There’s too much at stake for EPA to stay stuck. Bees are in trouble, and they’re vital to our food system and our agricultural economy. They’re responsible for pollinating one in three bites of food we eat, including 95 types of fruits and nuts in North America. And commercial beekeepers report that their industry is on the verge of collapse. Lead plaintiff Steve Ellis of Old Mill Honey Co, a Minnesota and California beekeeper, made the stakes very clear:

“America’s beekeepers cannot survive for long with the toxic environment EPA has supported. Bee-toxic pesticides in dozens of widely used products, on top of many other stresses our industry faces, are killing our bees and threatening our livelihoods. Our country depends on bees for crop pollination and honey production. It’s time for EPA to recognize the value of bees to our food system and agricultural economy.” 

Earlier this year, I shared the early warnings from beekeepers across the country that there wouldn’t be enough bees for the 800,000 acres of California almonds. And these predictions came true. Bee losses are so dramatic this year, there simply aren’t enough pollinators.

The losses Steve Ellis experienced were unfortunately the norm, rather than the exception. Last February, Steve had 1,492 honeybee colonies. By February of this year, he had 1,032. And of those remaining colonies, only 680 were healthy enough to rent to almond growers. Steve lost 45% of his bees in one year alone.

Coming off a tough season, Tom Frantz — a conventional almond grower from Shafter, California — shared his perspective with me earlier this week:

“The almond industry is in trouble unless EPA takes action to protect bees. We are reliant on bees for pollination – and strong prices have buoyed our success. If bee declines continue, problems loom large for almond growers and rural economies.”

What EPA got wrong

A year ago today, beekeepers and partner organizations — including PAN — filed a legal petition with EPA, urging the agency to consider bee-toxic clothianidin an “imminent hazard.” The legal petition argued that the agency should act with greater urgency and speed to protect pollinators from exposure. EPA ignored those concerns, and the strong science supporting them. Agency officials still intend to conclude review of these pesticides in 2018 and meanwhile allow use of the bee-harming neonicotinoid pesticides that are currently on the market to continue. “Neonics” are now the most widely used class of insecticide in the world.

More and more independent scientific evidence has come to light linking pesticides and bee die-offs. While these chemicals are not the only factor, neonics are a critical contributor to the significant annual losses of bees — a problem EPA can and must control.

The lawsuit we’re filing today calls on EPA to immediately suspend the use of two specific neonicotinoids (clothianidin and thiamethoxam), found in dozens of products now on the market. The lawsuit — filed by the Center Food Safety on behalf of four commercial beekeepers, PAN, Beyond Pesticides and other groups — challenges the use of neonicotinoids on these counts:

• Conditional registrations: These registrations expedite the approval process, but also bypass sufficient review. Since 2000, over two-thirds of pesticide products — including clothianidin and thiamethoxam — have been brought to market as conditional registrations. These products are being widely used without adequate evaluation.
• Poor labeling: With pesticides, the “label is the law.” So if the label fails to provide clear instructions for timing and location of applications, then there are, in effect, no protections for bees.

The road ahead for bees and beekeepers looks bleak unless and until EPA takes decisive action. Let’s hope this lawsuit serves as a wakeup call.

But here in the U.S., policymakers aren’t stepping up. EPA officials are continuing to ignore the emerging body of science that point to pesticides, and especially neonicotinoid insecticides, as a critical factor in bee declines. What’s worse, the agency is poised to approve yet another bee-harming pesticide.

Beekeepers are especially frustrated. As commercial beekeeper Steve Ellis told me last week:

Europe’s decision should be a wake up call for EPA. The agency has a responsibility to protect bees and the livelihood of beekeepers. Unless the agency takes steps to protect pollinators, they are putting agricultural economies and the food system at risk.

The case for greater bee protections has been building in Europe. Several recent reports, including one from the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), indicate that three neonicotinoid insecticides — imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam, produced by Switzerland’s Syngenta and Germany’s Bayer—pose an unacceptable hazard to honey bees.

Additionally, EFSA found that the industry-sponsored science — upon which regulatory agencies’ claim of safety have relied — are fatally flawed.

And yet EPA is still seemingly reluctant put protections in place for bees. Attempting to spur action, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety and Beyond Pesticides — along with over 25 beekeepers — filed an emergency legal petition with EPA last year, seeking an immediate halt to the use of clothianidin until adequate studies have been completed and safeguards put in place.

The agency denied the petition and is moving forward with a much slower process, continuing with its current review of the neonic — set to conclude in 2018.

Bad news from EPA

As if bees and beekeepers didn’t face enough challenges, EPA is now poised to add another systemic pesticide into the mix. Dow’s sulfoxaflor is a cousin of neonicotinoids, and impacts the same bee brain synapses (nicotinic acetylcholine receptors). It’s yet another systemic pesticide that would be used on a wide variety of crops like canola, cotton, citrus and vegetables.

Beekeepers are warning that this may be the worst year yet for bee losses. This is saying something, since they’ve reported losses of about 30% since 2006. Bad news for beekeepers, and bad news for crops like almonds that are reliant on bees for pollination. Earlier today, Jeff Anderson, another beekeeper — whose bees pollinate crops in California and Minnesota — put the situation he’s facing in stark terms:

“My operation started last spring with a high count of 3150 hives, today I have 992 alive, most in severely weakened condition.”

