Help us support North Carolina’s beekeepers, farmers, and others that MUST Keep the Hive Alive!
Bees and beekeepers across the U.S. and the world are in trouble. Once again, beekeepers reported an unsustainable colony loss at 44% for 2015-2016. While there are many contributing factors, one that scientists continue to point out is the extensive use of systemic insecticides, specifically neonicotinoids, in our agricultural production. The EPA has failed us in regulating these bee-killing pesticides, the USDA continues to suppress science showing their effects, and Congress has not passed a meaningful piece of legislation to adequately protect pollinators and the $24 billion they contribute to our agricultural industry every year. Furthermore, pesticide-producing companies like Bayer Crop Science continue to manufacture these pesticides at alarming rates. Beekeepers, scientists, farmers, and activists are coming together from across the nation to join together to say enough is enough, and we must Keep the Hives Alive!
That’s why Toxic Free NC is hosting a rally and press conference right here in North Carolina in Research Triangle Park outside of Bayer Crop Science’s North American Headquarters on Monday, June 20th, at 11:00AM. This will bring attention from across the country to North Carolina and the problems beekeepers, farmers, and others are facing every day here, BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP! This event will cost Toxic Free NC $2,500 for materials, outreach to partners, and transportations from supporters that have committed to join us from Asheville and Charlotte.
Will you contribute $10, $25, $50, or $100 today to Keep the Hives Alive?
Board members present: Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise, Dr. Ricky Langley (Chair), Dr. Thomas Scarborough (Vice-Chair), Shawn Harding, Don Rodgers, Dr. W. Benson Kirkman
The NC Pesticide Board met on May 10th, 2016 with an extremely full agenda of settlement agreements. The Board’s new legal counsel, Christopher McLennan, has made it a priority to catch up on settlement agreements, as there was a backup due to paralegal troubles within the Department of Agriculture. There were 23 settlement agreements for a total of $33,800 in penalties that were up for approval from the Board, with all of them being approved unanimously. Please see link below for description of violation, violator, and settlement amount.
Before the Board moved into the settlement agreements, Toxic Free NC’s Policy Advocate, Preston Peck, had an opportunity to give a presentation to the Board entitled, “The state of the science of neonicotinoid insecticides and effects on aquatic invertebrates.” This presentation gave a review of “Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: A review” by Morrissey et. al. and related it back to water contamination issues in North Carolina. The Board was quite receptive to this presentation and voted unanimously to inquire into NC Department of Environmental Quality’s Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) about if they are monitoring for neonicotinoid insecticides and, if so, what levels they are finding. If the RAMS program is not monitoring for neonicotinoids, then the Board admitted that testing should be conducted through a commissioned study. The results of the inquiry are to be reported back at the next Board meeting. Please see full speech below.
“The state of the science of neonicotinoid insecticides and effects on aquatic invertebrates.” Preston Peck, Policy Advocate, Toxic Free NC
Thank you for the opportunity to bring these important issues concerning pesticide contamination to the Board’s attention. What you have in front of you is a comprehensive review by Morrissey et al. of 29 published studies from nine countries on the acute and chronic toxicity to 49 species of aquatic insects and crustaceans spanning 12 invertebrate orders. These studies are from the academic sector, industry sector, and various government regulatory entities. The findings in the study are consistent with what I have brought forward to the Board previously, in that, the thresholds set for water contamination of neonicotinoids by regulatory agencies a vastly under representative of the levels that can lead to both short and long-term impacts on aquatic invertebrate species. Furthermore, consistent with Center for Food Safety’s report, Water Hazard, the majority of studies reviewed used Daphnia magna as their test species for neonicotinoids. This information could contribute to the regulatory agencies setting the threshold extremely high for neonicotinoid exposure as D. magna seems to be the industry’s preferred test species but also has an extremely high tolerance for neonicotinoid exposure at a half maximal effective concentration (EC50) range of 4100 to 1,000,000 mg/L, with a geometric mean of 43,927 mg/L. By contrast, the mayfly, caddisfly, and midge are about 100,000 times more sensitive to neonicotinoids, have acute toxicity levels that average below EPA standardized thresholds for neonicotinoids, and are critical to supporting aquatic and terrestrial food webs. The overreliance on D. magna, that has an extremely high tolerance for these chemicals, can, and potentially has, lead to an inadequate determination of levels that impact aquatic invertebrates by both state and federal regulatory agencies.
Furthermore, in light of the Board’s previous comments concerning water sampling in North Carolina and that the levels found of specifically, imidacloprid, were well below the thresholds set forth by the EPA, I reached out to the NC Division of Water Resources to ask about sampling methodology. After speaking with Brian Pointer, Ambient Monitoring System Coordinator within the Division, I found out several things about the sampling methodology that concerned me that the true exposure rates are not being adequately represented. In his words, “RAMS are sampled monthly (not based on weather/streamflow – again, the random nature of the sampling), but pesticides are sampled every other month in addition to SVOCs and a couple of other parameters. RAMS are sampled on a two year cycle, are always freshwater stream sites, and the sites are chosen at random from a grid that is provided us by EPA. They are occasionally near urban and agricultural activities, but they are not purposely targeted at those locations due to the random nature of site selection. Generally, these sites are very small streams, but we do have a couple of large rivers occasionally (e.g., NE Cape Fear in this current cycle).”
