(Image: Earthjustice)

It’s been almost 20 years since an epidemiological study of farmworkers in California began providing staggering evidence of detrimental health impacts for children exposed to organophosphate pesticides in utero. The project, still underway, has shown longitudinal links between pesticide exposure and respiratory complications, developmental disorders, and lower IQs among farmworker children.

Now, in an effort to restrict how human studies like this are used in EPA’s regulatory rule-making, the Trump administration has labeled them “secret science” and claims that epidemiology is less valid than laboratory testing on animals.

Sound familiar? This was the same tactic used by the tobacco industry to hide evidence of harm to public health.

The administration’s proposal, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” is another example of Orwellian new-speak. Do we need strengthened transparency in regulatory science? Yes. But not by divulging confidential personal data about study participants.

We need transparency around funding of Monsanto-backed research that obscures the clear links between cancer-causing pesticides like glyphosate and public health.

We need transparency in the lines of power that hold our regulatory process hostage at the expense of the health of children and pregnant women.

Epidemiology is valid peer-reviewed science that offers us evidence of the longitudinal and complex health impacts of pesticides in our environment. The real “secret science” is happening behind the doors of industry.

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

Just twenty minutes outside of Raleigh, North Carolina is a white house with blue shutters, blue doors. The exterior of the house is composed of an eroding material that seems to eat at itself from the inside out. I have lived in this house for over fourteen years. I have watched the house grow older and rustier and become more of a cardboard box than a home. As a child, I would walk through a field behind my house. Most of the time, this field was barren, a seemingly deserted terrain, with symmetrical rows of mounds of dirt. I used to trudge carefully in between the rows, leaving footprints in my wake. When I would wander too far, I would retrace my footprints back to my cardboard house. It never occurred to me that this may have been a commercial field where I was unwelcome, that my curiosity had a name—trespassing.

“¡No vayas tan lejos!” (Don’t go so far!) my mother would scold.

It wasn’t until much later that I started to notice my surrounding area, the many acres of tobacco and corn and sweet potatoes and crops I couldn’t recognize from a car window. At the time, I didn’t fully understand what I was looking at or the greater implications. Even as I watched a truck of migrant farmworkers pass by from a school bus window at 5 a.m. one morning in middle school, I still didn’t understand. It wasn’t until I recently accompanied a group—consisting of representatives from Toxic Free NC and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services—to visit and meet local migrant workers that it finally sunk in—these workers put their lives in danger every day to complete their work. This is real.

The farmworkers we met gave us a warm welcome. One worker stopped mowing the lawn when he saw us approaching and only resumed after we left. They offered us peaches and plums and apologized for not having refreshments available for us. When we attempted to assure them that we were grateful for their hospitality and not to worry, one man continued to insist that he should have gone to the grocery store prior to our visit. They were eager to share their stories with us. When asked about what they perceive as the most dangerous aspect of their job, a 50-year-old worker mentioned his fear of potential pesticide exposure.

“Con los pesticidas, uno tiene que tener cuidado con el trabajo porque muchos plantas llevan pesticidas,” he said. “Y tienes que tener cuidado con el calor. Usar más camisas con manga larga, paño, guantes… Ahorita que esta un calorón feo—nombre—tiene que tomar mucha agua y tener cuidado al tomar su paso.”

“One has to be careful when handling pesticides while working because many plants have pesticides,” he said. “And one has to be careful with the heat. Use more long sleeves, washcloths, and gloves…. Now when there’s a terrible heat—no way—you need to drink a lot of water and watch your step.”

When asked about their work, they all replied with a version of, “It’s rough.” To my astonishment, none of the workers dwelled on negative aspects of working in the fields. They recognized that their work is difficult, especially working in the heat, but they were not resentful or indignant in regards to their situation. Despite acknowledging the danger of fieldwork, they stated that several other jobs are just as difficult and hazardous. Many worked other arduous jobs prior to fieldwork—roofing, warehouse work, slaughterhouse work, packaging, factory work, and many others. To them, it was just work, work that no one else would complete due to the laborious conditions. Many workers declared their pride in the work they do in the fields.

One 48-year-old woman discussed the obstacles she had to overcome in order to work in a new country. She maintained that her motivation to work was always to provide food and housing for her children. As of today, she has worked in agriculture for twenty years.