Pesticides are one of several factors — along with pathogens and nutrition — working together to threaten bee populations. But these pesticides are a known harm EPA can take steps to reduce. It is long past time the agency moves to protect bees, rather than introducing yet another bee-toxic pesticide onto the market.

Take action » Urge EPA to stand up for bees and beekeepers and keep a new bee-harming pesticide off the market. The public comment period closes February 12 – now is the time to reduce known harms instead of introducing new threats!

Earlier this week, while Lindsay Lohan’s latest legal woes were trending on Google News, an important study that got little attention in the media gave a big boost to Ken’s argument. A team of neurologists at the University of California, Los Angeles demonstrated an unsettling link between Parkinson’s disease and exposure to a fungicide, called benomyl, that was used for decades on a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and nuts before being discontinued in 2001. The UCLA team published its findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

Early symptoms of Parkinson’s, which afflicts millions, include difficulty walking, muscle tremors and trouble moving at a normal rate. As the disease progresses, people can develop behavioral and emotional problems, including dementia, memory loss, depression and hallucinations.

The UCLA study had three parts. First, the scientists showed that in a lab dish, benomyl damages or destroys neurons in the brain that produce dopamine, a neurotransmitter that brain cells use to communicate. Parkinson’s – a degenerative disease that afflicts millions – has been linked to cell damage in a part of the brain that produces dopamine.

Then the researchers tested benomyl on zebra fish, which are frequently used in neurological and other biological studies, and showed that the exposed fish lost large numbers of neurons – but only those that make dopamine.

More specifically, the study showed that benomyl blocks the action of a vital enzyme (aldehyde dehydrogenase, or ALDH) that prevents a naturally occurring toxin known as DOPAL from accumulating in the brain. Buildup of the toxin has been shown to damage neurons and increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s.

In the course of their work, the scientists also assessed the health of more than 1,000 people and found that those who lived or worked within 500 meters of locations where benomyl had once been used had a 200 percent greater chance of being diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

Scientific experts have not yet figured out the relative importance of genetics and the environment in causing the disease, but the new research indicates that “environmental factors almost certainly play an important role,” said lead author Arthur Fitzmaurice. “These can trigger the development of the disease, especially in those with genetic predispositions for Parkinson’s.”

DuPont, which manufactured benomyl, took it off the market in 2001 over health concerns after more than three decades of use in conventional agriculture. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists the pesticide as a possible human carcinogen, and it’s been the focus of several lawsuits, including one that awarded $4 million to a family whose son was born without eyes after his mother was exposed to high levels of the chemical in her work.

UCLA’s Fitzmaurice pointed out to EWG that the study produced some potentially good news for those living with Parkinson’s.

“The study reveals a new cellular mechanism … through which pesticides might be contributing to Parkinson’s risk in a human population,” he said. “This might prove to be a target for therapies to slow the progression of the disease by stimulating” activity of the enzyme ALDH.

Benomyl is the latest example of a pesticide that had been used for years with few, if any, concerns for human health, only to be found later to pose a potentially serious risk. Parkinson’s is one of the most debilitating chronic illnesses and afflicts between 500,000 and 1.5 million people in the U.S. alone, with approximately 50,000 new cases each year.

The UCLA team is now looking at a number of other pesticides in current use to determine if they could pose health risks like those linked to benomyl. Fitzmaurice said the group plans to publish those findings in the coming months.

For more on the UCLA study, please read the following write up published on the medical news site, News-Medical.net.

And to help you shop around pesticides in the supermarket, visit EWG’s online Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce.

This post originally appeared on Environmental Working Group’s Enviroblog.

Unfortunately, Lynas then went on to ignore the weight of scientific evidence (more on that below). He claimed that GE crop production is good for biodiversity and necessary to feed the world, that organic farming is bad, and that “there is no reason at all why avoiding chemicals should be better for the environment.” He then quickly slammed the door shut on public debate, pronouncing “discussion over.” Many of us in the global scientific community were left shaking our heads, bemused if disappointed in Lynas’ anti-science rhetorical flourishes.

Four excellent science- and evidence-based rebuttals to Lynas have since appeared, authored by University of Michigan evolution professor, John Vandermeer; Union of Concerned Scientists’ Doug Gurian-Sherman; Dr. Brian John of UK’s Durham University; and Earth Island Journal’s Jason Mark.

Less rigorous was the response of journalists at the New York Times, New Yorker, L.A. Times, Slate and the Economist, who essentially reprinted large swaths of Lynas’ speech, congratulating him on his “courageous” about-face, without bothering to investigate the veracity of any of his claims. In so doing, they’ve demonstrated their adroit use of the copy-paste function on their keyboards, but little else.

Separating evidence from rhetoric

Lynas went wrong in several areas. First, he claims that GE crops are critical to feeding the world. There are two fundamental problems with his reasoning: a) GE crops do not increase yield and b) focusing on productivity is not actually the way to solve world hunger.

Taking the second, larger point first: people are hungry because they cannot afford to buy food. They cannot afford food because they are poor, and their poverty is related to a host of complex political, social, economic and environmental factors. It turns out that things like global trade policies, land tenure, commodity speculation, corporate concentration ratios and biofuel mandates are more direct determinants of hunger than a crop plant’s intrinsic yield.

That is why the most comprehensive global assessment of agriculture to date — the World Bank and U.N.-sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scientific and Technology for Development (IAASTD), authored by 400 scientists and development experts from over 80 countries — highlighted the urgent need to undertake major shifts in governance, trade, finance and development policies in order to “feed the world.” This could be achieved, says the IAASTD, by rebalancing power in the food system, supporting small-scale farmers and advancing social equity.

