SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
beyond pesticides
Biodiversity Group Wins Deal With Biden Admin to Protect Wildlife From Pesticides
"For over a decade, federal agencies have ignored how spraying pesticides into the water harms bull trout, pallid sturgeon, and dozens of other protected species," said one advocate. "That changes today."
Aug 01, 2023
The Center for Biological Diversity said Tuesday that a legal agreement it has reached with two federal agencies will help mitigate damage done to wildlife in United States waterways, where endangered species have been harmed over the past decade by the government's failure to assess the environmental impact of pesticide applications.
Under the deal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must complete assessments under the Endangered Species Act to ensure wildlife is protected from the spraying of pesticides.
According to CBD, the FWS and EPA have both failed to conduct endangered species consultations in recent years before issuing a nationwide pesticide general permit, which the EPA issues every five years.
The permit establishes requirements for the spraying of pesticides directly into waterways to control mosquito populations, aquatic weeds, and forest canopy pests.
"This agreement is important progress for improving the health of our rivers and streams and the incredible critters that rely on them."
CBD filed a lawsuit in 2021 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, arguing that the EPA had failed to assess the impact on wildlife when it issued the permit that year and in 2016 when the previous permit was approved.
The group said Tuesday that the FWS has also failed to conduct assessments "in three previous instances... even when requested [to] by the EPA."
"For over a decade, federal agencies have ignored how spraying pesticides into the water harms bull trout, pallid sturgeon, and dozens of other protected species. That changes today," said Hannah Connor, an attorney at CBD. "This victory will help endangered species across the country, along with the rivers and streams we all depend on."
The U.S. Geological Survey showed in 2021 that on average, 17 pesticides were found at least once in 74 river and stream sites that were sampled 12-24 times per year between 2013 and 2017.
According to Beyond Pesticides, pesticide exposure is linked to cancer, hormonal disruption, reproductive problems, liver and kidney damage, and other health issues in a wide range of species. Reproductive deformations have been detected in frogs and fish in rivers throughout the U.S. after exposure to pesticides.
The agreement requires the FWS to complete consultations on the impact to endangered wildlife before the next permit is finalized, no later than 2025. The EPA will also be required to take additional steps to improve pollution monitoring under the Clean Water Act to protect freshwater species from pesticide applications prior to the next pesticide general permit.
"This agreement is important progress for improving the health of our rivers and streams and the incredible critters that rely on them," said Connor in a statement. "My hope is that it will be a wake-up call for the Fish and Wildlife Service to fully embrace its critical role in preventing harm from pesticides to protected species."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Major Victory': Court Orders EPA Review of Glyphosate's Cancer and Endangered Species Risks
"While it comes too late for many farmworkers and landscapers who suffer after glyphosate exposure, we are grateful for the court's ruling," said a representative for one plaintiff.
Jun 17, 2022
A federal appeals court on Friday issued a ruling on the weedkiller glyphosate that the coalition involved with the case called "a historic victory for farmworkers and the environment."
"EPA's failure to act on the science... has real-world adverse health consequences for farmworkers, the public, and ecosystems."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its conclusions about the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a popular herbicide created by Monsanto--which Bayer acquired in 2018.
The EPA "recently assessed whether glyphosate poses 'any unreasonable risk to man or the environment' and answered, for the most part, 'no,'" the 54-page opinion explains, referring to the agency's widely criticized decision from January 2020.
"A group of petitioners challenged EPA's decision, arguing, among other things, that EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act," the ruling continues. "We agree and remand to the agency for further consideration."
The organizations behind the challenge celebrated the court's 3-0 ruling, which Amy van Saun--a senior attorney with Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the case--said "gives voice to those who suffer from glyphosate's cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma."
"EPA's 'no cancer' risk conclusion did not stand up to scrutiny," she added. "Today is a major victory for farmworkers and others exposed to glyphosate. Imperiled wildlife also won today, as the court agreed that EPA needed to ensure the safety of endangered species before greenlighting glyphosate."
Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project coordinator at the Farmworker Association of Florida, a plaintiff in the case, also applauded the "significant decision."
"While it comes too late for many farmworkers and landscapers who suffer after glyphosate exposure," she said, "we are grateful for the court's ruling, and hope that now EPA will act quickly to protect future workers from illness and disease resulting from this toxic pesticide."
