• “Wiki-bee leaks” controversy sparks call for UK ban
Pesticide Action Network’s picture
Mon, 2011-01-24 13:25
Last week the UK-based Independent reported that the clothianidin controversy has sparked a proposal to suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the UK. This story, which first broke in early December thanks to efforts by PAN, Beyond Pesticides and beekeeper Tom Theobald, has led to grave concerns in the British House of Commons.
According to the UK Parliament’s website, a member of the British House of Commons filed this motion on January 13:
This House is gravely concerned by the contents of a recently leaked memo from the the US Environment Protection Agency whose scientists warn that bees and other non-target invertebrates are at risk from a new neonicotinoid pesticide and that tests in the US approval process are insufficient to detect the environmental damage caused; acknowledges that these findings reflect the conclusions of a 2009 ‘Buglife’ report…and therefore calls on the Government to act urgently to suspend all existing approvals for products containing neonicotinoids and fipronil pending more exhaustive tests and the development of international methodologies for properly assessing the long-term effects of systemic pesticides on invertebrate populations.
Systemic insecticides, and specifically neonicotinoids like clothianidin and imidacloprid, have long been of concern for scientists studying honeybee populations. Systemic pesticides are applied as seed dressing or at soil level, and taken up through a plant’s vascular system into pollen, nectar and guttation droplets. Bees forage and drink from these droplets. Since neonicotinoids permanently damage insects’ brain cells — irreversibly binding neurotransmitter receptors in insect’s central nervous systems — repeat exposures may have cumulative effects. Yet EPA toxicity tests examine acute toxicity over relatively short periods of time, so some scientists have posited that bees face a growing — if difficult to detect — neonicotinoid pesticide burden in the field.
The Independent’s Mike McCarthy reported on an as-yet unpublished study by scientists at USDA’s Bee Research Laboratory which could explain why it’s been difficult to establish one-to-one correlations between neonicotinoid exposure and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD): the exposures are so microscopic they are simply undetectable by many of the instruments being used.
USDA’s Jeff Pettis and a member of his team, Dennis van Engelsdorp of Pennsylvania State University, are both leaders in research focusing on CCD. In a 2009 study they found that the insects’ vulnerability to infection by common pathogens is increased by the presence of imidacloprid. Dr. Pettis and his team observed increased disease infection even when the levels of the insecticide were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed because they did the dosing themselves. Tom Philpot at Grist is following up to find out why the Pettis team’s research has not been published for almost two years.
Strong evidence of the problem continues to mount. French researchers have confirmed that low-level neonicotinoid exposures increase bees’ susceptibility to pathogens like the Nosema virus, a bee disease.
Sign PAN’s petition today urging EPA to follow the UK’s lead and pull registration of clothianidin.
Read the full article with full links, HERE
And,
• Agrichemical off-site movement and poor animal health- just a coincidence?
A fish hatchery near Noosa is surrounded on three sides by a commercial macadamia farm. APVMA registered agrichemicals are legally in use to seasonally control nut pests and disease. A veterinary investigation has over 2 years identified the following series of syndromes at the fish
hatchery property:
1) 4 pairs of Australian Bass spawned, with 90% deformity rates- most
With 2 heads
2) multiple batches of larvae convulsing in torsion, partially
responding to atropine administration
3) Growth stunting of Australian Bass, in a case control field study.
4) Mullet with deformed eggs and three tails.
5) Ill-thrift and death of a horse
6) Inappetance and growth stunting in piglets
7) Multiple batches of chicken eggs that failed to hatch and were deformed. A clutch of chickens which survived past hatch all have foot defects morphologically consistent with organophosphate exposure in the egg. (Khera & Clegg, 1969)
8) Frogs with mutated leg development, subsequent to spraying activity.(Mann, Hyne, Choung, & Wilson, 2009)
9) Dead bees in paddock, time coincident with spraying activity, and around the time imidacloprid was detected in drinking water tanks next to the property. (Girolami, et al., 2009) (Maini, Medrzycki, & Porrini, 2010)
Interestingly when chickens are removed from the property- the eggs they laid were normal, and hatched, with normal chicks. The fish larvae from a split batch stocked at another site, were normal, and grew normally. The horses health improved when moved off the property. The piglets grew 30% more in just 6 weeks compared to their siblings which were left at the property adjacent spraying activity.
