Looking to the future, the multigenerational impact of agrochemicals

By:  Andrea Yoder

Dr. Paul Winchester

Honesty is the best policy, and honestly—I wish I weren’t writing this article.  As I’ve thought about this week’s topic and how this article might come together, I’ve had a whole mess of feelings ranging from mad to sad with a little bit of anxiety and overwhelm mixed in between.  The topic of this article spawns from last week’s newsletter where we reported some recent news highlights in the world of agriculture as featured in The Organic & Non-GMO Report.  One of the articles we mentioned from their most recent publication was one entitled “Toxic legacy: new science reveals generational harm of pesticides.”  The article reports on the work and observations of Dr. Paul Winchester, a pediatrician currently practicing in Indiana.  The introductory paragraph starts as follows: 

“When Paul Winchester, a pediatrician, moved to Indiana from Colorado in 2002, he noticed something disturbing—a high number of birth defects.  ‘I was used to the number of birth defects I should see in a community hospital, and I saw many more in Indiana,’ says Winchester, who is medical director of the Neonatal and Intensive Care Unit at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis.” 

Winchester started digging in to figure out the cause for his observations, and his research pointed him to the herbicide atrazine.

Atrazine has been widely used as a herbicide in agriculture for many years, especially in Midwestern states where corn and soy are major row crops.  If you take a look at the U.S. Geological Survey’s map of estimated atrazine use in the U.S. in 2015,  you’ll see some of the Midwestern states including Indiana, Illinois and Ohio are amongst the states with the greatest annual atrazine use.  Unfortunately, atrazine has a relatively long half-life and is not strongly absorbed by the soil, thus runoff from areas of use carries atrazine into groundwater, rivers and streams.    In Andre Leu’s book, The Myths of Safe Pesticides, he cites that “In lakes and groundwater, atrazine and its breakdown products are persistent, and can persist for decades.”  Why is this a problem?  Because atrazine is a known endocrine disrupter and can negatively impact human hormonal systems.

The article in The Organic & Non-GMO Report reports that recent research indicates that atrazine has epigenetic effects, meaning exposure to atrazine can cause changes to human DNA that can then be passed on to subsequent generations.  In September 2017, Winchester, along with a group of researchers, published the following research article on PLOS One:  “Atrazine induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease, lean phenotype and sperm epimutation pathology biomarkers.”.  If you are interested in the methods, statistics and further discussion of the observations made in this study as well as research that preceded this study, I encourage you to read the full research article.  The purpose of their study was to “investigate the potential that the agricultural herbicide atrazine may promote the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease in both male and female rats.”  Winchester’s group exposed the first generation to atrazine, but the three generations following did not have direct exposure.  What they found was that the third generation actually had more health problems than the earlier ones, suggesting that epigenetic changes to DNA caused by exposure to atrazine can be passed on to subsequent generations resulting in negative health outcomes.  In the article, “Winchester calls the discovery of the link between chemicals like pesticides and epigenetic changes leading to disease ‘the most important next discovery in all of medicine.’"

  

Winchester is also concerned that glyphosate, the most heavily used herbicide around the world, may also have multigenerational effects.  He has studied glyphosate exposure in pregnancy and, in one study, found that over 90% of women in the study had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine while pregnant.  Whereas atrazine ends up in our water supply, glyphosate is more likely to end up in the food supply.  Glyphosate residue has been detected in food samples ranging from snack foods to cereal as well as products containing corn and other grains to name just a few.  We’re eating it! 

Atrazine and glyphosate are just two of the chemicals Winchester has researched, but there are many more.  Here’s what Winchester has to say about them:  “Every one of the chemicals tested so far produces infertility, and the industrial world has reached the lowest level of fertility on record.  We are below replacement levels in most industrialized countries including the U.S.  This is looking at your own species extinction.”

I grew up in rural Indiana on our family farm where my dad was born, farmed with his dad and brother, and still farms with my brother.  In 1963, he and his father decided to start using atrazine and continued to do so until about 2000 when they stopped using it and switched to a different herbicide because the weeds they were trying to kill had developed resistance to atrazine.  Around 2000 they also started using glyphosate because one of the farms they were renting had some persistent giant ragweed and the landlord was putting the pressure on them to clean it up.  Herbicides were and still are used by the majority of farmers in the community I grew up in.  I don’t know the full extent to which I’ve been exposed to chemicals such as atrazine, but I fully remember the putrid smell of chemicals that were stored on one end of the shed and the area just outside that shed where they were mixed and the sprayer was cleaned out.  So when I read this article I do get chills down my back.  The people we’re talking about are my people.  It’s me.

