Research Update: Organic Food Consumption and Cancer Risk

By Andrea Yoder

Last week a research paper entitled “Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption with CancerRisk:  Findings from the NutriNet-SantéProspective Cohort Study” was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  This paper was written by a group of researchers in France.  The research presented in this article is part of a large-scale prospective web-based study that was launched in 2009 and is ongoing. The purpose of this large-scale study is to “study associations between nutrition and health, as well as the determinants of dietary behaviors and nutritional status.”  The volunteers in this study were recruited from the general French population and participate in the study by completing online self-administrated questionnaires.

The purpose of this portion of the study was to “prospectively examine the association between consumption frequency of organic foods….and cancer risk” in the participants.  This is the first research study of this type to be done prospectively.  The authors acknowledge that cancer rates worldwide continue to rise and are one of the leading causes of mortality in France.  Environmental exposure to toxic chemicals is considered by some to be a risk factor for cancer, however the focus of exposure in this context is most often related to occupational exposure.  However, there is a growing body of evidence linking cancer development to pesticide exposure and there is now some published research documenting pesticide residue levels in food as well as urinary markers of pesticides in humans.  What is not well documented is how the dose and/or effect of chemical cocktails impact cancer development in humans.  Thus, the purpose of this study was to observe the correlation between eating organic food and the development of cancers. 

If you are interested in reading this paper yourself and understanding more about the study design, population size and demographics, statistical evaluation, etc, the article is available in full text online.  For the purposes of this report, I’m going to jump to their conclusions.
 

Researchers found that participants with higher organic food scores (ie those who ate more organic food in their diet) were associated with overall heathier lifestyles with diets rich in nutrients.  They also found that those with high organic food scores had an overall lower risk of cancer.  With regards to specific types of cancer, they found that those with high organic food scores had a lower incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and all lymphomas.  No associations were observed with other cancer sites.  The researchers commented that “Epidemiological research investigating the link between organic food consumption and cancer risk is scarce, and, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate frequency of organic food consumption associated with cancer risk using detailed information on exposure.”  They also comment that “While there is a growing body of evidence supporting a role of occupational exposure to pesticides for various health outcomes and specifically for cancer development, there have been few large-scale studies conducted in the general population, for whom diet is the main source of pesticide exposure.  It now seems important to evaluate chronic effects of low-dose pesticide residue exposure from the diet and potential cocktail effects at the general population level.  In particular, further research is required to identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk.”

Farmer Richard with some of our gorgeous, nutritious
radishes earlier this spring.

So what is the take-home message here?  It’s been eleven years since I worked as a clinical dietitian at a major medical university hospital on the east coast.  However, during my time as a clinician it was often a challenge to get the medical community I worked with to even acknowledge the major role even basic good nutrition plays in health both for disease prevention as well as healing and rehabilitation.  I recall little if any discussion of food quality, let alone discussion about the pros and cons of food produced in an organic system.  In that world, the sentiment always seemed to be that a calorie is a calorie and a carrot is a carrot.  No distinction was made between an organic carrot versus a conventional carrot.  So, for those who still question whether or not food produced without dangerous toxic chemicals has a positive impact on human health, I think it’s great that we are finally starting to discuss this topic and do the prospective research needed to fully evaluate this question from a scientific perspective.  I am also encouraged that this paper has been published in a major medical journal in this country.  I count this as progress and am hopeful that this research and these discussions will continue to move forward in a way that ultimately impacts our population in positive ways through greater knowledge and hopefully changes in dietary recommendations given by health professionals.

It’s obvious that Richard and I have a biased opinion about this topic as we have clearly chosen to produce food using organic methods.  We also seek out organic food for our own diets and believe that it is the best way to feed and nourish our bodies both by limiting exposure to potentially cancer-causing chemicals as well as providing our bodies with nutrients that help prevent cancer.  So, as always, we encourage everyone to make their own informed decisions about their food.  For this reason I hope we continue to see more research reports from well-designed studies to help us understand these issues surrounding the way our food is produced and the ultimate outcome for our health. 

