USDA Report Released: Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health

Recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, released an report titled, Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health (2013).  According to the press release for the 72-page report available here, the following is discussed:

[t]he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health. The report states that there are multiple factors playing a role in honey bee colony declines, including parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure.
"There is an important link between the health of American agriculture and the health of our honeybees for our country's long term agricultural productivity," said Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan. "The forces impacting honeybee health are complex and USDA, our research partners, and key stakeholders will be engaged in addressing this challenge."

"The decline in honey bee health is a complex problem caused by a combination of stressors, and at EPA we are committed to continuing our work with USDA, researchers, beekeepers, growers and the public to address this challenge," said Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe. "The report we've released today is the product of unprecedented collaboration, and our work in concert must continue. As the report makes clear, we've made significant progress, but there is still much work to be done to protect the honey bee population."

In October 2012, a National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, led by federal researchers and managers, along with Pennsylvania State University, was convened to synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding the primary factors that scientists believe have the greatest impact on managed bee health.

National Academies Report Released: Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides

Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report produced by the Committee on Ecological Risk Assessment Under FIFRA and ESA; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Studies; and the National Research Council titled, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides (2013). The 176-page prepublication report (available free with a one-time registration) discusses how,

[t]he US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for protecting species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and for protecting habitats that are critical for their survival. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for registering or reregistering pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and must ensure that pesticide use does not cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, which is interpreted to include listed species and their critical habitats. The agencies have developed their own approaches to evaluating environmental risk, and their approaches differ because their legal mandates, responsibilities, institutional cultures, and expertise differ. Over the years, the agencies have tried to resolve their differences but have been unsuccessful in reaching a consensus regarding their assessment approaches.

As a result, FWS, NMFS, EPA, and the US Department of Agriculture asked the National Research Council (NRC) to examine scientific and technical issues related to determining risks posed to listed species by pesticides. Specifically, the NRC was asked to evaluate methods for identifying the best scientific data available; to evaluate approaches for developing modeling assumptions; to identify authoritative geospatial information that might be used in risk assessments; to review approaches for characterizing sublethal, indirect, and cumulative effects; to assess the scientific information available for estimating effects of mixtures and inert ingredients; and to consider the use of uncertainty factors to account for gaps in data. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides, which was prepared by the NRC Committee on Ecological Risk Assessment under FIFRA and ESA, is the response to that request.

U.K. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Report Released: Pollinators and Pesticides

Recently, the U.K. Parliment's  House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, issued a report, titled, Pollinators and Pesticides (2013).  According to the 306-page report, available here, the following was discussed:

[t]he Government must introduce a precautionary moratorium on three pesticides linked to the decline of pollinators - imidacloprid, clothianidin and TMX – that suspends their use on flowering crops attractive to pollinators, Parliament’s cross-party green watchdog has said.

The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Joan Walley MP, commented:

“Defra seems to be taking an extraordinarily complacent approach to protecting bees given the vital free service that pollinators provide to our economy.

“If farmers had to pollinate fruit and vegetables without the help of insects it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and we would all be stung by rising food prices.

“Defra Ministers have refused to back EU efforts to protect pollinators and can’t even come up with a convincing plan to encourage bee-friendly farming in the UK.”

American Bird Conservancy Report: The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds

Recently, the American Bird Conservancy, a "not-for profit organization whose mission is to conserve native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas" issued a report titled, The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds (Mar. 19, 2013). The 288-page report available here, authored by environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau and Cynthia Palmer discusses the following:

[a]s part of a study on impacts from the world’s most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.

“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns,” said Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nation’s leading bird conservation organizations.

CRS Report Released: Environmental Regulation and Agriculture

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Environmental Regulation and Agriculture (Feb. 22, 2013). The 51-page report authored by Megan Stubbs discusses the following:

Summary

As the U.S. and global economies continue to struggle, some inside and outside of Congress have expressed concern about how environmental regulation may stifle growth and productivity. Much of the criticism has focused on environmental regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some claim that EPA is overreaching its regulatory authority and imposing costly and burdensome requirements on society. In general, the agriculture community, among others, has been vocal in its concerns, contending that EPA appears to be focusing some of its recent regulatory efforts on agriculture. Many public health and environmental advocates, on the other hand, support many of EPA’s overall regulatory efforts and in some cases argue that EPA has not taken adequate action to control the impacts of certain agricultural activities. Where agriculture contributes to environmental impairment, these groups say, it is appropriate to consider ways to minimize or eliminate the adverse impacts.

Growing interest in the impact of regulatory actions on many sectors of the economy is evident in Congress, which continues to examine the role of EPA and other federal agencies in regulating environmental protection. Congress has a number of policy options to address or respond to potential regulatory impacts

Most environmental regulations, in terms of permitting, inspection and enforcement, are implemented by state and local governments, often based on federal EPA regulatory guidance. In some cases, agriculture is the direct or primary focus of the regulatory actions. In other cases, agriculture is one of many affected sectors. Traditionally, farm and ranch operations have been exempt or excluded from many environmental regulations. Given the agricultural sector’s size and its potential to affect its surrounding environment, there is interest in both managing potential impacts of agricultural actions on the environment and also maintaining an economically viable agricultural industry. Of particular interest to agriculture are a number of regulatory actions affecting air, water, energy, and chemicals.

Air

Agricultural production practices from both livestock and crop operations generate a variety of substances that enter the atmosphere, potentially creating health and environmental issues. Recent actions by EPA to regulate emissions and pollutants have drawn criticism, including greenhouse gas emission reporting and permitting requirements, and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) related to particulate matter (commonly referred to as dust). The agricultural community continues to show particular interest in NAAQS because some farming and livestock practices contribute to particulate matter emissions.