“Para mí era muy difícil [ser trabajadora agrícola] porque yo nunca he trabajado así en la labor,” she said. “En México yo había trabajado solo de ama de casa. El trabajo sí es muy pesado para uno, más cuando una trae familia. Tiene uno que dar los niños a cuidar… Para ellos [mis niños] era un poco difícil. Era difícil porque como yo no conocía y no tenía nadie que los cuidara, yo tenía que cargar con ellos al trabajo. Y pues, por eso los complicaba mucho. No les gustaba. Ellos querían regresar pero era difícil.”

“For me, it was very difficult [being a farmworker] because I had never worked this way before,” she said. “In Mexico, I had only been a house wife. The work is very difficult for one, even more difficult when one brings their family. You have to give the kids to someone that will take care of them… I didn’t know anyone, so I had to bring the kids to work with me. They hated it. They complained about wanting to go home, but I had no one to leave them with, no one I knew who would babysit them.”

The woman explained that the language barrier was another obstacle she had to overcome. At first, she could only use eye contact and body language as a means to understand her employers. Many American employers were considerate and sympathetic to her situation, trying their best to use creative alternatives in communication until she learned the language. Other employers, however, grew angry and frustrated when she couldn’t understand them.

“Más que nada hay que tener más cuidado para la gente que trabajan en el campo porque es muy difícil,” she said. “Muy pesado. A veces tienen que trabajar—yo he visto cómo trabajan bajo la lluvia y en calorones tan fuertes… Yo llegue a trabajar cuando a veces estaban tirando veneno y uno lo traen así trabajando. Tirando veneno y otras atrás de la máquina cortando tabaco.”

“More than anything, one has to be more mindful of the people who work in the fields because it is very difficult work,” she said. “Very laborious. Sometimes they have to work—I have seen how they work in heavy rain and in unbearable heat… I arrive to work sometimes when they are applying poison, and they still have them [farmworkers] work. Spilling poison and another behind the machinery, cutting tobacco.”

What some workers suggested when asked what could be done to implement positive change in the system was increased visits to work sites. They explained that visiting workers more often would likely create a greater understanding between groups of people, especially in terms of workers and employers. Some discussed the importance of education, wishing that their children or grandchildren or younger people they know would recognize the difficulty of fieldwork and decide to continue their studies. Through education, they hoped that the youth might have the opportunity to seek a better life.

When I went home that night, I thought about the migrant farmworkers. I thought about the 52-year-old man who never gets to go home, who sends money to his family in Mexico and calls them every week. I thought about what it must feel like to never be able to see your family. I thought about the 70-year-old man who works just as much as the others, despite his bad back. When was the last time he has seen a doctor? I thought about the 50-year-old man who works before sunrise to after sunset every day and still has the will power to mow the lawn after his workday. I thought about the 48-year-old woman who lifts heavy boxes every day despite her small frame, who comes home late to feed her children and her grandchildren. Worst of all, I thought about wandering the field behind my house as a child and never realizing that workers like the ones I met might have been in my backyard all along.

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

In December of 2016, Gina McCarthy—the former administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA—delivered a letter to the current administration of the EPA, petitioning a delay in the implementation of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Prior to this petition, most of the revised WPS was scheduled to officially go into effect on January 2, 2017. This petition proposed that the EPA place the implementation date behind a full year due to violations such as failing to provide adequate educational materials regarding WPS rule changes. In February of 2017, Barbara Glenn—the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, or NASDA—urged the EPA to publish an official letter relaying their agreement to delay implementation. Glenn requested that the EPA delay WPS until “adequate enforcement guidance, educational materials, and training resources have been completed and the state lead agencies have the tools, time, and resources necessary to effectively implement the rule changes and assist the regulated community with compliance activities.” The EPA is yet to publicly release an effective date for WPS since its recent decision to grant NASDA’s petition.

The most recent revision to WPS was published in the Federal Register in November of 2015, which aimed to strengthen protections for farmworkers and their families. Since 2015, there have been hundreds of incidents of pesticide exposure that have jeopardized the health and lives of farmworkers. In February of this year near Bakersfield, California, an aerial application of a fungicide was applied to an almond farm while six workers were still in the field. This farm failed to notify and remove their workers prior to application, needlessly exposing them to a harmful pesticide. Despite the $500 fine that was issued to the employer for violating WPS, it is impossible to reverse the harmful effects caused by pesticide exposure. In addition to this, in June of this year, two pesticide exposure incidents occurred on a farm in Watsonville, California within a week of each other. Over 25 farmworkers were exposed to harmful insecticides and fungicides in two separate cases of pesticide drift that occurred in rapid succession of one another. As a result, several farmworkers were hospitalized due to severe dizziness, eye irritation, and other symptoms of illness. Violations such as the ones in Bakersfield and Watsonville further indicate an importance for effective revisions and swift enforcement of the WPS, changes that may not be implemented in time to help farmworkers currently suffering from pesticide exposure in their day-to-day lives.