The IAASTD — and numerous other U.N. reports — have also concluded that increasing investment in agroecological and diversified farming systems is crucial to meeting the closely interconnected climate, water, energy and food challenges of the 21^st century. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, agroecological farming can double food production within 10 years, while mitigating climate change and alleviating poverty.

And on a purely practical level, one of the most cost-effective and sensible ways to address global food needs is to reduce food waste. From 30-50% of food produced globally goes to waste, according to a report out this month from the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

In contrast, GE seeds were considered by IAASTD scientists unlikely to contribute to equitable and sustainable development or do much to reduce global hunger and poverty.

But does GE at least increase productivity?

Here too, GE seeds miss the mark. After 25 years of research, 14 years of commercialization and millions of dollars in public funding, GE has failed to deliver. GE crops neither increase yield nor provide nutritional benefits. U.S. land grant universities have even documented “yield drag” with losses of 5-10% in GE soy.

GE seeds sell pesticides

Lynas dismisses the notion that GE crops increase pesticide use. The reality is that herbicide-resistant GE seeds have driven enormous increases in pesticide applications over the past 16 years.

Virtually 100% of GE crops planted worldwide have been engineered to be used with herbicides or contain insecticidal toxins, or both, according to industry data. As superweeds and superbugs evolve resistance to GE crops and their associated pesticides, farmers resort to more chemical use, not less. This is happening in the U.S., India, China and South Africa.

The latest analysis of data out of Washington State University shows that GE crops have driven up overall pesticide use across the country, contributing to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use between 1996 and 2011. And last year alone, GE crops used 20 percent more pesticides on average than non-GE crops.

This is the pesticide industry’s dirty little secret: GE seeds are engineered to be the growth engine of the world’s biggest pesticide companies, not the green solution to the world’s food needs.

Will this change? Not anytime soon. Most of the “new generation” GE crops developed by Dow and Monsanto — and currently in the USDA pipeline awaiting agency approval—have been engineered for use with older and more hazardous pesticides like 2,4-D and dicamba. 2,4-D resistant corn alone is expected to drive a 25-fold increase in the use of 2,4-D on corn over the next six years, and weed scientists are predicting a new epidemic of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.”

In addition to the emergence of superweeds, pesticides drifting off-target to damage neighboring crops is a key concern among farmers. This is why the Save Our Crops coalition of conventional farmers objects to the new generation of herbicide-resistant GE crops, a fundamental concern powerfully stated by Indiana soybean farmer, Troy Roush, in the video below.

What about organic farming?

Lynas also claims that GE agriculture protects biodiversity and that organic agriculture is no better for people or the environment. Yet by definition, organic farming removes chemical pesticides from the environment, thereby protecting farmers, farmworkers and their families, rural communities and children (as well as workers at pesticide manufacturing facilities) who bear disproportionate risks from pesticide exposure. See any number of articles by my co-worker Kristin Schafer, who tracks the science documenting health impacts of pesticides. The literature on environmental harms of pesticides is likewise vast.

In terms of biodiversity, it is GE soy in Brazil and Argentina — not organic farming — that drives Amazonian deforestation, threatening the region’s fauna and flora. The IAASTD Latin America report cites damage to the Amazon, the Cerrado in Brazil and the Yungas forest in Argentina from the expansion of GE soybean plantations there, and calls for measures prohibiting the transfer of GE seeds among countries that are centers of genetic diversity for those crops.

Lynas goes on to accuse organic farmers of violating the rights and ability of GE farmers to produce their crops. In reality, it’s the other way around: GE production threatens both organic and conventional farms and rural livelihoods with chemical drift and genetic contamination.

Finally, while hunger is not a matter of scarcity, it is worth noting that organic, small-scale farming can feed the world. A comprehensive examination of nearly 300 studies worldwide shows that organic farms in developing countries outperformed conventional practices by 57%, and that organic agriculture could produce enough food, on a per capita basis, to provide 2,640 to 4,380 calories per person per day — more than the suggested intake for healthy adults.

An in-depth UNEP/UNCTAD report on organic agriculture and food security in Africa likewise concluded that organic farming provides one of the most robust solutions to that region’s food needs. For decades, cutting-edge research by the international Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), the Rodale Institute and the Organic Farming Research Foundation has spearheaded scientific progress in the field and continues to demonstrate organic farming’s high levels of water and land use efficiency.

Science & democracy

Science works best when done democratically; that is, in ways consistent with democratic values of transparency, accountability and participatory decision-making.

When Lynas concluded his speech, “I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. The GM debate is over. It is finished,” he rejected both science and democracy. That’s really too bad.

Fortunately, we have many genuine models of science and democracy in action. When professional scientists engage respectfully with farmer-scientists, amazing things happen. When rural communities engage in grassroots science — whether monitoring pesticide drift in California, evaluating predator-prey dynamics in Indonesia, or tackling cassava mosaic virus in the Congo — we all benefit.

It’s past time to move on from debunking empty arguments, and get back to the inspiring, creative work that so many are already engaged in: building vibrant food and farming systems and crafting smart policies, grounded in science and dedicated to the proposition that honesty, transparency and civic engagement matter.

