(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2015) New York State Senator Tim Kennedy (D-NY) has called for a statewide ban on triclosan, one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in common household products. Minnesota is the only state to have passed a triclosan  ban. If passed, the New York Bill (Bill S6070) would prohibit the sale of cleaning products containing triclosan, triclocarban, or derivatives of similar antibacterial compounds, and mark a clear victory for human health and safety interests within the state.

Triclosan has been used for over 30 years in the U.S., mostly in a medical setting, but more recently in consumer products. Beyond Pesticides has generated extensive documentation  of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban, called on manufacturers to stop using triclosan in its products and retailers to stop carrying these products, and previously petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the cancellation of registered products that contain the antibacterial pesticide. In May 2015, EPA issued its long-awaited response to the Citizen Petition filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch, denying the request.

When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Since then, triclosan exploded onto the market place in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Triclosan’s success on the consumer market has been aided by the false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. Numerous reports have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects from cancer and endocrine disruption, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, to the contamination of water and its negative impact on fragile aquatic ecosystems. Data presented at the 248^th National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society, revealed that 100% of pregnant women in a multi-ethnic urban population in Brooklyn, New York tested positive for triclosan in their urine. In half of the pregnant women tested, the chemical also showed up in umbilical cord blood. A study published in 2010 by the University of Florida (UF) raised concerns about triclosan’s endocrine disrupting properties inhibiting proper fetal development.

Senator Kennedy’s legislation includes  plans to get triclosan off of store shelves in New York to prevent further harm to public health and important ecosystems like the Great Lakes that border the state. “We need to protect our Great Lakes and water supplies for future generations,” Sen. Kennedy said. “We have an obligation to protect them.” Over 95% of the uses of triclosan are in consumer products that are disposed of in residential drains. As a result, widespread use of triclosan and other antibacterial compounds result in contamination of the nation’s waterways, with triclosan being the most prevalent contaminant not removed by typical wastewater treatment plants. In fact, triclosan has been detected in wastewater, activated sludge, surface water, and sediments. According to a U.S. Geological Survey study of 95 different organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, triclosan was one of the most frequently detected compounds and at some of the highest concentrations. Brian Smith, associate executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, joined Senator Kennedy in supporting the ban: “When we wash our hands or brush our teeth, we don’t expect we’re contributing toxic pollutants to our Great Lakes,” Smith said. “Clean hands and clean teeth don’t have to mean polluted water.”

In the past, public pressure, led by Beyond Pesticides and other groups, has contributed to growing awareness of the dangers of triclosan’s use. As a result, several major manufacturers have already taken steps to exclude the chemical, including Johnson & Johnson,  Procter & Gamble  and  Colgate-Palmolive, which reformulated its popular line of liquid soaps, but continues to formulate Total ® toothpaste with triclosan. Minnesota became the first state to ban the toxic antibacterial, announcing that retailers would no longer be able to sell cleaning products that contain triclosan, effective January 2017. In June 2015, the agency responsible for chemical oversight in the European Union announced that the antibacterial pesticide, triclosan, is toxic and bioaccumulative, and will be phased-out for hygienic uses and replaced by more suitable alternatives. According to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), “[N]o safe use could be demonstrated for the proposed use of triclosan.”

Interested in taking steps to rid triclosan from your community? Here are a few things you can do. Encourage your local hospitals, schools, government agencies, and businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free, or  follow the lead of Minnesota and New York by introducing a ban on triclosan. Additionally, organizations can  adopt Beyond Pesticides’ model resolution  which commits them to not procuring or using products containing triclosan. For additional information and resources on the human health and environmental effects of triclosan, join the  ban triclosan campaign  and  sign the pledge  to stop using triclosan today.

Source: The Buffalo News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 05, 2015) Research  at  the University of California, Davis finds  that hedgerows, a line of shrubs and trees that form a boundary at the edges of farm fields, improve a farm’s ecology and reduce the need for pesticides. Hedgerows serve many other beneficial functions; they can provide ornamental and aesthetic value, sequester carbon, and be a source of food, and more. There is also evidence that they can be an effective barrier against spray drift, reduce soil erosion, and act as habitat corridors for forest plants in agricultural landscapes.  Hedgerows support biodiversity in the face of habitat decline, given fence row to fence row cultivation practices in agriculture, manicured lawns and landscapes, urban sprawl, and the use of broad spectrum pesticides that threaten the diverse organisms that make up a healthy ecosystem.

Rachael Long, M.S., a farm advisor for the UC Cooperative Extension, tells Capital Public Radio, “We have Christmas berries, and  elderberry — which has these beautiful blueberries that a lot of birds really like. We have redbud which has terrifically bright red flowers in the spring. And also ceanothus which is California lilac which has blue flowers in the spring.” She adds that birds and bees feast on the flowering plants’ nectar and pollen.  The bushes also provide habitat for natural enemies. “Your lady beetles, and big eyed bugs, as well as green laced wings and little parasitic wasps.” The insects eat the pests that chew on tomato plants.

And, if a farmer does spray, hedgerows can prevent water pollution. Long explains, “If they’re planted along some of the drainage ditches then they can really help with trapping sediments and pesticides and also nitrates so they keep those water pollutants away from our streams, rivers and groundwater.” Long’s research concludes that farmers who dedicate some land to hedgerows tend to use fewer chemicals.

With severe loss in recent years of pollinators, including bees, butterflies, and birds, natural and diverse hedgerows take on a new importance in nurturing and restoring populations in decline. They can provide nectar and pollen over the course of an entire growing season, serving as a food source for honey bees as well as parasitoids and other predaceous arthropods that are natural enemies to “pests” like caterpillars. Hedgerows can also provide food such as nuts and berries for insectivorous birds when the insect supply is low, as well as nesting and roosting sites for hawks and owls, whose rodent prey are a perennial concern for farmers.

Of course, hedgerows alone will not counterbalance the widespread use of synthetic pesticides, but they can be a critical tool in slowing pollinator decline and creating zones of protection until land managers (agricultural and nonagricultural) make the shift to sustainable practices that protect biodiversity. Beyond Pesticides supports  organic agriculture  as affecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. To attract beneficial insects like monarchs and protect their habitats in your own backyard, there are several steps  you can take. Like any other living organism, pollinators need food, water, and shelter in order to thrive. For more information, see  Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind  and  Hedgerows for Biodiversity: Habitat is needed to protect pollinators, other beneficial organisms, and healthy ecosystems.  You can also visit the  BEE Protective Habitat Guide  and  Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity  for more ways in which you can protect monarchs and other pollinators.

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

Source: Capital Public Radio

(Beyond Pesticides November 4, 2015) On Monday, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health, El Quinto Sol de America, Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Food Safety and the Pesticide Action Network released a report with findings that that more than half of the commercial glyphosate sprayed in California is applied in the state’s eight most impoverished counties. Glyphosate is a phosphanoglycine herbicide that inhibits an enzyme essential to plant growth.  Commonly known as Roundup, glyphosate is classified as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research of Cancer (IARC), based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and is currently under review to receive a similar designation from the state under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

The report,  Lost in the Mist:  How Glyphosate Use Disproportionately Threatens California’s Most Impoverished Counties, found that 54 percent of glyphosate spraying in California is applied in eight counties, many of which are located in the southern part of the Central Valley. The analysis finds that the populations in these counties are predominantly Hispanic or Latino, indicating that glyphosate use in California is distributed unequally along both socioeconomic and racial lines. The report aligns with another recent  study  by California EPA that found Hispanics and people in poverty disproportionately live in areas of high  pesticide use, and a 2014 California Department of Public Health  study  showing that Hispanic children are 46 percent more likely than white children to attend schools near hazardous pesticide use. All of these findings bring awareness to the factors that perpetuate environmental injustice in our low-income and minority communities.

“We’ve uncovered a disturbing trend where poor and minority communities disproportionately live in regions where glyphosate is sprayed,” said Nathan Donley, Ph.D., a staff scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “In high doses glyphosate is dangerous to people, and California can’t, in good conscience, keep allowing these communities to pay the price for our overreliance on pesticides.”

Glyphosate, touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry, is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen represents a finding of  carcinogenicity in humans based on laboratory  animal testing. The agency considered the findings from an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel report, along with several recent studies in making its conclusion. The agency also notes that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL).

Following the carcinogenic classification by the IARC,  a  research study  published in the journal Environmental Health  links long-term, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. The study focuses on Glyphosate-based Herbicides (GHBs), rather than pure glyphosate, unlike many of the studies that preceded it. Pediatrician  Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and researcher Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.,  recently released a prospective article  on the effects of glyphosate and  GE crops. In  this article, they highlight the flaws of past glyphosate studies and  conclude that they only considered pure glyphosate “despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the pure compound.”  Their article also pointed to the ecological impacts of widespread glyphosate use, like the damage it has had on the monarch butterfly and other pollinators. Last year, the Center for Biological Study and Center for Food Safety  filed a legal petition  with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services seeking  Endangered Species Act  protection for the monarch butterfly.

All of these findings support the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) efforts to list glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical under Proposition 65. As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continue to mount, environmental groups like Beyond Pesticides are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical. California’s glyphosate listing is certainly a step in the right direction; however, further steps toward a restriction or ban will be needed to  protect the public’s health. Being  the number one agricultural producing state, California’s action may help to move glyphosate off  the market, which would serve as a victory for the low-income communities in the southern part of the Central Valley that  are exposed to glyphosate at higher levels than the general population. Disproportionate exposure to glyphosate and the negative health effects that accompany it extend beyond these Californians. In Argentina, the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops and companion pesticides, including glyphosate, has caused significant health impacts in small farming towns, sending cancer rates skyrocketing and quadrupling the number of birth defects. Advocacy groups say that this serves as another example of environmental injustice associated with pesticide products produced by  agrichemical  companies like Monsanto.

For those who would be unaffected by California’s listing, the best way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides 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.