Glyphosate Use as Pre-Harvest Desiccant in Small Grain & Dried Bean Crops

by Andrea Yoder & Richard de Wilde

Last summer we published a collection of articles entitled “The Silent Spring Series.”  Within this series we discussed the impact glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weed killer, is having on our environment as well as human health.  Glyphosate, originally patented by Monsanto and the main ingredient in Roundup®, is now widely used in many herbicide products around the world.  Glyphosate was originally discovered in 1950 by Dr. Henri Martin, a chemist working for a pharmaceutical company.  There were no pharmaceutical uses discovered at that time, so the molecule was sold to other companies who proceeded to test other applications to find a use for it.  In 1970, a Monsanto chemist discovered glyphosate could be used as an herbicide which led to the development of Roundup®, first sold commercially in 1974.

Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.  This has caused a heightened interest in the potential negative impacts this herbicide has on human health, specifically because even trace amounts are thought to be harmful due to exposure over time.  In addition to being a carcinogen, glyphosate has been linked to a host of health concerns including its impact as an endocrine disrupter, connection to birth defects and reproductive issues, and the negative impact it can have on beneficial gut bacteria to name a few.  Despite the fact that glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide, it has not been routinely included in testing by the USDA & FDA for residues on food crops.  However, the FDA is preparing to start testing this year.  FDA spokesperson Jason Strachman Miller stated “The FDA has not routinely looked for glyphosate in its pesticide chemical residue monitoring regulatory program in the past for several reasons, including that available methods for detecting glyphosate were selective residue methods that would have been very cost and labor intensive to implement in FDA field labs.”  Soybeans, corn, milk and eggs are on the list of potential foods which may contain glyphosate and will be tested.

While glyphosate use in conjunction with producing genetically engineered herbicide tolerant crops such as soybean, corn and cotton is well-known, there are some lesser known uses of glyphosate that have not been as well-publicized.  In the most recent issue of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, editor Ken Roseboro discusses the use of glyphosate as a desiccant in some crops just prior to harvest.  While the pre-harvest use of glyphosate is not new, it is very concerning with respect to human health because it results in higher residues of glyphosate on the food product.

Dr. Charles Benbrook discusses the pre-harvest use of glyphosate in his paper titled “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally” which was published last month in Environmental Sciences Europe.  Glyphosate is sprayed on a crop just before harvest to help speed up the dry-down process and allow farmers to harvest a crop sooner.  This is advantageous in northern, colder regions as well as in a year when conditions are wet and it takes a while for the crop to dry down before harvest.  This use is referred to as a “harvest aid” or “green burndown.”  While this process started in Scotland in the 1980’s, since the mid-2000s it has become a more common practice in the United States as well as in northern Europe and Canada.  It is mostly used on small grain crops such as wheat, barley and oats.  However, its use extends to many other concerning food crops including dried beans, lentils, peas, corn, flax, rye, triticale, buckwheat, millet, canola, sugar beets, potatoes and sunflowers.

Unfortunately this practice is not something most consumers are aware of, yet its use amongst conventional growers and the industry in North America is more extensive than any of us might like to admit.  Roseboro quotes Tom Ehrhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seeds in Minnesota, who identifies the challenge of sourcing grains that have NOT been desiccated with glyphosate prior to harvest.  “I have talked with millers of conventionally produced grain, and they all agree it’s very difficult to source oats, wheat, flax, and triticale, which have not been sprayed with glyphosate prior to harvest.  It’s a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy’ in the industry.”

Dr. Benbrook stated in his most recent paper that “Because such applications occur within days of harvest, they result in much higher residues in the harvested foodstuffs.”  Gerald Wiebe, a farmer and agricultural consultant interviewed by Roseboro states his concern that “Consumers don’t realize when they buy wheat products like flour, cookies, and bread they are getting glyphosate residues in those products.  It’s barbaric to put glyphosate in food a few days before you harvest it.”

We’ll wrap up this discussion with a comment from Dr. Benbrook which Roseboro included in his article.   His message is as follows:  “It may be two percent of agriculture use, but well over 50 percent of dietary exposure.  I don’t understand why Monsanto and the food industry don’t voluntarily end this practice.  They know it contributes to high dietary exposure (of glyphosate).”

References:

Benbrook CM.  “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally.”  Environmental Sciences Europe (2016, 28:28) DOI:  10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0.
Gillam C.  “FDA to Start Testing for Glypohsate in Food.”  Civil Eats.  February 17, 2016
Roseboro K.  Grim reaper.  “Many food crops sprayed with weed killer before harvest.”  The Organic & Non-GMO Report.  2016; 161: 4-6.

