Pesticide Action Network

April 17, 2023

Battle lines being drawn as Farm Bill looms

With the upcoming expiration of the US Farm Bill in September, lawmakers are drawing battle lines over numerous issues that impact the lives of millions of people, from food assistance to farm subsidies and more.

As in past years, the debates are shaping up with a focus on programs aimed at helping provide nutrition to needy families, but some environmental and public health advocates say the bill also offers an opportunity to tackle concerns about harmful pesticides used in agriculture and farmworkers health issues — an opportunity they hope lawmakers won’t miss.

“There’s never been any attention on pesticides and farmworker health,” said Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist at the advocacy group Pesticide Action Network (PAN). “So if we get any, that’ll be progress.”

Hunger and “hypocrisy”
Much of the debate over the upcoming Farm Bill is expected to target questions about whether to expand, reform, or cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), an anti-hunger program that helps low-income families purchase food. SNAP makes up about 80% of funding in the current Farm Bill.

“In this current Congress, that’s going to get a lot of airtime,” Reeves said.

The debate heated up last month, when House Agriculture Committee member Dusty Johnson (R-SD), along with 23 other House Republicans, proposed legislation for the upcoming bill that would strengthen the eligibility requirements for SNAP. The measure, dubbed the America Works Act of 2023, would expand the number of people subject to SNAP’s work requirements, potentially jeopardizing food benefits for more than 10 million people, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Republican Study Committee’s 2023 proposed budget seeks to remove SNAP benefits from the Farm Bill altogether.

March 2, 2023

California pushes ahead with its new pesticide-reduction plan

By Pam Strayer and Carey Gillam

Amid mounting evidence of the risks some synthetic pesticides pose to human and environmental health, California regulators this week were pushing ahead with a recently announced “roadmap” aimed at transitioning the state to more sustainable options for managing weeds and insects,

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), in partnership with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), held two public webinars on Thursday seeking to explain the details of the plan – and bolster support for it – as the state nears the March 13 close of the public comment period on the proposal.

State officials announced the plan in January, saying the goal is to eliminate the use of “high-risk pesticides” by 2050 to “better protect the health of our communities and environment, while supporting agriculture, food systems and community well-being.”

That message was underscored in Thursday’s event: “The evolving science about risks and impacts from certain pesticide uses on our health and our environment, which too commonly impacts communities already overburdened by other environmental hazards, point to the importance of accelerating this system-wide shift,” Clare Mendelsohn deputy secretary for public policy at California Environmental Protection Agency, said in the evening webinar.

State officials say the Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) plan is visionary and will significantly overhaul harmful agricultural practices in the state, helping protect farmworkers and others put at risk through exposure to pesticides known to be harmful to human health.

CDFA Secretary Karen Ross has said that once implemented, the recommendations would “ensure an abundant and healthful food supply, protect our natural resources, and create healthy, resilient communities.”

But some say the plan falls short in many respects, and that faster and more aggressive actions are needed to protect and enhance soil health, adapt to climate change, and protect human health.

January 19, 2023

Report finds “vicious cycle” between pesticide dependence and climate change

By Shannon Kelleher

Pesticide use is a significant factor in harmful climate change, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions in multiple ways, according to a report issued this week.

The report released by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) North America found that greenhouse gases are emitted during production of these pesticides as well as when they are applied to crops, and later on, as they linger in the soil. In turn, climate change creates conditions that lead to greater pesticide use, creating a vicious cycle.

“Some pesticides themselves are powerful greenhouse gases,” Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist at PAN North America in California and an author of the report, said during the webinar announcing the report.

Reeves cited a pesticide called sulfuryl fluoride as an example. The fumigant has nearly 5,000 times the potency of carbon dioxide, and in 2018 alone, three million pounds of sulfuryl fluoride were applied in California for agricultural purposes, Reeves said.

A 2021 study found that sulfuryl fluoride remains in the atmosphere for about 36 years.

Last year environmental groups filed a petition urging the California Air Resources Board to phase out sulfuryl fluoride due to its impact on climate change, arguing that phasing out sulfuryl fluoride would provide the same climate benefits as taking 1 million cars off US roads each year.

Reeves said many pesticides also release volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which react with nitrous oxide to produce ground-level ozone, a greenhouse gas that harms human lungs and burns plant tissue. The US Department of Agriculture has found that ozone may damage plants more than all other air pollutants combined.

Synthetic pesticides are, in essence, petrochemicals, and the fossil fuel industry and pesticides are inextricably linked, according to Asha Sharma, organizing co-director for PAN North America in California and an author of the report.

“We can’t address climate without addressing the dependency that conventional agriculture has on fossil fuels and pesticides,” she said.