Showing posts with label atrazine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atrazine. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Must-See TEDx Talk. Syngenta Weedkiller

Must-See TEDx Talk. Syngenta Weedkiller | atrazine-weedkiller | Environment General Health Medical & Health Special Interests Toxins


Everything changed for Dr. Tyrone Hayes when in 1998, the largest chemical company in the world asked him to use his expertise to try and understand if its top-selling product interfered with the hormones of frogs.


The company: Syngenta. The product: weedkiller atrazine.


Hayes, an American biologist and professor of Integrative Biology at University of California, Berkeley, discussed in his nearly 16-minute TEDxBerkeley talk the results of exposing African clawed frogs in his lab to atrazine. He presented an image up on the big screen of frog testes, showing a considerable difference between the controlled and exposed groups, and said:


“The controlled testes, if you look under the microscope, is full of sperm soldiers ready to go. The atrazine-treated testes, the testicular tubules are filled with cellular debris.”


Hayes explained how after exposure to atrazine, frogs that were genetic males became completely functioning reproductive females. In another frog species, he showed the gonads with “eggs that are bursting through the surface of the male’s testes.”


Yikes.


Read ‘Atrazine’s Dark Secrets Reemerge in Must-See TEDx Talk’


Watch the video


h/t: Organic Consumer’s Organization


The post Must-See TEDx Talk. Syngenta Weedkiller appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

More Wildlife Fish are Experiencing ‘Intersex’ – What Could be Causing This?

More wildlife are experiencing strange reproductive abnormalities, but why? In a study released last year, the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) tested male smallmouth and largemouth bass from 19 National Wildlife Refuges. The researchers found that 85% of the smallmouth bass “had signs of female reproductive parts.” Of the largemouth bass, 27% were intersex. What could be causing this?


Luke Iwanowicz, a USGS research biologist and lead author of the paper, says:


“It is not clear what the specific cause of intersex is in these fish. This study was designed to identify locations that may warrant further investigation. Chemical analyses of fish or water samples at collection sites were not conducted, so we cannot attribute the observation of intersex to specific, known estrogenic endocrine—disrupting chemicals.”





Referencing an older study also examining examining Intersex occurrence in freshwater fishes in the U.S. between 1995 and 2004, Fred Pinkney, a USFWS contaminants biologist and study coauthor, said:


“The results of this new study show the extent of endocrine disrupting chemicals on refuge lands using bass as an indicator for exposures that may affect fish and other aquatic species. To help address this issue, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages management actions that reduce runoff into streams, ponds and lakes — both on and off of refuge lands.”


Possible Chemical-Culprits


As Pinkney mentioned, chemical runoff could be a real issue here. There are a number of chemicals and contaminants that could be contributing to these reproductive problems, including:


Glyphosate and atrazine are 2 agricultural chemicals made by Monsanto and Syngenta. These widely-used chemicals leak into U.S. lakes, rivers, streams, and reservoirs. Multiple studies also show that they are endocrine disruptors that may negatively affect reproductivity. [1]


According to a fact sheet on atrazine from Michigan State University:


“Atrazine is used on crops such as sugarcane, corn, pineapples, sorghum, and macadamia nuts, and on evergreen tree farms and for evergreen forest regrowth. It has also been used to keep weeds from growing on both highway and railroad rights-of-way. Atrazine can be sprayed on croplands before crops start growing and after they have emerged from the soil.”


The herbicide then seeps into lakes and waterways. Some of it moves from the surface into deeper soil layers, where it contaminates the groundwater.


MSU continues:


“Only a few reports are available that examine the health effects of atrazine in humans. Some of these reports suggest that atrazine could affect pregnant women by causing their babies to grow more slowly than normal or by causing them to give birth early. However, the women in these studies were exposed to other chemicals in addition to atrazine, so it is not known how or if atrazine may have contributed to these effects.


Atrazine has been shown to cause changes in blood hormone levels in animals that affected ovulation and the ability to reproduce. These effects are not expected to occur in humans because of specific biological differences between humans and these types of animals. Atrazine also caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in animals; it is possible that atrazine could cause these effects in humans, though this has not been examined.”


Glyphosate – the other hormone disruptor –has been found in human urine, blood, and even breast milk, as corroborated by three different studies. Although biotechnology company Monsanto refutes the evidence of glyphosate’s possible negative impact on reproduction (based on non-human studies), other studies have shown that the chemical could hamper the reproductive systems of animals, including female Jundiá, zebrafish, and rats. [2] [3] [4]


Still, some research suggests that it may not be the worst culprit:


“The primary objective of our study was to measure the stress response in juenile largemouth bass, micropterus salmoides, that were exposed to the following aquatic herbicides: diquat, endothall, 2,4-D, fluridone, and glyphosate (Rodeo).