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

 Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, November 3, 2015) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revoke all food tolerances for the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos (also known as Dursban), a neurotoxic pesticide produced by Dow AgroSciences that poses particular risks to children and farmworkers. If EPA’s rule is finalized, chlorpyrifos would be effectively eliminated from use in agriculture 15 years after consumer uses were discontinued. However, other non-food uses, including golf courses, turf, green house and mosquito control are not affected by this decision and will remain.

EPA’s proposed rule came on the day of a court-ordered deadline from the U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit, M. Margaret McKeown. In August of this year, Judge McKeown ordered EPA to respond to a petition filed by Pesticide Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council nearly nine years ago. The lawsuit called on the agency to ban all uses of the insecticide in light of scientific evidence and public comments ignored by the agency after its cumulative risk assessment for organophosphate insecticides.

In 2012, EPA imposed “no-spray” buffer zones around public spaces, including recreational areas, schools, and homes to reduce bystander exposure risks. Earlier this year, the agency updated its 2011 preliminary human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos, a report that was widely criticized by health and environmental groups. The update identified significant risks to children, farmworkers, and drinking water as a result of the chemical’s use.

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.

While EPA had requested the Judge give the agency until April 15, 2016 to revoke food tolerances for chlorpyrifos, the court rejected this timeline, ordering EPA to deny the petition or issue a revocation rule by October 31, 2015. EPA indicates it is proposing the rule rather than issuing a final rule in order to provide for public comment, and the agency indicates it will release its final rule in December 2016.

EPA’s decision to revoke food tolerances for chlorpyrifos was based upon aggregate risk calculated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The law requires the agency to consider all sources of exposure to a certain chemical. Though EPA asserted that food exposure was not of concern, when aggregated with potential exposure through drinking water, safety standards were exceeded in certain watersheds where chlorpyrifos is heavily used.

This outcome is similar to the decision handed down on another neurotoxic pesticide produced by Dow AgroScience, sulfuryl fluoride. In 2006, Beyond Pesticides, Environmental Working Group, and Fluoride Action Network petitioned EPA to cancel food tolerances for the pesticide. The agency found that when residues on food products are combined with fluoridated drinking water and toothpaste, aggregate exposure levels were too high. In 2011, EPA announced plans to phase-out the use of sulfuryl fluoride with the intent of eliminating its use by 2014. However, in 2015, a backdoor amendment to the Agriculture Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) made behind closed doors at the last minute barred EPA from considering the risks of fluoride exposure in drinking water. This action effectively allowed sulfuryl fluoride to remain on the market despite the tangible risks the chemical still poses to children’s health. Thus, while celebrating this victory, health and environmental advocates must remain vigilant of Dow’s ability to lobby Congress to protect its profits over health.

Chlorpyrifos leads a list of numerous toxic chemicals that are central to chemical-intensive agricultural practices that threaten  human health and the environment. Although eliminating its use in agriculture is important,  the delay in removing the remaining uses of this well-researched and highly toxic chemical  reflects the dysfunction of the pesticide 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. 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.

EPA will open and accept public comments for 60 days at regulations.gov (docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653).

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

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2015) The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted a formal notice last week for intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approving benzovindiflupyr, a fungicide that is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. CBD asserts that EPA recognized that benzovindiflupyr could harm wildlife and critical habitat protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but approved it for use without consulting with expert wildlife agencies as required by the act. This is  not the first time that EPA has approved toxic chemicals without fully understanding the consequences.

On August 28, 2015, EPA granted broad approval for use of benzovindiflupyr on most crops, including cereals, corn, vegetables, fruits, turf grass and ornamentals. The agency’s own data show that benzovindiflupyr is highly persistent in the environment and will build up in waterways due to runoff from treated fields. Nonetheless, EPA approved benzovindiflupyr for immediate use. “This pesticide is highly poisonous to fish and other wildlife, but the EPA approved it anyway,” said Stephanie Parent, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in their press release. “This agency’s cavalier approach to approving new toxic chemicals without required consultation or studies must end. The EPA’s indifference is once again putting imperiled wildlife across the country in harm’s way.” ESA requires EPA to consult with federal wildlife biologists on the effects of chemicals applied in the habitat of endangered species. EPA failed to follow these requirements.

In addition, EPA approved products containing benzovindiflupyr and three other pesticides ””difenoconazole, propiconazole and azoxystrobin”” despite the fact that none of the chemicals had undergone proper consultation for their impacts on certain wildlife species. EPA also refused to consider the impacts of benzovindiflupyr when combined with these other chemicals, despite the likelihood that synergistic impacts may make these products more toxic.

EPA’s approval of toxic products without following proper procedure is nothing new. On October 23, 2015, a coalition of public health, conservation and food safety groups filed their opening brief in the ongoing legal challenge to EPA approval of the herbicide Enlist Duo for use on genetically engineered corn and soybeans. The groups argue that in its approval of Enlist Duo, a combination of the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate, the agency disregarded negative impacts on sensitive species, including nearly two hundred species protected under the ESA. In September 2015, after EPA unconditionally registered sulfoxaflor (a bee-toxic insecticide similar to neonicotinoids) without obtaining the necessary impact information, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally rejected the unconditional registration of the toxic insecticide as a response to a 2013 lawsuit filed against EPA. The Court concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies.

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

Source: The Center for Biological Diversity

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 30, 2015) The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) needs policies and procedures to manage pesticide petitions in a transparent and efficient manner, according to new report  that  highlights inadequacies in the way the agency responds to petitioners. The report, published by EPA’s Office of Inspector General, an independent office within EPA that investigates agency compliance with laws governing its programs, concludes that the lack of transparency and efficiency “leaves petitioners unaware of petition status, which can result in unreasonable delay lawsuits costing the agency time and resources.”

While the public has the right to submit pesticide petitions to EPA and the agency is required to respond to these petitions “within a reasonable time,” there are no set requirements for what constitutes a specific time frame. However, petitioners can file a lawsuit claiming unreasonable delay if the petitioner finds that EPA has not responded within what the petitioner considers a reasonable amount of time. Of the 40 public petitions received by OPP from Fiscal Year 2005 through 2014, nearly a quarter of them are  associated with unreasonable delay lawsuits. The specific issues contributing to these delays involve:

• Petition documentation not being readily accessible;
• Some of the petition data were inaccurate, leading to more work being required to confirm data;
• Lack of guidance on how to submit petitions directly to OPP, leading to weeks of delay in petitions arriving at the correct office for action; and
• OPP does not provide public guidance on how to submit complete petitions, which resulted in petitioners providing supplemental information, and increased the time and resources to reach petition decisions.

In August, a federal appeals court judge mandated that 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, stated that federal agencies should never practice the “venerable tradition” of putting off statutory requirements when it comes to human health. Another recent instance of egregious delay involves EPA’s issuance this summer of a long-awaited response  to a  Citizen Petition  filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch in 2010, denying the request to cancel registered products that contain the antibacterial pesticide triclosan. In 2014, Beyond Pesticides joined Center for Food Safety in filing  a lawsuit against EPA over the agency’s failure to regulate novel nanomaterial pesticides. The lawsuit challenged the agency for its failure to answer a 2008 petition filed by more than 13 organizations.

The report recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention “develop policies and procedures to manage public petitions in a transparent, effective, and efficient manner; communicate directly with petitioners; train staff to adhere to the Records Management Policy; implement an effective tracking system for public petitions; and provide guidance to the public on how to submit petitions with sufficient data for review.”

Beyond Pesticides believes that local and grassroots action is one of the best ways to reduce pesticide use and its harmful effects in communities. The outpouring of grassroots support from around the country after the passage of local laws, like that in Montgomery County,  exemplifies the important of local laws in the protection of health and the environment, as government regulators, the chemical industry, and the chemical  lawn care industry see to thwart action. Beyond Pesticides encourages residents to become aware of national efforts to undermine critical health and environmental laws, and to take  action in their community to fight for these important public health and environmental protections.  Click here to show  your support for a pesticide-free community.

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

Source: EPA

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2015) One of the top entomologists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) filed a whistleblower complaint against a  federal agency, citing unprofessional retaliation following the publication of a study linking neonicotinoid insecticides to the decline of monarch butterflies. Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D., Senior Research Entomologist and Lab Supervisor for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in South Dakota, is fighting suspension for publishing research deemed “sensitive” by his USDA superiors. According to Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is providing legal services to Dr. Lundgren, this case underscores why legal protections for government scientists are sorely needed.

Until recently, Dr. Lundgren worked for USDA for eleven years with great success, and his cutting edge research has drawn national attention and international recognition. In April of this year, Dr. Lundgren published a study in The Science of Nature that shows that clothianidin, a neonicotinoid seed treatment, kills monarch butterfly larvae in the laboratory. On August 3, 2015, USDA imposed a 14-day suspension against Dr. Lundgren for submitting the Science of Nature study and for a paperwork error in his travel authorization for his invited presentation about his research to a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as to a USDA stakeholder group, the Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance. The suspension was cut to 14 days from 30 after Dr. Lundgren filed an appeal.

“Having research published in prestigious journals and being invited to present before the National Academy of Sciences should be sources of official pride, not punishment,” said PEER Staff Counsel Laura Dumais. “Politics inside USDA have made entomology into a most perilous discipline.”

In September 2014, Dr. Lundgren filed a complaint of violations of USDA Scientific Integrity Policy with the Scientific Integrity Office stating that allegations of his misconduct earlier that year stemmed from ulterior motives. According to USDA, he had made inappropriate remarks in the workplace, violated IT policies by connecting his home computer to the office’s internet, and discussed sensitive topics with the press. He said, “It was clear that the motivation for it [was] associated with my talking to the press about pesticide risks.” USDA’s ARS department approved the press interview and the publications discussed in the interview. His complaint argues that, “This abrupt onset of actions undoubtedly appears to have been prompted by the scientific activities that are supposed to be specifically safeguarded and encouraged under the USDA Scientific Integrity Policy.”