Leaders at other groups that took on the EPA over what the court concluded was a "flawed" analysis of glyphosate expressed hope that the ruling will lead to safer farming practices.
"EPA's failure to act on the science, as detailed in the litigation, has real-world adverse health consequences for farmworkers, the public, and ecosystems," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.
"Because of this lawsuit, the agency's obstruction of the regulatory process will not be allowed to stand," Feldman added, "and EPA should start shifting food production to available alternative non- and less-toxic practices and materials that meet its statutory duty."
Rural Coalition chairperson John Zippert declared that "we need to halt glyphosate's devastating impact on the farmworkers and farmers who suffer the deepest consequences of exposure."
"This decision," he added, "will hopefully hasten the transition to farming and gardening methods and practices that increase resilience, protecting our children, our planet, and all those who feed us."
As E&E News noted Friday:
EPA's finding on the human health risk of glyphosate is at the heart of Monsanto Co.'s Supreme Court petition asking the justices to overturn a landmark $25 million jury verdict in favor of a California resident who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after years of using Roundup.
The Supreme Court could accept or reject the petition from Monsanto, now owned by Bayer AG, as soon as next week. A grant and subsequent ruling in the company's favor in Monsanto v. Hardeman could potentially upend thousands of similar lawsuits over the company's failure to warn about the product's cancer risks.
In a lengthy statement responding to the appelate court ruling on Friday, Bayer said that "we believe that the U.S. EPA will continue to conclude, as it and other regulators have consistently concluded for more than four decades, that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and are not carcinogenic, and we are committed to working with the agency to minimize the environmental impacts of our products."
The company pledged to "continue to participate in EPA's public process to help ensure the agency can make fully informed science-based decisions that are protective of listed species and critical habitats."
Bayer announced in July 2021--just over three years after acquiring Monsanto--various moves to "help close the door on this litigation and ensure that any claims brought by individuals who use Roundup in the future are few in number and unlikely to succeed."
Those steps include ending the sale of glyphosate-based products such as Roundup for the U.S. residential lawn and garden market beginning in 2023--a development that the Center for Food Safety and other groups also welcomed as a huge win.
This post has been updated with comment from Bayer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
80 Groups Blast US Interference in Mexico's Phaseout of Glyphosate and GM Corn
"We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico's decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming."
Apr 29, 2021
A coalition of 80 U.S. agricultural, consumer, environmental, public health, and worker groups sent a letter Thursday to key figures in the Biden administration calling for them to "respect Mexico's sovereignty and refrain from interfering with its right to enact health-protective policies"--specifically, the phaseout of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.
"It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer."
--Kristin Schafer, PANNA
"Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year's Eve decree," Timothy A. Wise of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (ITAP) noted earlier this year. "His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock."
"Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States," Wise added. "Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. Lopez Obrador's commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration's plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops."
The groups' letter on the Mexican policies and U.S. interference--published in English (pdf) and Spanish (pdf)--is addressed to recently confirmed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Its lead author is Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).
"We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico's decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming," Schafer said in a statement. "It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer, who are solely concerned with maintaining their bottom-line profits."
Fernando Bejarano, director of Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, explained that "we are part of the No Maize No Country Campaign, a broad coalition of peasant organizations, nonprofit NGOs, academics, and consumers which support the presidential decree and fight for food sovereignty with the agroecological transformation of agricultural systems that guarantee the right to produce and consume healthy, nutritious food, free of pesticides and transgenics."
"We reject the pressure from corporations such as Bayer-Monsanto--and their CropLife trade association--which are working in both the United States and Mexico to undermine the presidential decree that phases out the use of glyphosate and transgenic corn," Bejarano said.
The letter highlights Guardian reporting on U.S. government documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents revealed that CropLife America and Bayer AG--which acquired glyphosate-based herbicide developer Monsanto in 2018--worked with U.S. officials to lobby against Mexico's plans.
According to journalist Carey Gillam's mid-February report:
The emails reviewed by the Guardian come from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and other U.S. agencies. They detail worry and frustration with Mexico's position. One email makes a reference to staff within Lopez Obrador's administration as "vocal anti-biotechnology activists," and another email states that Mexico's health agency (Cofepris) is "becoming a big time problem."