An analysis of glucose and osmolality levels showed that the intensity and the rate of occurrence of the stress response varied with each herbicide. These differences were also associated with the concentration of the herbicide and the length of exposure. Of the five herbicides tested, glyphosate elicited the lowest stress response in the bass. This response was not related to either dose or exposure period … 2,4-D elicited the most intense stress response in the bass … The magnitude of the stress response was greater for 2,4-D than for any other herbicide tested.


The results of this study suggest that of the aquatic herbicides tested, glyphosate and endothall may be the least stressful herbicide to juvenile largemouth bass.”





The quantity of glyphosate in the environment has been difficult to analyze due to its physicochemical properties, such as its relatively low molecular weight and low organic solvent solubility.


However, an innovative study used a magnetic particle immunoassay to test for the presence of glyphosate in roughly 140 samples of groundwater from Catalonia, Spain. The analysis, published in the journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, found that glyphosate was present “above the limit of quantification” in 41% of the samples. This indicates that “despite manufacturer’s claims, it does not break down rapidly in the environment, and is accumulating there in concerning quantities.”


Needless to say, more research is needed.


The earlier referenced study examining Intersex occurrence in freshwater fishes in the U.S. between 1995 and 2004 mentions other chemicals, though doesn’t pinpoint them as the causes:


“Total mercury, trans-nonachlor, p,p′-DDE, p,p′-DDD, and total PCBs were the most commonly detected chemical contaminants at all sites, regardless of whether intersex was observed.”


What we can probably conclude is that the presence of these endocrine disruptors in our most protected waters – those of our National Wildlife Refuges – is likely threatening wildlife, and we should take further measures to protect the animals and environment as a whole.


Sources:


Environmental Health News


[1] Toxics.usgs.gov


[2] Pubmed/21783773


[3] Pubmed/24364672


[4] ScienceDirect



Storable Food


About Mike Barrett:


Author Image
Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Uh Oh: House Passes Bill Nicknamed “Poison Our Waters Act”

On May 24, 2017, the House passed a measure reversing an EPA requirement that those spraying pesticides on or near rivers and lakes file for a permit. Opponents are referring to the legislation as the “Poison Our Waters Act.” The bill’s real name is the “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.” [1]


The permitting system for the use of pesticides under the Clean Water Act was redundant, according to Rep. Bob Gibbs, a Republican from Ohio, who added that the bill will protect farmers, ranchers, and local pest control agencies from regulatory burdens. He says:


“This is important legislation that fixes a bad court decision requiring a costly, unnecessary, and duplicative permit when cities and municipalities use pesticides already approved and regulated by the EPA for mosquito abatement. It’s just another layer of red tape that diverts resources from their mission of protecting the public from insect-borne diseases.”





Under the act, anyone applying a pesticide approved by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act would no longer need to acquire a Clean Water Act “general permit” for their activities.


The Clean Water Act had the biggest impact on the largest-volume applicators. Most of the pesticide applicators can obtain a permit with minimal restrictions on spraying.


According to the group Beyond Pesticides, signing the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act into law would:


  • Undermine federal authority to protect the U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act

  • Allow spraying of toxic chemicals into waterways without local and state oversight

  • Contaminate drinking water sources and harm aquatic life

  • Not reduce claimed burdens to farmers, as there currently are no burdens

Source: U.S. Geological Survey – How pesticides make their way into drinking water in agricultural areas

Beyond Pesticides says that, contrary to the bill’s backers’ claims that the permit requirements place unnecessary burdens on farmers, the reality of the situation is that most pesticide applicators can easily obtain a permit with little restriction, and agricultural activities are exempt from the requirement. [3]


In truth, according to the group, the bill would remove Americans’ right to know what chemicals are entering the nation’s waterways.


Mae Wu, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s health program, said in a statement:


“This bill takes away the public’s right to know about toxic pesticides we may be exposed to. It eliminates the current commonsense requirement that communities should have access to basic information about what’s being sprayed in waters that can pose risks for public health.”


Our Water is Already Contaminated


The environmental group Earthjustice states that nearly 2,000 U.S. waterways do not meet water quality standards because of pesticide contamination. In fact, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report from 2014 revealed pesticide levels continue to threaten aquatic life in many of the nation’s rivers and streams in agricultural and urban areas.


The study found pesticides and their breakdown products in U.S. streams more than 90% of the time. Water contaminants, such as atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine are still being detected in streams over 50% of the time. Fipronil is the pesticide most frequently found at levels deemed potentially hazardous to aquatic organisms in urban streams.


Additionally, a 2015 USGS report showed that neonicotinioid insecticides contaminate more than half of urban and agricultural streams across the U.S. and Puerto Rico.


