News

February 15, 2024

EPA says dicamba will be sprayed this summer despite court ban

By Johnathan Hettinger

Despite a recent federal court ruling banning three agricultural weed killing products, U.S. regulators said this week that they will continue to allow farmers to spray the pesticides this summer.

In what amounts to a win for the agrochemical industry and for many farmers using the industry’s seeds and chemicals, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an order on Wednesday laying out a framework for continued use of millions of gallons of dicamba herbicides. The EPA said farmers may still apply product that has already been shipped from agrochemical companies Bayer, BASF and Syngenta. The companies cannot sell additional supplies over what has already been labeled and shipped, however, the EPA said.

The announcement is the latest move in a years-long saga that has played out across US farm country, pitting farmer against farmer. While many growers say the dicamba products – sprayed over special dicamba-tolerant crops – are necessary to fight back increasingly difficult-to-kill weeds in their fields, many others say their own orchards, gardens and farm fields not planted with dicamba-tolerant crops are being damaged by the drift of the pesticide across the countryside.

Last week, a federal judge in Arizona banned the dicamba-based weed killers made by the three companies, saying the EPA unlawfully approved the products. It marked the second time a federal court has banned dicamba weed killers since they were introduced for the 2017 growing season. The judge in the most recent case found that the EPA made a crucial error by failing to allow a public notice and comment period on its reapproval decision for dicamba as required by law.

The EPA’s action to allow farmers to still spray this year angered many environmental advocates.

“It’s as though they didn’t just lose this lawsuit,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, which successfully challenged the 2020 approval of dicamba in court. “It’s hard to imagine what it would take to get rid of dicamba. It’s like a zombie, it just keeps coming back and coming back. There has never been a point where the EPA didn’t bend over backwards to give registrants what they want,” Burd said.

February 15, 2024

Another pesticide problem on your plate

By Carey Gillam

Highlighting a fresh health concern for US consumers, a new study has found that a farm chemical linked to reproductive problems is increasingly showing up in the urine of people across the United States.

The study, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology on Thursday, reported that the majority of a set of nearly 100 urine samples collected from people in different states over the last few years showed the presence of a pesticide called chlormequat, which is used in agriculture to control growth in plants.

Notably, the study found that both frequency of detection and concentrations of the chemical were starkly higher in 2023 than in samples collected from prior years.

“While the sample size is small and more research will be needed to verify the extent of the problem, it is very concerning to see chlormequat chloride showing up in these samples, and at increasing levels,” said Danielle Melgar, a specialist in food and agriculture advocacy work with the Public Interest Research Group.

“It means that consumers are clearly being exposed to it. If it wasn’t linked to health concerns, that might not be an issue, but independent research has established connections to fetal and reproductive health harms in animal studies,” Melgar said.

Chlormequat is used to regulate the size of plants by blocking certain hormones. Though primarily used on ornamental plants in the United States, it is allowed on imported foods from other countries, including from Canada and Europe where chlormequat is approved for use on wheat, oats and barley.

Last year, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed that farmers in this country also be allowed to apply it to their food crops. By regulating the growth of crops such as wheat, yields can be improved, farmers have found.

But animal studies show chlormequat exposure can disrupt embryonic growth and contribute to other health problems.

Environmental and health advocates cite those studies in strongly opposing any expansion of use. Last year, PIRG sent a petition to the EPA, arguing “a slightly bigger harvest isn’t worth the risk to our health.”

sippakorn-yamkasikorn-6v9w4ZR2TJE-unsplash

February 14, 2024

Pesticide-treated seeds harm earthworms, study finds

By Shannon Kelleher

Commonly used pesticides pose a toxic threat to earthworms, creatures considered crucial for the health of soil used to grow crops, according to a new study published Wednesday.

The study builds on evidence that a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, or neonics, are harming a range of species important for planetary health. Neonics have been banned in many countries but are popular with farmers in the United States.

The authors of the new study said they found that when earthworms were exposed to four different types of neonics, as well as the fungicide difenoconazole, they suffered damage to their mitochondrial DNA and gained significantly less weight than earthworms not exposed to the chemicals. The pesticides were especially damaging when the worms were exposed to a neonic plus the fungicide in combination.

The findings were published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters.

“We need to re-evaluate the toxicity of neonics and the synergistic effects of neonics and systemic pesticides in those non-target organisms when they are applied to soil simultaneously,” said Chensheng (Alex) Lu, a professor at Southwest University in Chongqing, China and an author of the study.

“The contribution of earthworms to crop yields is as essential as pollination done by honey bees,” he added. “A healthy soil is simply not possible without the presence of earthworms.”

February 13, 2024

EPA’s proposed lead pipe crackdown spurs debate

By Shannon Kelleher

Proposed revisions to a national drinking water regulation designed to reduce exposure to lead in US drinking water are drawing applause from many sectors, but also criticism as industry groups worry about how to meet the stricter standard and environmental and health advocates fear the proposed requirements don’t go far enough.

