Silent Spring #6-The Challenge

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz

On the left: Mustard greens left to flower for beneficials.
Upper right: Harvest lane planted with rye & clover.
Lower right: Bumblebee on flowering vetch.

Well, here we are folks—at the end of our Silent Spring series. As you look back and reflect on what we’ve done here—the topics we’ve explored and the questions we’ve asked—I hope that you feel two things: empowerment and motivation. Empowerment in the sense that, if we’ve done our jobs correctly, you are walking away with an arsenal of knowledge and understanding which you can further develop as you continue to engage with these issues. And motivation because if you’re like me, you’ll be thinking of ways in which you can actively use what you’ve learned as a means of bringing about positive change. With this in mind, I want to use this space to share examples of a few ways in which our fellow humans have reacted to the widespread use of harmful pesticides. I’ll also suggest a number of things you and I can do in our own individual capacities in confronting these issues head-on.

Let’s look first to Portland, Oregon. For those of you familiar with Portland’s progressiveness (and perhaps the show Portlandia), it may not come as a surprise that in April 2015, the City Council voted unanimously to ban the use of neonic pesticides. In Portland—as remains the case in many hundreds of cities across the country—city parks, athletic fields, roadsides and other publicly shared green spaces were regularly treated with neonics, glyphosate and other pesticides. Just as residents were growing more and more concerned, the Oregon Department of Agriculture brought to the fore data they had been collecting over the past two years. Basically, they were able to directly link several large-scale bee death incidents to the application of neonics on public spaces. As such, when the ordinance banning neonics was put forward, it was categorized as a “public health issue requiring emergency action” (Anderson, 2015). Now, as the ban goes into effect, Portland’s parks are working to develop a pest management plan—a step intended to demonstrate to the general public that “successful pest management is possible with practices that protect bees and other pollinators” (Reuters, 2015a; Anderson, 2015).

In passing this ordinance, Portland joins eight other U.S. cities, including Spokane, Washington and Shorewood, Minnesota, which enacted their own bans in years previous. Meanwhile, our neighbor to the north has set forth its own inspiring example. Three Canadian provinces—Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick—have banned the use of cosmetic pesticides on lawns, citing this law as a means of safeguarding humans, animal life and the environment from unnecessary exposures to harmful chemicals (David Suzuki Foundation, 2009). As the most commonly used insecticide in the world, neonics are not confined to agriculture. Rather, they are equally popular—and are applied at a much higher rate—in urban, non-agricultural settings (City of Boulder Colorado, 2015). Yards, trees, flowers and shrubs are often treated with neonics, some of which have a half-life as high as three years (Hunt & Krupke, 2012). Even the plants you purchase from nurseries and home improvement stores like Lowe’s and Home Depot are likely to have been grown from or treated with neonics (Keim, 2014). Primarily in response to public pressure, both of these stores have recently begun to explore the feasibility of removing neonics from their business operations (Reuters, 2015b).
Though all of the above actions are a step in the right direction, we don’t have to look too hard to see that politics and loopholes often go hand-in-hand. For instance, Portland’s ban allows for neonics to remain in use on a site-by-site basis, while Ontario’s ban continues to permit the use of glyphosate in certain circumstances. Lowe’s, although it has committed to eliminating neonics by 2019, has included the caveat that this will occur “as suitable alternatives become available” (Reuters, 2015b). Considering this and also referring back to last week’s conversation on the precautionary principle, we should acknowledge the very real possibility that our government is not going to act fast enough in addressing the growing use of and serious implications tied to these harmful pesticides. Therefore, it is people like you and I—in conjunction with conservation groups and other concerned actors—that are likely going to be the ones to accomplish real and lasting change.

Field Road Pollinator Habitat

As we consider what we can do in our day-to-day activities and throughout our communities, it is important to understand that we’re not alone in this. As trailblazing organizations like the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and the IPM Practitioner fight to protect pollinators and other beneficials, they’re also putting their time and energy into empowering us to serve as environmental stewards. In addition to their many opportunities for more formal involvement, the Xerces Society offers important reference publications that you can access from the convenience of your kitchen table. For instance, their guide on pollinator plants outlines which are among the best suited to our specific region of the country. As members of the Million Pollinator Garden Challenge, which was started in response to the White House’s National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators, they also outline the value that you can contribute through something as simple as a window or patio planter. The IPM Practitioner, on the other hand, publishes a quarterly that discusses various ways in which to address a wide number of pests—ranging from mice and roaches to carpenter ants—in a chemical-free manner.