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a ban on the use of bisphenol A, or BPA, in baby bottles and children’s cups. BPA is an estrogen-mimicking chemical that has been used in hard plastics, the linings of cans, food packaging, and dental fillings, even receipts–for which the Environmental Protection Agency is now investigating alternatives–for years. We’ve reported about the dangers of BPA on Civil Eats here, here, and here. This move essentially made official a practice that many manufacturers of baby bottles and cups already follow in response to growing pressure from consumers.

Questions of safety remain when it comes to the use of any plastic products that come in contact with our foods. The FDA ban is raising concern and creating headlines about what manufacturers will substitute in place of the BPA. A 2011 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that all plastics contain estrogenic activity (EA) and in some cases, those labeled “BPA free” leached more chemicals with EA than did BPA-containing products. The study’s authors write, “Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled—independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source—leached chemicals having reliably detectable EA, including those advertised as BPA free.”

EA interferes with our endocrine system, a complex signaling network that is made up of glands (the thyroid) as well as glandular tissue and cells within organs (testes, ovaries, pancreas, etc). Our endocrine systems use hormones that send signals to our various organs and tissues that work over minutes, hours, weeks, and years. The processes these hormones regulate include metabolism, growth and development, and sexual reproduction. As hormones travel in the blood to reach each body part, the specific molecular shape of each hormone fits like a key-in-a-lock into receptors on target tissues. Endocrine disrupting chemicals may interfere with, block, or mimic the action of our hormones. As a result, EA and endocrine disruptors have been linked in hundreds of studies to brain development problems, breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, learning and behavioral problems in children, early onset of puberty, and obesity.

Manufacturers are now flaunting their “BPA free” versions of products as though they are safe and free of toxins—but it turns out BPA is possibly just the tip of the iceberg. Bisphenol S, or BPS, is another chemical that manufacturers are using to replace BPA and it may be just as harmful. In a study this year in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers wrote, “As the evidence of the toxic effects of bisphenol A (BPA) grows, its application in commercial products is gradually being replaced with other related compounds, such as bisphenol S (BPS). Nevertheless, very little is known about the occurrence of BPS in the environment.”

In this study, the authors found BPS present in 16 types of paper products, including thermal receipts, paper currencies, flyers, magazines, newspapers, food contact papers, airplane luggage tags, printing paper, paper towels, and toilet paper. The thermal receipt paper samples contained concentrations of BPS that were similar to the concentrations of BPA reported earlier and raised alarm for some scientists. BPS was also detected in 87 percent of currency bill samples. The authors write that several other related compounds are also used to replace BPA: bisphenol B, bisphenol F, and bisphenol AF. BPA and BPS are found in high concentrations in canned foods, BPF has been found in surface water, sewage sludge, and sediments, and BPB was found in human serum in Italy. “Limited studies have shown that BPS, BPB, and BPF possess acute toxicity, genotoxicity, and estrogenic activity, similar to BPA,” the authors write, adding that, “The environmental biodegradation rates of BPS and BPB were similar to or less than those of BPA. Although considerable controversy still surrounds the safety of BPA, the potential for human exposure to alternatives to BPA cannot be ignored.” The researchers also note that people may be absorbing BPS in much larger doses—19 times more than the BPA they absorbed when it was more widely used.

Bruce Blumberg, professor of developmental and cell biology and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in an e-mail, “There are emerging data to show that BPS is an estrogen but relatively less on the other chemicals. Therefore, it is hard to say with certainty at the moment whether the BPA replacements lack estrogenic activity. BPA free means simply that—that the product is stated to be BPA free.”

I asked Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families if she was concerned about the substitutes being used in place of BPA. “We are very concerned that BPA could be replaced with products that are just as risky, or even more risky. The federal government is not doing what is needed to protect the American public, either in their regulation of BPA or any of these potential substitutes.”

But the FDA continues to insist that BPA is still safe. In a recent New York Times article, Michael Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods said that the agency, “has been looking hard at BPA for a long time, and based on all the evidence, we continue to support its safe use.”

Zuckerman added that part of the problem lies in the heavy influence that industry has on members of Congress and the FDA. “Whenever the FDA does something to improve patient safeguards, Members of Congress get lobbied by the industry involved and some of those Members pressure [the] FDA to back off,” she wrote in an e-mail. “This has happened for years but the last few years have been even worse than usual.”

At Mother Jones, Tom Philpott points out that the heavily monied interests behind BPA are none other than the chemical giants Dow and Bayer who produce the bulk of BPA. Frederick S. vom Saal, curators’ professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia and BPA researcher told me that BPA represents a $10 billion a year industry. It’s important to note that the recent FDA ban comes at the behest of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group that denies any negative health effects from BPA. Why would they have done this? “[The American Chemistry Council’s] petition to the FDA puts it plainly: ‘All Major Product Manufacturers Have Abandoned the Use of Polycarbonate’ (BPA). In other words: Go ahead and ban it—it’s already been phased out and a ban gives the appearance of strict oversight,” Philpott writes.

By creating the ban, the FDA at least acknowledges that babies and children should lessen their exposure to BPA. But what about the rest of the population? “BPA remains in millions of food and beverage containers that affect the BPA levels of pregnant women, children of all ages, and all adults,” Zuckerman wrote to me in an e-mail. “The impact on the developing fetus and young children, and on breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, are of particular concern to our Center. One study indicates that BPA may interfere with the effectiveness of chemo for breast cancer patients.”