Sadly, the multigenerational effect of most agrochemicals being used has not been formally studied.  However I’d like to point out that regardless of good research to document safety or harm, the chemicals have been and continue to be used.  We are all part of a large population study, one that is being conducted without proper consent.  If in fact there are multigenerational effects of exposure to chemicals such as atrazine and glyphosate, I fear the day we’re able to connect all of the dots and realize the final outcomes.  Sadly, once we understand the full extent of the impact, it may be too late to reverse the damage and many people will suffer the damaging impact on their health and well-being.  People in the community I grew up in have suffered from and died from a variety of cancers, including my own mother who died of breast cancer in 2009.  While it’s hard for me to piece together all of the facts, I suspect my mother was exposed to agrochemicals both as a child and as an adult.  She grew up in rural Michigan on a farm where we know chemicals were used in the 1960s.  While I am not sure what was used prior to that time, their farm was downstream from a Dow chemical plant that was, in my opinion, too close for comfort.  They sourced their water from a shallow well for many years.  Her two sisters preceded her in death, both with breast cancer.  Her mother lived into her 80’s, but battled breast cancer several times and had pancreatic cancer at the time of her death.  This leaves me suspecting that I’m not the first generation to be exposed to these chemicals, but more likely I may be the second generation.

I’m grateful for the knowledge I have now and feel that I am better equipped to make informed decisions about my environment, the water I drink and the organic food I choose to eat in order to minimize my exposure to toxic chemicals.  What I don’t understand is how the harmful effects these chemicals are having on our health and our environment can continue to be ignored.  I realize I’m not the only person who has experienced the loss of a family member to cancer or has dealt with other negative health consequences related to chemicals, but that’s an experience I wouldn’t wish upon anyone and feel an urgency to stop it from happening anymore!  This research is too close to home and is the reality that reminds me that none of us are immune to this problem.  Whenever I ask how these things can continue to be ignored, the infuriating answer I get always points back to money, profit and economics.  

What will it take for the scales to reverse when we value the preservation of human health and the health of our environment over the power of the mighty dollar?  Consumer and public demand for clean water and food is the change we need.  It’s up to all of us to make this happen.  Thank you for choosing to support organic agriculture and for feeding your families certified organic food.  That’s a start.

News Reports from The Organic & Non-GMO Report

By Richard & Andrea

We subscribe to a publication entitled The Organic & Non-GMO Report which is a monthly publication led by editor Ken Roseboro.  Roseboro has done extensive research, writing, and speaking about all aspects of genetically modified foods (GM/GMO) and their impact on society.  The mission of this publication is to “…provide information you need to respond to the challenges of genetically modified (GM) foods.”  We appreciate this publication as it helps us stay up-to-date on global issues related to GM foods and reports on current scientific research and provides expert reports on important issues related to GM production.  The most recent issue was packed with a lot of interesting information, so we thought we’d share a few highlights with you this week.  We highly encourage you to check out their website where you can read past articles about a wide variety of related topics and find more information about subscribing to their publication if you’re interested in staying abreast of developments in this area.

One of the things we appreciate about this publication is that they present the facts, openly and honestly.  As organic growers, we do not believe GMO foods and crops are good for humans, other creatures, the environment, etc.  It is hard to read some of their reports about the damaging impacts we’re seeing from the production of GM crops and the agrochemicals used adjunctively in their production.  While we need and want to be informed, sometimes it can be pretty depressing information to read about!  Another thing we appreciate about this publication is their focus on positive news as well, so lets start there.

One article highlighted the small Indian state of Sikkim, which made the bold move to go all organic and reject its country’s trend towards agrochemical agriculture systems that dominate Indian agriculture.  Fifteen years ago they decided to protect their population of 610,000 people by phasing out pesticide use and transitioning acreage to organic production “…due to rising cancer rates, polluted rivers, and infertile soil that accompanied industrial farming.”  They now have 190,000 acres that are certified organic!  Since making this transition, they have noticed improved health in their population and have doubled tourism in their area as visitors are drawn to their clean air, water and food they experience when they take farm vacations and eco-tours in the area.  They’ve also inspired the Indian government to designate $119 million to support other organic farmers in India and they report that Indian now has 5.6 million chemical-free farm acres out of 400 million total acres.  The other encouraging bit of information is that the demand for organic in India is growing 25% annually and “Two other Indian states are planning to go all-organic, along with Bhutan.”  This is an exciting and encouraging report!