We must also consider the power that we have as consumers. “Voting with your dollar” is a phrase that has been around for a while, but it remains an action that carries great weight. Much as we support farms like Harmony Valley through our organic food purchases, we can do the same in our home and garden purchases. As you shop, be discerning—read labels, ask questions, and do your best to make sure your purchases align with your principles. Don’t be afraid to take a stand—whether that be through putting a “Pesticide Free” sign up in your yard or, as a group of women did in Stoughton, Wisconsin, publicly organizing and drawing attention to the way your city deals with weed management (Livick, 2013).

As we draw our formal conversation to a close, I want to briefly return to Quarles, who has done incredibly important work around further demonstrating the importance of sustainable, chemical-free agriculture in the age of pesticides. Despite the rather serious dilemma in which we find ourselves, Quarles (2008, p.13) encourages us to regard this not as a cause for doom and despair, but as “an opportunity for change.” And so, with this in mind, Richard, Andrea and I—along with the rest of the Harmony Valley Farm family—want to pose to you a challenge. Throughout this next year, we’d like to ask you to share with us the ways in which you have joined us in this effort. Send your stories and share your photographs. Every action counts, no matter how small. In one year’s time, we’ll take a moment to share these wonderful actions as we reflect on what we’ve collectively accomplished as a Harmony Valley Farm community and as stewards of the earth.

References

Anderson, J. (2015, April 1). Portland bans ‘neonicotinoid’ pesticide. Portland Tribune. Retrieved from http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/255515-125838-portland-bans-neonicotinoid-pesticide

City of Boulder Colorado. (2015). Protecting pollinators. Retrieved from https://bouldercolorado.gov/ipm/protecting-pollinators

David Suzuki Foundation. (2009, March 4). Ontario protects health and the environment through pesticide ban [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/media/news/2009/03/ontario-protects-health-and-the-environment-through-pesticide-ban/

Hunt, G., & Krupke, C. (2012). Neonicotinoid seed treatments and honey bee health. American Bee Journal. Retrieved from http://www.extension.org/pages/65034/neonicotinoid-seed-treatments-and-honey-bee-health#.VdHpPjBViko

Keim, B. (2014). How your bee-friendly garden may actually be killing bees. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2014/06/garden-center-neonicotinoids/

Livick, B. (2013, April 8). Residents push city to stop using toxic chemicals in local parks. Connect Stoughton. Retrieved from http://www.connectstoughton.com/articles/2013/04/08/residents-push-city-stop-using-toxic-chemicals-local-parks

Quarles, W. (2008). Protecting native bees and other pollinators. IPM Practitioner: Monitoring the Field of Pest Management, 24(1-4), 4-13.

Reuters. (2015a, April 1). Portland bans neonicotinoid insecticides on city lands to protect declining honey bees. HuffPost Green. Retreived from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/portland-insecticide-ban-bees_n_6989214.html

Reuters. (2015b, April 9). Lowe’s to stop selling neonicotinoid pesticides that may be harmful to bees. HuffPost Green. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/09/lowes-pesticides-bees_n_7035208.html