A 15 month government taskforce completed its investigation in April 2010.
The final report has not been released, due to Departmental concerns over prejudicing a court action between the neighbouring properties.
There are multiple repeated lines of epidemiological evidence, with supportive clinical observations, field trials, and also multiple residue detections as demonstrations of off-site agrichemical movement. The corollary of this, and examination of other differential diagnoses, is a presumptive diagnosis: morbidity and mortality associated with agrichemical exposure, fully supported by a Government Veterinary Senior Fish Pathologist.
(Anderson, Burnell, Roiko, Andrew, O’Connor, & Elizur, 2010), identified that oysters in the Noosa River had upregulated vitellogenin genes, suggestive of endocrine disruption. Current regulatory processes do not account for mixtures in risk assessments, ANZACC water quality guidelines, nor endocrine disruption and epigenetic impacts of low dose exposures.
Just yesterday the published article from (Schafer, et al., 2011) identified 48 pesticides in Victorian waterways, over a 4 month sampling period, feeding the Sugarloaf Reservoir- the water supply dam for Melbourne. The authors articulated the acute need for widespread predictive monitoring of water and sediment to protect aquatic ecosystems from further degradation.
Where can an exasperated private aquatic animal veterinarian take matters from here to assure the welfare of animals under his care, are not subjected to further harmful exposure? International experts have highlighted the troubled status of chemical regulation, and noted the need for reform to deliver adequate human and environmental health protection. (Leist, Hartung, & Nicotera, 2008). The profession’s engagement is urgently needed.
Dr Matt Landos BVSc(HonsI)MACVS
Director, Future Fisheries Veterinary Service Pty Ltd
• Yarra River, upstream of Sugarloaf Reservoir, contaminated with pesticides, January 28
Friends of the Earth today expressed alarm at the widespread pollution of the Yarra River, upstream of Sugarloaf Reservoir with agricultural pesticides.
A recently published report ‘Effects of Pesticides Monitored with Three Sampling Methods in 24 Sites on Macroinvertebrates and Microoganisms’ in Environmental Science and Technology has revealed detections of 59 agricultural pesticides in surface water and sediment in the Upper Yarra Catchment. The study was conducted by RMIT, University of Melbourne, Department of Primary Industries and Melbourne Water and relied on testing carried out between September 2008 and March 2009. The report concluded that ‘current-use insecticides and fungicides can affect macroinvertebrate communities and monitoring of sediment of continuous water sampling is needed to detect these effects’.
Spokesperson for Friends of the Earth Anthony Amis, said “FoE supports the need for ongoing water sampling in the Yarra catchment and other Victorian streams. This study is perhaps the most thorough investigation of water quality and agricultural pesticides ever conducted in Australia. The organisations carrying out the study must be encouraged and funded to do further studies”.
Mr Amis added, “However the results could also reveal that the upper Yarra catchment is argueably the most polluted waterway in terms of agricultural pesticides in Australia. This is a major concern because the waterway is also a drinking water source for over 1.5 million Melbournians in the northern and western suburbs. According to our research, no other Australian study has detected as many pesticides in a water supply as this study has and at least half of the pesticides detected could be described as being amongst ‘Australia’s most dangerous pesticides*’”.
“It is also shocking to learn that no studies looking at pesticide contamination have been conducted in the Upper Yarra since the early eighties, which also coincided with the commissioning of Sugarloaf Reservoir. Essentially there is a 30 year gap of information. Noone knows what was coming down the river during that time period. It is even more concerning given the fact that the treatment process used at Sugarloaf was never designed to filter out pesticide residues and many of the pesticides found in the recently published study could be suspected endocrine disruptors, potential reproductive toxins and/or linked with cancer.”
In terms of ecological concern, the detection of Simazine and Chlorpyrifos appear to be of concern in terms of breaching State Environment Protection Policy. “SEPP’s are supposedly monitored by the EPA, yet no studies have been carried out by the EPA into pesticides in the Upper Yarra since the early 1980’s. Why isn’t the EPA detecting the source of the pollutants in the Yarra? The SEPP’s are also hopelessly out of date in regards to pesticides, with approximately 50 of the pesticides detected in the new study, not even listed under the ANZECC Guidelines, which the SEPP’s are reliant on for determining ecological protection levels” Mr Amis said.
