Air pollution threatens key crop pollinators, study finds
By Shannon Kelleher
Air pollution jeopardizes bees and other pollinators essential for food production, according to a new study that sheds light on a significant but underrecognized threat to beneficial insects.
In a study published Thursday in the journal Nature Communications, researchers found that bees, as well as some moths and butterflies, became about a third less efficient at foraging for food, on average, after exposure to elevated air pollution levels. The findings were based on an analysis of data from 120 scientific papers on how 40 types of insects respond to ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.
“Air pollution is not generally considered as a driver of pollinator declines, but these results indicate that air pollution should be considered as a further factor that is driving pollinator declines,” said James Ryalls, an ecologist at the University of Reading and an author of the study. Declines in pollinator health can translate to declines in crop yields, Ryalls said.
The researchers noted that insects generally seen as harmful to agriculture, such as sap-sucking aphids, did not experience significant declines in their ability to forage from exposure to air pollution.
Air pollution may be more disruptive for bees and other insects because it muddles the chemical signals they use to communicate and sense their surroundings, the researchers suggest, while pests tend to rely more heavily on visual cues or others.
Surprisingly, even low concentrations of air pollutants below the threshold considered safe for humans harmed the pollinators, Ryalls said.
Monsanto Roundup trial win overturned by Oregon court
By Carey Gillam
An Oregon appeals court on Wednesday overturned a trial victory by Monsanto owner Bayer AG in a decision that adds to an ongoing debate over the company’s efforts to create a nationwide legal and legislative shield from lawsuits alleging Roundup weed killer causes cancer.
The court found that the trial judge in the case improperly barred key evidence about the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from being presented to the jury, which could have led the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff. And, notably, the court rejected arguments by the company that claims about the dangers of its products should be barred because those products carry the EPA’s stamp of approval.
Other courts have similarly rejected so-called “preemption” arguments by Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018. But after failing to get court backing, Bayer has been pushing state and federal lawmakers to give it and other pesticide makers the protection the courts have rejected. A proposed measure is being considered by lawmakers for inclusion in the US Farm Bill. Monsanto unsuccessfully argued to the appeals court that the case never should have even gone to a jury because the claims should have been preempted.
Bayer did not respond to a request for comment on the latest ruling.
Attorney Andrew Kirkendall, who represented the plaintiff in the case, said he welcomed the court’s decision and was eager to retry the case with the evidence about the EPA included.
The testimony that the trial judge refused to allow was to have come from Charles Benbrook, a former research professor who served at one time as executive director of the National Academy of Sciences board on agriculture. Benbrook has authored papers critical of the EPA’s handling of glyphosate herbicides, noting that the agency has given little weight to independent research regarding the actual products sold into the marketplace and used by millions of people around the world. Instead, the EPA has mostly relied on studies paid for by Monsanto and other companies selling glyphosate herbicides that found no cancer concerns.
“There is important new science to share with the jury that clarifies why and how Roundup can cause cancer,” Benbrook said this week after learning of the court ruling.
In bid to slash chemical use, robots take on farm fields
By Carey Gillam
Cheney, Kan. – On a sweltering summer day in central Kansas, farm fields shimmer in the heat as Clint Brauer watches a team of bright yellow robots churn up and down the rows, tirelessly slicing away any weeds that stand in their way while avoiding the growing crops.
The battery-powered machines, four feet long and two feet wide, pick their way through the fields with precision. Programmed with myriad data points about the field, the artificial intelligence (AI)-driven bots run without any human hand to guide them.
Brauer, a former California-based tech executive who moved back to his family farm in central Kansas after his father developed Parkinson’s disease, sees the robots as critical tools to help farmers reduce their reliance on chemicals and be more protective of their health and the environment.
His Greenfield agricultural technology company now builds and programs its robots in a shed behind an old farmhouse where his grandmother once lived. Farmers who hire the robots are charged a flat rate per acre weeded. Twenty farmers are signed up for the robotic services this season, and the company hopes to weed 10,000 acres this year.
“The answer is here,” he said. “This solves a lot of problems for farmers.”
Greenfield is one of many agricultural robotic companies springing up amid a confluence of concerns over the future of farming. Fears about the harmful impacts of farm chemicals on the environment and on public health are key drivers, as is the need to deal with the diminishing effectiveness of overused weed killing chemicals, labor shortages, and the high costs that farmers face with conventional farming practices.
Financial backing is flowing to these companies from venture capital funds, private investors and large food and agricultural companies eager to make bets on the bots as a means to promote more sustainable food production – a notion increasingly finding favor with consumers.
The investment arm of Chipotle Mexican Grill, a global restaurant chain, is among Greenfield’s investors. Christian Gammill, who leads Chipotles venture fund, said Greenfield’s work is “important and impactful.” Greenfield has raised about $12 million in capital, and is seeking more, according to Brauer.
ReGen Ventures, a venture capital fund operating in Australia and the US, has so far sunk $6 million – with more planned – into North Dakota-based Aigen Robotics, which uses AI and camera vision to sense plants and remove weeds while avoiding crops. Aigen declares on its website to be “building a future with no harmful chemicals in our food.” The compact robots are powered via solar panels fixed to the top of each machine and are designed to work autonomously, sleeping and waking up on farms fields.
“They are well on their way to displacing chemicals from ag and enabling a new, regenerative food production system,” said ReGen founder Dan Fitzgerald.
Electric vehicle batteries adding to toxic PFAS pollution, study finds
By Shannon Kelleher
A type of toxic PFAS in lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles and other electronics is polluting air, soil and water in the United States and Europe, adding to concerns that the growing clean energy sector could harm the environment even as it strives to combat climate change, according to a new study.
Researchers said they analyzed samples of soil, sediment and surface water collected in 2022 near manufacturing plants in Minnesota, Kentucky, Belgium, and France, finding they were commonly contaminated with a subtype of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) called bis-perfluoroalkyl sulfonimides (bis-FASIs) at concentrations in the parts per billion.
The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Communications, also found that bis-FASI emitted into the air at these sites may travel long distances, potentially polluting areas far from the facilities where they are made and used.
“If we are not careful about the choices of materials and chemicals used in renewable energy technologies, then it is a concern that this may become a new source of PFAS pollution,” said Ariana Spentzos, a science and policy associate at the Green Science Policy Institute. Spentzos was not involved in the study.
“However, it is a false choice to choose between renewable energy and less PFAS pollution,” she added, noting that there are viable alternatives for many uses of PFAS in renewable energy.