Another exciting report featured in this month’s publication was about rice production and the positive developments a new production method is yielding.  It is estimated that about half of the world population relies on rice to meet 60-70% of their daily calories.  By the year 2050, it’s estimated that we will need 50% more rice to feed people.  Genetically modified rice production promised increased yields, but that has not happened.  This article also cited the detrimental impacts conventional rice production has on both environmental and human health.  There is now a grassroots rice growing method that is being spread around the globe.  It is called the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and is currently being used on 49 million acres around the world.  This system employs a different method of production that minimizes weed competition by more dense plantings of smaller seedlings.  This system also facilitates deeper root growth and fields are not flooded as they are in conventional production which creates an anaerobic environment that fosters populations of methane-producing bacteria.  This system has positive contributions towards mitigating climate change, and allows farmers to have a greater level of self-sufficiency as they’re able to produce enough food for their communities.  Additionally, this method of growing rice is demonstrating yield increases of 20 to 50 percent and sometimes as high as 100 to 200 percent.  It also has a 50% savings in water use, 30-50% reduction in chemical fertilizers and is building greater adaptability to climate conditions along with increased nutrient levels in the rice.  This article tells the story of how Lotus Foods, a California based company that imports rice, is working directly with organizations and businesses that support growers producing rice using this method.  Lotus Foods co-founder, Caryl Levine, was quoted as saying “Farmers know what to do, they know how to farm.  We need to give them the opportunity to adapt this method to their needs.  SRI provides economic, social, and environmental benefits just by changing the way people grow rice—not many things can do that.”

Back on the home front, there are some encouraging statistics about consumers in the United States.  According to the Organic Trade Association’s 2018 Organic Industry Survey, organic sales in the U.S. in 2017 were up 6.4% from the previous year, hitting a new record of $49.4 billion in sales.  Sales of organic non-food products also rose by 7.4% which is also a new record. 

They also reported on the findings of the Hartman Group’s Organic & Natural 2018 report which demonstrated that 46% of American consumers avoid GM foods and 97% of consumers are aware of GMOs, which is up from 50% in previous surveys.  Sixty-seven percent of consumers support mandatory GMO labeling and it’s clear that consumers are looking for greater levels of transparency and trust within the marketplace.  Forty-two percent of consumers looking to avoid GM foods look for the Non-GMO Project seal when they are making their food purchases.  This seal was developed by the Non-GMO Project, which is a nonprofit organization providing third-party verification for non-GMO food and products.  Their seal features a butterfly, which consumers have become increasingly more aware of and now rely on when making purchasing decisions.  “An independent study by Consumer Reports cites this label to be the only ‘highly meaningful’ label for consumers looking to avoid GMOs.”  (as cited at www.nongmoproject.org)

USDA's proposed GMO label

It’s encouraging to see that consumers are becoming more aware of GMO foods and products and are looking for greater transparency in their food system, something that is very important to us as producers.  This issue also included an article about the USDA’s proposed label for GMO foods.  The article was entitled: “Be real” USDA:  Smiley faces and complex QR codes do not give consumers GMO transparency.  Almost twenty years ago, participants in consumer focus groups conducted by the USDA looked at the question of whether or not GM food should be labeled and nearly all participants thought it should be labeled as such.  Some major food companies, including General Mills, Mars and Campbell’s, are labeling their products already, which is great because despite a GMO labeling law that was passed in 2016, there are so many flaws with the law and now the USDA is trying to change the way GMO foods are represented to the public.  They are proposing that GMO foods now be called “bioengineered” and be labeled with a smiley sun logo.  Consumers are not familiar with this terminology and some consumer advocacy groups believe this proposed label is “propaganda for the industry.”

There are many more interesting stories and reports we’d like to share from this recent publication, but we encourage you to seek out more information on your own.  There was one other very interesting article about the epigenetic changes being caused by exposure to agrochemicals.  This article features the work of Dr. Paul Winchester, the medical director of the Neonatal and Intensive Care Unit at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana, only about one hour away from where Andrea grew up and her family still resides.  His clinical observations and research are disturbing and demonstrate serious problems being caused by pesticide exposure that are changing the epigenetic expression of genetic material in subsequent generations.  We would like to investigate this information in greater detail and report on it in a future newsletter article, but highly encourage you to read this full article for yourself.  It is available on the non-gmoreport.com website.

While there are many battles to fight in the world of industrial agriculture, we’re encouraged by some of the stories we’ve highlighted here.  We encourage everyone to become more informed about what’s going on and continue to seek out and demand more transparency in our food system and support more sustainable methods of production.

“Kids on the Frontline”

Photo borrowed from Pesticide Action Network Website

By Andrea Yoder
     In May of this year, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN) released their report, “Kids on the Frontline:  How pesticides are undermining the health of rural children.”  The purpose of this report was to look at how pesticide exposure is impacting the health of children, specifically children in rural areas where agricultural pesticides are used. All children, regardless of where they reside, are vulnerable to pesticide exposure. Residues may be on their food and they may be exposed to applications of pesticides in schools, parks and even their own homes. Children in rural areas are also exposed in these ways, however they have additional exposure to pesticides in their environment through drift, water contamination and pesticides that may be brought into their homes on clothing of a family member who applies the chemicals to name a few.
     “…Since 1945, overall use of pesticides has grown from less than 200 million to more than 1.1 billion pounds of ‘active ingredient’ per year…”  Additionally, there has been a 289 percent rise in global pesticide sales between 2000 and 2010 with worldwide sales expected to climb from $44.2 billion in 2010 to $68.5 billion in 2017. The authors state:  “…we control pesticides through a system of registration and labeling, with a primary goal of getting products to market. The result?  Each year, more than 680 million pounds of pesticides are applied to agricultural fields across the country. This 2007 figure climbs to more than a billion when common non-agricultural pesticide uses are included.”  To this they respond with, “We believe this is too much. Ever-stronger science shows that even at low levels of exposure, many of these chemicals are harmful to human health—and children’s developing minds and bodies are particularly vulnerable. It is also increasingly clear that alternative, less chemical–intensive approaches to farming are not only viable, but would strengthen the resilience of agricultural production… Put simply, there is no need for our food and farming system to put our children’s health at risk from chemical exposure.”
     This report outlines some key findings about the connection between pesticide exposure and children’s health. We continue to see a rise in childhood health problems including autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as other developmental disabilities. “The number of ADHD diagnoses has increased an average of three percent every year from 1997 to 2006, and an average 5.5 percent per year from 2003 to 2009 for an overall rise of nearly 50 percent over 15 years.”  The CDC estimates one in every 68 children in the U.S is on the autism spectrum which represents a 123% increase in just ten years! Leukemia and brain tumors are now the most common types of childhood cancer with rates increasing between 40 and 50 percent since 1975. In many rural communities, the rates of these childhood morbidities are greater than the national averages. It’s important to recognize that children’s bodies are different. “Quickly growing bodies take in more of everything:  they eat, breathe and drink more, pound for pound, than adults…At critical moments of development, even very low levels of pesticide exposure can derail biological processes in ways that have harmful, potentially lifelong effects.”  That final statement, “lifelong effects” is a strong one.
     You should know, Richard and I take this topic and those related to it very seriously. Partly because we believe fully in farming organically because it is a safer option, but also because we were both “kids on the frontline.”  Richard grew up on a cattle farm in South Dakota. His job as a teenager was to spray 2,4-D on the thistles in the fields. His spray protective gear consisted of a pair of leather gloves.  I grew up on a dairy farm in Indiana where my family and our neighbors used atrazine and later glyphosate on our fields and those throughout our community. When I look at maps of the U.S. that depict pesticide use and amounts across the country, Indiana is always a solid color indicating high levels of use. It makes me shudder and my heart skips a beat…not out of joy and excitement, but more of panic, anger and a feeling of urgency. We often talk about the potential of a seed. When we receive a seed into our care it is our responsibility as farmers to do everything we can to help that seed reach its full potential. At any point along the way our choices can either make a positive or a negative impact on the final outcome. I think it’s very much the same with children. It’s our responsibility to pave the way for the future generations. The bottom line…how long are we going to let history continue to repeat itself before we collectively say “ENOUGH!”
     Unfortunately our current system of agriculture is controlled largely by multinational entities who have their hands on all aspects of the production system from selling the seeds to the chemical inputs as well as setting the research agendas at public institutions. “Not surprisingly, these same corporations also hold significant sway in the policy arena, investing millions of dollars every year to influence voters and policy makers at the local, state and federal levels…The result is a system of food and farming that serves  the interests of these corporations well. It does not, however, adequately protect public health or serve the common good.”  The introduction of GMO seeds and the pesticides that go along with them was supposed to lead to less chemical use, but it is clear this is not the case. My own father made this observation on his farm. “The more chemical we used, the more weeds we had and the more chemical we had to use.”
     So where do we go from here?  PAN’s recommendation is this: “The best way to protect children from pesticide harms is to dramatically reduce the volume of use nationwide. We believe this shift is both achievable and long overdue. The burden of protecting children from dangerous chemicals cannot rest with individual families; policy change is required.”  First, reduce overall pesticide use by making this a national goal. Once this goal is in place, policy makers can work towards implementing strong policies to help us achieve this goal. Secondly, we need to prioritize action on pesticides most harmful to children by phasing out the “worst” chemicals, creating protective buffer zones and ensuring healthy school lunches made with organic food. Lastly, as a nation we need to “provide significant and meaningful support, incentives and recognition for farmers stepping off the pesticide treadmill. These commonsense measures are both ambitious and achievable. The current, continuous increase in pesticide use ignores accumulating scientific evidence of human health harms. This is unacceptable.”  They conclude their report with this statement:  “It will take strong public pressure to make the significant changes needed, but the time is ripe to muster the political will to build a truly healthy, thriving food and farming system.”

     In the meantime, it’s important to remember we can be that public pressure. Our individual choices can add up to collective change. The choices we make in our own households and communities bring strength to this big picture. Increasing our awareness of our environment and making choices for our own health by choosing organic food, safer means of lawn care, household pest control, and advocating for non-toxic management of public green spaces, etc. These are just a few things we can do as individuals. If you’d like to read this report for yourself, it can be downloaded from www.panna.org and is complete with all cited resources.

Silent Spring: Part 1

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz

Bee & Strawberry Blossom

     On May 19, the White House released the National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators, a move that has been regarded by many as a groundbreaking step towards acknowledging and mobilizing action around rapidly declining pollinator populations within North America. The importance of setting a national strategy to guide the protection, restoration, and enhancement of pollinator habitats is largely undisputed among scientists and others operating within conservation circles. However, critics have drawn attention to a selection of key considerations that appear to have been left out of the national plan. Primarily, questions surrounding pesticide use—including that of glyphosate (more commonly known as Roundup) and systemic insecticides like neonicotinoids, which have been directly linked to the decline of bee and other wildlife populations—and pesticide mitigation strategies remain untouched.
     This week marks the beginning of a new series in which we will consider the implications that these and other agricultural inputs have had on our environment and the life it supports, examining not only the plight of our crucial pollinator populations, but also that of a variety of other beneficial members of our ecosystem, such as songbirds, moths, butterflies, and insects. Along the way, we will also consider what these inputs mean for human health. In this first article, we begin by looking at pollinators and other “beneficials,” exploring their services and ultimately addressing why we should be concerned about their imperilment. The second and third articles will consider wildlife habitats and the implications wrought by the use of neonicotinoids and glyphosate. Throughout this discussion, we will bring in existing research on these inputs--focusing on a selection of both American and European-led studies. Safety trials and testing will be the focus of the fourth article. After considering the U.S.’s tendency to forego basing its actions on the precautionary principle, we’ll also discuss the extent to which the environmental and health implications of neonicotinoids and glyphosate have been scrutinized. Lastly, in the fifth and final article, we’ll bring everything together and consider the numerous short- and long-term obstacles our North American pollinator and other wildlife populations are facing, as well as examples of localized action (such as Portland’s City Council’s recent success in passing an ordinance banning the use of neonicotinoids) aimed at protecting these vital members of the earth’s environment. By the end of this series, it is our hope that we will have contributed in some way to your understanding of this most pressing issue.