Water

Water quality issues also are of interest to the agricultural industry. Water is an input for production and can also be degraded as a result of production through the potential release of sediment, nutrients, pathogens, and pesticides. The extent and magnitude of water quality degradation from agriculture practices varies greatly, but agriculture is proven to be a significant source of impairment of several U.S. waters. Federal environmental laws largely do not regulate agricultural actors, in many cases giving the regulatory responsibilities to the states. One exception is large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are subject to permitting requirements. Constraints on agricultural production to reduce pollution discharges typically arise at the state level in response to local concerns, and how to manage agricultural sources has been a prominent issue in several large watershed restoration efforts, such as those in the Chesapeake Bay and Florida Everglades.

Energy

Changes in energy policy, namely increased bioenergy production, have recently become important to many in the agricultural industry, based on the potential of corn-based biofuel production to contribute to the nation’s energy supply through both the renewable fuel standard (RFS) and the increased percentage of ethanol in gasoline (E15).

Chemicals

Hundreds of chemical products are available to repel or kill “pests” that affect agricultural production. The federal regulation of these chemicals includes registering and restricting their use. The risks associated with agricultural chemical use and possible impacts on human health and the environment also have led to recent federal regulatory reviews of chemical fertilizer and pesticide use.

Congressional Research Service Report Released: Bee Health: The Role of Pesticides

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, just issued the report Bee Health: The Role of Pesticides (Dec, 11, 2012). The 26-page report authored by Linda-Jo Schierow, Renée Johnson, and M. Lynne Corn discusses the following:

Summary

Bees, both commercially managed honey bees and wild bees, play an important role in global food production. In the United States, the value of honey bees only as commercial pollinators in U.S. food production is estimated at about $15 billion to $20 billion annually. The estimated value of other types of insect pollinators, including wild bees, to U.S. food production is not available. Given their importance to food production, many have expressed concern about whether a “pollinator crisis” has been occurring in recent decades. In the United States, commercial migratory beekeepers along the East Coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in 2006 in their honey bee colonies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that overwinter colony losses from 2006 to 2011 averaged more than 32% annually. This issue remained legislatively active in the 110th Congress and resulted in increased funding for pollinator research, among other types of farm program support, as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Congressional interest in the health of honey bees and other pollinators has continued in the 112th Congress (e.g., H.R. 2381, H.R. 6083, and S. 3240) and may extend into the 113th Congress.

This report:

• Describes changes in managed and wild bee populations, given readily available data and information. It focuses on managed and wild bees only, and excludes other types of pollinators, including other insects, birds, and bats. Data on managed honey bees are limited, and do not provide a comprehensive view of changes in bee populations. Data for wild bee populations are even more limited.

• Provides a listing of the range of possible factors thought to be negatively affecting managed and wild bee populations. In addition to pesticides, other identified factors include bee pests and diseases, diet and nutrition, genetics, habitat loss and other environmental stressors, and beekeeping management issues, as well as the possibility that bees are being negatively affected by cumulative, multiple exposures and/or the interactive effects of each of these factors.

• Briefly summarizes readily available scientific research and analysis regarding the potential role of pesticides among the factors affecting the health and wellbeing of bees, as well as the statutory authority and related regulatory activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to pesticide use.

A 2007 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Status ofPollinators in North America, provides a more detailed scientific context for this report and may be consulted for more in depth understanding about bee health. That study concluded that many factors contribute to pollinator declines in North America, and CRS accedes to that conclusion. Accordingly, the focus of this report on bee exposure to pesticides is not intended to imply that pesticides are any more important in influencing the health and wellness of bees than any of the other identified factors influencing bee health. Pesticides are only one of the many influences on bee health.

Because neonicotinoid pesticides have been the focus of concerns in Europe and in the United States, this report briefly describes recent scientific research related to possible effects of exposure to these pesticides on bees. The report concludes with a summary of recent regulatory activity regarding neonicotinoids at EPA, the federal agency charged with assessing risks and regulating U.S. sale and use of pesticides.

 

U.S. Geological Survey Report Released: Occurrence of Pesticides in Water and Sediment Collected from Amphibian Habitats Located Throughout the United States, 2009-10

Recently the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a report, titled Occurrence of Pesticides in Water and Sediment Collected from Amphibian Habitats Located Throughout the United States, 2009-10, USGS Data Series: 707 (2012). In the 48 page report, here,

Water and bed-sediment samples were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2009 and 2010 from 11 sites within California and 18 sites total in Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, and Oregon, and were analyzed for a suite of pesticides by the USGS. Water samples and bed-sediment samples were collected from perennial or seasonal ponds located in amphibian habitats in conjunction with research conducted by the USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative and the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program.

Broken out into two geographic areas (national and for the State of California), scientists analyzed each water sample for 96 different pesitcides.  The report concluded that "[a] total of 24 pesticides were detected in one or more of the 54 water samples, including 7 fungicides, 10 herbicides, 4 insecticides, 1 synergist, and 2 pesticide degradates."

Environmental Working Group 2011 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides

This guide from the Environmental Working Group finds that "The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. [However, you should] reduce your exposures as much as possible, but eating conventionally-grown produce is far better than not eating fruits and vegetables at all.

The Shopper's Guide to Pesticide in Produce will help you determine which fruits and vegetables have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. You can lower your pesticide intake substantially by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated produce."