GMO Update:  The DARK Act

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 the DARK Act was defeated by a vote of 49-48 in the Senate.  Bill S. 2609, commonly referred to as the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know), would have allowed for voluntary labeling of food products containing GMOs (genetically modified organisms).  Additionally, this bill would have preempted the Vermont State law requiring the labeling of all foods containing GMOs by July 1, 2016.  Other states including Connecticut and Maine have passed state labeling standards but have not implemented the standards yet.  New Jersey, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois and Massachusetts are also considering state labeling standards for foods containing GMOs.

Voluntary labeling of food products at the federal level would have been based primarily on QR codes, websites and call in numbers for consumers to use to inquire about the presence of GMOs.  Sadly, this method discriminates against Americans who do not have access to the necessary technology or services that would be required to find this information.

The Center for Food Safety sites 64 countries around the world already have laws in place requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs.  In a recent poll, 89% of American voters are in favor of mandatory labeling of products containing GMOs and feel Americans have the right to know and decide for themselves.

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 #4-Glyphosate: Roundup's Best Friend Part 1

A Note from Farmer Richard

“Before we introduce the next topic in our ‘Silent Spring Series,’ I wanted to interject a comment about this series and our overall goal in publishing these articles.  We understand the topics in this series can be of a “depressing nature”  and we’ve received some comments to this point from some members.  This series of articles has grown out of our initial interest in preserving pollinators and responding to the White House’s National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.  Throughout our research, we are coming to understand that these systemic pesticides, neonics and glysophate, and GMO crops are having a wide-spread impact resulting in systemic contamination that is impacting our entire ecosystem and food chain.  Sarah has fearlessly attacked the research to get to the heart of the matter and we have found this has been quite an education for us in this process.  
So, I’d encourage you to please bear with us!  Once we understand the extent of this complex problem, there are many positive things that we can all participate in to turn this around.  Next week we are hosting a group of visitors representing the Xerces Society as well as federal representatives from NRCS & the USDA who are interested in looking at what we’ve done to establish pollinator habitats on our farm.   Stay tuned!”