The FDA should concede that if BPA is a risk for babies and children, it is most likely a risk to all of us. And what about the various substitutes that will be used for BPA and the numerous other toxins lurking in the plastics and other containers that package our foods and drinks? “FDA’s decision is a step in the right direction, but it is a baby step,” Zuckerman said. “They have done the minimum.” Blumberg added that the answers to all of these questions are complex. “We do not know nearly as much as we need to know,” he said. “I think that it is prudent to reduce our consumption of packaged foods of all sorts for a variety of reasons, including reducing exposure to contaminants from the containers.”

Photo: Baby with bottle, by Shutterstock

Today is Memorial Day, a day when many across the country will stop and remember the meaning of military service and the ultimate sacrifice so many gave—and are still giving. Remembering is what the day is all about. And yet sometimes we can do more than reflect. We can honor vets by listening when they speak, and acting at their urging. Right now, they’re talking–and they’re asking for our help on an issue important to every one of us.

Center for Food Safety strongly supports last week’s Vietnam Veterans of America appeal to President Obama on the hazards of 2,4-D resistant corn, developed by Dow Chemical Company, to dramatically increase use of the company’s toxic 2,4-D herbicide. Make no mistake, this is an effort rooted in profit and market dominance, not science. The Vietnam vets of this nation know all too well the price to be paid when the truth is hidden from sight.

As the VVA points out, Dow was a major manufacturer of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, phenoxy herbicides, which together comprised the infamous Agent Orange defoliant dumped in massive quantities on Vietnam to destroy rice fields and rainforests. Vietnam veterans and the Vietnamese people have suffered tremendously from exposure to this toxic biocide.  With increasing scientific study, the US government recognizes ever more diseases suffered by vets as being related to Agent Orange exposure.  Today, that list includes diabetes, neuropathy, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, liver dysfunction, chloracne, numerous cancers (e.g. leukemia, lung, prostate, and multiple myeloma), as well as birth defects (e.g. spina bifida) in the children of exposed soldiers.

The toxicity of Agent Orange is generally attributed to its dioxin contaminants. Though 2,4-5-T (banned since 1978) is the worse of the two chemicals, 2,4-D exposure has independently been associated with the deadly immune system cancer non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, hepatitis, lower sperm counts, and birth defects in the children of exposed applicators. 2,4-D is the seventh leading source of dioxin in the U.S., and this excludes dioxin emissions from factories that produce it. While dioxin levels in current 2,4-D are lower than in Agent Orange, a recent Australian study shows that today’s 2,4-D contains as much dioxin as it did twenty years ago, directly contradicting industry assurances to EPA that production improvements have reduced dioxin levels.

Such dishonesty will come as no surprise to Vietnam vets, who know better than anyone how little Dow can be trusted. Dow assured the U.S. military in 1963 that Agent Orange was safe, suppressing its knowledge that dioxins in Agent Orange compounds and their precursors had sickened production workers in Germany and the U.S.  In the same year, Dow changed its production process to boost output, despite knowing that this would sharply increase dioxin contamination. And it’s now a matter of public record that Dow, in the mid-1960s, sponsored secret dioxin testing on inmates of a Pennsylvania prison, even as the much larger-scale experiment with its Agent Orange was being conducted on U.S. soldiers and Vietnamese.

Approving crops engineered solely for the purpose of tolerating more of this toxic weed-killer should concern us all. Experts project that a widespread planting of 2,4-D corn will dramatically increase overall use of 2,4-D in agriculture.  Use of 2,4-D will sky-rocket from 27 million pounds at present to over 100 million pounds per year. And corn is just the tip of this health-imperiling iceberg. 2,4-D-resistant soybeans and cotton will increase usage still more. And where do you think that will end? A chemical quagmire, that’s where.

Our hope at Center for Food Safety is that President Obama will listen carefully to the Vietnam Veterans of America. If he does, he’ll find that U.S. vets are actually not asking him to do anything at all. They are asking him not to approve this risky crop. Not yet. Not until we know more. Not until science and the public have their chance to speak. After all, a smarter, more measured approach to virtually every issue is always the best answer. Had we walked that path in Administrations past, there would have been no organization called Vietnam Veterans of America in the first place.

Originally published by the Center for Food Safety

Last week, the National Academy of Sciences hosted a summit to discuss “superweeds,” or the widespread problem of herbicide-resistant weeds currently afflicting millions of farm acres across the United States.

Superweeds—the “weeds that man can no longer kill!”—have been in the news for several years. All across the Midwest and Southeast farmers have been photographed and filmed standing in fields surrounded by the giant plants. They bemoan the cost of pesticides and point to industrial rows of crops that don’t have a chance when up against feisty weeds that grow up to three inches a day.

Superweeds have been especially likely to appear alongside genetically engineered (GE) crops, which are engineered to withstand large amounts of pesticide and herbicide use. And these weeds show no sign of going away any time soon.

That’s why scientists and researchers from land-grant universities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and representatives from several industry and trade groups met at last week’s summit to strategize about the problem.

A few speakers boasted about the efficiency of modern-day farming and the fact that today’s agriculture requires fewer farmers on more acres. But missing from their analysis was the long list of consequences: from degradation of the environment, to health risks from increased chemical use and, ironically, superweeds themselves.

Those who did address the weeds tended not to see them as a result of that impressive modern agriculture. Take Michael Owen, an agronomist from Iowa State University, for instance. In his talk, he contended that superweeds are neither an herbicide problem nor a GE crop problem, per se, but a behavioral problem. This analysis puts the blame on farmers for overusing herbicides. Yet the resistance situation first arose when biotechnology companies pushed herbicides like glyphosate (or Roundup) on farmers as the silver bullet to weed management without educating them on the ramifications of their ubiquitous use. And the practice of using just one herbicide year after year would not have occurred if it weren’t for the aggressive promotion of the Roundup Ready line of GE crops (engineered to tolerate Roundup).