USDA has been under the public’s microscope concerning political suppression for some time now. In April, PEER filed a petition for rulemaking, seeking to strengthen USDA’s Scientific Integrity Policy. PEER argued that language in the current policy actually encouraged the suppression of scientific study where large agribusiness corporations’ reputations were at stake. PEER explains that USDA management regularly uses this provision as reason for suppressing technical work of employees when industry stakeholders disagree with the scientific conclusions reached.

With independent science both in and outside of the U.S. pointing to a growing list of impacts from pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, ranging from the decline of bees to the carcinogenicity of the widely used herbicide glyphosate, it is critical that federal scientific agencies tasked with protecting human and environmental health be able to inform the public without repercussions from an industry whose only interest is in protecting profits. For more information, see PEER’s pattern of science manipulation at USDA. To see the history of industry influence in federal agencies, visit this link to our Daily News Blog.

For more details on Dr. Lundgren’s whistleblower case:

See the whistleblower narrative

Read Dr. Lundgren’s scientific integrity complaint

Look at the suspension decision

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

Source: Public Employees for Public Responsibility

Photo Source: Rio Grande Watershed Conservation and Education  Program

(Beyond Pesticides, October 28, 2015) On the heels of a recent federal court decision that rejected the U.S. registration of sulfoxaflor, which cited inadequate and flawed review of the science on the chemical’s toxicity to bees, European beekeepers filed complaint that that asks the European Court of Justice to take the same action. The complaint  asks the court to cancel sulfoxaflor’s authorization. Sulfoxaflor is a neonicotinoid-like chemical that, like neonicotinoids, is highly toxic to bees. Three of the most widely used neonicotinoids are currently under a two-year European-wide moratorium which began December 2013, due to concerns about risks to bee populations.

European beekeepers, Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination, the Italian National Beekeeping Union (UNAAPI), and PAN Europe, filed the complaint which cites a published  negative opinion on Dow AgroScience’s sulfoxaflor by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). According to EFSA, the pesticide is categorized as ”˜highly toxic to bees’ and it identified crucial toxicity data gaps, which according to the beekeepers, makes a proper risk assessment for bees impossible. Despite these facts, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) and the EU member states authorized sulfoxaflor in July 2015, completely bypassing the pesticide regulation, the complaint notes.

In contrast, back in 2013, a similar analysis of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) prepared by EFSA —which found high risk to bees, many data gaps to carry out a proper risk assessment—  led to an EU-wide ban on bee-attractive crops.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s honey bee project coordinator explains, “In 2013, DG Sante made a positive step towards a better protection of bees and the environment in general. This U-turn is not acceptable. We put it in parallel with other negative developments in the pesticide area since the Commission was established”.

On September 10, 2015, the  Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally rejected  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor. The Court concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. The Court vacated EPA’s unconditional registration of the chemical, meaning that sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the U.S. In 2013, in response to EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor,  beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that the insecticide further endangers bees and beekeeping, noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted. The case:  Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Beekeeping Federation, Thomas Smith, Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson v. U.S. EPA  (9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals,”¯No. 13-7234).

According to the decision, EPA skirted its own regulations when it ignored risk concerns, even with the reduced maximum application rate, which EPA has done before, despite prior reprimands from the Court. The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked  increased  environmental harm.

Sulfoxaflor is a relatively new active ingredient, registered in 2013, whose mode of action is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides —it acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects. Even though it has not been classified as a neonicotinoid, it elicits similar neurological responses in honey bees, with many believing that sulfoxaflor is the new generation of neonicotinoid. Neonicotinoids, including sulfoxaflor, are “systemic” insecticides, which means that they are applied to plants, they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen, and nectar. Sulfoxaflor is registered in the U.S. for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and others. Several comments were submitted by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would”¯only exacerbate the problems”¯faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations. However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.

Bees in the U.S. and Europe have seen unprecedented losses over the last decade- losses attributed to widespread pesticide use, especially neonicotinoids which gained popularity during the same time. In the U.S., farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the European Union’s  lead  and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market. Thus far, EPA has amended neonicotinoid product labels to make clearer the hazards posed to bees, placed a moratorium on new neonicotinoid products, and  proposed to place a temporary prohibition  on the foliar application of pesticides acutely toxic to bees. The plight of bees was recognized by the Obama Administration, which has since directed federal agencies to find solutions to reverse and restore healthy pollinator populations. The  federal report, released May 2015, outlines several measures including public education and habitat creation, but little to nothing on bee-toxic pesticides. States are also encouraged to develop pollinator plans to help mitigate risks to bees, but many including beekeepers believe these do not go far enough.

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

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

Source:  PAN Europe Press Release

Photo Source: Susan Q, TN

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2015) Late Friday,  a coalition of public health, conservation and food safety groups filed their opening brief in the ongoing legal challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of the herbicide Enlist Duo for use on genetically engineered corn and soybeans. Enlist Duo, a blend of glyphosate and 2,4-D, was approved on October 15 for use on genetically engineered (GE) crops, despite concerns for human and environmental contamination. The challenge was originally brought in November 2014, shortly after the EPA approved the controversial herbicide for 6 Midwest states. Since then, EPA has expanded its approval to a total of 15 states, with more expected. Counsel from the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice are jointly representing Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, CFS, the Environmental Working Group, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Pesticide Action Network North America.

“The Enlist Duo approval violated the laws protecting our communities, land, and farms,” said George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety senior attorney, counsel in the case. “Regulators bowed to the chemical industry, but we are committed to holding them accountable.”

The groups argue that in its approval of Enlist Duo, a combination of the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate, the agency disregarded negative impacts on sensitive species, including nearly two hundred species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), from the increased use of the toxic cocktail on crops genetically engineered to withstand its application. EPA’s own analyses also demonstrate plainly that the increased application of 2,4-D on Dow’s genetically engineered crops may affect nearby native plants, other valuable agricultural crops, and wildlife. In addition to environmental damage, these chemicals have been linked to a myriad of human health problems. 2,4-D has been linked to soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and harm to the reproductive system. Glyphosate has been recently classified as a human carcinogen  based on laboratory studies by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March.

“Allowing this 2,4-D/glyphosate cocktail to be sprayed on the up to 150 million acres of corn and soybean acreage found in these states may harm or kill dozens of imperiled species, as well as increase the health risk to humans,” said Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff.  “EPA is supposed to be our watchdog, not the chemical industry’s lapdog.”

“With the expanded use of 2,4-D on GE crops, EPA ensures that the nation’s farmers remain on a pesticide treadmill, subject to an increasing reliance on more and more toxic chemicals,” said Jay Feldman, executive director at Beyond Pesticides.

EPA approved Enlist Duo to address the epidemic of glyphosate-resistant super weeds that now infest tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland as a result of overuse of glyphosate —the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup— on crops genetically engineered to resist glyphosate’s effects. Dow Chemical has introduced 2,4-D tolerant  crops to as a short-term  fix to the problem, allowing farmers to douse their fields with both 2,4-D and glyphosate to kill these herbicide resistant weeds. Scientists, however, predict that the Enlist Duo “crop system” will only foster expanded weed resistance to the pesticides 2,4-D in addition to glyphosate, continuing the GE crop pesticide treadmill. In fact, in addition to corn and soybeans USDA announced in July that it has also added 2,4-D tolerant cotton to the lineup of available GE crops. 2,4-D is known to  drift for miles, posing a serious threat   to crops and farmers’ livelihoods.

“EPA’s reckless approval this dangerous pesticide cocktail puts hundreds of our nation’s most imperiled animals, like the majestic whooping crane, in harm’s way,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “EPA has left us with no choice but to go to court to stop this dangerous product from being sprayed across the American heartland.”

EPA’s assessment identified risks to endangered species like the whooping crane, gray wolf, and Indiana bat through consumption of prey contaminated with the toxic chemical. EPA violated both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the ESA. Under the ESA, EPA is required consult with the expert wildlife agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, to address these risks but EPA refused to do so.

“The lack of oversight by federal agencies is outrageous,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network and one of the plaintiffs. “EPA has ignored the threats to the health of rural communities and the livelihoods of farmers who rely on the agency for protection. Instead, EPA gave the greenlight to allow a dramatic increase in the use of the hazardous and volatile chemical, 2,4-D.”

Supporting organic agriculture can prevent the pesticide treadmill that results from the over use of pesticides like glyphosate and 2,4-D on GE crops. By utilizing ecological pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive are the most appropriate and long-term solution  to managing unwanted plants, or weeds. Additionally, organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, mechanical production practices, and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving. To learn more about organic agriculture, see  Beyond Pesticides Organic Program Page.

For more information on GE foods and what you can do, see Beyond Pesticides Genetic Engineering Program Page.

Read the petitioner’s opening brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case: 15-71207 here.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2015) Last week, Pop Weaver, the second largest popcorn supplier in the country, released an official statement on its commitment to “removing 50 percent of its neonicotinoid usage in 2016, 75 percent in 2017, with a long-term commitment of further reducing usage by working with agricultural universities and those companies supplying neonicotinoids to the seed industry.” Widely-used neonicotinoids (neonics), which as systemic chemicals move through a plant’s vascular system and express poison through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, have been identified in multiple  peer-reviewed studies  and by beekeepers  as the major contributing factor in bee decline. This commitment is a response to a campaign led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which asked citizens to sign a petition asking Pop Weaver, and other large popcorn suppliers, to protect bees and other pollinators by phasing out the use of neonicotinoid-coated corn seed. Over 37,000 people have signed their petition.

Americans eat, on average, 17.3 billion quarts of popcorn each year; each American eats about 68 quarts. According to CFS, there are roughly 40 insecticides currently registered for use as an active chemical on popcorn, including 3 bee-toxic neonicotinoid chemicals: clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid. Between  79 and 100 percent of corn seed in the U.S. is coated with neonicotinoids, including the corn used for popping.