A new regulation under the revised WPS aims to lessen the burden of toxics exposure by addressing the issue of children having direct contact with pesticides. The EPA has included a “first-time ever minimum age requirement,” which states, “Children under 18 are prohibited from handling pesticides.” It has long been known that the developing organ systems of children often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The EPA recognizes that children are more susceptible to toxics exposure, because children take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults. Children under 18 are at a higher risk of becoming developmentally and cognitively impaired due to pesticide exposure. The new WPS rule change would reduce the negative effects of toxics exposure on children by prohibiting them from handling pesticides. The choice to delay implementation of WPS prevents employers from enforcing safety measures such as this one, harming children who continue to handle pesticides.

By delaying implementation of the revised WPS, the EPA is allowing farmworkers to continue to be exposed to pesticides while maintaining limited regulation. While the EPA has managed to implement a couple of changes to WPS in 2017, many changes still remain unaffected. According to their website, the EPA plans to execute three major changes under WPS on January 2, 2018. These requirements under the revised WPS are listed as the following: “pesticide safety training must cover the expanded content; pesticide safety information (posters) must meet the revised standards; and handlers must suspend applications if workers or other people are in the application exclusion zone.” New regulations under the WPS such as the suspension of pesticide application while workers or others are present will help minimize the risk of pesticide exposure. Ensuring that these requirements are enacted as soon as possible is the best way to protect farmworkers and their families.

Notes by Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern, Toxic Free NC

In attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chairman); Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chairman); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Don Rogers; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Pat Jones (Substitute for the Secretary)

Not in attendance: Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Consider Board Minutes from March 14, 2017

Dr. Hudak-Wise moved that the minutes be approved as is, which was seconded by Mr. Rogers. This was unanimously approved.

Presentation by Dr. Gary Roberson (NCSU) titled, “Agricultural Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Technology”

Dr. Roberson, an associate professor in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at NC State University, presented on the various applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for commercial use. In UAV technology, sensing is used to monitor satellite imagery and other data in order to improve the agricultural landscape. Electronic sensors can track temperatures, decipher relative heat indexes, and gather soil properties. Dr. Roberson discussed several guidelines set by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for operating UAV technology at the commercial level, including the minimum age to obtain a license and where to access information on testing (see https://www.faa.gov/). Since this is an emerging technology, Dr. Roberson stressed the importance of educating the public on the requirements for a commercial license and application information.

The current options for UAVs are fixed wing, rotary wing, and hybrids. Fixed wing UAVs are smaller, electric-powered drones that possess the capacity for multiple sensors such as RGB, thermal, and hydro spectral cameras that can be used for gathering a wide range of data; this technology is an especially significant advancement in the surveillance and surveying world. Rotary wing is the most common among UAV users due to its various sensor controls and its vertical take off and landing, which requires less space and planning.

Dr. Roberson elaborated on the use of UAV technology to collect heat signatures of livestock and to track crop and plant health. In addition to this, Dr. Roberson mentioned the possibility of using UAV technology to monitor water quality at the state level in the future. UAV technology is helpful in identifying regions where crops have been negatively affected by natural phenomena such as disease, erosion, and microburst wind damage. Dr. Roberson concluded that UAV technology could assist farmers and crop scouts in discovering problems with crop growth in a timely manner to promote recovery.

Proposal for a Part-Time Bilingual (Pesticide) Specialist; Request for Funding

Mr. Pat Jones, the Deputy Director for Pesticide Programs, proposed that the board fund a part-time position for a bilingual specialist within the division. The bilingual specialist will translate and reproduce information on pesticide use (e.g. pest control and disposal) in documents such as exams, brochures, pamphlets, signs, and other outreach materials. The Title 6 Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that employers must provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency in the workplace. In an effort to reduce the chances of insubordination with Title 6 and to provide opportunities for all workers to access pesticide information, Mr. Jones urged the board to further consider funding the position for the proposed bilingual specialist, Carmina Hanson, a native Spanish speaker, at the requested amount. The proposed hourly rate for the part-time position was $24.50 for 20 hours per week, a yearly salary of $25,084.

Mr. Harding made a motion to accept the proposal, and Dr. Hudak-Wise made a motion to second it. The motion was unanimously accepted.