There was some talk of non-chemical solutions by Michael Walsh from the University of Western Australia, who spoke about that country’s serious problem with a weed that has developed resistance to several herbicides. Australian researchers designed a few different weed seed control methods that destroy the seed reserves, eliminating upwards of 95 percent of the seed before it is able to germinate. But it was made very clear by the U.S. farmers attending the summit that going back to traditional methods, like cultivation, would be tough. There was little mention of organic weed management techniques such as crop rotation or the use of cover crops.

But exhausting chemical tool after chemical tool in an arms race against herbicide resistant weeds is not only not sustainable, it’s not working. And despite the fact that chemical solutions are the cause of cross-resistance and multiple resistance in weeds, the need for more chemical solutions was still at the forefront of the discussion.

Strikingly missing from the conversation that day was any talk of the next round of GE crops now in the pipeline, like Dow’s 2,4-D corn and Monsanto’s dicamba soybean, which have both been designed to be resistant to more than one herbicide at once. A full 13 out of 20 crops in the queue awaiting USDA’s approval have what are called “stacked herbicide resistance traits.”

These crops, once approved, will likely result in the use of many more gallons of herbicides and the evolution of even more powerful superweeds that will be resistant to many different herbicides—making them harder and harder to manage. Formulating new varieties of crops to withstand applications of harsher chemicals may be business as usual for these scientists and the companies they work for, but it’s an approach that ignores the underlying issue.

The final speaker at the summit was Iowa State University President Steven Leath, who said he believed that using a “land-grant approach” involving public-private partnerships will help solve this complex problem. This approach is not surprising coming from Leath; Iowa State is known for its relationships with corporations (especially Monsanto), and its agronomy department received around half of its funding from private-sector donors from 2006 to 2010. Iowa State’s campus is even home to a Monsanto Student Services Wing in the main agriculture building.

The superweed problem is one that should be attacked with preventative strategies based in weed biology and independent, interdisciplinary creativity. But partnering with biotechnology companies will likely only result in biotech solutions.

We have the opportunity to see superweeds as a wake-up call and a strong argument for pulling agriculture off the chemical treadmill to which it is bound. But to do that, public research—free of private sector influence—must be funded in order to give farmers better alternatives and to shift the focus away from the current chemical arms race against weeds.

Originally published on Grist

A new coalition is trying to throw sand in the gears of industrial agriculture’s chemical treadmill. And this one just may have what it takes to slow it down. I’m referring to the fight over USDA approval for Dow AgroScience’s new genetically modified corn seeds (brand name “Enlist”), which are resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D.

This is part of biotech’s “superweed” strategy, by which they hope to address the fact that farmers across the country are facing an onslaught of weeds impervious to the most popular herbicide in use, Monsanto’s glyphosate or RoundUp (and in some cases impervious to machetes as well!). Of course, this is a problem of the industry’s own making. It was overuse of glyphosate caused by the market dominance of Monsanto’s set of glyphosate-resistant genetically engineered seeds that put farmers in this fix in the first place.

One of the older herbicides, 2,4-D is a pretty nasty chemical—it’s been linked to cancer, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver problems, reproductive effects, and shows endocrine disrupting potential—which is one of the many reasons farmers prefer the more “benign” glyphosate. In fact, on the basis of the scientific evidence, especially related to human cancers, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) several years ago to withdraw its approval for 2,4-D. Earlier this month, the petition was summarily denied.

So it’s interesting to see this new coalition’s opposition to 2,4-D getting so much traction so quickly. Perhaps it’s because the group—dubbed Save Our Crops—isn’t made up of environmentalists and sustainable agriculture types, but rather Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic conventional farmers and large food processors (and Organic Valley, the organic co-operative organization which is both a producer and a processor).

The basis of their concern isn’t so much the health effects, but the fact that their farms may end up as collateral damage from the increase in the use of 2,4-D that will occur if Dow’s seed is approved. After all, the use of glyphosate went through the roof once Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready seeds took over the marketplace. These farmers expect 2,4-D to follow the same path. (Rodale News estimates a 60 to 80 percent increase.)

The problem has to do with pesticide drift—an issue with many pesticides, but a particular problem with 2,4-D, which unlike glyphosate is highly volatile. While its volatility was in one context considered a strength, at this point even Dow itself acknowledges that it’s a concern. In an article on the battle over the new seed’s approval, The New York Times offers an illustration of what these farmers have to fear:

To Jody Herr, it was a telltale sign that one of his tomato fields had been poisoned by 2,4-D, the powerful herbicide that was an ingredient in Agent Orange, the Vietnam War defoliant.

“The leaves had curled and the plants were kind of twisting rather than growing straight,” Mr. Herr said of the 2009 incident on his vegetable farm in Lowell, Ind. He is convinced the chemical, as well as another herbicide called dicamba, had wafted through the air from farms nearly two miles away.

As explained by Rodale News, 2,4-D-resistant plants will alter the way farmers use the chemical, encouraging them to apply it later in the season to more kill weeds (you normally wouldn’t apply a herbicide on a field full of mature plants). This fact makes it particularly problematic since, as Rodale News put it:

… not only are humidity and temperatures higher, but also neighboring tomato plants are leafing out, making them most susceptible to the drift. If the chemicals don’t outright kill plants like tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants, peppers, and other favorites, they could cause severe twisting and other deformities to occur as the plants in the drift’s path grow, rendering the harvest useless.