There have been additional reports and studies published over the past few years questioning the benefits of neonic use.  In 2014, Beyond Pesticides featured an article, No Longer a Big Mystery, in the  quarterly newsletter Pesticides and You that challenges  industry claims that neonics are safe. The article references bee health science that reports that even small, low-dose (sublethal) neonicotinoid exposures can have detrimental effects on bees. Also in 2014, CFS  published a report  refuting claims that neonicotinoids bring greater benefits than costs to farmers. In the report, researchers analyzed independent, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and found that the benefits of prophylactic neonicotinoid use via seed treatments were nearly non-existent, and that any minor benefits that did occur were negated due to  honey bee colony impacts, reduced crop pollination by honey bees, reduced production of honey and other bee products, loss of ecosystem services, and market damage from contamination events. According to an international team of researchers led by Geoff Williams, MD, PhD, at the University of Bern in Switzerland, exposure to neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides results in overwhelming negative impacts to the health of honey bee queens. This year, the U.S. Geological Survey found that neonic insecticides contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the United States and Puerto Rico; which exemplifies the impacts these chemicals have on other organisms, like  birds  (a single kernel of neonic-coated corn  is enough to kill a songbird).

Neonic-coated seeds are a target of anti-neonic campaigns because this class of insecticides is systemic, meaning that they live within the plant and last much longer and in much more critical areas than other insecticides. Across the nation, jurisdictions, like Boulder and Lafayette, Colorado, have been banning or limiting neonicotinoids. Last year, Ontario, Canada proposed a plan to reduce the use of neonic-coated corn and soybean seeds by 80%. In 2013, the European Union issued a 2-year moratorium banning neonics. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agreed to ban neonicotinoid insecticides from all wildlife refuges nationwide by this January. For more information on pollinators and pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ BeeProtective page.

The  Saving America’s Pollinator’s Act of 2015  remains an avenue for Congress to address the pollinator crisis.  Contact your U.S. Representative  and ask them to support this important legislation today. You can also get active in your community to protect bees by advocating for policies that restrict their use. Montgomery County, Maryland recently  restricted the use of a wide range of pesticides, including neonics, on public and private property.  Sign here  if you’d like to see your community do the same!

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

Source:  Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2015) Tests on produce collected by California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) for 2014 show high levels of  illegal toxic pesticide residues. The CDPR report found 1 percent of produce containing an excess amount of pesticide residues, and an additional 5.5 percent of produce tested contained illegal residues of pesticides that are not allowed for use on that product. Additionally, the data shows residues of a banned  chemical, which was taken off the market  over 20 years in the U.S. due to health concerns related to farmworker exposure. These findings showcase issues related to  system-wide failure in  enforcement. Advocates stress that violations may continue to occur due to inadequacies in regulations governing enforcement authorities, which include warnings or low fines for violators. In raising concerns about the safety of food grown with chemical-intensive methods, advocates point to the need to expand the transition to organic agriculture for better protection of public health and safety.

The highest percentage of illegal pesticides was found on cactus pads and cactus fruit imported from Mexico. Some of the other tainted fruit and vegetables include limes, papaya, summer squash, tomatillos, chili peppers, and tomatoes, also from Mexico, ginger imported from China, and U.S.-grown spinach and kale. While over 93 percent of the produce tested contain legal levels of pesticide residue, the data shows a pattern of  low dose exposure  to hazardous  pesticides, such as endocrine disruptors.

Monocrotophos is one of the highly toxic chemicals found in the cactus samples, and is not only a major cause of concern for consumers, who can experience flu-like symptoms from eating large quantities of it, but for the laborers harvesting it. In fact, the U.S. has banned the chemical since 1989, on the basis that it caused  farmworker poisoning. Other chemicals found, which either exceeded the set tolerance level or were illegally used, include  chlorothalonil, methomyl, dimethoate, thiabendazole, permethrin, and chlorpyrifos. Health effects of these chemicals range from neurotoxicity to cancer, kidney/liver effects, and endocrine disruption. The surrounding community, including the environment, wildlife, and farmworkers, is also greatly affected by these toxic chemicals. A 2004 study detected agricultural pesticides in the homes near agricultural fields. According to a 2010 study, workers experience repeated exposures to the same pesticides evidenced by multiple pesticides routinely detected in their bodies.

The U.S.  can set  an import tolerance on unregistered pesticide-food combinations when no U.S. tolerance exists. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a tolerance (called a Maximum Residue Limit or MRL in Canada and many other countries) is the maximum residue level of a pesticide permitted in or on food or feed grown in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. from other countries. Import firms that buy and sell crops in the U.S. that exceed those maximum residue limits are at risk for fines. Repeat violators face higher fines than first offenders. Unfortunately, EPA tolerances continuously receive exemptions to protect industry leaders. Tolerance levels are sometimes raised based on EPA reviews, even in the case of known toxic pesticides. In 2013, EPA “temporarily” granted an exemption for the banned endosulfan (known to cause endocrine disruption and toxicity to birds and aquatic organisms) on imported Chinese tea. Not even one year ago, Greenpeace discovered that 94% of tea samples from India were tainted with European Union (EU) banned pesticides. That exemption is still in effect today.

According to CDPR, if produce with illegal residues is found, it is quickly removed from the chain of distribution (to prevent it from reaching consumers) and attempts are made to trace it to its source. The tainted lots are quarantined. However, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in a 2014 report found deficiencies in the Federal Drug Administration’s (FDA) monitoring of residues. For imported food, GAO found,  “FDA tests relatively few targeted (i.e., non-generalizable) samples for pesticide residues. For example, in 2012, FDA tested less than one-tenth of 1 percent of imported shipments.” See also Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News on the subject.  An earlier 1986 GAO report,  Better Sampling and Enforcement Needed on Imported Food,  that most foods adulterated with pesticides make their way into commerce and are not recovered. The report found: “(1) the FDA pesticide monitoring program provides limited protection against public exposure to illegal residues in food; (2) FDA samples less than 1 percent of 1 million imported food shipments annually; (3) FDA inspectors at various ports of entry decide the extent to which they apply sample criteria; and (4) FDA uses five multi-residue tests that individually detect many pesticides on a single sample; however, FDA laboratories normally use only one method for each sample. GAO also found that: (1) although FDA policy requires importers to maintain all sampled shipments intact until FDA determines that the product is residue-free, FDA permits importers to release the majority of sampled shipments to U.S. markets before they spoil; (2) of 164 adulterated samples, 73 were not recovered before public consumption; and (3) there were only eight documented cases where FDA assessed importers damages when adulterated food reached the marketplace.

According to CDPR, businesses that violate California pesticide residue laws face loss of their product and also fines. On July 28, 2015, CDPR released a statement announcing recent sanctions for six California import firms who repeatedly violated pesticide regulations. Since December of last year, these six firms have been selling imported products that have been tainted with pesticides not approved for production or sale in the U.S., including DDE (metabolite of DDT), imidacloprid, and endosulfan. The fines for these companies ranged from $10,000 to $21,000. While the CDPR tests California food, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for federal food testing. FDA makes testing for pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables for human consumption seem like a top priority; yet, rarely performs their due diligence when it comes to foreign, imported products. That diligence is an important protocol to ensure the safety of humans consuming those crops. As the report by Government Accountability Office (GAO) states, it was found that FDA tested relatively few targeted samples (one-tenth of one percent of all imported fruits and vegetables to be exact) for pesticide residues and furthermore discovered that FDA does not test for several commonly used pesticides with an EPA established tolerance, including glyphosate.

Advocates point to the use of warnings, repeated violations, and low fines as a sign that the current system is failing to protect public health.  These producers knowingly, after being repeatedly warned, expose consumers to pesticides that are so toxic that they have been banned for use on these food products. 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. These findings also provide proof that banned pesticides are still affecting our food supply.

Pesticide use in conventional agriculture does not just affect consumers. Beyond the impacts that residues of pesticides have  on  people who eat food grown with chemical-intensive practices, the pesticides used in conventional food production can also have devastating impacts on farmworkers. As the scientific literature confirms, farmworkers, their families, and their communities face extraordinary risks from pesticide exposures. Application and pesticide drift result in dermal, inhalation, and oral exposures that are typically underestimated. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, farmworkers  and their children, who often times also work on the farm, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments, and Parkinson’s disease

Food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is why  food labeled organic  is an important choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual toxic pesticide food residues, food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. For more information on the health effects of pesticide exposure, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. For additional information on impacts of food purchasing decisions on the full range of environmental and worker hazards, wee Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience data.

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

Source: TakePart, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2015) With increasing consumer concern about genetically engineered (GE) food, yesterday  the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a hearing,  entitled Agriculture Biotechnology: a Look at Federal Regulation and Stakeholder Perspectives, that critics called lopsided. Most witnesses characterized GE food as safe or side-stepped the issue of safety, as government witnesses refused to distinguish GE from conventional food and opposed food labeling.

“This is the first time in 10 years we’ve had a hearing on biotech. I guess we’re a little late, but we’re here,” said chair of the committee, Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS). The ranking  minority member of the committee, Senator  Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)  said,  “Biotechnology is proven to be safe, beneficial, and I believe will play a major role in helping to solve these dual global challenges of climate change and global food security,”

Central to the hearing is the the issue of labeling food products containing GE crops. Senator Stabenow called for the adoption of legislation on GE food labeling, presumably with language that will preempt the authority of states to adopt more stringent labeling standards. Senator Stabenow said that she wants labeling that “doesn’t stigmatize biotechnology.” The GE food industry is urging Congress to act to override state labeling before the Vermont label law goes into effect in July 2016.

The committee heard government and industry witnesses on the federal regulation of agriculture biotechnology, with limited input from consumer critics. Two panels (one representing agencies, the other industry) received questions from the 20 committee members on GE  crops, biotechnology, and labeling. The agency panel represented  “business as usual,” discussing administrative procedures at length, while the industry panel  stressed the science of GE. The Just Label It group, a coalition of organizations  advancing labeling, called for the public’s right to know. Environmental groups not invited to testify criticized the lopsided hearing and the government’s  opposition to GE labeling of food.