Proposal for the Production and Distribution of Pesticide Record-Keeping Manuals; Request for Funding

Dr. Wayne Buhler, the interim department head and professor in the Department of Horticultural Science at NC State University, proposed that the board fund the production and distribution of pesticide record-keeping manuals. The manual assists the private grower (primary audience) as well as the commercial applicator (see https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/north-carolina-agricultural-chemicals-manual/pesticide-use-and-safety-information) in regulating their pesticide use as well as providing detailed information on state and federal application restrictions. The manual is a simple way for the grower to monitor their pesticide use and to maintain written records of this information.

The record-keeping branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service and the USDA, no longer in existence, requested a revision of the manual to remove all North Carolina specific information in order for the manual to be used at the federal level. Dr. Buhler requested that the board fund the production and distribution of 15,000 revised manuals through the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for $44,400. In addition to the proposed funds from the board, the NC Agro Medicine Institute accepted Dr. Buhler’s proposal for assistance in funding the project.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Dr. Langley seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for a Design and Construct an Inexpensive Demonstration for Pesticide Storage, Mixing, and Loading Facility for Small Farmers; Request for Funding

Mr. Jerrold Moody, the Avery County Extension Director, proposed that the board assist in funding the design and construction of a facility for pesticide storage, mixing, and loading. Mr. Moody expressed concern regarding unsafe disposal methods in terms of the potential negative environmental and human health impacts. This facility would also serve as a means to promote educational awareness on pesticide disposal and storage. The proposed funding for the new pesticide facility was $15,360.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for WPS Respiratory Support; Request for Funding

Mrs. Jessica Wilburn (in substitution for Dr. Robin Marcom), a Nurse Coordinator at the NC Agromedicine Institute, proposed that the board fund supplies such as outreach materials, fit testing materials, and other educational materials to promote WPS respiratory support. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, workers must have a medical evaluation, be fit tested, and undergo respiratory training before operating a respirator and must maintain these record for at least two years. The proposed amount for funding ($30,000) would also cover translation, printing, and distribution services.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Settlement Agreements 

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v. Violator

In attendance: Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair and presiding); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Don Rodgers; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Not in attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chair)

Consider Board Minutes from December 12, 2016

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is, which Dr. Kirkman seconding. Unanimously approved.

Inquiry into follow-up from Dr. Melissa Perry

Dr. Scarborough asked Mr. Burnette if there had been any follow-up from questions that he asked Dr. Perry after her presentation on the human health effects of neonics. Mr. Burnette replied that there had been none.

Consider Exemption Request from the Requirements of 02 NCAC 09L.1003(3)

Chris Elder of the Plant Industry Division of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) requests an exemption to dispense particles above the set threshold of 40ft because the Department dispenses mating disruption pheromones at 100ft to combat the gypsy moth.

Mr. Rodgers commented that the gypsy moth was expected to take over North Carolina, but through these efforts, that coverage has been limited.

Dr. Hudak-Wise made a motion to accept the request for exemption, Mr. Rodgers second the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

Consider Elimination of the NC WPS Designated Trainer Exam

Renee Woody of the NCDA&CS, Pesticide Division, requested elimination of the WPS Designated Trainer Exam do to the revised WPS requiring annual trainings. Ms. Woody said that up-to-date, EPA approved train-the-trainer materials are available on the Pesticide Education Research Collaborative (PERC) website that can meet the same requirements as the State’s exam. The State’s exam was not set in rule, but the Department was requesting consent to not offer the exam from the Board.

Dr. Kirkman made the motion to eliminate the WPS Designated Trainer Exam in North Carolina. Mr. Harding second the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund, Request for Funding

Ms. Woody also put forth a request for funding from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for the pesticide contain recycling program. Currently there are 67 counties across North Carolina that have active pesticide recycling programs. For 2016, 557,310 pounds of pesticide containers were recycled into agricultural drainage pipes.

Ms. Woody requested $60,000 for the program that would be transferred in county grants to run their programs ($51,875), promotional materials ($5000), and for the John L. Smith Award ($3,125).

Dr. Kirkman made a motion to accept the request, and Dr. Hudak-Wise second the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

Settlement Agreements

 N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

For a full description of the Settlement Agreements, please click the following link: March 2017 Board Settlement Agreements

Presentation from Dr. Jay Overmyer, Syngenta, titled “Neonicotinoid Insecticides: Focus on Syngenta Studies with Thiamethoxam”

Dr. Jay Overmyer presented to the Board on the work that Syngenta is doing with neonicotinoid insecticides, honeybee health, and the effects of Syngenta’s product, thiamethoxam, on honeybees, aquatic species, and birds. Dr. Overmyer highlighted the importance of this class of insecticides to growers and the work that Syngenta is doing to replicate full field studies with honeybees and their neonicotinoid products. Dr. Overmyer also went on to talk about the multiple factors that affect honeybee health, with pesticides being one of them.