Internal USTR communications lay out how the agrochemical industry is "pushing" for the U.S. to "fold this issue" into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal that went into effect July 1. The records then show the USTR does exactly that, telling Mexico its actions on glyphosate and genetically engineered crops raise concerns "regarding compliance" with USMCA.
Citing discussions with CropLife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined in the effort, discussing in an inter-agency email "how we could use USMCA to work through these issues."
The Guardian also noted correspondence involving the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
As the letter to Vilsack and Tai points out: "This interference and pressure from the agrochemical industry is continuing. On March 22nd, industry representatives sent a letter directed to your attention as leaders of USTR and USDA, identifying Mexico's planned phaseout of glyphosate and genetically modified corn as a 'leading concern' for agribusiness interests and the pesticide industry (represented by the pesticide industry's trade group, CropLife America)."
"We strongly object to any interference by U.S. government officials or agribusiness interests in a sovereign state's right to enact policy measures to protect the health and well-being of its people," the letter states. "We urge your agencies to resist and reject these ongoing efforts."
"We welcome the administration's stated commitment to listening to the science, improving public health, protecting the environment, and limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, while holding polluters accountable and prioritizing environmental justice, particularly for communities of color and low-income communities," it adds. "We trust that these stated commitments, as well as your dedication to 'fairness for farmers,' extend equally to other countries and include respect for other nations' and peoples' rights to self-determination."
Other signatories to the letter include the American Sustainable Business Council, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Indigenous Environmental Network, ITAP, and Organic Consumers Association.
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Sued for 'Once Again Putting Corporate Interests Over Public Health or the Environment' by Reapproving Herbicide Atrazine
"We're not going to just stand by and watch another generation get poisoned by one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use."
Oct 30, 2020
While taking aim at the Trump administration's broader pesticide agenda, a coalition of advocacy groups sued Friday over the Environmental Protection Agency's recent reauthorization of atrazine, which is one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States but off limits in dozens of countries due to health and safety concerns.
"If EPA were actually doing its job, this chemical would have been off the market years ago," declared Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network (PAN). "The science on atrazine's harms is so clear that it's been banned in Europe for more than a decade, yet here in this country EPA is now loosening use restrictions--once again putting corporate interests over public health or the environment."
The agency's atrazine decision last month "is part of a sweeping effort by the EPA in recent months to quickly approve numerous extremely controversial and harmful pesticides," the groups behind the lawsuit--Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, PAN North America, and Rural Coalition--said in a joint statement.
Filed in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just days before crucial U.S. elections, the suit (pdf) challenges the EPA's reapproval of atrazine as well as propazine and simazine, two other pesticides in the triazine class that were part of the same review process.
The filing also follows the EPA's approval of three dicamba products on Tuesday. Also vowing to challenge that move, Center for Food Safety legal director George Kimbrell said that "rather than evaluating the significant costs of dicamba drift as the 9th Circuit told them the law required, EPA rushed reapproval as a political prop just before the election, sentencing farmers and the environment to another five years of unacceptable damage."
While EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler--a Trump appointee named in the new suit--called the final interim decision on atrazine "another example of the Trump administration taking action in support of America's farmers," advocacy groups accused the administration prioritizing corporate chemical interests over public health, wildlife, and the environment.
Sylvia Wu, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety, is representing the petitioners in the lawsuit.
"Rather than doing its job of protecting human health and the environment, EPA heeded to political expediency and rushed to reapprove this toxic pesticide," Wu said. "We are in court to make sure EPA answers for its blatant disregard of the lives of our nation's farmworkers and their children."
As Common Dreams reported on the EPA's decision in September, critics slammed the agency for discarding precautions mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act, ignoring epidemiological research, and using a more permissive benchmark in its assessment that relies on a model developed by Syngenta, atrazine's primary manufacturer.
"In siding with the pesticide industry over young children, the pesticide office at the EPA has sunk to a new low," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "There are few pesticides that cause this much harm at such low doses. We're not going to just stand by and watch another generation get poisoned by one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use."