While Senators spent two of the three hours questioning agency officials on their regulatory procedures of GE crops and biotechnology, no answers were given that address scientific studies needed to ensure their safety. When asked by Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) if there was anything that made GE crops harmful to the environment, all of the members of the regulatory panel said “no,” despite impacts of GE crop production on the environment, reliance on hazardous weed killers in herbicide-tolerant crops, and the associated  decline of monarch butterflies.

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program indicated that it registers “plant incorporated protectants” (PIPs) in 86 GE crops and acknowledged pest resistance problems. Insects that are the target of the engineered plant, incorporated with a pesticide, develop resistance, putting farmers’ crops at risk because of their dependency on the technology. Organic agriculture identifies genetic engineering as an “excluded method” and prohibits its use in certified organic production. As the GE technology advances, farmers are increasingly threatened with crop loss, as was the argument made by Texas cotton farmers last year when 3 million acres of GE cotton was threatened by weed resistance to Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant Roundup. The state of Texas, on behalf of the farmers, requested that EPA allow the use of a triazine herbicide not registered for use on cotton under an emergency exemption (Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), but EPA denied the request because it said that  exposure to  triazines, linked to  hermaphroditism in frogs, “already show[s] unacceptable risk levels.”

In 2012, Washington State University researcher  Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. found that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops (cotton, soybeans and corn) has increased, contrary to industry claims that biotechnology will  reduce pesticide applications. According to a  series of studies in the journal  Weed Science, at least 21 different species of weeds Monsanto’s  “Roundup-Ready” crops, which leads to an increased pesticide use  to try to combat resistance, escalating the pesticide treadmill effect. The latest herbicide tolerant GE corn and soybean plants are engineered to be used with the herbicide 2,4-D, one-half of the mixture of Agent Orange and linked to non Hodgkins lymphoma. Experts expect increased public exposure to 2,4-D through the food supply and in the environment, leading to weed resistance.

At the Agriculture Committee hearing, the  first panel included of officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Center for Food Safety and FDA’s Director of Applied Nutrition, Susan Mayne, Ph.D., took opposing positions  on GE labeling with the government witness  arguing that mandatory labeling is unnecessary because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) does not recognize a “material” difference between GE and conventional crops. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a long-time member of the committee, cited the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s interpretation of GE crops as “novel for patent purposes” and asked the panel why agencies were in disagreement about the differences between GE and conventional crops. Dr. Mayne responded that, if there were a material difference in the food safety and nutrition between  GE and conventional crops, FDA would support  labeling.

The second panel consisted of five members of the agricultural, production, and consumer industry. Joanna Lidback, producer and farmer from the Farm at Wheeler Mountain, voiced her concerns about the costs associated with GE crops used to feed her dairy cows. She calculated an increase of $48,000 per year on her farm if GE feed was ever banned, but no calculations for the costs of the proposed GE label. With economic hardships in mind, organic farmers  are threatened with  adverse economic impact  due to the  contamination from  GE pollen drifting onto their crops. Organic farmers also report  losses due to a need to establish buffer zones.

In opposing labeling Daryl Thomas, Senior Vice President of Herr Foods, Inc., stated, “Mandatory labels on food products are reserved for critical information about nutrition and safety. GMO ingredients don’t change the nutritional profile or safety of our products.”

Opponents of mandatory GE labeling on both panels cited the growing concern of global food insecurity as a reason for denying consumers the right to know if GE crops are in their food. While the developing  world is facing a food crisis, most GE crops are used as animal feed, with  only 12 percent of crop calories used in that feed end up as calories consumed by humans. Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of Stonyfield Farm and chairman of Just Label It, addressed these concerns. He pointed to other nations that, unlike the U.S., have experience with GE labeling laws. He stated that crop acreage across the GE-labeling world has increased, and asked the Senators to recognize that existing experience has shown that post-labeling trends lean toward increased profit.

Though Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) pointed to the “unanimity” among regulatory bodies’ belief that GE crops are safe and well-regulated, and expressed confidence in agency oversight, recent violations and deficiencies by regulators paint a different story. On August 10, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit, M. Margaret McKeown, responded to EPA’s lack of attention to the toxic insecticide dursban (chlorpyrifos), stating that federal agencies should never practice the “venerable tradition” of putting off statutory requirements  when it comes to human health.  Just one month later, that court unequivocally rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) unconditional registration of the systemic and bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor. Similarly, federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,  in a bench ruling, rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)  motion to dismiss a  federal lawsuit  (Case3:15-cv-01690) that challenges the National Organic Program’s (NOP) failure to follow proper legal procedures  in making a substantial rule change to the organic standard.

Although absent from  the hearing discussion,  GE crops present serious public health and environmental concerns, specifically when it comes to the high levels of chemicals such as glyphosate  (Roundup), recently classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The increasing use of toxic pesticides in GE crop production  elevates  public exposure through the food supply and environmental contamination.

In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 1599), commonly referred to as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. After passing the bill, H.R. 1599 was sent to the Senate for review by applicable committees. The act will, if passed, preempt individual states’ rights to require GE labeling. Yesterday’s hearing indicates the rapid movement of the bill through congress and the upcoming Senate bill. Vermont was the first state in the nation to pass a GE labeling law and then  survive a federal court challenge from the food industry.  If the DARK Act passes through Senate and is enacted into law, it will nullify Vermont’s recent law, set to go into effect on July 1, 2016. Beyond Pesticides encourages  people to communicate your  concerns about GE food and the right to know what’s in your food to your U.S. Senators .

Take Action:
Take part by writing to your Senators today to tell them to support federally mandated GE labeling.

You can learn more about the reasons to say no to genetically engineered crops and food by reading Beyond Pesticides’  factsheet on the subject or visiting the Genetic Engineering page on our website.

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

Source:  U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(Beyond Pesticides, October 21, 2015) Last week, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), an umbrella group representing pesticide manufacturers, celebrated its 25th year anniversary, touting its efforts to roll back critical protections from pesticide use in the U.S. The group emphasizes its role in quashing local government’s right to restrict pesticide use within its jurisdiction  after the Supreme Court, in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Ralph Mortier (1991), upheld local  authority under federal pesticide law.

RISE, formed out of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association to fight government regulation at the federal, state, and local level, launched with a  plan to defeat those opposing pesticide use in favor of sustainable practices, including concerned mothers, progressive businesses, and local and national health and environmental advocates. The platform  RISE articulates  showcases its plans to influence regulators and consumers to allow the widespread and less restricted use of pesticides.

In the 1990’s, RISE joined with another industry group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to seek the adoption in state legislatures across the country pesticide preemption laws, which were adopted in over 40  states. These laws prevent local governments from adopting  their own restrictions governing pesticide use  on private property. At one point, the organization sought federal legislation to take away the authority of local governments to restrict pesticide use on their  own public lands. The measure was rejected by members of the House Agriculture Committee. Though  aligned with RISE, conservatives on the committee in the 90’s could not counsel, as a matter of political philosophy, stepping on the rights of states and local governments to adopt standards more restrictive than the federal government. The industry’s focus on preemption in its 25th anniversary reflection signals the threat that it  believes democratic decision making by local elected officials or ballot initiatives pose for its future.

A Beyond Pesticides report on state preemption law and its importance in the local democratic process illustrates the benefits of permitting local governments to make decisions that respond to the concerns of their residents, as well as the negative ramifications of state preemption laws. The absence of preemption laws in the seven states that have preserved local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the state has been a commanding factor in several pesticide ban victories. Most recently, Montgomery County, Maryland, home to over 1 million people, enacted a law that will forbid toxic pesticides on public and private land within its jurisdiction. This victory follows on the heels of similar acts of local control.  Takoma Park, Maryland passed an ordinance in 2013, and the Town of Ogunquit, Maine  adopted a similar ordinance  by ballot initiative in November, 2014. If you would like to see a similar ordinance passed in your area, click here to let Beyond Pesticides  know!

RISE sees the decline of pollinators and issues surrounding clean water as hot topics, with plans to engage in conversations taking place around these issues. The group also has plans to address the “decidedly green attitudes of Millennials” moving forward, though the exact nature of its  strategy was not disclosed. However, the group has found it necessary to expand its staff, re-evaluate its brand, and work to fully engage its chemical company members.

RISE is concerned about the build-up of local grassroots advocacy, and plans to become further involved in opposition to sensible pesticide legislation. The group believes getting involved early on in conversations allows them to “build up good will for how specialty products solve problems.” However, in the lead up to a successful  ballot initiative that bans pesticides on public and private property in  Ogunquit, Maine, RISE unlawfully mailed to town residents opposition literature without identifying itself or registering with the town, as required. RISE’s efforts were also seen earlier this year in its unsuccessful attempts to stop  Montgomery County’s historic ordinance to restrict pesticide use on public and private land. Maryland and Maine are two of seven states that do not preempt local jurisdictions  from restricting pesticide use on all land within their local political subdivisions.

The outpouring of grassroots support from around the country after the passage of local laws like that in Montgomery County shows that after 25 years of RISE’s efforts to roll back health and environmental protections elected officials and residents believe it is crucial to adopt protections that are thwarted by the chemical industry, the chemical  lawn care industry, and government regulators. Beyond Pesticides encourages residents to become aware of national efforts to undermine critical health and environmental laws, and take  action in their community to fight for these important public health and environmental protections. Click here to show  your support for a pesticide-free community.

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

Source: Pest Control Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, October 20, 2015) Exposure to neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides results in profound negative impacts to the health of honey bee queens, according to an international team of researchers led by Geoff Williams, MD, PhD, at the University of Bern in Switzerland. While most studies to date have investigated how neonics effect the health of individual workers or overall colony fitness, Dr. William’s study, Neonicotinoid pesticides severely affect honey bee queens, is one of the first to focus on the health of honey bee queens. Neither the European Union nor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study the impacts of pesticides on queen health before allowing a pesticide to market. The results of this research are particularly concerning, given widespread anecdotal evidence from beekeepers across the globe that ”˜poor quality queens’ are playing a role in bee declines.