In terms of human health and the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG), the pesticides of most concern appear to be DDT, Dieldrin, Fipronil, Pirimicarb and Methiocarb. It is interesting to note that the organochlorines DDT and Dieldrin were effectively banned in 1990 and 1988 respectively, yet are still being detected in surface flows and sediment twenty years after their use was curtailed. (In early 1988 a number of farms in the Gembrook region were quarantined because of unacceptably high levels of Dieldrin).
Mr Amis added “Water authorities are supposed to find out the source of pollution, if detected above guideline limits in water supplies. In this instance the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines would recommend that Melbourne Water find the source of pollution for Simazine, Dieldrin and Propargite all of which were detected above guideline limits. However 37 of the detected substances do not have a guideline limit under the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and 34 do not have any limit under the draft updated Australian DrinkingWater Guidelines to be published in 2011, so what is the Authority supposed to do in regards to these chemicals? A massive education campaign amongst farmers is required in the region, so that these pesticides do not continue to contaminate Melbourne’s potential drinking water” Mr Amis added. “This should be a State Government priority. Water seeking pesticides should also be banned from domestic water supplies and many also deregistered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority”.
It is also worthwhile noting that the DPI knew about these results since late 2009. It would be interesting to see what action the DPI has undertaken to reduce the pesticide loads entering the Yarra River since that date. DPI has responsibility for Control of Use regulations in Victoria, it is Friends of the Earth’s contention that any pollution of waterways is inexcusable, so why does the problem continue.
“A landuse study by Friends of the Earth in 2006 revealed over 8000 hectares of intensively managed agricultural land in the Upper Yarra, including vineyards, orchards, berry farms, nurseries/cut flows and cropping. This landuse is the major risk factor to potential pesticide pollution of the drinking water to almost a third of the Melbourne population. Our concerns raised at that time have been vindicated by the results of this new study” Mr Amis concluded.
Pesticides of Key concern in the Yarra Catchment include:
Fipronil: Insecticide used in vegetables and vineyards.
Pirimicarb: Insecticide used in Grazing, Nurseries/Cut Flowers, Stone Fruit/Pome Fruit, Vegetables
Methiocarb: Insecticide/Miticide used in Nurseries/Cut Flowers, Vegetables, Vineyards
Simazine: Herbicide used in Cropping, Grazing, Nurseries/Cut Flowers, Stone Fruit/Pome Fruit, Vegetables, Vineyards.
Propargite: Insecticide used in Nurseries/Cut Flowers, Stone Fruit/Pome Fruit, Vegetables
Chlorpyrifos: Insecticide used in Cropping, Grazing, Nurseries/Cut Flowers, Stone Fruit/Pome Fruit, Vegetables, Vineyards, Berries
*’A list of the most dangerous pesticides registered in Australia’ compiled by National Toxics Network and WWF in July 2010. http://wwf.org.au/publications/alistofaustraliasmostdangerouspesticides.pdf
• EPA Awards $25 Million to Improve Air Quality, January 21, 2011
WASHINGTON – Over the course of five years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is awarding $25 million to the Health Effects Institute (HEI) to help address the latest challenges to improving air quality and protecting health. With the funding, HEI will develop the next generation of tools and scientific information to examine the combined effects of air pollution exposures on people’s health and the relationship between air quality and climate change.
“This grant continues a long and fruitful partnership to address air quality issues,” said Dr. Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “The scientific contributions by HEI complement and augment EPA’s extensive clean air research program, which is providing the critical science needed to improve air quality.”
Over the past 30 years, the partnership has made significant contributions to protecting health from air pollution. HEI has funded more than 250 studies in North America, Europe, and Asia that have:
a.. produced important research on the effects of particulate matter
b.. initiated new research to track health outcomes of air quality improvements
c.. conducted special scientific reviews on air toxics from mobile sources
HEI is an independent, non-profit research organization that provides impartial science to help address air quality problems in the nation. Established in 1980, HEI receives joint funding from EPA and the motor vehicle industry. The partnership has produced critical research that is often used in important EPA decision-making processes.
More information on the clean air research program: http://www.epa.gov/airscience
More information on HEI: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/outlinks.centers/center/101