The regulatory move comes after public outcry in response to recognition that communities around the country could be at risk of the type of contamination that occurred in Flint, Michigan in 2014 when the town’s drinking water became contaminated with lead from corroded pipes. The toxic metal, which is a known health hazard, particularly to children, has also been found in the tap water of Chicago residents.

“Now, there’s a new proposed rule, there’s lots of money, and there is a deadline, so now people are mobilizing to implement,” said Alfredo Gomez, director of Natural Resources and Environment at the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). But, he said, “some folks are supportive of the proposed rule, and others are concerned.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s proposed changes would require water systems to replace lead service lines within 10 years of the rule going into effect. An estimated 9.2 million water service lines provide water to communities across the nation. The agency would also compel utilities to take stronger measures to prevent lead in the pipes from entering the water through corrosion by reducing the level at which utilities are required to take mitigation action for lead from 15 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. The EPA action builds on revised regulations introduced in 2021.

The new move to address lead in drinking water, which the EPA proposed in late November, is among a host of actions the agency has recently taken to crack down on a wide range of harmful environmental pollutants. The agency issued an enforcement alert in late 2023 calling out “widespread noncompliance” with the first US regulation on toxic coal ash, and earlier this month it announced a proposal that would help ensure cleanups of pervasive chemicals known as PFAS at hazardous waste facilities. Last week, the EPA finalized stronger air quality standards to reduce soot pollution.

February 9, 2024

A new bid to safeguard Mississippi River amid growing environmental concerns

By Madeline Heim, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

A proposal to create a federal funding program to protect the Mississippi River is back in front of Congress.

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin announced Wednesday that she plans to introduce the Mississippi River Restoration and Resilience Initiative in the Senate. Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota will bring the same bill forward in the House.

The proposal is nearly the same as one introduced by McCollum in 2021. It’s modeled after programs that protect other major bodies of waters across the U.S., like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Advocates for the Mississippi River argue that the river is long overdue to have its own such program. Millions of Americans rely on it for drinking water, commerce and recreation, and its floodplains provide food and habitat for hundreds of fish and wildlife species. But it’s facing a multitude of challenges, from extreme weather to habitat loss to persistent agricultural and industrial pollution. That pollution contributes to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which last year was almost as big as Yellowstone Park.

Even in the past few years, the river has experienced the impacts of a changing climate, said Kelly McGinnis, executive director of the Mississippi River Network. Last spring, communities along the upper river saw near-record floodwaters, bookended by severe droughts that slowed shipping traffic to a crawl.

“If anything, since (this legislation) was first introduced, the conditions of the world we live in just keep showing us that there is an urgent need to address these problems, and they’re not solving themselves,” McGinnis said.

February 6, 2024

For a second time, US court bans dicamba weed killers, finds EPA violated law

By Johnathan Hettinger

Dealing a blow to three of the world’s biggest agrochemical companies, a US court this week banned three weed killers widely used in American agriculture, finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broke the law in allowing them to be on the market.

The ruling is specific to three dicamba-based weed killers manufactured by Bayer, BASF and Syngenta, which have been blamed for millions of acres of crop damage and harm to endangered species and natural areas across the Midwest and South.

This is the second time a federal court has banned these weed killers since they were introduced for the 2017 growing season. In 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its own ban, but months later the Trump administration re-approved the weed killing products, just one week before the presidential election at a press conference in the swing state of Georgia.

But a federal judge in Arizona ruled late Monday that the EPA made a crucial error in re-approving dicamba, finding the agency did not post it for public notice and comment as required by law. US District Judge David Bury wrote in a 47-page ruling that it is a “very serious” violation and that if EPA did do a full analysis, it likely would not have made the same decision.

Bury wrote that the EPA did not allow many people who are deeply impacted by the weed killer – including specialty farmers, conservation groups and more – to comment.

The lawsuit was filed by farmer and conservation groups that said EPA violated two laws in its approval: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Endangered Species Act.

EPA spokesman Jeffrey Landis said the agency is still reviewing the ruling but declined to comment further.

“Time and time again, the evidence has shown that dicamba cannot be used without causing massive and unprecedented harm to farms as well as endangering plants and pollinators,” said George Kimbrell, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which litigated the case.

December_3,_2012_–_Large_debris_pile_near_to_EPA’s_‘Household_Hazardous_Waste’_collection_PAD_(8267709723)

February 1, 2024

EPA proposes adding PFAS to hazardous waste cleanup law

By Shannon Kelleher

Federal regulators today announced a proposal to update the definition of hazardous waste in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to include a class of chemicals known as PFAS, a move designed to help ensure cleanups of these so-called “forever chemicals” at hazardous waste facilities.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s proposed rules will also add nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to a list of substances in the act that are considered in assessments of facilities used to treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste. The updates will strengthen protections for communities located near the 1,740 hazardous waste facilities across the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in a statement.

“Today’s announcement by the EPA will ensure that quick action can be taken to clean up PFAS and will send a powerful signal to industry to be good stewards of their PFAS wastes,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at The Environmental Working Group nonprofit in a statement.

PFAS chemicals do not break down naturally and can leach into drinking water from industrial sites, sewage treatment plants, and landfills. PFAS have been found in at least 45% of US tap water and in the blood of about 97% of Americans. Exposure to the chemicals has been linked to numerous health problems, including certain cancers.

Over 700 military sites nationwide have been either found to have discharged or are suspected of having discharged PFAS into the environment, often from firefighting foam that contains the toxic chemicals.

nitrates and phosphorus by keith schneider

January 31, 2024

Cancer in the corn belt sparks actions to fight farm chemical contamination

By Keith Schneider

When directors of the public water utility in Des Moines, Iowa, went to court in 2015 to try to stop toxic farm nutrients from contaminating the city’s drinking water, they knew the federal lawsuit they filed would be seen as not just a desperate step to protect public health, but also a brazen act of defiance that would provoke a ferocious response from Iowa’s powerful farm and political leadership.

As they anticipated, a cohort of agricultural interests joined then-Gov. Terry Branstad in beating back the lawsuit, which Branstad declared an act of “war on rural Iowa.”

Des Moines Water Works alleged that drainage districts in three Iowa counties had polluted the Raccoon River with nitrates, forcing costly efforts by Des Moines to render the polluted water safe for drinking. A The case was dismissed in 2017 after a court ruled that Iowa law immunizes drainage districts from damage claims.

It was the last time a government entity in Iowa or any other Corn Belt state made a focused attempt to reduce human exposure to suspected cancer-causing commercial fertilizers and a flood of livestock manure that routinely drains from farm fields into groundwater, streams, and rivers.

Until now.

Prompted by compelling research showing that cancer-related diseases and deaths are climbing as contamination from common agricultural chemicals and manure increases in key farm states, lawmakers and health officials in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska are pursuing an array of new strategies aimed at reducing the risks to human health presented by the ongoing farm-related contamination.

A top concern for lawmakers and health professionals in the three states is reducing exposure to nitrates, which form when nitrogen from fertilizer and manure combine with oxygen. Babies can suffer severe health problems when consuming nitrates in drinking water, and a growing body of literature indicates potential associations that include an increased risk of cancer.

“It’s pretty obvious that in the areas where levels of nitrates and other agrichemicals in water are higher, you get more pediatric cancers and birth defects,” said Eleanor Rogan, chair of the Department of Environmental, Agricultural, and Occupational Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. “So that sort of tells you maybe you should do something about this and get the levels down.”

January 27, 2024

EPA rushed to issue 2020 dicamba approval despite scientific concerns, documents reveal

By Johnathan Hettinger

In December 2021, a small team of scientists working for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a stark report on a controversial weed killer that had been the subject of years of complaints from farmers and environmentalists.

Despite new restrictions, the government scientists confirmed that the damage from the weed killer known as dicamba was nearly impossible to contain; once sprayed onto targeted farm fields where genetically engineered crops were designed to withstand the chemical, dicamba then easily and frequently moved far off target to harm millions of acres of other crops and endangered species. The agency scientists concluded that because of these broad risks, it was doubtful that dicamba, used on tens of millions acres of cotton and soybean crops in the U.S., could legally be kept on the market.

“EPA has reason to believe the number of incidents reported significantly understates the actual number of incidents related to dicamba use,” the agency said at the time.

Despite the public acknowledgements of the problems posed by dicamba, the EPA has taken little action over the last two years to curtail its use. And now, as US farmers prepare for another growing season, dicamba spraying is expected to lead to costly crop damage on farms throughout the US Midwest and southern farming states, just as it has in prior years.

Documents obtained through an ongoing lawsuit against the EPA over its approval of dicamba show that the agency’s lack of action to address the documented harms of dicamba is in sharp contrast to the agency’s rush to renew approval of the chemical in 2020.

And, notably, the documents also show that the EPA’s urgency to grant the 2020 renewal came amid numerous meetings with executives from Bayer, the German company that bought Monsanto in 2018, inheriting Monsanto’s portfolio of weed killing products that included dicamba brands.

January 26, 2024

Biden hits the brakes on controversial gas export projects

By Shannon Kelleher

The Biden administration will temporarily pause pending applications for facilities that export natural gas, citing climate change considerations, the White House announced Friday.

The announcement, which comes after heavy pushback from environmental groups and affected communities along the Gulf, will put the brakes on eight new export terminals while the Department of Energy (DOE) reviews its approval process, including how to account for the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. The pause will not affect liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals that are already operating.

“Today, we have an evolving understanding of the market need for LNG, the long-term supply of LNG, and the perilous impacts of methane on our planet,” said the White House in a statement. “We also must adequately guard against risks to the health of our communities, especially frontline communities in the United States who disproportionately shoulder the burden of pollution from new export facilities.”

“The pause, which is subject to exception for unanticipated and immediate national security emergencies, will provide the time to integrate these critical considerations,” the White House statement said.

LNG is made of methane, a potent contributor to climate change. While industry groups have called LNG “the cleanest of the fossil fuels,” new research from Cornell currently undergoing peer review suggests its total greenhouse gas emissions are higher than those from coal.