Reporting last year on the administration's plans to weaken safeguards for the herbicide, Civil Eats noted:
Independent research has shown atrazine's impact on aquatic life is significant: it can lead to reduced survival, growth, immunity, and sensory capacities, increased disease, as well as reproductive and developmental abnormalities, and behavioral changes. There's also evidence the herbicide harms plants and wildlife. In humans, it's associated with thyroid, ovarian, and other cancers, low birth outcomes, pre-term delivery, and birth defects. In 2016, California added atrazine and related chemicals to the Proposition 65 list, listing them as substances known to cause reproductive and developmental toxicity.
"EPA's failure to remove atrazine represents a dramatic failure of a federal agency charged with safeguarding the health of people, wildlife, and the environment," Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, said Friday. "We seek to uphold the agency's duty to act on the science, in the face of viable alternatives to this highly toxic weedkiller."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Urged to Put Public Health Over Monsanto Profits by Banning Cancer-Linked Glyphosate
"This dangerous herbicide causes serious health risks, including cancer, and threatens our environment."
Jun 26, 2019
As the Environmental Protection Agency moves to greenlight the continued use of glyphosate in the United States for another 15 years, a coalition of environmental and consumer advocacy groups on Wednesday delivered nearly 150,000 petitions urging the agency to ban the cancer-linked herbicide.
The coalition's call comes ahead of the July 5 deadline for public comment on the EPA's interim registration review of glyphosate, which says the herbicide poses no health risks to humans.
"It's time for the EPA to stand up to Monsanto-Bayer and protect farmers, farm workers, lawn care workers, and consumers."
--Alexis Baden-Mayer
Jason Davidson, food and agriculture campaign associate at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement that the scientific evidence contradicts the EPA's assessment of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup.
"The science is clear about glyphosate," Davidson said. "This dangerous herbicide causes serious health risks, including cancer, and threatens our environment. EPA must do its job and ban this toxic pesticide instead of prioritizing corporate profits."
In a press release, Friends of the Earth said the EPA cited "Monsanto-funded studies in its evaluation" of glyphosate.
Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides, said the EPA is "getting the science wrong... and needs to listen to international agencies and peer-reviewed literature on the dangers posed by widespread use of this herbicide."
"While continuing to pressure EPA, we encourage advocates to get active in their community," Toher said, "and work with their local elected officials towards organic policies that stop glyphosate and other toxic pesticides like it."
As Common Dreams reported last month, a California jury ordered Monsanto--which was acquired by German pharmaceutical giant Bayer last year--to pay a record $2 billion in damages to a couple that was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) after using Roundup for years.
The jury's May verdict was the third time in less than a year that Monsanto was found liable for cancer.
"It's time for the EPA to stand up to Monsanto-Bayer and protect farmers, farm workers, lawn care workers, and consumers," said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. "If Trump's EPA chooses to ignore the science, Congress should step in."
Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America, warned in a statement Wednesday that, if reapproved, glyphosate will continue to "contaminate our tap water, breast milk, baby food, formulas, cereals, thousands of food types, and cotton products."
"It will continue to destroy soil quality, which contributes to climate change, the decline of marine and wildlife and the environment," said Honeycutt. "In short, the only way the EPA can do its job is to revoke its license."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Group Demands to Know: Who at Trump's EPA Decided to Slash Funds Used to Protect Children From Toxic Poisoning?
"This latest assault on children's health is the opposite of what millions of Americans want, which is a safe environment for their kids."
May 29, 2019
Exactly what led President Donald Trump's EPA to stop funding research centers tasked with probing environmental health threats to children?
One advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), wants answers.
EWG said in a press statement Wednesday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain documents, including electronic records and minutes of meetings, about the decision.
The Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers have existed thanks to a two-decade partnership between the EPA and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Currently, the network includes 13 centers at institutions, including Johns Hopkins University and the University of Southern California, which are conducting long-term studies on issues including the links between pollutants and allergens with asthma-related illnesses in minority children, and potential near-roadway air pollution impacts on the risk of childhood obesity and inflammatory issues.
"By combining scientific research and community engagement, the Children's Centers have developed a national network of researchers, healthcare professionals, and community-based groups," the government's website says. "This network is addressing how exposure to environmental toxicants and living in unhealthy environments may contribute to a wide range of adverse health outcomes."