This was concerning for a variety of reasons in relation to pesticide water contamination. First, it is troubling to know that pesticide contamination sampling occurs only six times a year by the Division, and not necessarily in areas that have heavy agricultural production. While, I understand the benefits and scientific significance of randomized sampling, there could be effort to strategically obtain random samples for a general region, so that we can obtain data that accurately reflects pesticide contamination for both high and low agricultural production areas. Also, it was troubling to hear that samples are not taken at peak flows following rain, and other events that would more adequately reflect the real toxicity thresholds that these species face. Given this information of sampling methodology, there seems to be a gap in knowledge of perceived pesticide contamination levels and realistic contamination levels.
Under the Pesticide Law of 1971, section 143-437, part 2, the Board has the duty “to carry out a planning, environmental and biological monitoring, and investigation into long-rage needs and problems concerning pesticides.” That being said, the evidence of water contamination by neonicotinoid insecticides is well documented at levels that, at the very least, are disruptive to aquatic ecosystems and the Board should therefore commission a study to investigate the level of contamination around North Carolina at peak flow times in areas where there is heavy neonicotinoid use as to accurately estimate maximum threshold exposure levels for both aquatic invertebrate species and other species that might consume contaminated water. It is also within the purview of the Board, under section 143-440, Part (a) that the Board “may designate any pesticide or device as a ‘restricted use pesticide’ upon the grounds that, in the judgment of the Board (either because of its persistence, its toxicity, or otherwise) it is so hazardous or injurious to persons, pollinating insects, animals, crops, wildlife, or the environment, other than the pests it is intended to prevent, destroy, control, or mitigate that additional restriction on its sale, purpose, use or possession are required.”
It is the recommendation of Toxic Free NC that the Board commission a study to specifically examine neonicotinoids pervasiveness in North Carolina’s soil and water, then, contingent upon the findings and public input, restrict the application and sale of neonicotinoids as the Board sees appropriate. I hope that the Board strongly considers these recommendations and takes the pervasiveness of these chemicals seriously as more articles come out everyday demonstrating how pervasive these chemicals continue to be in our environment.
Preston H. Peck, Policy Advocate
Toxic Free NC
Settlement Agreements for Violations of Pesticide Law
N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.
We are excited to announce that Program Manager, Dylan Williams, will be taking over as Executive Director on June 1st of this year! Stay tuned for an open letter from him in the coming weeks, but for now here’s a quick word from him on the transition and future of Toxic Free NC:
“First of all I want to thank Harry Payne for taking on the directorship over the past year. I am grateful for his leadership and guidance during his tenure and especially now as I move toward this new role. I am honored and humbled by this opportunity and look forward to supporting the work of this incredible team, ensuring continued protection of the health of North Carolinians and our environment. Toxics in our daily lives are more pervasive than ever. As industry finds new ways to prescribe need for chemicals in the home, in the field, or on our bodies, we have to remain vigilant and advocate for sound science and protective legislation. I look forward to working with you, for you, and continuing the 30 year legacy of Toxic Free NC. Please feel free to call, write, or stop by our office, as this work can only move forward if we work together!”
Toxic flame retardants policy
Toxic Free NC at the subcommittee table making sure that legislators know that we want toxic chemicals out of our children’s bedding products!
April has been busy leading up to the General Assembly going back into session for the 2016 short session this Monday. Toxic Free NC was in subcommittee meetings this month with other members of the NC Coalition for Environmental Health as we worked with legislators, firefighters, mothers, doctors, and others to get toxic flame retardants out of bedding products. Unfortunately, we faced some extreme opposition from the American Chemistry Council and other industry representatives and the Environmental Review Committee in the General Assembly decided not to pursue a ban on these flame retardants this session. However, the Committee did propose that the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Department of Environmental Quality work together to develop a toxics action plan for future consideration to ban these chemicals from bedding and other products.
Our Forest Aren’t Fuel Rally
Toxic Free NC speaks with Charlotte residents about the effects of pesticides in our food system, school, and child care facilities and what we can do to stop it!
Toxic Free NC was in Charlotte this month with many other organizations to support the Our Forests Aren’t Fuel Campaign. This campaign asks the biofuel industry to stop cutting the Southeast’s forests down for biofuel that they claim in carbon neutral. The state of the science says this is not so and industry science does not factor in other inputs such as pesticides when growing these trees for “green energy”. It was great to reconnect with old allies in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area, get some great tours of amazing work being done in the area, and solidify new relationships. We will be back in Charlotte tabling this Sunday, May 1st for a Community Garden Dedication at Shalom Park from 10AM to 12:30PM. Come out and see us!
NC Farmworker Institute
Toxic Free NC and the NC Department of Agriculture teaming up for a informative workshop on the revised WPS (bottom L and R); researchers from Wake Forest University sharing chemical exposure results for farmowrkers (upper R); and advocates address poultry worker concerns (upper L).
Toxic Free NC had the great opportunity to participate in the 2016 NC Farmworkers Institute as a workshop presenter on the revised Worker Protection Standards (WPS). This event brought together farmworkers, advocates, and researchers from around the state to share current issues facing farmworkers, and strategies for increased enforcement tactics. It was great to team up with the NC Department of Agriculture for this workshop so that they could hear from the community various strategies that will lead towards a meaningful implementation of the revised rules for protecting farmworkers from pesticides. Many of the strategies include how to use social media to stay in touch with farmworkers after the grow season, strengthening the relationship between NC Department of Agriculture inspectors and farmworkers, and strategic partnerships between health and faith non-profits and the NC Department of Agriculture.
.jpg.png)