To test the impacts of these chemicals on queen honey bees, scientists exposed a sample of 29 queens to field-realistic levels of the neonics  clothianidian and thiamethoxam (1 parts per billion and 4 ppb respectively), and compared them to a population of 28 control queens, which were not treated with neonics. Both groups experienced similar environmental circumstances in terms of food availability, rearing process, and hive conditions. Researchers set up mating nucleus colonies to observe queen mating flights (in which queens leave the hive in search of male drone bees). A queen may mate with from anywhere from one to 40 drones, but averages roughly 12. The queen can store up to 6 million spermatozoa from her mating flight, which she uses to lay fertilized (female) worker bees throughout the rest of her life (queens generally live 2-7 years).

After four weeks of queen rearing, researchers recorded 25% fewer neonic-exposed queens alive compared to the control group. Queens in the neonic-exposed group were more likely to not lay worker eggs, a key indicator of queen health and mating success. While roughly 5% of the control group was unsuccessful, over 40% of the neonic-treated queens did not lay eggs. After euthanizing and dissecting remaining queens, researchers discovered than neonic-exposed queens had 20% less spermatozoa than the control group. It was further noted that exposed queens had ovaries which were 6.8% larger than controls. “Increased ovary size suggests that neonicotinoids can affect development of queen reproductive system,” the study notes.

Queen bees are the powerhouse of honey bee hives, laying up to 1,500 eggs per day. Queens can determine the sex of eggs they lay (a term called haplodiploidy), as females worker bees are fertilized and male drone bees are not. Healthy queens are critical for healthy hives.

Neonicotinoids have amassed a significant body of research pointing to adverse effects not only in honey bees, but in bumble bees, monarchs, other pollinators, and proper ecosystem functioning in general. Co-author of the research, Peter Neumann, PhD, stated in a press release, “This study, along with other recently published ones, supports calls for more thorough environmental risk assessments of agricultural chemicals to protect biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.”

In December 2013, the European Union instituted a 2-year moratorium on the use of neonics on bee-attractive crops. The decision will not expire at the end of this year, but remain in place while regulators determine its renewal. Earlier this year, the Canadian province of Ontario moved to reduce by 80% the use of neonic-coated seeds, a major route of toxic chemical exposure for honey bees.

In the U.S., action at the federal level has done little to take the sting out of pollinator declines. Despite the announcement of a coordinated National Pollinator Health Strategy this May, federal agencies continue to exhibit widely different approaches on how to address pollinator declines. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service banned the use of neonics on National Wildlife Refuge Land, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality released new guidelines prohibiting the planting of neonic-treated plants at federal facilities, EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have taken little substantive action. Although EPA recently proposed modest label changes to protect bees from acute pesticide exposure, USDA submitted comments criticizing the agency’s proposed rule, saying that it had “not established the need for such a prohibition.”

The Saving America’s Pollinator’s Act of 2015 remains an avenue for Congress to address the pollinator crisis. Contact your U.S. Representative and ask them to support this important legislation today. You can also get active in your community to protect bees by advocating for policies that restrict their use. Montgomery County, Maryland recently restricted the use of a wide range of pesticides, including neonics, on public and private property. Sign here if you’d like to see your community do the same!

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

Source: University of Bern Press Release, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, October 19, 2015) Monsanto, the major producer of Roundup (glyphosate), has found itself in hot water recently, as personal injury lawsuits pile up over the link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL). Personal injury law firms around the U.S. have found a multitude of plaintiffs and are preparing for what could be a “mass tort” action against Monsanto for knowingly misinforming the public and farmworkers about the dangers of the chemical.

The latest lawsuit was filed October 14 in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs. One plaintiff in the Delaware lawsuit, Joselin Barrera, 24, a child of migrant farmworkers, relates  her non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) to glyphosate exposure. Elias de la Garza, a former migrant farm worker and landscaper diagnosed with NHL, has a similar claim. These follow other lawsuits filed last month in New York and California that  accuse Monsanto of knowing that glyphosate was hazardous to human health. Monsanto “led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup was safe,” the lawsuit states.

Glyphosate is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is a part of the World Health Organization)  released its finding in March, concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based on laboratory studies. IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen finds that glyphosate is anything but safe. The ranking represents the highest order carcinogen when no human data is available —and since chemicals are not tested on humans, a higher ranking  is rare.  According to IARC, Group 2A means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. The agency considered the findings from an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel report, along with several recent studies in making its conclusion. The agency also notes that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Following IARC’s review, California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that it intended to list glyphosate and three other chemicals as cancer-causing chemicals under California’s  Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

EPA, in 1985, originally classified glyphosate as ”˜possibly carcinogenic to humans’ based on tumors in laboratory animals, but changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans years later, most likely due to industry influence, allowing the chemical to be the most widely used pesticide in the U.S. USDA has contributed to its greatly expanded use  by deregulating crops, including  the vast majority of corn and soybeans, that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to the chemical. In recent years, weeds have exhibited resistance to glyphosate and its efficacy has been called into question. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely finds glyphosate in U.S. waterways especially in the Midwestern states and the Mississippi River valley. Ecological data also reports that glyphosate and glyphosate formulated products are toxic to aquatic organisms, and is extremely lethal to amphibians.

The mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards is piling up and environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of the chemical. A recent success in grassroots activism  comes through Tracy Madlener, a mother of two, who got  her neighborhood in Laguna Hills, California to eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through our Tools for Change page. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to organize a campaign and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our factsheets.

Another way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides 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 information on why organic is the right choice, visit our Organic Agriculture webpage.

Sign the petition to ban glyphosate.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2015) According to a new study, living in crop-dense regions is linked to increased leukemia and central nervous system cancers in children. Although there is a litany of scientific literature that highlights the link between pesticide exposure and childhood illness, this study is one of few that examines the relationship between residential exposures to agricultural pesticides via crop density and adverse health outcomes, and may serve as a basis for further investigation into childhood cancer rates in areas where agricultural pesticides are highly used.

The study, titled Agricultural crop density and the risk of childhood cancer in the Midwestern United States: an ecologic study,  was published in the journal Environmental Health. Using crop density as a surrogate for residential exposure to agricultural pesticides, the study linked county-level agricultural census data and cancer incidence data for children between the ages 0 to 4 in six Midwestern states and found evidence of an association between childhood cancer incidence and the production of crops such as dry beans, oats, and sugar beets. Researchers found statistically significant exposure-response relationships for dry beans and total leukemias and acute lymphoid leukemias, oats and acute myeloid leukemias, and sugar beets and total leukemias. State-level analyses discovered additional positive associations for total leukemia and central nervous system (CNS) tumors. While researchers were not able to examine specific pesticides used in these regions, they cited atrazine, glyphosate, 2,4-D, and MCPA as some of the most highly-used chemicals during the study period.

The link between adverse health outcomes in children and pesticide exposure is well-documented. A recent Harvard study found that residential exposure to indoor insecticides in and around a child’s home is linked to increased risk of childhood leukemia and lymphoma. An investigation by Yale University researchers found that prenatal exposure to the widely used agricultural pesticide  chlorpyrifos  is linked to tremors in childhood. An article published in in the Endocrine Society’s journal  Endocrinology found that 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.

Beyond Pesticides advocates eating organic through its  Eating with a Conscience  website because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. To learn about the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’  Organic Food program page. For more information on pesticide exposures in homes, schools, workplaces and communities, see Beyond Pesticides’  Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management

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

Source: Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, October 15, 2015) A new study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, has found that wildflowers bordering fields that are treated with neonicotinoids contain a higher concentration of the bee-toxic pesticides than the actual treated fields, pointing out an often overlooked avenue of exposure for bees. Widely-used neonicotinoids, which as systemic chemicals move through a plant’s vascular system and express poison through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, have been identified in multiple  peer-reviewed studies  and by beekeepers  as the major contributing factor in bee decline.

The study, titled Neonicotinoid Residues in Wildflowers, A Potential Route of Chronic Exposure for Bees, discovered neonicotinoid insecticides in wildflowers, including Hogweed and Poppy pollen (up to 86ppb and 64ppb, respectively). The study’s authors  found higher concentrations of neonicotinoids in wild flowers in field margins than in Oilseed rape flowers in the adjacent neonicotinoid treated crop — on average 15ppb vs. 3ppb.   They also found that more than 97% of the neonicotinoids being brought into the hive by honey bees are from wildflowers, while only 3% are  from the crop.

Researchers have found  that chronic exposure to neonicotinoids increases neuronal vulnerability to mitochondrial dysfunction in the bumblebee. In other words, these pesticides damage the brain cells of bees. Exposed bees will have greater difficulty, for instance, in recognizing the smell of a flower, or how to find their way back to their colony. In June 2015,  researchers demonstrated  that honey bees exposed to  imidacloprid, a toxic neonic, are more susceptible to heat shock. Researchers have also found that bees can become  addicted to neonicotinoids  in the same way that humans can become addicted to cigarettes. More research can be found on Beyond Pesticides’  What the Science Shows  page, where studies are listed to highlight the impact of pesticides on these organisms.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that the toxic chemicals affect  other pollinators and beneficial insects as well.  Earlier this year, researchers from the University of Minnesota presented some of the first evidence linking these bee-killing insecticides to monarch butterfly deaths. The study found that milkweed plants, which monarch butterflies need to survive, may also retain neonicotinoids from nearby plants, making milkweed toxic to monarchs. Environmentalists, beekeepers and activists are increasingly frustrated with the use of these toxic chemicals, as it has been found that neonicotinoid-treated seeds do not reduce crop damage from pests, and that the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments, which are intended to decrease the use of pesticides, can actually increase the necessity of these toxic chemicals by killing off natural, beneficial insect predators.

The implications of the study findings only strengthen the need for meaningful policy change on the federal level.  Saving America’s Pollinators Act  requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend the registration of all neonicotinoid insecticides that are registered for use in seed treatment, soil application, or foliar treatment on bee attractive plants, trees and cereals until EPA has fully determined that these toxic chemicals do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on pollinators. You can help to protect America’s pollinators by  submitting a letter  to your representative, urging them to support  Saving America’s Pollinators Act. 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.

