact of chemical, physical, and biological environmental stressors on the interconnected relationships of endocrine, immune, and nervous systems.

According to a press release from the Endocrine Society, “Exposure to environmental stressors such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, psychological stress and malnutrition may result in disadvantageous epigenetic “reprogramming” that can echo through multiple generations.” Epigenetics is a relatively new field of genetics that studies the effects environmental factors have on gene expression rather than changes to the underlying DNA sequence. These changes to gene expression can be passed on to offspring. The press release continues, “When these stressors disrupt early developmental processes, they may cause changes in cellular gene expression, cell numbers or locations of cells that persist and lead to increased risk of cognitive disorders, obesity, diabetes and metabolic diseases later in life.”  While previous research on environmental stressors focuses primarily on exposures during pregnancy and early childhood and their effects on the health of offspring throughout their lifetime, presentations at the PPTOX IV emphasized that the preconception period in both males and females is also a sensitive developmental window.

Research regarding the effects of pesticides across generations is extensive. Research from Michael Skinner, Ph.D., of Washington State University, finds that exposure to pesticides may have devastating consequences for future generations. The study, Pesticide Methoxychlor Promotes the Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Adult-Onset Disease through the Female Germline, published in  PLOS ONE in 2014, concluded that gestating rats exposed to the pesticide methoxychlor develop a higher incidence of kidney disease, ovary disease and obesity in offspring spanning three generations. The incidence of multiple diseases increased in the third generation or “great-grandchildren.” In 2013, scientists at Washington State University, in a laboratory study titled Ancestral dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) exposure promotes epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of obesity, determined that exposure to the insecticide DDT ””banned in the U.S. since 1972, but is extremely persistent in the environment and is still used today in developing countries for malaria abatement programs”” impacts multiple generations, ultimately contributing to obesity three generations down the line.

Researchers note that regulatory agencies currently may not appropriately take into account the  potential for non-linear effects of certain environmental chemicals, meaning that exposure to low levels of a chemical can have different adverse effects than what could be experienced at exposure to higher levels of the same chemical. EPA uses a  human health risk assessment, which is a process used to estimate the nature and probability of adverse health effects in humans who may be exposed to chemicals in contaminated environmental areas. EPA’s risk assessment fails to look at chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, certain health endpoints (such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups, and regular noncompliance with product label directions. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

For more information on this subject, see a talk, Epigenetic Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors on Reproduction and Disease, delivered by  Michael Skinner, Ph.D.at  Beyond Pesticides’  2014 National Pesticide Forum.

While EPA totes the risk assessment process as necessary and crucial for decision-making about pesticides, Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under  risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture. By taking a more enlightened policy approach that eschews toxic pesticide use in favor of widely available alternative products and practices, EPA can promote a path to sustainable organic  farming, a restored environment, and healthier communities.

Source: Endocrine Society

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