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/

Silent Spring Series #3: Neonicotinoids, Part 2

By Sarah Janes Ugoretz

After a brief hiatus, we return this week to our Silent Spring series as we look deeper into the arguments surrounding the rapidly expanding use of neonics. Before we dig in, I want to mention that in August we’ll bring this series to a close by considering where we go from here. That is to say, although reading these articles might leave you with a deepening sense of despair, we promise to provide you with positive examples of individuals, communities, states and nations taking proactive steps to push back against the use of neonics and other similarly harmful agents. In the meantime, our goal is to present you with as much information as possible so that you have the knowledge and the resources from which to steer your own course of action.
In February 2014, Forbes ran a piece in which the author opines that those who are concerned about the connection between neonics and—in this case—the plight of the bees are comparable to “…the fictional parents in the edgy comedy show South Park who blame Canada for all of their woes” (Entine, 2014). In other words, this author would like for us to get over it and move on. After all, he assures us that compared to organophosphates, neonics have a “comparatively benign toxicological profile.” Fortunately for those of us who take empirical evidence seriously, we have a mounting collection of independent, science-based studies to counter with.
Going back to 1992—just one year after the first neonic compound was introduced—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that sparrows that consumed very small amounts of imidacloprid had difficulty flying. As this dosage increased, they quickly became immobile (Bittel, 2014). Fast-forward to today, and researchers have had decades to collect data and build an even stronger case against the use of neonics. Take, for example, the recent findings of the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides (TFSP), a group made up of 29 multi-disciplinary, independent scientists whose self-imposed mandate is to “provide the definitive view of science to inform more rapid and improved decision-making.” After reviewing more than 800 scientific, peer reviewed studies on the uses an
d implications of neonics, the TFSP concluded that: “…neonicotinoids…are causing significant damage to a wide range of beneficial invertebrate species and are a key factor in the decline of bees.” They further concluded that there is sufficient evidence to “trigger regulatory action” (TFSP, 2014). The peer reviewed report, entitled Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Impact of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems (WIA), lists bees, butterflies, lizards, earthworms, snails, fish, water fleas and birds as being among those at great risk.
If you do a 5-minute Internet search on this topic, you’ll quickly find that skeptics often point out that there are numerous factors that could be contributing to the deaths of pollinators and other beneficials like earthworms. Caspar A. Hallmann—an ornithologist and population ecologist with SOVON, the Netherlands’ Radboud University and lead author on a monumental new study recently published in Nature—says that “…when [his] team looked at the data, none of these [other possible] explanations held up.” Instead, Hallmann is confident that the evidence against neonics is mounting (Bittel, 2014).
But hang on a minute—we have good news! Spokespersons with Bayer CropScience assure us that we really have nothing to worry about, as long as we follow instructions. “Neonicotinoids have gone through an extensive risk assessment which has shown that they are safe to the environment when used responsibly according to label instructions” (Bittel, 2014). Of this point, Bayer is “convinced” (Bayer CropScience, 2013). Unfortunately for neonic advocates, independent peer reviewed studies have found the opposite.
Among the long list of neonics’ discontents, there is one characteristic that most others can be traced back to—their persistence in our environment. Let’s look to water contamination as an example. Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey found that among sampled Midwest rivers and streams, imidacloprid was present at an average of 32.7 nanograms per liter. Research has confirmed that this compound is toxic to aquatic organisms at levels ranging from 10 to 100 nanograms per liter. Levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam—the second and third most used neonic compounds—were measured at 257 and 185 nanograms per liter, respectfully (Henein, 2014). What this study suggests—that contaminated water is toxic to wildlife—is further corroborated by Caspar A. Hallman and his team of scientists. After gathering long-term data on farmland bird populations and surface water contamination, they found that in areas where water contained certain concentrations of imidacloprid, bird populations tended to decline by 3.5 percent each year (Bittell, 2014).
The persistence of these compounds in our environment equates to the ongoing exposure of target and non-target organisms to neonics. While exposure can be instantly lethal—as in the case with bees exposed to airborne neonic particles (Bittel, 2014)—it can also be chronic and sublethal, as we saw with the EPA’s 1992 study on sparrows. In the event of the latter, organisms typically experience a wide range of impairments. A range of outcomes may befall this toxic organism: it may be consumed by and contaminate another organism; the impairments—such as an inability to fly or an increased susceptibility to disease—may lead to death; or the cumulative build-up of neonics within the organism may eventually kill it. In emphasizing the gravity with which to approach even a sublethal dose of a neonic compound, scientists with the TFSP have stated that metabolites—the compounds which neonics break down into—are often “as or more toxic than the active ingredients” (TFSP, 2015). With this in mind, TFSP has reported that certain neonics are five to ten thousand times more toxic to bees than DDT (TFSP, 2015).
We must also consider one additional factor—non-agricultural applications. Hopwood et al. (2012), focusing their attention on the management of ornamental and landscape plants, outline another grave point of concern. Their research found that neonic compounds are often administered at an alarmingly higher rate—potentially 32 times higher—than those approved for agricultural crops. This data has led Lowe’s—a large retail chain—to plan for a complete phase-out (though not until 2019) of plants treated with neonic compounds (Reuters, 2015). Although we have focused primarily on the impacts of neonics on non-human organisms, it is certainly worth mentioning that we humans may not be immune to these compounds. While our own EPA does not draw firm connections between neonics and human health, the European Food Safety Authority has stated that these compounds may “…adversely affect the development of neurons and brain structures associated with functions such as learning and memory” (European Food Safety Authority, 2013).
Proponents of neonics have long argued that these compounds are a crucial component of farmers being able to control the various pest populations that threaten their crops. After the European Commission voted to impose—beginning in 2014—a two-year moratorium on the application of certain neonics throughout Europe, Bayer CropScience was quick to express its grave concern for what this would mean for European farmers. “Restricting the use of these neonicotinoids…will put at risk farmers’ ability to tackle the destructive pests that can severely damage crops and restrict their capability to grow abundant, high quality, affordable food” (Bayer CropScience, 2013).
Yes, it’s true—conventional farmers are struggling (Gray, 2014). Without the neonics they have come to rely upon, they’re scrambling to find ways to protect their crops and their livelihoods. This highlights what Quarles (2014, p. 3) has pointed out over and over again—that these pesticides “allow growers to ignore good farming methods and IPM [integrated pest management] approaches in favor of systemic protections.” In a troubling turn of events, some farmers—in their struggles to phase out neonics—have turned to alternative pesticides like pyrethroid sprays, which are generally recognized as being more environmentally damaging (Gray, 2014). Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Suffolk, recognizes that finding ways to support farmers in identifying less harmful pest control methods is a priority in need of immediate attention. “You have to sympathize with farmers who have lost their crop, [but you also] have to weigh up the damage of [using] neonicotinoids over many years” (Gray, 2014).
As we conclude for this week, I’ll leave you with a quote that I believe really gets to the heart of the matter for us as eaters and as environmentalists. Dr. Jean-Marc Bonmatin, one of the lead authors of WIA, states that: “Far from protecting food production, the use of neonics is threatening the very infrastructure which enables it, imperiling the pollinators, habitat engineers and natural pest controllers at the heart of a functioning ecosystem” (TFSP, 2014). When all is said and done, if we protect these pollinators and beneficials, we will essentially be taking strides to protect ourselves (Quarles, 2011).
In two weeks’ time, we’ll turn our attention to glyphosate (better known as Roundup) as we consider the impact this pesticide is having on our environment and our invaluable ecosystems.