"Research conducted by the Children's Centers has been absolutely essential for scientists and communities to develop innovative solutions for protecting children's health from environmental contaminants," said Olga Naidenko, senior science advisor for children's environmental health at EWG.
That research, however, is apparently no longer welcome--the agency quietly announced this month it would no longer fund the centers.
"This latest assault on children's health is the opposite of what millions of Americans want," said Naidenko, "which is a safe environment for their kids."
Kathleen Rest, the executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), discussed the defunding last week.
In a blog post on the UCS website, Rest wrote that the centers have conducted "groundbreaking research" with tremendous impact:
Examples of groundbreaking research include:
- Effects of the pesticide chlorpyrifos on children's brains
- Effects of maternal exposure to air pollution on preterm birth and reduced birth weight
- Associations between leukemia and exposure to tobacco smoke, pesticides, paint, organic solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and PAHs
- Cognitive and behavioral effects associated with prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Potential links between air pollution, pesticides, occupational exposures, phthalates, and risk of autism spectrum disorder in children
- How chemicals in plastics and household items affect reproduction and onset of puberty
In addition, the centers go well beyond publishing their research in scientific journals. They serve as community resources, engaging in outreach, communication, and collaboration with community partners and organizations to disseminate vital scientific information on the ground. Their research also provides critical information for public health and environmental policy (for example, see here, here, here, here, here).
But is the decision to cut funding surprising? Rest says no; it merely follows a pattern by the industry-friendly Trump administration.
Findings from long-term studies of the effects of chemicals on child health often pose economic, regulatory, and reputational headaches for the chemical industry and other producers. And industry interests are certainly top of mind for the Trump administration. The decision to cut this funding is just the latest in a pattern of rolling back public health and science-based protections at the EPA.
For example, the agency has decided that it's no longer "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury and air toxics emissions from power plants. Yes, mercury! That well-known bad actor, especially hazardous to pregnant women, to the neurological development of their fetuses and to young children--causing impairments that can last a lifetime.
And let's not forget the agency's decision to override its own science on damaging effects of the pesticide chlorpyrifos on children's developing brains.
Another advocacy group, Beyond Pesticides, called the development "yet another attack by the Trump administration on science, public health, and children and families, as well as another wink and nod to industries whose products harm."
Beyond Pesticides created a petition calling on representatives to demand the children's health centers get funding.
Cutting the funding, said Tracey Woodruff, who runs the children's center at the University of California, San Francisco, "works out perfectly for industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Zika-Gripped Florida, Concerns Mount Over Insecticide Use - and Efficacy
"It's essentially a neurotoxin and can result in unborn children in particular having neurodevelopmental problems," expert says of pesticide naled
Aug 26, 2016
The anti-Zika aerial insecticide spraying program is raising health concerns in Florida and beyond, and the high-rise landscape in Miami Beach may also make such campaigns ineffective.
Weeks ago, as mosquitoes carrying the disease became resistant to a less potent pesticide, Miami-Dade County turned to the more controversial naled. The Miami Herald noted that naled is "toxic not just to the noxious flying parasites, but also to beneficial insects like honey bees, as well as birds, some fish—and people."
The newspaper wrote:
Several studies suggest that long-term exposure to even low levels of naled can have serious health effects for children and infants as well as wildlife, including butterflies and bees, for whom exposure can be lethal. Some studies suggest it might have neurological and developmental effects on human fetuses, including on brain size, echoing the severe consequences that eradication of the Aedes aegypti mosquito that carries the Zika virus is meant to prevent.
"It's essentially a neurotoxin and can result in unborn children in particular having neurodevelopmental problems," Dr. Barry Ryan of Emory University told local station WTXL this week.
WTXL pointed out that the European Union has banned the insecticide.
Meanwhile, National Geographic reported on Friday that "the way those compounds are delivered doesn't fit the latest landscape where the insects are now flourishing--the high-rise hotels and luxury condos of Miami Beach."
Airplanes carrying the insecticides can't get sufficiently low to the ground, for one thing, and the tall buildings in Miami Beach create a sort of wind tunnel, as one expert told the magazine, complicating aerial spraying efforts.