Neonicotinoids are undoubtedly highly toxic to honey bees, and EPA acknowledges this fact. However, little is being done at the federal level to protect bees and other pollinators from these pesticides. With unlimited resources behind them, the chemical industry —the pesticide manufacturers, landscaping, horticultural and agricultural trade groups, have all come out to deflect attention away from pesticides as a major culprit in pollinator decline. To learn more about how industry agents try to manipulate the message to say that neonics are not the main cause, see Beyond Pesticides’  report addressing  industry myths on pollinator decline.

In light of the  shortcomings of federal action  to protect these beneficial creatures, it is left up to us to ensure that we provide safe havens for pollinators by creating pesticide-free habitat and educating others to do the same. Beyond Pesticides has created a small pesticide-free garden at our offices in DC to provide habitat and forage for our local pollinators. You too can pledge your green space as pesticide-free and pollinator-friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat.  Sign the pledge today. Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The  Bee Protective Habitat Guide  can tell you which native plants are right for your region.

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

Source: Environmental Science & Technology, Buglife

(Beyond Pesticides, October 14, 2015) New research from the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health (CERCH) shows that children, especially those in low-income and agricultural families, who switched to an organic diet reduced their bodies’  level of pesticides. This California study is one of several that documents the benefits of eating an organic diet, especially for children who are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposures due to the developing bodies.

The study, Effect of Organic Diet Intervention on Pesticide Exposures in Young Children Living in Low-Income Urban and Agricultural Communities  follows 40 children, 3-6 years old from low-income families living in urban and agricultural environments in Oakland and Salinas, California. The children alternated between a conventionally grown diet and organic, and urine samples were analyzed each day. The researchers measure 23 metabolites of several pesticides classes, including organophosphates (OP) and pyrethroid insecticides, and the herbicides 2,4-D and metolachlor. These pesticides are frequently detected (> 72%) in urine samples collected, with metabolites of 2,4-D detected 90 percent of the time, and pyrethroids 82 percent.

Overall, among the most frequently detected pesticides, metabolites of OPs  decreases by nearly 50 percent when children are on an organic diet, and levels of 2,4-D falls by 25 percent. Pyrethroid metabolites however, did not significantly decrease during an organic diet. The researchers hypothesize that this is due to the overwhelming use of pyrethroids in and around homes, and children are exposed to pyrethroids from their living environment, not solely through diet. Pyrethroids are also more frequently detected in children from the urban area, which also reports higher use of pesticides in the home. Conversely, the most frequently detected metabolites are generally higher in children from the agricultural region compared to those from the urban area, suggesting higher exposure levels for children living in agricultural communities.

Nina Holland, PhD, an adjunct professor in the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health who worked on the study, said this was “one of the most remarkable studies of its kind” and could encourage farmers to grow organically.

This study is not the first of its kind. Earlier this year, Canadian scientists reported a similar conclusion for people who ate a conventional diet. In that study, the scientists studied nearly 4,500 people from six U.S. cities and examined long-term dietary exposure to 14 OPs, and found lower pesticide levels in those who ate organic. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) weighed in on the organic food debate recognizing that lower pesticide residues in organic foods may be significant for children. The Academy also noted that choosing organic is based on larger environmental issues, as well as human health impacts like pollution and global climate change.

Studies  have also found additional health benefits to eating organic. A ten-year University of California study, which compared organic tomatoes with chemically grown produce, found that they have almost double the quantity of disease-fighting antioxidants called flavonoids. A  comprehensive review  of 97 published studies comparing the nutritional quality of organic and conventional foods shows that organic plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, grains) contain higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients studied, including significantly greater concentrations of the health-promoting polyphenols and antioxidants.  A study  by Newcastle University, published in the  Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, found that organic farmers who let their cows graze as nature intended are producing better quality milk.

Many people have been making the switch to organic for various health-based reasons. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, nearly half of all U.S. adults “actively” seek to add organic food to their diets. Many who eat and incorporate organic foods into their diet are from city areas, whereas those who eat the least organic foods are described as coming from rural areas. A similar 2014 poll by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) reports that consumption of organic products has continued to increase at a monumental pace. According to the survey, sales of organic products in the U.S. jumped to $35.1 billion in 2013, up 11.5% from the previous year’s $31.5 billion and the fastest growth rate in five years.

Beyond Pesticides advocates in its program and through its  Eating with a Conscience  website choosing organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’  Organic Food program page.

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

Source:  NYTimes, The Daily Californian

(Beyond Pesticides, October 13, 2015) Nineteen  European Union (EU) member states (Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Solvenia, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales) have opted out of approving GE cultivation except for research purposes. In the past, the EU has not been particularly fond of GE crops; currently, only one GE crop, insect resistant maize MON 810, has been approved for cultivation.

In March, the EU passed a new directive that allowed GE crops to be approved for use Union-wide. Along with the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), that directive also gave member states the ability to “adopt legally binding acts restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs in their territory after such GMOs have been authorized to be placed on the Union market.” Once the opt-out applications have been processed and transmitted to the companies, they have one month to take action; that is, the companies most affected by the ban will have the chance to oppose it. Member states have cited environmental and agricultural issues as a reason for opting out and while biotechnology companies can deny them, it is likely that member states will invoke “substantial grounds” to protect their ban.  “Member states ”¦ have to justify their opt-out measures – that they are motivated by an overriding reason of general interest, and are in line with the rules of the internal market,” said European Commissioner Margreth Vestayer.

And while biotechnology companies, like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, and Pioneer, might be thought to automatically seek to deny  member states the right to ban the use of GE crops, it has not been the case so far. Last month, Monsanto abided by Latvia’s and Greece’s requests for a ban and stated that they “will consider any other such requests on a case-by-case basis.” That trend of acquiescence may end, though, since heavily-populated countries like Germany have joined the ranks of member states requesting a ban on GE crops, with over half of the EU opting out. Biotechnology powerhouses like Monsanto might consider ban requests more carefully in order to protect profits, considering that it is currently facing financial deficits. Although Monsanto has previously stated that it will not seek any new GE crop approvals in the EU, it may need to recover lost ground. Just two weeks ago, Monsanto announced that it would be cutting around 2,600 jobs, affecting 11.6 percent of its workers, as a result of last quarter’s unexpected loss. Sales from its prized product, Roundup (glyphosate), fell from $1.25 billion to $1.1 billion. Earlier this year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a program of the World Health Organization, announced it had classified glyphosate a human carcinogen, based on laboratory animal studies.

While over half of EU’s member states are making strides to  keep  GE foods off  their shelves, the U.S. government is sprinting in the opposite direction. In the last year, three GE crops (soybean, cotton, and corn) have been deregulated and approved for commercial use in the U.S. More recently, Senate is awaiting a vote on Bill H.R. 1599, otherwise known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, which would preempt states by preventing state and local governments from enacting laws banning GE labels. On July 23, the House of Representatives voted to pass the DARK Act through to Senate for a vote, which could happen any day now. Environmental and industry lobbyists are racing against the clock to convince senators that GE labeling is good or bad, respectively. While 9 out of 10 Americans agree that they would prefer that GE foods bear a label, congressmen have consistently sided with profit-driven industry.

Proponents of the DARK act tout scientific studies that prove the safety of GE crops; however, numerous studies can be found that show the GE crops are much more than an extension of selective breeding. The root of the problem with GE crops lies in the implementation of their use. A prospective article found in the New England Journal of Medicine  that outlines  the hazards associated with food residues of  elevated pesticide use in GE crops and  focuses on  the significance of the actual increase in herbicide use and weed resistance in herbicide-tolerant crops.

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.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, October 9, 2015) Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released preliminary human health and ecological risk assessments for seven organophosphate pesticides (OPs) and announced the public open comment period for those chemicals. These risk assessments come as a result of the required periodic registration review, as required by  the Federal Insecticide, Fungicides, and Rodenticide Act. In general, OPs are highly toxic and many have been voluntarily removed from the market, considerably restricted, or denied reregistration. Unfortunately, EPA continues to rely on risk mitigation for individual OPs instead of phasing them out altogether.

Seven OPs ­ ­—dimethoate, dictrotophos, chloyrophos-methyl, tribufos, terbufos, profenofors, and ethoprop—are among the first wave of chemicals whose preliminary risk assessments have been completed under the registration review program. Each of these was found by EPA to inhibit the enzyme acetylcholine esterase (AchE), which ultimately leads to neurotoxic  central nervous system effects. This information is not new, however. In 2012, University College London found long-term low-level exposure to OPs produces lasting damage to neurological and cognitive functions. In 2013, at least 25 children died after eating school lunches contaminated by OPs. One OP in particular, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos (Dursban), is currently under petition for the same AchE enzyme inhibition. Its brother, chlorpyrifos-methyl, is on the current list of OPs available for public comment. EPA has until October 31, 2015 to respond to that request to ban chlorpyrifos.

Details from these risk assessments are summarized:

• Chloyrophos-methyl: is used as a post-harvest treatment of stored grains or to treat empty grain bins and warehouses for insects like beetles, weevils, moths, and grain borers.

• Dictrotophos:is an organophosphate insecticide mainly used on cotton and ornamental trees. Dicrotophos is primarily used to target stinkbugs and tarnished plant bugs in cotton growing states.  EPA has identified possible dietary risk for both adults and children, possible spray drift risks, and possible occupational handler risk from both aerial and ground application.

• Dimethoate: is a wide spectrum systemic organophosphate insecticide. It is registered for use on a wide variety of agricultural crops, tree crops, ornamentals, and non-cropland adjacent to agricultural fields. It is classified as a Group C carcinogen (possible human carcinogen). Increased pup mortality was observed in several studies.

• Ethoprop: is a restricted use insecticide-nematicide registered for use on a variety of crops, including potatoes and sugarcane. EPA identified both human health and ecological risks of concern and was evaluated for its potential to affect endocrine systems in mammals and wildlife. Ethoprop is classified “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on malignant adrenal pheochromocytomas in male rats, according to EPA risk assessment guidelines.