Article Sources

Bayer CropScience. (2013). Decision to restrict use of neonicotinoid-containing products will not improve bee health [Press release]. Retrieved from http://beecare.bayer.com/media-center/press-releases/press-release-detail/decision-to-restrict-use-of-neonicotinoid-containing-products-will-not-improve-bee-health

Bittel, J. (2014, July 9). Second silent spring? Bird decline linked to popular pesticides. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140709-birds-insects-pesticides-insecticides-neonicotinoids-silent-spring/

Entine, J. (2014, Feb. 5). Bee deaths reversal: As evidence points away from neonics as driver, pressure builds to rethink ban. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/02/05/bee-deaths-reversal-as-evidence-points-away-from-neonics-as-driver-pressure-builds-to-rethink-ban/

European Food Safety Authority. (2013, December 17). EFSA assesses potential link between two neonicotinoids and developmental neurotoxicity [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131217.htm

Gray, L. (2014, October 1). Neonicotinoid ban hit UK farmers hard. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/neonicotinoid-uk-farmers-rapeseed-crop-bees-pesticide

Hallmann, C.A., Foppen, R.P.B., van Turnhout, C.A.M., de Kroon, H., & Jongejans, E. (2014). Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature, 511, 341-352.

Henein, M. (2014, July 31). Contaminated water: Neonics detected in Midwest rivers. Honey Colony. Retrieved from http://www.honeycolony.com/article/neonicotinoid-pesticides-detected-major-midwest-rivers/

Hopwood, J., Vaughan, M., Shepherd, M., Biddinger, D., Mader, E., Hoffman Black, S., & Mazzacano, C. (2012). Are neonicotinoids killing bees? A review of research into the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees, with recommendations for action. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Pesticide Action Network UK. (2015). Neonicotinoids. Retrieved from http://bees.pan-uk.org/neonicotinoids

Quarles, W. (2011). Protecting bees, birds, and beneficials from neonicotinoids. Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly, 27, 1-4.

Quarles, W. (2014). Neonicotinoids, bees, birds and beneficial insects. Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly, 28, 3-10.

Reuters. (2015, April 9). Lowe’s to stop selling neonicotinoid pesticides that may be harmful to bees. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/09/lowes-pesticides-bees_n_7035208.html

The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides (TFSP). (2014). New four-year scientific analysis: Systemic pesticides pose global threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.tfsp.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WIA-PR-REL.pdf