The majority of the presentation concentrated on the field studies that Syngenta conducted between 2014 and 2015 near Mebane, North Carolina.   The studies showed that there was a decrease in pollen storage leading to less brood and lower adult population numbers. However, Syngenta was not allowed by the EPA to feed the hives over the winter season, so there were losses across the study, including the control hives, leading to less than significant results. The EPA ordered the study to be supplementary and for Syngenta to redo the full field study, which they are in the process of doing.

Dr. Overmyer also concluded that the risk of thiamethoxam to honeybees and birds is relatively minimal, and that although aquatic insects are sensitive to neonicotinoids, the exposure rates are usually not in concentrations that would have a great impact on them.

Presentation from Dr. Jill Sidebottom, NC Agricultural Extension, titled “Neonics and Mountain Conifers”

Dr. Jill Sidebottom presented to the Board about how nenoicotinoids are being used to fight the Hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) in Western North Carolina. Right now, imidacloprid and dinotefuran are primarily being used for control. Imidacloprid is being used as a foliar application, whereas dinotefuran is primarily used as a root treatment. Dr. Sidebottom also expressed that there is concern amongst the general public and beekeepers in Western NC about the use of neonicotinoid products. Dr. Sidebottom noted that the Agriculture Extension office promotes Integrated Pest Management through ground covers at Christmas tree operations to reduce pesticide inputs and provide habitat for beneficial insects, like pollinators.

Dr. Sidebottom also discussed the more recent threats from Elongate hemlock scale (EHS), which was introduced from Asia in 1908 and creates an armored scale that buries itself under the wax of the needle. This has created an additional problem for Agricultural Extension, which has added to the problems that still exist after 60 years of research and 23 chemicals that have been used to try to treat these various pests. EHS has caused problems between North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Florida’s Department of Agriculture because Florida purchases over a million trees from North Carolina and EHS could potentially harm two of Florida’s native conifers (torreya tree and the Florida yew). Dr. Sidebottom concluded that EHS is more of a regulatory problem than a destructive pest, but that she is trying different chemical and non-chemical approaches to managing EHS.

NC Pesticide Board chooses no regulatory action on neonics

After the completion of Dr. Sidebottom’s presentation, Mr. Harding moved that the Board take no action on the neonicotinoid class of chemicals at this time. Dr. Kirkman proposed an education campaign as opposed to “no action”, with the Department of Agriculture assisting to make sure that neonicotinoids are not overused. Dr. Hudak-Wise then proposed as a clarifying point that the Board takes no regulatory action. Mr. Harding said that was fine as an amendment, but was supportive of educational efforts. Mr. Rodgers noted that the EPA still is conducting reviews and that that information should be provided to the Board upon completion. Mr. Harding agreed and felt that there was no “need to get out ahead of the EPA” on the subject, which is suppose to have a full assessments of nenoicotinoids out by the end of 2017. Dr. Hudak-Wise suggested to amend the motion to be “no regulatory action, but would like staff to consider educational opportunities.” Mr. Rodgers second the motion. Dr. Hudak-Wise suggested, “if something were to come up pertinent to this information, then we [the Board] would reexamine.” Mr. Harding agreed and also stated though that neonicotinoids are “an important class of chemistry for their growers.” Dr. Kirkman said that he felt that this issue would not be going away and as researchers found out more information that there was potential for the Board to look at it again. The final motion was unanimously approved.

Fifteen Conservation, Farmworker Groups Urge EPA to Protect People, Pollinators From Dangerous Pesticide Mixtures

Agency Has Approved Nearly 100 Pesticide Products Without Considering Harmful Synergistic Effects of New Chemical Combinations

PORTLAND, Ore.— Fifteen organizations representing more than 5 million members sent the Environmental Protection Agency a letter today urging it to follow through on its duty to protect people and the environment from dangerous pesticide mixtures. The letter comes on the heels of an investigation revealing that more than two-thirds of pesticide products the EPA approved for four major companies over the past six years contain mixtures that make them more toxic than the individual pesticides on their own. The information on synergy was found in publicly available patents filed by chemical companies, but apparently was not shared with the EPA by the chemical companies.

The letter also follows a yet-unanswered July 2016 petition asking the EPA to require pesticide companies to provide data on the synergistic effects of pesticide products when seeking approval for those products.

“The EPA has essentially ignored the well-known fact that pesticides, when combined, are often more dangerous than on their own,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Our request is simple and just makes good common sense: The EPA needs to require pesticide companies to disclose data on pesticide synergy and it needs to carefully and transparently consider this information in determining whether these chemicals are safe for use on our food and lawns.”

Farmworkers are on the frontlines of pesticide exposure and are frequently exposed to pesticides even when using the best precautions. Yet, the EPA has ignored how pesticide synergy may effect this vulnerable population. 

“Federal regulators must step up and determine how the synergistic effects of pesticides are affecting farmworkers, especially pregnant women and their newborn children,” said Jeannie Economos, pesticide safety and environmental health project coordinator with the Farmworker Association of Florida. “This is a serious public-health issue we should all be concerned about.”

Beginning in 1984, the EPA’s own regulations specifically said the agency could request data and testing on pesticide synergy from pesticide companies, but in 2007 the agency deleted this provision, calling it unnecessary. As a result, the risks of synergistic combinations have been routinely overlooked by the EPA in its approval of pesticides for food, lawns, ornamental plants and everyday products.

“There is a major gap in the EPA’s knowledge when it comes to understanding the risks posed by pesticides,” said Preston Peck, policy advocate with Toxic Free North Carolina. “We have no idea how these chemicals interact with each other in the environment and should not be using them indiscriminately until that information gap is filled.”

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 July 12, 2016 meeting of the North Carolina Pesticide Board began with a reading of the Mandatory Ethics Inquiry, which asks Board members to recuse themselves from actions in the event of a conflict of interest. None of the Board members recused themselves. Several presentations followed the reading of this inquiry, beginning with Brian Pointer of the Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources, who spoke about the DWR’s Random Ambient Monitoring System, which monitors waterways for pesticides and other contaminants such as metals, coliform bacteria, cyanide, sulfides, and PCBs. In this presentation, Pointer provided an overview of the methods used in RAMS, as well as the limitations of this system. Of particular note is the fact that while RAMS does test for pesticides on a bi-monthly basis, it does not test for neonicotinoids. Pointer noted that the DWR does not have the funding capacity to conduct neonic testing of its samples.

Following Pointer’s presentation, Toxic Free NC intern Elisa Lazzarino presented on the methodological problems with both RAMS with respect to neonicotinoid contamination in aquatic invertebrate habitats – including those of endangered species – and the Bee-Informed Partnership Survey as a measure of pollinator decline and its causes. Ms. Lazzarino’s presentation also drew the Board’s attention to the widespread problem of consumer misuse of these highly toxic substances. Ms. Lazzarino remarked on the recently passed Maryland Pollinator Protection Act, which reclassified neonics as restricted use pesticides (RUPs) for professional use only, and pressed the Board to adopt a similar policy, through their authority under the NC Pesticide Law of 1971. After this presentation, Toxic Free NC Policy Advocate, Preston Peck, addressed the Board and noted their inaction after three previous presentations on these issues, and urged them to consider the growing body of evidence that strongly connects neonics to both pollinator decline and adverse health in aquatic invertebrates, particularly in view of the enormous economic value of North Carolina’s blue crab industry. Following these comments, the Board unanimously agreed to organize a task force of scientists to investigate the harms of neonics. The Board will accept nominations, and will then vote to approve these nominations.

Also presenting at the meeting were researchers from Preventing Agricultural Chemical Exposure (PACE) at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who spoke about the neurological effects on farmworkers exposed to pesticides. Dr. Thomas Arcury spoke about the subclinical symptoms (i.e. not manifested physically) of pesticide exposure, and Dr. Sara Quandt spoke more directly to olfactory impairment in farmworkers exposed to pesticides as a likely marker of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s. Dr. Paul Laurienti, also of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, spoke briefly about the strong correlation in pesticide-exposed farmworkers between exposure, balance, and brain anatomy. While Dr. Laurienti’s findings are not conclusive as a sign of ill-health in pesticide-exposed farmworkers, he stressed to the Board that the findings warrant further research.

Settlement Agreements for Violations of Pesticide Law

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

Pesticide Board Settlements

Toxic Free NC’s has a new Executive Director!

We are excited to announce that Program Manager, Dylan Williams, will be taking over as Executive Director on June 1^st 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 1^st 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.