Silent Spring #5- Reflections on the Precautionary Principle

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz
After spending the last several weeks exploring the implications that pesticides like neonicotinoids and glyphosate have on our pollinators and other beneficials, this week we bring the precautionary principle into the conversation. Now more than ever, we can be brutally honest and ask ourselves: how did we get here?

The precautionary principle (PP) was first formulated and invoked in the 1980s, primarily through the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Its basic tenant mandates that: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” (Raffensperger, 1998). In the event that this is true, the burden of proof falls to those who endorse and promote the activity, not the general public. For example, in accordance with the PP, instead of waiting until people become sick, the responsibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to extend to the public a reasonable expectation that we are shielded from danger. An informed, transparent, and democratic process must accompany the application of the PP, and the possibility of taking no action (as in, not moving forward with the marketing, sale, and widespread use of a potentially harmful pesticide) must be given equal weight when considering the range of alternatives (Raffensperger, 1998).

Unfortunately, as we touched on in our earlier conversation about glyphosate, the FDA is often presented with industry studies—studies that are conducted entirely by corporations like Monsanto and Dow Chemical Company and that are, apart from FDA review, classified. By attaching a commercial-in-confidence label to these reports, corporations manage to side step having to offer up their studies for review and assessment by external scientists, researchers or even the general public—groups who are less likely to be burdened by any conflicts of interest (Leu, 2014). As the Union of Concerned Scientists has noted, “By creating obstacles to independent research on its products, [corporations like] Monsanto make it harder for farmers and policy makers to make informed decisions that can lead to more sustainable agriculture” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2012).

In the U.S., we depart starkly from Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others who tend to subscribe to the notion that it is better to prevent damage than to repair it. As Mark Bittman has commented, “We ask not whether a given chemical might cause cancer but whether we’re certain that it does” (Bittman, 2015). For an interesting contrast, let’s take the European Commission, which, in 2013, voted to impose a two-year ban on the use of certain neonics. Faced with incomplete data and uncertainty as to whether neonics are irrefutably related to the decline of bee populations, the European Commission erred on the side of caution in imposing the ban. The U.S., on the other hand, is still reviewing the evidence. According to Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA is allowing science to inform the regulatory actions they do and do not take. Operating in this manner allows them to “make sure that [they] make accurate and appropriate regulatory decisions as opposed to [doing] things that could lead to meaningful societal cost without any benefit whatsoever” (Plumer, 2013). As Plumer has commented, where the European Commission is siding with the environment on this one, the U.S. is clearly letting economic considerations take center stage. “It’s still not clear that neonicotinoids are to blame, and pesticides are a billion-dollar industry, so regulators are moving slowly in setting restrictions” (Plumer, 2013).

Unsurprisingly, there are many in the U.S. who question the usefulness and the practicality of the PP. These critiques primarily fall in line with the question of weighing risks. Michael Specter, longtime staff writer at The New Yorker, insists that we “…have to be aware of blindly invoking the ‘precautionary principle’” (Specter, 2015). After all, risk is subjective and safety is difficult to prove. But when we really get down to it, what truly needs protecting here? The economy, silly! As we know (and as we can deduce from Mr. Jones’ comment above), the pesticide industry is a billion-dollar entity and in the U.S., we’re hooked on industrial agriculture, quick fixes and cheap food. All of these things are intimately tied to the convenience that comes with agro-chemicals. To move away from pesticides like neonics and glyphosate would be to unravel the model of agriculture we’ve worked so diligently to put in place since chemical fertilizers first appeared on the scene after World War II and Earl Butz so tenderly cooed, “Get big or get out” (Philpott, 2008).


Over 20 years ago, Farmer Richard spent some time in Holland. During this time, he met with several Dutch farmers, a majority of whom grew vegetables in greenhouses using hydroponic methods. They recounted to Richard that some months before, they had noticed a decline in the aquatic life and, by extension, the water birds that lived near and fed from the canals that traversed their region. The farmers quickly traced the problem back to their hydroponic systems—the water that was being discharged was making its way into the canals, and it was taking the farmers’ fertilizer and other chemicals along for the ride.