"That makes it more likely that some bugs will be missed by spraying campaigns or get less than a full dose of killing pesticides, allowing them to become resistant," wrote journalist and author Maryn McKenna. "And that scenario could play out not just in Miami but also in the similar Gulf Coast cities where federal health authorities say the disease may land next."
However, the solution to that particular problem--working to ensure mosquitoes on the ground get a "full dose" of the insecticide--may be detrimental in the long run.
As Nichelle Harriott, science and regulatory director at Beyond Pesticides, told the Herald in mid-August: "Widespread application of naled is very troubling. We know it's highly neurotoxic. Studies show that low-dose exposures are problematic over a person's life."
"In cases such as this," she said, "they always say that people are just going to be exposed to small amounts for very short periods. But how long is it going to go on? How long are they going to be spraying? Those exposures do accumulate, and we need to look at those aggregate exposures."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Using Industry-Funded Research to Determine if Glyphosate Causes Cancer
A since-deleted analysis posted the agency's website shows it is relying on unpublished reports from groups linked to biochem industry
May 03, 2016
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used industry-funded research to conclude that the herbicide chemical glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans--contradicting findings by the World Health Organization (WHO)--according to an analysis the EPA posted to, then swiftly removed from, its website on Friday.
"EPA's determination that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic is disappointing, but not terribly surprising--industry has been manipulating this process for years," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). "The analysis done by the World Health Organization is more open and transparent and remains the gold standard."
The agency's since-deleted analysis (pdf), which includes an October 2015 memorandum from its Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), states:
The epidemiological evidence at this time does not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors. There is also no evidence to support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and the following non-solid tumors: leukemia, multiple myeloma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.
The analysis cites private biochemical firms such as Inveresk Research International, Nufarm, and Arysta Life Sciences.
WHO reported the exact opposite in a groundbreaking March 2015 study, which prompted a wave of measures against the use of the chemical. California placed it on the state's public 'cancer list' in September, while workers around the country lined up to sue Monsanto for conducting what they called a "prolonged campaign of misinformation" to convince farmers, consumers, and the government that its Roundup line of products was safe to use.
As CBD points out, the studies cited in the EPA's analysis are unpublished and have not been subject to public scrutiny. In addition, they focus on testing glyphosate as a singular ingredient rather than examining the effects of herbicides available in stores.
"Most products containing glyphosate have other ingredients that can make the pesticide more dangerous," CBD said.
This is not the first time the EPA has been caught using biased research to approve dangerous chemicals. Last November, the Intercept's Sharon Lerner reported that the agency used Monsanto's own research to determine that there was "no convincing evidence" that glyphosate was an endocrine disruptor.
An EPA spokesperson said Friday that the document was posted to the website prematurely and was removed "because our assessment is not final," and that the agency would release a completed, peer-reviewed analysis by the end of 2016.
Meanwhile, as the agency played damage control on Friday, a lawsuit was filed in San Francisco alleging that glyphosate residues in Quaker Oats discredit the food company's claims that its product is entirely natural.
"Glyphosate is a synthetic biocide and probable human carcinogen, with additional health dangers rapidly becoming known," the lawsuit states. "When a product purports to be '100% Natural,' consumers not only are willing to pay more for the product, they expect it to be pesticide-free."
The news comes just as advocacy groups including Friends of the Earth and Beyond Pesticides plan a rally outside the White House on Wednesday to deliver 400,000 petitions to the EPA calling for a ban on the chemical.
EPA is currently undertaking a "registration review" of glyphosate, which determines whether chemicals can be used safely for the next 15 years based on scientific evidence.
"We shouldn't gamble with the risk of cancer and must take appropriate precautions until we get a conclusive answer about the true dangers of glyphosate," Donley continued. "The indiscriminate drenching of farms, ball fields, and backyards with glyphosate needs to end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Decades of Discrimination, Farm Workers Get Pesticide Protections
Environmental Protection Agency creates new rules giving equal protection against pesticides to farm workers
Sep 28, 2015
Farm workers will now have sweeping new protections from pesticides under new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules announced Monday--safeguards which labor leaders say eluded farm workers for decades due to racial discrimination.