Silent Spring #4- Glyphosate-

Roundup’s Best Friend Part 1

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz
In this fourth article in our Silent Spring series, we turn our attention to glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. We’ll start by briefly exploring the development and proliferation of this chemical—primarily through the use of Roundup and genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds. From there, we’ll consider the implications glyphosate’s use has for human health and, in the subsequent article, for our world’s animal life and our environment overall.
In 1974, Monsanto introduced Roundup, a chemical formula anchored by glyphosate that kills weeds by blocking key proteins that are essential to their growth. Today, Roundup is the most commonly used herbicide in the world (Grossman, 2015). Early uses were focused on lawns, recreational spaces and cropland. With the creation and release of Roundup Ready seeds in 1996, however, agricultural applications skyrocketed. Using seeds that had been genetically engineered to withstand Roundup, farmers were suddenly able to spray entire fields without the worry of destroying their crops. As a result, today nearly all of the U.S.’ corn, soybean and cotton crops are regularly treated with Roundup. Chemically speaking, this translates to over 300 million pounds of Roundup being applied to cropland each year (globally, this number is near the 1.4 billion mark).
As the use of glyphosate has increased dramatically over the last two decades, Grossman (2015) echoes a concern that has long been held by many: we have a dearth of research that explores what happens once glyphosate is released into the environment. Though Monsanto (2015) maintains that Roundup is “supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product,” Leu (2014) makes an astute (and rather obvious) point—one that may be missed by those operating outside of the scientific community. What it comes down to is a convenient designation called commercial-in-confidence. A majority of the studies Monsanto points to as working in its favor are classified as industry studies, which means they are not available for external scientists and researchers to review and assess. What is even more alarming is that these in-house studies—rather than independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals—are most often utilized by regulatory bodies as they make their safety assessments (Leu, 2014).
Unfortunately for Monsanto and their bedfellows, in March of this year, glyphosate was officially classified as a probable carcinogenic to humans (Reuters, 2015a). Operating under the auspices of the United Nation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 17 experts from 11 countries reviewed animal, cell and human studies before reaching their decision. Among these studies were cases in which glyphosate was found in farmworkers’ urine and blood, cells were shown to have experienced chromosomal damage, exposed humans demonstrated a higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposed animals were prone to tumor formation (Grossman, 2015). Aaron Blair, a retired National Cancer Institute epidemiologist and chairman of the 17-member team of reviewers, said that the decision to classify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was unanimous. “All three lines of evidence…said the same thing, which is we ought to be concerned about this” (Pollack, 2015). In lieu of the IARC’s findings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although it has maintained since 1991 that glyphosate is safe, has announced plans to review and revisit its official stance.
Having been officially regarded as a chemical free from safety concerns, the U.S.’ regulatory infrastructure surrounding glyphosate is virtually non-existent (Reuters, 2015b). As U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Paul Capel points out, our country’s regulatory practices do not mandate that glyphosate residue be tested for in food or in human blood and tissues. “As a result there is no information on how much people are exposed to from using it in their yards, living near farms or eating foods from treated fields” (Grossman, 2015).
We do, however, have a growing number of studies to look to that suggest that our concern is justified. As Leu (2014, p. 62) observes, “the regulation of glyphosate is a good example of authorities ignoring an extensive body of published scientific study showing the harm that can be caused by this widely used pesticide.” In one peer-reviewed, U.S.-based study, researchers found a strong correlation between a rapid increase in glyphosate use and 22 diseases, including cancers of the kidney, liver, thyroid and bladder and urinary systems (Swanson, Leu, Abrahamson and Wallet, 2014). Another peer-reviewed study found that glyphosate—even at levels that are commonly found in humans—caused estrogen-sensitive human breast cancer cells to multiple at a rate five to thirteen times greater than they normally would in the absence of the chemical (Thongprakaisang, Thiantanawat, Rangkadilok, Suriyo, & Satayavivad, 2013).
Glyphosate has also been detected in human breast milk and is capable of crossing the placental cells (Leu, 2015). One study demonstrated that within 18 hours of exposure, glyphosate had caused damage to human placental cells, even at concentrations lower than those found in commercially available pesticides and herbicides (Richard, Moslemi, Sipahutar, Benachour, & Seralini, 2005). As Hemmelgarn (2015, p. 5) notes: “the chemical industry is quick to tell us not to worry about low levels of contaminants, such as pesticide residues on produce or the BPA that migrates out of food packaging and can linings into our food. However…the chemicals designed by drug companies, such as Ritalin to control hyperactive behavior in children, are active at levels similar to, or even lower than, the levels of toxins found in the blood of children and pregnant women.”
Another group of researchers, after studying four different commercial glyphosate formulas, detected breaks in 50 percent of the DNA strands present in the human liver cells of subjects (Gasnier et al., 2009). This damage compromised the DNA’s ability to communicate with various physiological systems, including the endocrine system. These breakages occurred at doses of 5 parts per million (ppm). As Hemmelgarn (2015) explains, chemicals like glyphosate are biologically active at parts per billion (ppb) levels. To give you an idea, 1 ppb is equal to 2 tablespoons of sugar dissolved into an Olympic sized swimming pool.
These findings represent a tiny fraction of the data that is currently available to us—data that has been gathered through transparent, independent scientific studies, with results rigorously reviewed prior to publishing. Despite this, Monsanto, in reacting to the IARC’s decision earlier this year, declared that the agency must have “an agenda” against the company and their good work. Vice President Philip Miller stated that designating glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was “starkly at odds with every credible scientific body that has examined glyphosate safety” (Pollack, 2015). Well, I suppose when you have Big Ag and a commercial-in-confidence hand trick on your side, anything becomes possible!
Join us again next week as we turn our attention to glyphosate and its impacts on animal life and the environment.

References

Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.C., & Seralini, G.E. (2009). Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology, 262(3), 184-191.

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.

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

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

Monsanto. (2015, March 20). Monsanto disagrees with IARC classification for glyphosate. Retrieved from http://news.monsanto.com/news/monsanto-disagrees-iarc-classification-glyphosate

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

Reuters. (2015a, March 20). Monsanto weed killer can ‘probably’ cause cancer: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/us-monsanto-roundup-cancer-idUSKBN0MG2NY20150320

Reuters. (2015b, April 20). Regulators may recommend testing food for glyphosate residues. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-food-agriculture-glyphosate-idUSKBN0NB1N020150420

Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., & Seralini, G.E. (2005). Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(6), 716-720.

Swanson, N.,L., Leu, A., Abrahamson, J., & Wallet, B. (2014). Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America. Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2), 6-37.

Thongprakaisang, S., Thiantanawat, A., Rangkadilok, N., Suriyo, T., & Satayavivad, J. (2013). Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 59, 129-136.

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