Despite being competitors in the same marketplace, these farmers came together to collectively recognize the problem and identify a solution. Though the cost was considerable, the farmers decided that the most effective solution would be to install recycling systems, which would work to clean the discharged water. Driven by the conviction that making this change was the right thing to do, and having faith that consumers would be willing to pay a few cents more for their produce, the farmers invested in the necessary infrastructure. Before long they began to notice that, in the absence of polluted water, the canals’ rich aquatic life had begun to rebound, along with other valuable species like birds.

This “do the right thing” mentality and attitude made a lasting impression on Farmer Richard—one that he has carried with him over his many years of farming. Where the Dutch farmers recognized the need for and ultimately embraced change, many farmers in our country tend to stick to the status quo—despite the fact that we need to adjust the overarching principles that drive large-scale conventional agriculture. As Farmer Richard has noted, here we are more likely to see farmers banning together in opposition to change. In advocating for “right to farm” laws (often with backing from the Farm Bureau), it becomes less likely that farmers will have to take a serious look at and acknowledge the detrimental impacts some of their farming practices are having on the health of their families and friends, employees, pollinator helpers and their own land.


In reflecting on our current state of affairs—our country’s ongoing dependence on pesticides and our populace’s relegation by the FDA to the de facto status of guinea pigs—I found this commentary by Mark Bittman (2015) particularly appropriate: “We don’t need better, smarter chemicals along with crops that can tolerate them.” Rather, Bittman argues that what we truly need is fewer chemicals and a heavy infusion of agroecology—intercropping, crop rotation, organic fertilizers, cover crops and other methods that are ecologically informed, environmentally safe, and demonstrated to be economically beneficial.
We should hold tightly to this image, as a future reality to strive for. In the meantime, however, at a time when our regulatory bodies are slow to take preventative, protective action on our behalf, we can use our own knowledge and understanding in deciding whether or not to apply the precautionary principle on a personal level, a household level or, as we’ll see next week, on a city-wide level….because it’s the right thing to do.

References

Bittman, M. (2015, March 25). Stop making us guinea pigs. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/stop-making-us-guinea-pigs.html?_r=0

Leu, A. (2014). The myths of safe pesticides. Austin, TX: Acres U.S.A.

Philpott, T. (2008, February 8). A reflection on the lasting legacy of 1970s USDA Secretary Earl Butz. Retrieved from http://grist.org/article/the-butz-stops-here/

Plumer, B. (2013, May 3). Why are bees dying? The U.S. and Europe have different theories. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/03/why-are-bees-dying-the-u-s-and-europe-have-different-theories/

Raffensperger, C. (1998). The precautionary principle: A fact sheet. Science & Environmental Health Network. Retrieved from http://www.sehn.org/Volume_3-1.html

Specter, M. (2015, April 10). Roundup and risk assessment. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2012). Eight ways Monsanto fails at sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/eight-ways-monsanto-fails.html#.VcoKzzBViko

Silent Spring #4 - Glyphosate-Roundup's Best Friend Part 2

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz

This week, we’ll keep our attention squarely focused on glyphosate, the active ingredient in commonly used herbicides like Roundup. While we considered the potential as well as the demonstrated implications glyphosate has on human health in the previous article, this week we’ll explore what glyphosate’s widespread proliferation has meant for animal life and for our environment in general.

Bee in Tomatillo field.

Thirty years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that glyphosate might be a cancer-causing agent. By 1991, however, the agency had reversed its stance, citing—rather ironically—the same study on which it had based its original, precautionary decision. Fast-forward to March 2015 and this study has once again found itself in the crosshairs, as a 17-member panel of researchers compiled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed it as supporting evidence in its declaration of glyphosate as a human carcinogen.

In exploring glyphosate’s potential as a human carcinogen, IARC panelists examined circumstances under which glyphosate might cause cancer. While Monsanto and others have pointed to a preponderance of negative studies, the IARC stands firm in its insistence that even a handful of positive studies—those that suggest there is a linkage—can justify naming a substance as hazardous. In the case of this highly cited study, three of the 50 mice exposed to a specified amount of glyphosate developed an unusual type of kidney cancer. According to Dr. Aaron Blair, a retired National Cancer Institute epidemiologist and chairman of the IARC researchers, “that type of tumor is rare…they literally don’t occur, but they occurred when rodents were dosed with this stuff” (Pollack, 2015).

Researchers’ sights are not solely set on understanding the connection between glyphosate exposure and cancer, however. In general, the primary question guiding many is more broad and centers on understanding the potential health effects of low dose exposure over an extended period of time. This is a question we do not yet have an answer to. Yet as studies continue to develop—especially longitudinal studies—we may begin to put more of the puzzle pieces into place. In Germany, for instance, researchers found glyphosate in the urine of dairy cows, rabbits and humans at levels ranging from 10 to 35 parts per million (ppm) (Krüger et al., 2014). Recall from our discussion last week that chemicals like glyphosate are biologically active at parts per billion (ppb) levels (Hemmelgarn, 2015). Upon dissection, the tissues of each cow’s kidneys, liver, lungs, spleen, muscles and intestines were found to contain similar amounts of glyphosate residue as their urine. As Leu (2015, p. 91) explains, “this means that glyphosate is not being passed through urine without affecting the organism, and that meat and dairy are an additional source of glyphosate for humans.”

Bee in strawberry blossom.

A number of studies have also documented the various ways in which glyphosate has resulted in teratogenicity (birth defects) in animals. In 2003, researchers found that of those tadpoles exposed to glyphosate at rates commonly found in the environment, 55 percent experienced deformities to their tails, skulls, mouths, eyes and vertebrae (Lajmanovich, Sandoval, & Peltzer, 2003). Meanwhile, Dallegrave et al. (2003) found that rats that were exposed to glyphosate produced offspring that were more likely to have skeletal abnormalities. Perhaps most significantly, a 2010 study demonstrated the ways in which glyphosate actually causes teratogenicity (Paganelli, Gnazzo, Acosta, López, & Carrasco, 2010). Paganelli et al. found that at levels as low as 0.5 ppm, glyphosate is able to disrupt the retinoic acid signaling pathway—a crucial biochemical mechanism. All vertebrates (yes, that includes humans) use this mechanism in order to ensure that bones, organs and tissues develop at a specific time and in the correct place within embryos. If malformations begin to occur, the mechanism enables corrective action. Disrupting this mechanism is akin to scrambling a motherboard—essentially, signals may be sent at the wrong time, resulting in the incorrect formation of organs and tissues and leaving malformations uncorrected.

Much like neonicotinoids, research suggests that glyphosate also has sub-lethal impacts on honeybees. Honeybees that were fed sub-lethal doses of glyphosate spent more time—and more often took indirect paths—returning to their colonies. As the authors note, the navigation of these honeybees appears to be impacted by consuming concentrations of glyphosate that are commonly found in agricultural settings—a factor that may have “long-term negative consequences for colony foraging success” (Balbuena et al., 2015).

Bee in melon blossom.

Environmentally speaking, glyphosate residues—primarily glyphosate’s degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)—have been detected in soil, air, surface water and seawater. Studies show that these residues persist and accumulate over time with ongoing agricultural use (Leu, 2015). While glyphosate attaches firmly to soil initially, these particles eventually migrate throughout the environment until they finally dissolve in water (Grossman, 2015). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently sampled a collection of rivers, streams, ditches and wastewater treatment plant outfalls in 38 states. Their findings revealed that a majority of those waterways tested contained glyphosate residues, as did 70 percent of rainfall samples (Grossman, 2015).