Butterfly & Bee with Echinacea Flower

     The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation recognizes pollinators as “an essential part of both productive agriculture and a healthy environment,” and researchers have consistently estimated that two-thirds of the world’s crops depend upon animals for pollination services. Following their initial undertakings in the 1980s (see Southwick and Southwick), efforts aimed at measuring the economic value attached to pollinators have advanced tremendously, resulting in the development of dynamic, highly sophisticated models. Though estimates vary from source to source, researchers largely agree that the annual economic contribution of pollination services measures in the billions. According to the Office of Science and Technology, for example, pollination services provided by honey bees alone contribute an average of US$15 billion in value to agricultural crops each year. Earlier research by Roubik, however, who examined the pollinators of 1,509 cultivated plant species, found that while bees were involved in the pollination of 72.2% of those plant species surveyed, the honey bee only contributed pollination services to 15.5%. This finding suggests that taking into account the pollination services provided by the entire population of native and non-native bees—not just honey bees—would yield a number much larger than US $15 billion.
     In addition to pollination, bees and other wildlife provide an array of beneficial services to the environment and, by extension, to humans. As Nabhan and Buchmann have noted, over the course of any given day these members of our ecosystem “collect and redistribute foodstuffs, then scatter their nitrogen-rich waste products” over the landscape. Insects in particular play a critical role in the biogeochemical cycling of these and other nutrients--aerating the soil, improving tilth, and enhancing water retention capacities. Dung beetles, for instance, have been introduced into agricultural landscapes across parts of Hawaii, Australia, and the southern U.S. due to their valuable contributions to manure decomposition. Meanwhile, bats and birds provide seed dispersal services while also acting as population regulators, consuming multitudes of insects that are often considered pests. Bats in particular have gained an increasing amount of recognition for these services, as interesting research has emerged from the University of Michigan detailing the huge benefit they have had on organic coffee reservations in Mexico. Taking advantage of what is essentially a free service, Harmony Valley Farm maintains a woody barrier of willows in between many of our fields. These willows provide—among other things—a habitat for birds, which then assist us in managing flea beetles and other common agricultural pests. The Xerces Society reports that such integrated pest management techniques have been given a combined value of US $4.5 billion per year. And finally (but by no means exhaustively) these animals also serve as integral parts of various cultures, work to control erosion and regulate climate, and offer myriad opportunities for recreational activities (see Wojcik).

Bee enjoying a melon flower

     While we could write volumes about the importance of these beneficial creatures, this should serve as a basic outline of their crucial role within our food system and within the environment more broadly. As Moisset and Buchmann so poignantly remark, the world we know would cease to exist if it weren’t for the services pollinators and other animals provide. However, many of these invaluable members of the earth’s ecosystem are facing threats at an increasing and expanding rate. Last year alone, beekeepers throughout the U.S. reported losing approximately 40% of their colonies, and in the last 20 years, the North American monarch population has declined by 90%. As Nabham and Buchmann caution, without critically examining and changing our management practices, “we will lose both economically...and ecologically valuable interactions between plants and animals, some of which have taken millennia to develop.” In our next article, we will begin to unpack a few of these management practices that are referred to above—beginning with the emergence, application, and subsequent implications of neonicotinoids on the environment and on wildlife habitat specifically.

Part 2 of the series can be found here: http://www.harmonyvalleyfarm.blogspot.com/2015/06/silent-spring-part-2-rise-of.html

Sources Used
Code, A. (2015, April 1). Portland bans insecticides linked with pollinator declines. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Retrieved from
http://www.xerces.org/2015/04/01/portland-bans-insecticides-linked-with-pollinator-declines

Holdren, J.P. (2015, May 19). Announcing new steps to promote pollinator health. Office of Science and Technology. Retrieved from /https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/05/19/announcing-new-steps-promote-pollinator-health

Jepsen, S., Schweitzer, D.F., Young, B., Sears, N., Ormes, M., & Hoffman Black, S. (2015, March). Conservation Status and Ecology of the Monarch Butterfly in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NatureServe-Xerces_monarchs_USFS-final.pdf

Moisset, B., & Buchmann, S. (2011, March). Bee basics: An Introduction to Our Native bees. Retrieved from /http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5306468.pdf

Nabhan, G.P., & Buchmann, S.L. (1997). Services provided by pollinators. In G.C. Daily (Ed.), Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 133-150). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Southwick, E.E., & Southwick, L. (1989). Estimating the economic value of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as agricultural pollinators in the United States. Economic Entomology, 85(3), 621-633.

University of Michigan. (2008, April 7). Bats play a major role in plant protection. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403140921.htm

Wojcik, V. (2013). Pollinators 101. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://pollinator.org/nappc/PDFs/4-%20Vicki%20Wojcik-2.pdf