• Profenofors: (Curacron ®) is an organophosphate, restricted use insecticide registered for use on cotton.

• Terbufos:is a systemic organophosphate insecticide-nematicide used to control a variety of pests on corn (field and sweet corn), grain sorghum, and sugar beets. EPA found human dietary, occupational, aquatic animal, and terrestrial animal risks. It has also been found to harm honeybees.

• Tribufos: Tribufos is an organophospate chemical used as a pre-harvest desiccant on cotton. The Environmental Protection Agency conducted comprehensive human health and ecological risk assessments, which identified human health and ecological risks.The HED Cancer Peer Review Committee (CPRC) [now designated as Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC)] classified tribufos as “likely” at high doses but “unlikely” to be a human carcinogen at low doses.

In October 2007, President Bush signed the Pesticide Registration Renewal Act into law, amending the process for EPA registration set forth in  FIFRA. The registration review process aims to assess updated scientific research and current findings to determine the registration status of each pesticide once every 15 years. According to the amendment, EPA has until October 1, 2022 to complete the registration reviews of all pesticides registered on or after October 1, 2007.

EPA officials have emphasized the importance of evaluating the safety of individual pesticides for farmworkers following last week’s update to the Worker Protection Standard. Farm work is demanding and dangerous physical labor. As the scientific literature confirms, farmworkers, their families, and their communities face extraordinary risks from pesticide exposures. Application and pesticide drift result in dermal, inhalation, and oral exposures that are typically underestimated.

The comment period for these and other pesticides ends November 24, 2015. It is important that concerned citizens voice their concerns in this  public forum to ensure that the federal government takes  public  opinion into account. 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 broadscale 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 and advances  a  viable, scalable  path forward for growing food.

For more information about organophosphates and other pesticides up for registration review, use our Pesticide Gateway database.

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

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides October 8, 2015) Colorado’s largest pot grower, LivWell Inc., was sued over illegal pesticide use in a law suit filed Monday in Denver District Court. Two marijuana users, one of whom suffers from a brain tumor and holds a medical card to use the product, allege that the grower used a potentially dangerous pesticide in the production of marijuana they later purchased. The suit asks for an undisclosed amount of damages and also claims that an implied promise to consumers was breached when LivWell sold high-grade and medical-grade marijuana treated with unapproved pesticides to consumers.

The main pesticide at issue in this case is myclobutanil  or Eagle 20, which is the same product that led to tens thousands of plants being  quarantined last spring after testing positive for the  fungicide during a routine inspection by the Denver Department of Environmental Health. Growers claim that without the fungicide their plants are endangered. The 40-page lawsuit claims that myclobutanil, when heated, breaks down to “poisonous hydrogen cyanide” and alleges that consumers who smoke marijuana treated with Eagle 20 ingest the gas.” While neither plaintiff alleges they were sickened from ingesting the marijuana they purchased at LivWell, both claim they would not have inhaled the product if they had known it was treated with Eagle 20.

The lawsuit is the first of its kind to be filed against a marijuana company over pesticide use and highlights the ongoing debate in Colorado over what pesticides are safe to use on marijuana. For months, city and state officials, as well as growers and consumers, have been at odds with one another while trying to navigate the regulations, or lack thereof, governing the use of pesticides on marijuana grown within the state. Because marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act, as opposed to a food or drug crop, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is barred from reviewing any application pertaining to its use. Beyond Pesticides has told the state of Colorado that the absence of federal regulation creates a prohibition on registered pesticide use in marijuana production since it has not labeled for cannabis.  However, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), state’s pesticide regulatory agency, has gone to great lengths to allow growers access to unregulated uses of pesticides by publishing a list of allowed “pesticides for use in marijuana production.” This summer, Beyond Pesticides sent a letter to CDA urging officials to reconsider their position on pesticide use in  cannabis cultivation  and warn them of violations of the  Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act  (FIFRA) should they continue to allow in marijuana production the use of pesticides not registered for that use.

The letter also addresses actions by CDA that encourages stakeholders to pursue exemptions for highly toxic pesticides by applying for Special Local Need exemptions from EPA, and indicates that the state intends to allow the use of other pesticides under general label language that has not be tested and specifically registered  for use on marijuana. Both of these approaches violate federal law and EPA regulations. Given the potential legal challenges associated with approving toxic pesticides for use on cannabis, Beyond Pesticides encourages CDA to allow within the state only the use of pesticides of a character unnecessary for regulation, which fall under section 25(b) of FIFRA.

According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Steven Woodrow, the current lawsuit is an attempt to enforce the law as it stands in the absence of action by CDA or state lawmakers to protect public health and safety. “In a larger sense [the plaintiffs are] saying the marijuana industry can’t go on unchecked and someone has to do something to stop these people from using Eagle 20 and other harmful pesticides,” said Mr. Woodrow. In comments to the Denver Post before the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Woodrow points out that, “We’d not be talking today if the state had acted quickly to protect consumers.”

The suit also takes  issue with the fact that, although myclobutanil is used on other food crops, there are no allowable levels for it on marijuana because it is an illegal crop under federal law. However, city health officials allowed the plants to be released when tests showed only the lowest allowable levels of the chemicals, an action the lawsuit alleges was illegal because simply showing “the plants did not have ‘pesticide residue’ does not necessarily mean that the plants were safe for inhalation.” This is a significant step in reigning in the, up to this point, seemingly unchecked marijuana industry that has become a powerful force in the state of Colorado over the past three years. This lawsuit follows on the heels of actions taken just a few weeks ago by the state attorney general to crack down on the misuse and misrepresentation of the word “organic” in marijuana sales.

More information about state (including Colorado) regulation of pesticide use in marijuana cultivation can be found in Beyond Pesticides’ investigative  report  on the issue, which was published this past spring. The report highlights different approaches used by states and raises safety concerns due to loopholes in federal law. The report also recommends that states with legalization adopt laws governing cannabis production that prohibit federally registered pesticides and require the adoption of organic practices that only allow products exempt from registration based on the full range of possible exposure patterns, which is the same position expressed to CDA in  Beyond Pesticides’ letter.

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

Source: Denver Post

(Beyond Pesticides, October 7, 2015) The largest county in the country to act to ban pesticides will forbid toxic pesticides on public and private land within its jurisdiction, based on legislation passed yesterday by a 6-3 vote. The ban, an historic public health measure, will protect one million people in a county outside Washington, DC, as it allows time for transition, training, and a public education program over the next several years. The amended bill was enacted with the support of Council President George Leventhal (the lead sponsor of the original bill), Councilmembers Marc Elrich, Tom Hucker, Nancy Navarro, Hans Riemer and Council Vice President Nancy Floreen, who voted in favor.

Maryland is one of seven states that has not taken away (or preempted) local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the state. One of the cities within the county, Takoma Park, passed a similar ordinance back in 2013. The Town of Ogunquit, Maine  adopted a similar ordinance by ballot initiative in November, 2014.

“Today’s action is another step in the ongoing effort to make Montgomery County the healthiest, safest county in the country,” said Council President Leventhal. “Countless studies have linked pesticides to a wide range of health conditions in children and adults and, since the bill was introduced one year ago, I have received hundreds of reports from constituents of children and pets experiencing adverse effects from the application of pesticides.”

“Local government can””and should””step in a preventative way to protect the public’s health, even when there is not complete scientific certainty,” Council President Leventhal continued. “The science may never be conclusive since it involves complex chemical interactions, but the absence of incontrovertible evidence does not justify inaction. ”

At the last committee hearing before the full council on September 17, the  Transportation and Environment (T&E) Committee voted 2-1 on substitute legislation, proposed by Committee Chair Roger Berliner, to remove the central portions of the bill intended to transition Montgomery County land, including public and private property, to non-toxic sustainable management practices.

The Montgomery County Parks Department has fought against the bill, suggesting that fields cannot be managed with organic practices. As a result, one of the amendments to the original bill will allow the County’s Department of Parks to continue to use pesticides on playing fields as part of an integrated pest management program and requires the department to develop a plan that would lead to maintaining fields without pesticide use by 2020. The department will conduct a pilot program in the interim period to study the impact of maintaining fields without using pesticides. Extensive testimony on alternatives has educated council members on the viability of organic practices.

There is movement across the country to adopt ordinances that stop pesticide use on public property and, where allowed, private property. Pesticides when used move off the target site through drift and runoff, exposing non-target sites and people.

Beyond Pesticides worked closely with Safe Grow Montgomery, a local coalition of individual volunteers, organizations and businesses to help educate the public on the bill. The coalition works to prevent exposure to chemicals that run-off, drift, and volatilize from their application site, causing involuntary poisoning of children and pets, polluting local water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay, and widespread declines of honey bees and other wild pollinators.

The legislation passed yesterday is a major victory for public health and environmental protection. While the chemical lawn care industry strenuously opposed the bill, in testimony before the Council an industry spokesman said he could implement organic programs for his customers.

For more information on organic lawn care, see Beyond Pesticides  lawns and landscape program page.

More details about Bill 52-14 and related amendments are available to read here.

Source: Montgomery County Press Release

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

(Breaking News, October 6, 2015, Washington, DC) The largest county in the country to act to ban pesticides will forbid toxic pesticides on public and private land within its jurisdiction, based on legislation passed today by a 6-3 vote. The ban, an historic public health measure, will protect one million people in a county outside Washington DC, as it allows time for transition, training, and a public education program over the next several years.

Maryland is one of seven states that has not taken away (or preempted) local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the state. The Montgomery County Parks Department has fought against the bill, suggesting that fields cannot be managed with organic practices. Extensive testimony on alternatives has educated council members on the viability of organic practices.

There is movement across the country to adopt ordinances that stop pesticide use on public property and, where allowed, private property. Pesticides when used move off the target site through drift and runoff, exposing non-target sites and people.

The legislation passed today is a major victory for public health and environmental protection. While the chemical lawn care industry strenuously opposed the bill, in testimony before the Council an industry spokesman said he could implement organic programs for his customers.

For more information on organic lawn care, see Beyond Pesticides website.