Though glyphosate’s weed-killing capabilities have had a number of major environmental impacts, one has received a great amount of attention as of late: the decimation of milkweed plants.  As the usage of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready crops have proliferated throughout the Midwest, the application of Roundup has wiped out enormous tracts of this plant, which serves as the monarch caterpillar’s sole source of food (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2012). In the last 20 years, it is estimated that the North American monarch butterfly population has declined by 90 percent. This decline coincided with the loss of over 165 million acres of habitat—owing primarily to the pervasive use of glyphosate (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently conducting a review to determine whether to place the North American monarch population under Endangered Species Act protection. Tierra Curry, a senior researcher with the Center for Biological Diversity, believes that this is the “most powerful tool” we can leverage to save America’s monarch population (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2014).
In agricultural applications, glyphosate has been touted as a tool that will ultimately assist in reducing pesticide use, as Roundup ready crops will theoretically thrive with fewer applications of only one herbicide throughout the growing season. However, as many conventional farmers have come to rely almost exclusively on Roundup year-in and year-out, weeds that have been able to survive have spread their seeds. Now, what we’re left with is an evolutionary inevitability—Roundup resistant weed species. Facing this new dilemma, agro chemical companies are looking to develop the next GM varieties of corn and soybeans that can withstand chemical formulations like those that make up 2,4-D and dicamba, which can be described as potentially more dangerous than glyphosate (Bohnenblust, Vaudo, Egan, Mortensen, & Tooker, 2015). Unsurprisingly, this has been embraced as a “new era,” representing “a very significant opportunity” for chemical companies like Dow Chemicals (Johnson, 2013).

We opened our first Silent Spring article with news that The White House had taken an historic step in revealing the National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Investing in the protection, restoration and enhancement of pollinator habitats is a critical piece in proactively responding to the rapid decline of various pollinator populations within North America. In a similar vein, designating North American monarchs as an endangered species would, in theory, work to protect them and increase their odds of long-term survival. However, without a rigorous plan to curtail the use of harmful pesticides like neonicotinoids and glyphosate—classes of compounds and chemicals which we now know more than ever are undeniable points of concern for the health of humans, animal life and our environment more broadly—these efforts may ultimately be for naught. Even with the establishment of widespread tracts of native prairieland, pollinators and other beneficials will continue to be exposed to these harmful chemicals for the simple fact that they are not sedentary organisms. They move. They pollinate. As Dr. May Berenbaum says, “pollinators are [a]…keystone species. You know how an arch has a keystone? It’s the one stone that keeps the two halves of the arch together…If you remove the keystone, the whole arch collapses” (PBS Nature, 2007).




Next week, we’ll turn our attention to the precautionary principle and how it has—or has not—been applied in relation to the adoption and widespread application of such substances as neonicotinoids and glyphosate.

References

Balbuena, M. S., Tison, L., Hahn, M., Greggers, U., Menzel, R., & Farina, W. M. (2015). Effects of sub-lethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation. The Journal of Experimental Biology. doi: 10.1242/dev.117291.

Bohnenblust, E.W., Vaudo, A.D., Egan, F., Mortensen, D.A., & Tooker, J.F. (2015). Effects of the herbicide dicamba on non-target plants and pollinator visitation. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, online 17 July.

Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F.D., Coelho, R.S., Pereira, J.D., Dalsenter, P.R., & Langeloh, A. (2003). The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicology Letters, 142(1-2), p. 45-52.

Grossman, E. (2015, April 23). What do we really know about Roundup weed killer? National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/

Hemmelgarn, M. (2015). Little things, big impacts. Acres, U.S.A.

Johnson, N. (2013, October 14). Roundup-ready, aim, spray: How GM crops lead to herbicide addiction. Grist. Retrieved from http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-lead-to-herbicide-addiction/

Krüger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrödl, W., Hoppe, H., Lutz, W., & Shehata, A. (2014). Detection of glyphosate residues in animals and humans. Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, 4(2).

Lajmanovich, R.C., Sandoval, M.T., & Peltzer, P.M. (2003). Induction of mortality and malformation in Scinax nasicus tadpoles exposed to glyphosate formulations. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 70(3), p. 612-618.

Leu, A. (2015). Glyphosate under the gun: World Health Organization weighs in. Acres U.S.A.

Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., & Carrasco, A.E. (2010). Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 23(10), p. 1586-1595.

PBS Nature. (2007). Silence of the bees.

Pleasants, J.M., & Oberhauser, K.S. (2012). Milkweek loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6(2), 135-144.

Pollack, A. (2015, March 27). Weed killer, long cleared, is doubted. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/energy-environment/decades-after-monsantos-roundup-gets-an-all-clear-a-cancer-agency-raises-concerns.html?_r=0

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. (2014). Monarch butterfly moves toward endangered species act protection [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.xerces.org/2014/12/29/monarch-butterfly-moves-toward-endangered-species-act-protection/