Read: Pesticides Known to Kill Bees Found in U.S. Drinking Water


Marjorie Mullhall, Earthjustice’s senior legislative counsel, says:


“To get to the bottom of and address this pesticide pollution, we need to know what is causing it — but this bill does the exact opposite, making it harder to keep our communities safe and putting people’s health at risk.” [2]


Republicans attempted to use the Zika virus emergency last year as a scare tactic to enact the legislation into through its Zika Vector Control Act, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.


Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, says:




“A day after the Trump administration’s budget proposed eviscerating the EPA, the House voted to begin making that vision a reality.


This dangerous loophole would benefit pesticide giants like Dow Chemical and leave the rest of us totally unaware of toxic chemicals going into our rivers and lakes.”


It does indeed appear that the act would benefit pesticide makers and not farmers. Ken Kopocis, EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for water, said at a 2015 congressional hearing that the EPA had not been made aware of any issues associated with the pesticide general permit system. No one had been kept from applying a pesticide in a timely manner.


Sources:


[1] Chem.info


[2] Think Progress


[3] Beyond Pesticides


U.S. Geological Survey



Storable Food


About Mike Barrett:


Author Image
Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

EPA Delays Rule That Would Help Prevent Pesticide Poisoning

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delayed a safety rule aimed at ensuring that pesticides (which are linked to human health problems) are safely applied by adult agricultural workers. This, just days after 50 farm workers in California were sickened by pesticide poisoning. [1]


The Certification of Pesticide Applications safety rule had been scheduled to go into effect on March, 2017, but the EPA has proposed delaying it until May, 2018. The rule would require that workers be 18 years old to apply atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and other restricted-use pesticides for agricultural use. In addition, the rule would enforce other protections for workers applying pesticides out in the field.


Source: U.S. Geological Survey

The public was given less than a week to comment on the EPA’s proposed delay, which falls short of the 30 days federal agencies traditionally give for open comment periods, according to Colin O’Neil, the agriculture policy director at Environmental Working Group (EWG).




“In general, federal agencies normally hold open comment periods ranging from 30 to 60 days and in certain circumstances, when the issue is complex or the rule-making is complex, they extend it up to 180 days. It’s nearly unheard of, and very unprecedented, for agencies to have such short public comment periods.”


O’Neil’s fear: That the move sets a precedent for future public comment solicitations.


“This has an alarming tone for how the EPA under the Trump administration plans to solicit public comments and shows how the brazen disregard for the public’s input on issues important to parents, families, and kids’ health.”


The EPA says that “the agency has determined that a full 30-day comment period is impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.”


Pesticide Dangers – Atrazine and Chlorpyrifos


Atrazine is one of the most commonly-applied pesticide in the United States. It’s mainly applied to corn, and is a known hormone disruptor that is linked to decreased fetal development, and increased risk of miscarriage and abdominal defects. It is also a possible carcinogen, according to the Pesticide Action Network.


Chlorpyrifos is similar to atrazine, but is mainly applied to oranges, apples, and other fruits. It attacks the nervous system, and short-term exposure can cause weakness, nausea, and headaches. Exposure to the pesticide over longer periods can lead to neurodevelopmental issues, lower IQ among children, and can act as an endocrine disruptor.


The Obama administration mulled banning chlorpyrifos, but Trump’s EPA has rejected calls to ban it outright, citing a need to “provide regulation certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos.”


The Need for more Research and Safety Protocols


There is currently no minimum age to how old farmworkers must be to apply pesticides, and it’s a downright crime. Research has shown that children who live near pesticides applied to soy – including chlorpyrifos – suffer serious genetic damage. Chlorpyrifos has also been linked to brain disorders in children.


O’Neil said:


“For the first time, EPA was going to make sure that kids and youths are not applying restricted-use pesticides. We felt it was alarming and appalling that the Trump administration would put aside health and safety in further delaying this important rule aimed at protecting farmworkers and young Americans from dangerous pesticides.”


Restricted-use pesticides are defined by the EPA as those with the “potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment and injury to applicators or bystanders without added restrictions.” [2]


By law, anyone who applies restricted-use pesticides must complete safety training. The proposed rule would have required workers who use the pesticides to be re-trained every 5 years, as well as to “verify the identity of persons seeking certification.”


In early May, more than 50 farmworkers in Bakersfield, California, were sickened when a nearby mandarin orchard was sprayed with a chlorpyrifos-based pesticide. A dozen farmworkers sought medical attention, but the others left before medical personnel and local authorities arrived. Officials believe they may have left because they were undocumented workers. [1]




Jeannie Economos, the project coordinator for Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health at the Farmworker Association of Florida, said:


“We had farmworkers tell us outright that their contractors or their supervisors will tell them ‘if you complain, I’m going to turn you into immigration. Whether they would or they won’t isn’t the point, but it’s enough of an intimidation and threat to the farmworkers to not stand up for their rights.”


Sources:


[1] Think Progress


[2] Mother Jones


U.S. Geological Survey



Storable Food


About Julie Fidler:


Author Image
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.