The new rules, announced by EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, and United Farm Workers (UFW) president Arturo Rodriguez, include the following stipulations:
- All pesticide applicators will be required to be at least 18 years old, rather than 16;
- Whistleblower protections, including for undocumented workers, must be implemented so that farm laborers can safely file complaints over workplace abuse;
- Workers or their representatives must be allowed easy access to records involving hazardous chemical exposure.
The full list of regulations can be found at the EPA website.
"Farm workers deserve to be healthy and safe while they earn a living," McCarthy said on a press call Monday. "We will not turn our backs on the people who help feed this nation."
As United Farm Workers (UFW) president Arturo Rodriguez explained, "Racism forced farm workers to be excluded from major federal labor laws since the 1930s, when some members of Congress made it very clear they didn't want black or brown farm workers to enjoy the same rights and protections as white workers. That discrimination continued when farm workers were exempted from pesticide protections first issued for all other U.S. workers in the 1970s by the Labor Department."
Monday's announcement goes a long way toward rectifying those disparities, UFW said. The union was involved in helping the EPA craft the protections, which McCarthy and Perez said was an example of the collaboration and outreach necessary to implement large-scale institutional reform.
"No one should ever have to risk their lives for their livelihoods, but far too many workers, especially those who work in agriculture, face conditions that challenge their health and safety every day," Perez said. "Workplace illness and injury contribute greatly to economic inequality, and can have a devastating impact on workers and their families. By promoting workplace safety, these provisions will enhance economic security for people struggling to make ends meet and keep more Americans on the job raising the crops that feed the world, and we are proud to support the EPA in this effort."
Perez also noted that accountability would be ensured through federal investigations and on-the-ground action to inform workers of their new rights.
Farm workers have long campaigned for the EPA to update its pesticide protections. Laborers and advocates often note the government's own statistics that between 10,000 and 20,000 farm workers experience pesticide poisoning every year; as late as 2011, an average 57.6 out of every 100,000 workers experienced "acute pesticide poisoning, illness or injury each year, the same order of magnitude as the annual incidence rate of breast cancer in the United States," according to Beyond Pesticides, an advocacy group.
"The same rules that have protected other American workers from dangerous cancer- and birth-defect causing pesticides are finally going to protect farm workers," Rodriguez said Monday. "It's been a long time coming, but it has come today."
"It's never too late to do the right thing," he said.
Last week, environmental legal nonprofit Earthjustice produced a video chronicling the history of farm workers' exposure to pesticides to illustrate the need for stronger protections. Watch below:
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Incredible News for Bees': Court Rejects EPA Pesticide Approval
Neonicotinoid known as sulfoxaflor may not be used in the U.S. until EPA obtains necessary scientific research
Sep 10, 2015
A federal appeals court on Thursday overturned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of a controversial pesticide, saying the agency violated federal law by giving a green light without obtaining or reviewing reliable studies on the neonicotinoid's impact on honeybees.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling (pdf) in the case, which was brought by environmental law firm Earthjustice, means that the pesticide in question--a neonicotinoid known as sulfoxaflor--may not be used in the U.S. unless the EPA re-approves it after obtaining the necessary analysis of its effects on pollinators.
Other neonicotinoids, such as clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam, have been linked to population declines among honeybees, bumblebees, and other insects, which environmental activists say threatens food security.
"Our country is facing widespread bee colony collapse, and scientists are pointing to pesticides like sulfoxaflar as the cause," Greg Loarie, Earthjustice's lead counsel in the case, said Thursday. "The Court's decision to overturn approval of this bee-killing pesticide is incredible news for bees, beekeepers, and all of us who enjoy the healthy fruits, nuts, and vegetables that rely on bees for pollination."
Earthjustice brought the case on behalf of the environmental nonprofits Center for Food Safety, the Pesticide Action Network, and Beyond Pesticides. It also represented a coalition of groups including the Pollinator Stewardship Council and National Honeybee Advisory Board, among others.
Michele Colopy, program director of the Pollinator Stewardship Council, said on Thursday that the EPA's "decision process to unconditionally register Sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data.... We can protect crops from pests and protect honey bees and native pollinators."
"To do this EPA's pesticide application and review process must receive substantial scientific evidence as to the benefits of a pesticide, as well as the protection of the environment, especially the protection of pollinators," Colopy said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy