farming

January 16, 2025

Certified “naturally grown” offers alternative to the USDA organic label

By Harshawn Ratanpal, KBIA

Prairie du Rocher, Ill. – On a cold winter day in Illinois, three little pigs are resting in a three-sided shed. They have plenty of space to trot around, as they do when Jennifer Duensing approaches. Those footsteps mean it’s feeding time. They squeal impatiently, waiting for their usual diet of organic feed, which sometimes includes vegetables like squash grown right here on the farm.

The farm, Illinois Country Harvest, had been in Duensing’s family for generations when she took it over in 2015. She was new to farming, so there was a lot to learn about how to best manage the near-12 acres now under her purview. But one thing she definitely knew was that she wanted to manage the land, crops and animals without chemical inputs.

“We use absolutely zero chemicals, which means if we have pests, we don’t spray,” she said.

There are countless certifications she could have chosen and labels she could slap on her products to try and prove her farm has good practices. In the midst of rising consumer demand for organic foods, a nonprofit called “A Greener World” which “promotes practical, sustainable solutions in agriculture by supporting farmers and educating consumers” has a 15-page guide that attempts to clear up consumer confusion around labels that use terms like “natural,” “humane” and “organic.”

Certified Naturally Grown was a perfect fit for how she was already running her farm.

“Our certification process is really pretty simple, because we have zero chemical inputs,” she said. “There’s nothing we had to justify or have reasoning for, because we just do not use anything.”

Keith Schenider Yakima long line of cattle

December 17, 2024

Regulators battle Oregon and Washington farmers over limits to farm pollution

By Keith Schneider

SUNNYSIDE, Washington – Waters from the snowpack of the Cascade Mountains support orchards, vineyards and dairies here in the Yakima Valley of eastern Washington State, boosting a flourishing farm economy and helping to stock store grocery shelves nationwide.

But as the waters flow, so do a host of dangerous farm pollutants, contaminating drinking water wells in the valley and through the adjacent Lower Umatilla Basin across the state line in Oregon.

Regulators and citizen groups have been pressing crop and livestock producers for years to document and rein in the pollution, tightening restrictions on some of the nation’s largest dairies, and bringing litigation against several seen out of compliance.

The actions put both Washington and Oregon among a growing number of US states leading a controversial national campaign to make agriculture more accountable for its mammoth wastes.

“There is a lot of new energy around this problem,” said Salini Sasidharan, assistant professor of groundwater management at Oregon State University. “A lot of investment is being made. There’s momentum here to make a real difference.”

But progress is slow and results are mixed. And farmers are fighting back, saying that they’re doing their best to balance environmental protection and business needs, and the crackdown on their business threatens not just their livelihoods, but also potentially the abundance of the country’s food supply.

December 4, 2024

Study indicates “persistent, damaging” effects of glyphosate herbicide exposure on brain health

By Carey Gillam

Exposure to a widely used weed killing chemical could be having “persistent, damaging effects” on brain health, according to a new study.

The study, published Wednesday in the Journal of Neuroinflammation, found that laboratory mice exposed to glyphosate herbicide developed significant brain inflammation, a condition associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The researchers, many who are associated with a neurodegenerative disease research center at Arizona State University (ASU), said the symptoms continued even long after exposure ended.

“This work is yet another step forward in understanding the impact of this widely used herbicide on the brain,” lead ASU researcher Ramon Velazquez said. “But more research is needed to determine the impact that glyphosate has on the brain since most Americans are exposed to this herbicide on a daily basis.” Velazquez noted that the work is particularly important given the increasing incidence of cognitive decline in the aging population, particularly in rural communities where glyphosate is used in farming.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide globally – made popular by Monsanto Co as the active ingredient in its Roundup brand, among others. It has been used so extensively by farmers, homeowners and industrial and municipal users for so long that it is considered ubiquitous – found in food, water and in human urine samples. A 2022 report by a unit of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said more than 80% of urine samples drawn from children and adults in a US health study contained glyphosate.

Several authors of the new paper were also part of a team that published a prior, related study that examined the impact of glyphosate when it infiltrates the brain.

December 2, 2024

EPA takes partial step to ban chlorpyrifos in a move called “unconscionable”

By Carey Gillam

The long and winding regulatory road for a pesticide known to be harmful to developing babies took another turn on Monday as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was planning to only partially ban the insecticide chlorpyrifos in farming.

Under pressure from powerful agricultural industry interests and ordered by a federal court to consider the factors raised by the farming groups in a legal petition, the EPA said it would continue to allow chlorpyrifos to be used by farmers growing 11 crops, including apples, asparagus, citrus, peaches, strawberries, wheat, soybeans and others, despite evidence that the pesticide is associated with “neurodevelopmental effects” that can impair the normal development of children. Other uses in farming would be banned, the agency said.

In the most recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pesticide residue monitoring report, chlorpyrifos was the 11th most frequently found pesticide in human food samples out of 209 different pesticides detected by FDA testing.

“EPA continues to prioritize the health of children,” Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement. “This proposed rule is a critical step forward as we work to reduce chlorpyrifos in or on food and to better protect people, including infants and children, from exposure to chemicals that are harmful to human health.”

Public and environmental health advocates saw it differently, saying chlorpyrifos should not be allowed at all, given scientific research showing it has neurotoxic and endocrine disrupting effects, particularly on the developing children of pregnant women.

winifred-helton-harmon-4GIF-BcmZlM-unsplash

November 22, 2024

Court deals setback to efforts to regulate pesticide-coated seeds

By Carey Gillam

A federal court this week dealt a blow to calls for new regulations on pesticide-coated seeds used in farming, ruling that US regulators were not acting improperly in exempting the seeds from registration review.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California on Wednesday granted a summary judgment in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and agrochemical industry lobbyist CropLife America, turning back arguments by the Center for Food Safety and other environmental advocates who have spent years warning of a range of “devastating effects” they say result from widespread use of the specialty seeds.

The concerns addressed in the case focus on seeds that are coated in insecticides before they are planted. Three specific types of insecticides that are part of a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids present particular threats to beneficial birds and insects such as butterflies, and can contaminate the air, soil and water with toxins, according to critics.

The court case ruled on this week focused on three types of neonics – imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin.

“Neonicotinoid treated seeds are used on at least half of all croplands in the US but pose an extreme danger to birds, bees, and other pollinators,” the Center for Food Safety said in a statement issued Thursday following the ruling. “With the future of agriculture and entire food webs on the line, it is irresponsible and unlawful that these pesticides will continue to be exempted from registration.”

The European Union has banned the outdoor use of certain types of neonicotinoids, also called neonics, and the United Nations has said neonics are so hazardous that they should be “severely” restricted. But in the US, neonics remain widely used, typically as coatings on corn, cotton and soybean seeds, planted by farmers to protect crops from insects and disease.

Scientific research has shown they are contributing to a decline in important pollinators such as honeybees. Environmental advocates say numerous studies show neonics are not necessary.

November 18, 2024

Despite critics, organic farming thrives in heart of US corn country

By Keith Schneider

WEST BEND, Iowa – People searching for ways to limit the toll industrialized American agriculture takes on communities, land, and water may want to make a visit to Clear Creek Acres in northern Iowa.

With just shy of 800 residents, West Bend, Iowa is barely a blip on a prairie landscape, but it has become home base for an uncommonly large expanse of organically grown crops- operations that have found success in challenging the popular convention that pesticides and other agricultural chemicals are needed to feed the world.

Towering grain bins are surrounded by close to 50,000 acres of corn, soybeans, oats and other crops grown without the use of synthetic chemicals. Farmers fertilize the land with chicken litter and hog manure and weed much of the land by hand, or with non-chemical tools, such as new laser weeders.

What’s occurred here since 1998, when farmer Barry Fehr experimented with raising chemical-free soybeans on 45 acres, is the development of the most expansive and profitable area of organic grain production in Iowa, and possibly the United States. Most of the land is farmed by multiple generations of the Fehr family. The family also manages about 3,000 organic acres in Colorado. Generating millions of dollars annually in a “sustainable income,” the success of the organic operations here in the heart of corn country defies long-held conventions about a need for chemicals in farming.

The agrochemical industry, led by Monsanto-owner Bayer, Syngenta and other global seed and chemical giants, maintains that weed killers, insecticides and other pesticides are essential to robust food production, and that a growing global population requires use of the chemicals in agriculture.

But 71-year-old Dan Fehr, who has been farming more than 50 years, says “that is debatable.”

The Fehr family farms are nearly matching the yields of crops grown conventionally, perhaps seeing only about a 10% yield decline in comparison, Fehr said. Their costs are lower because they’re not buying pesticides and the high-priced genetically modified seeds designed to be used with certain weed killing pesticides.

And the prices they reap are higher because organic crops command premiums in a marketplace where consumer demand for organic foods is climbing. About 25,000 acres of the Fehr farms in Iowa generate approximately $40 million a year in crop sales.

“The premium we got from selling organics is the key reason,” said Fehr. “The demand for organic has definitely grown a lot. That is why we do it.”

And, he added – “Nobody has died of not using pesticides. I don’t think it will hurt anything not to use pesticides.”

November 1, 2024

US Congress members call on EPA to ban paraquat, citing risk of Parkinson’s and other diseases

By Carey Gillam

More than 50 US lawmakers are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to join dozens of other nations in banning a widely used weed killer linked to Parkinson’s disease and other health dangers.

In an Oct 31 letter to the agency, seven US senators said that paraquat, a weed killer commonly applied on US farms, was a “highly toxic pesticide whose continued use cannot be justified given its harms to farmworkers and rural communities.” The call for a ban from the senators came after 47 members of the US House of Representatives sent a similar letter to the EPA calling for a ban earlier in October.

The lawmakers cite scientific links between paraquat use and development of Parkinson’s and other “life threatening diseases” as well as “grave impacts on the environment”. The lawmakers note that approximately 70 countries have banned paraquat.

“Numerous studies” have found that paraquat causes “serious health risks for workers who use the substance as well as the surrounding communities,” the lawmakers wrote. “These health risks include a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease, with some studies finding a 64% increase in the likelihood of developing Parkinson’s, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and other thyroid issues.”

Sen. Cory Booker, organizer of the Senate letter, said the risks of paraquat exposure are “well documented” and that it is “irresponsible” for the EPA to continue to allow its use. “I hope the EPA will follow the science and ban paraquat,” Booker said.

The congressional letters add to mounting pressure on the EPA to remove paraquat from the market.

October 22, 2024

Bayer’s new Roundup products appear more toxic than prior formulations, new report asserts

By Carey Gillam

New types of Roundup weed killing products marketed to US consumers contain chemicals that pose greater health risks to people than prior formulations suspected of causing cancer, according to an analysis by an environmental health advocacy group.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) reported Tuesday it found four chemicals have recently been added to Roundup products that have been scientifically shown to cause a variety of health problems, including reproductive defects, kidney and liver damage, cancer, and neurotoxicity.

The analysis comes after the agrochemical company Bayer pledged that it would remove glyphosate from its popular Roundup herbicide products sold for residential lawn and garden use starting in 2023.

Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, made the change to try to curtail the filing of future litigation as it battles thousands of lawsuits filed against Monsanto by cancer patients who claim they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from using Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.

But FOE said it found the chemicals used in the new Roundup formulations are, on average, 45 times more toxic to humans experiencing chronic exposure than glyphosate-based Roundup. The chemicals were roughly four times more acutely toxic, the group said.

Notably, all four of the added chemicals pose greater risk of long-term and/or reproductive health problems than does glyphosate, based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) evaluation of safety studies, FOE said.

Of the four chemicals found in the products – diquat dibromide, fluazifop-P-butyl, triclopyr, and imazapic – the “worst offender”, according to FOE, is diquat dibromide. It is 200 times more toxic than glyphosate when exposure occurs over a long period of time, the group said, and is banned in the European Union. It is 27 times more toxic in acute exposures, the group said.

Kendra Klein, FOE deputy director for science and an author of the report, said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be providing stronger oversight.

“People need to realize that the EPA has long put the profits of companies like Bayer ahead of their health when it comes to pesticides,” Klein said. “And now, they’ve allowed Bayer to quietly swap out the chemicals in Roundup, making it far more toxic to people’s health, without changing the packaging or warning consumers of the increased risks.”

October 6, 2024

Opinion: Revealing the toxic lobbying power of Bayer

By Hans van Scharen

Big fossil-fuel companies like Shell, Exxon, BP or Total are not your trusted source to go to for solid advice on how to urgently prevent the climate from changing ever faster. But for halting the spread of cancer and all kinds of degenerative diseases, helping farmers out of their collective socioeconomic nightmares, combating hunger or how to avoid a further collapse of biodiversity, policymakers find it completely normal to engage with powerful agrochemical companies like Bayer and BASF.

Yet these companies produce many chemical products that are bad for our health, for the environment and increasingly for democracy itself, as shown by Corporate Europe Observatory’s new report Bayer’s Toxic Trails.

Whether it’s over glyphosate, GMOs, or global warming, we show how it attempts to capture public policy to pursue its private interests.

Bayer tries to legitimize this expensive lobby by being more or less transparent about it and calling it “political advocacy“. In fact, it is thanks to it’s deep pockets and economic clout capable of changing laws and regulations which should serve the general interest. Bayer simply wants to maintain monopolistic control of the seed and pesticides markets, fights off regulatory challenges to its toxic products, tries to limit legal liability, and exercises political influence.

First there is the element of global market power and ever increasing concentration, making them an essential part of a small club of global Food Barons. Just four of these multinationals – Bayer, BASF, Corteva and Syngenta – control over 65% of global trade in pesticides and at least half of the world’s seed trade. That represents a multi billion euro market, co-control over the world’s production of food, and very much related, loads of deep political influence on agricultural and environmental policies.

Just for the record: the successful lobby campaign to take down the Farm2Fork Strategy, a crucial part of the EU Green Deal, was the work of these companies, their consultancies and trade associations like Croplife (with a little help from their political friends, of course).

Bayer and allies were also spearheading the campaign to prolong the EU authorization for glyphosate with another 10 years, despite a wealth of scientific indications that show the product is a disaster for health, biodiversity, soil and water.

September 27, 2024

“Defend or be damned” – How a US company uses government funds to suppress pesticide opposition around the world

By Carey Gillam, Margot Gibbs and Elena DeBre

In 2017, two United Nations experts called for a treaty to strictly regulate dangerous pesticides, which they said were a “global human rights concern”, citing scientific research showing pesticides can cause cancers, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and other health problems.

Publicly, the industry’s lead trade association dubbed the recommendations “unfounded and sensational assertions”. In private, industry advocates have gone further.

Derogatory profiles of the two UN experts, Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak, are hosted on an online private “social network” portal for pesticide company employees and a range of influential allies.

Members of the network can access a wide range of personal information about hundreds of individuals from around the world deemed a threat to industry interests, including US food writers Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman, the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva and the Nigerian activist Nnimmo Bassey. Many profiles include personal details such as the names of family members, phone numbers, home addresses and even house values.

The profiling is part of a broad campaign – that was financed partly with US taxpayers dollars – to downplay pesticide dangers, discredit opponents, and undermine international policymaking harmful to the pesticide industry, according to court records, emails and other documents obtained by the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports in an investigative reporting collaboration with The New Lede, the Guardian, and other international media partners.

The efforts were spearheaded by a “reputation management” firm in Missouri called v-Fluence. The company, founded by former Monsanto executive Jay Byrne, provides self-described services that include “intelligence gathering”, “proprietary data mining” and “risk communications”.

The revelations demonstrate how industry advocates established a “private social network” to counter resistance to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa, Europe and other parts of the world, while also denigrating organic and other alternative farming methods. More than 30 current government officials are on the membership list of the private network, most of whom are from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Elver, who is now a university research professor and a member of a United Nations food security committee, said public money would have been better spent on scientific research into the health impacts of pesticides than on profiling people such as herself.

“Instead of understanding the scientific reality, they try and shoot the messenger. It is really hard to believe,” she said.

Author Michael Pollan’s profile portrays him as an “ardent opponent” of industrial agriculture and (GM) crops and a proponent of organic farming. His profile includes a long list of criticisms and details such as the names of his siblings, parents, son and brother-in-law.

“It’s one thing to have an industry come after you after publishing a critical article. This happens all the time in journalism,” Pollan said. “But to have your own government pay for it is outrageous. These are my tax dollars at work.”