Which is just what farmer Herr saw in his field. Indeed, it is tomato farmers who may be the most at risk. Rodale also reports on a study produced by scientists at Ohio State University, which simulated the effects of 2,4-D drift on tomatoes [PDF]:

Experts found that the migrating pesticide vapors sparked late bloom, which diminishes the marketable red part of the tomato and stimulated growth of unmarketable green growth, which can’t be sold. In fact, just tiny amounts—1/300th of what was applied to field crops—caused significant field loss on neighboring tomato farms.

Ohio researchers concluded that realistic drift from corn or soy fields treated with either dicamba or 2,4-D will result in a 17 to 77 percent reduction in marketable fruit for neighboring farms and gardens.

These are, of course, estimates from a simulation. But the farmers and processors behind Save Our Crops would rather not be the guinea pigs in the real-world version of this experiment.

For its part, Dow assures the USDA that its new version of 2,4-D doesn’t have the same volatility—and the company will “urge” farmers to use the new, branded version rather than the far less expensive generic version of 2,4-D that’s been on the market for decades. How reassuring.

Indeed that’s where I get worried. If I had to guess, I suspect that the USDA will approve Dow’s new seed but with restrictions on things like planting acreage and use of recommended formulations and so on (though there’s always the chance the agency will punt the final decision until after the election). In any event, restrictions are only as good as their enforcement, and the USDA doesn’t have an inspiring track record. Farmers have routinely violated planting restrictions on GM seeds in the past—while regulators have a history of acceding to industry’s demands to reduce the restrictions rather than enforce them.

The public comment period on the 2,4-D-resistant seeds ends today. According to the Center for Food Safety 365,000 people have already submitted comments to the USDA. An additional 143 farm, environmental, health, fisheries groups and companies will submit a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack expressing their opposition to the GMO seeds. Save Our Crops has also already submitted two petitions [PDF] while the consumer group Just Label It is sponsoring its own petition to protest USDA approval, so there’s still time for the public’s voice to be heard.

But the real fight appears to be between commodity farms who want a simple answer to the growing problem of superweeds and fruit and vegetable growers who don’t want to see their crops damaged as a consequence. The latter are often treated by the USDA as step-children while growers of the Big Five commodities—corn, soy, wheat, rice, and cotton—receive the overwhelming majority of federal farm subsidies.

I doubt that USDA approval of Dow’s new seed, if it comes, will be the end of the story. But it should tell us something that even some large conventional farmers are starting to get angry and scared by the direction industrial agriculture has taken.

Below is a video produced by Dow AgroScience advertising Enlist, or 2,4-D. Skip ahead to 2:35 to hear the company’s take on superweeds and to see some compelling images.

Photo: A still from a promotional video for the herbicide 2,4-D, which is being marketed as a solution for “superweeds” (picured), which have grown tolerant to other herbicides.

Originally Published on Grist

When it comes to the chemicals used in food packaging, there is much we still don’t know. After a recent U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) decision last month to not put further restrictions on bisphenol-A (BPA), a new report today in the Washington Post takes a closer look at studies that reveal that such endocrine-distrupting chemicals are not only ubiquitous, they might also be harmful at much lower doses than previously thought. 

The FDA allows around 3,000 chemicals, including BPA and phthalates–a family of chemicals used in lubricants and solvents and to make polyvinyl chloride pliable–at low doses, long considering them additives though they migrate from the packaging instead of being purposefully added by the food manufacturer. But these chemicals are notoriously hard to trace, and have not been studied for their cumulative effects.

“Finding out which chemicals might have seeped into your groceries is nearly impossible, given the limited information collected and disclosed by regulators, the scientific challenges of this research and the secrecy of the food and packaging industries, which view their components as proprietary information,” writes Freinkel, author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, who wrote this story in collaboration with the Food & Evironment Reporting Network. “Although scientists are learning more about the pathways of these substances–and their potential effect on health–there is an enormous debate among scientists, policymakers and industry experts about what levels are safe.”

What has scientists worried is the fact that endocrine disrupters like these interfere with the body’s natural hormone system. Animals studies on BPA, for example, have found that doses of the chemical below the FDA-approved threshold administered during critical stages of development can effect behavior, breast and prostate cells, and brain structure and chemistry. According to recent studies, around 90 percent of Americans have BPA inside their bodies.

Freinkel explains how plastic food packaging is a major source of these potentially harmful chemicals. Other studies have shown phthalates passing into food from processing equipment and food-prep gloves, gaskets and seals on non-plastic containers, inks used on labels–which can permeate packaging–and even the plastic film used in agriculture.

The report highlights an upcoming study that found a particular phthalate, called DEHP, in many of the 72 different grocery items evaluated. Studies have associated low-dose exposure to this chemical with male reproductive disorders, thyroid dysfunction, and subtle behavioral changes.

Last month, the FDA denied a petition to ban BPA, saying in a statement that while “some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans and the public health impact.”

You can read the full report here on the Food & Environment Reporting Network’s Web site, which also features additional reporting on the topic.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Dow’s 2,4-D corn, soon to be followed by 2,4-D soybeans and cotton, are the first of many new GE crops designed to launch American agriculture into a new era of increased dependence on more toxic pesticides, reversing decades of progress. Two-thirds of GE crops awaiting approval by USDA are resistant to one to three herbicides each, with many more in the longer-term pipeline. For instance, Monsanto has developed crops resistant to dicamba, a close chemical cousin to 2,4-D.

According to agricultural expert Dr. Charles Benbrook, 2,4-D corn will trigger an astounding 30-fold increase in 2,4-D use on corn by the end of the decade, assuming widespread planting. 2,4-D soybeans and cotton will boost usage still more. Yet USDA has provided no analysis of the serious harm to human health, the environment or neighboring farms that will result.

Farmers, women and children at greatest risk

Farmers are on the front line. While generally healthier than other Americans, farmers suffer higher rates of certain cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a cancer of the lymph nodes that kills 30 percent of those afflicted. Numerous studies in Sweden, Canada and by scientists at the U.S. National Cancer Institute have found that farmers who use 2,4-D and related herbicides are more likely to contract deadly NHL. While Sweden, Norway and Denmark have banned 2,4-D based on such studies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuses to act. Other studies link farmer 2,4-D exposure to greater risk of Parkinson’s Disease.

The rest of us may also be at risk. 2,4-D is known to be a hormone-disrupting chemical, which can affect critical developmental processes in very small amounts. Lactating rats fed low doses of 2,4-D exhibit impaired maternal behavior while their pups weigh less. Children of pesticide applicators in areas of Minnesota with heavy use of chlorophenoxy herbicides like 2,4-D had a disproportionately higher incidence of birth anomalies than in non-crop regions or where these herbicides were less used. 2,4-D is frequently detected in surface water, albeit at low levels.

Based on these and numerous other studies, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned EPA in 2008 to ban 2,4-D, and recently sued the Agency for its failure to respond. Meanwhile, the latest available data show that 2,4-D is still contaminated with low levels of extremely toxic dioxins, which may or may not be the cause of 2,4-D’s toxicity.

Chemical arms race with weeds

Farmers would have no interest in 2,4-D crops if there weren’t a raging epidemic of weeds resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant weeds evolved to infest millions of acres of cropland through massive, unregulated use of glyphosate on Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant soybeans, corn and cotton. This epidemic of “superweeds” has alarmed agricultural scientists, triggering a substantial increase in herbicide use, greater use of soil-eroding tillage operations, and a return to weeding crews hoeing hundreds of thousands of acres, dramatically increasing production costs. A National Academy of Sciences committee singled out glyphosate-resistant weeds as an issue demanding national attention, and a leading weed scientist warns they represent a threat to global food production.

As farmers struggle to contend with a problem that Monsanto assured them would never arise, Dow sees a golden opportunity, marketing its 2,4-D crops as a false solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds. Dow scientist John Jachetta excitedly announced in the Wall Street Journal ”a new era” and “a very significant opportunity” for chemical companies in 2,4-D and similar herbicide-resistant crops.

Far from solving the resistant weed problem, however, a recent peer-reviewed study by Penn State weed ecologists suggests that 2,4-D crops (along with Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant crops) will trigger an outbreak of still more intractable weeds resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D or dicamba, another salvo in the all-out “chemical arms race” between herbicide-resistant crops and weeds. Weeds resistant to multiple herbicides are already on the rise, prompting an Illinois weed scientist to warn that ”we are running out of options” to confront what is rapidly becoming an “unmanageable problem.” The Center for Food Safety made similar findings in a 2008 report and in Congressional testimony on resistant weeds in 2010. The Penn State study also outlines sustainable weed control techniques that could avert further weed resistance.

Crop damage from herbicide drift

The Penn State scientists also warn that the massive increases in use of drift-prone 2,4-D and dicamba accompanying resistant crops will threaten neighbors’ crops through drift. Soybeans, cotton, most vegetables, grapes and many other crops are damaged by very low levels of 2,4-D. Even now, 2,4-D drift is responsible for more episodes of crop injury than any other pesticide. Farmers agree. Iowa corn and soybean grower George Naylor was recently quoted in a Greenwire story, and speaks for many farmers who are concerned about 2,4-D corn:

“It’s a big turning point for agriculture,” Naylor said. “If they are going to keep going down this road by coming up with a quick fix to the problems they created in the first place, then the problems are just going to compound… My neighborhood and a lot of farm neighborhoods are just going to be sacrificed zones,” added Naylor… “There is going to be stuff in the air all the time.”

In fact, a new coalition of farmers and food processors–the Save Our Crops Coalition–is organizing to stop 2,4-D crops from concern over huge crop losses due to 2,4-D drift.

Impacts on endangered species

2,4-D drift and runoff will also impact wild plants and animals. Because it is such a potent plant-killer, 2,4-D can harm animals by killing the plants they depend on for habitat and food. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service have found that even now, 2,4-D is likely having adverse impacts on several threatened and endangered species, including salmon and related fishes, the California red-legged frog, and the Alameda whipsnake. USDA’s approval of 2,4-D resistant corn can only make matters much worse, likely placing many other species at risk.

Comment period ends April 27, 2012

If approved, millions of acres of 2,4-D corn could be planted as early as next year. USDA’s public comment period is open until Friday, April 27, 2012. Tell USDA to deny Dow’s petition to approve 2,4-D corn. Comments may be submitted to the agency through the Center for Food Safety’s action link or through Regulations.gov. For more information on 2,4-D corn, see our fact sheet and more extensive Food Safety Review.

Originally published on Huffington Post