{"id":629,"date":"2020-11-16T03:22:02","date_gmt":"2020-11-16T07:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/common-ground-education-center-copy\/"},"modified":"2025-04-24T14:58:25","modified_gmt":"2025-04-24T18:58:25","slug":"mofga-pesticides-quiz","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/","title":{"rendered":"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

MOFGA Pesticides Quiz and Primer<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

How much do you know about pesticides and your health?\n\n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

2024 Edition | By Sharon S. Tisher, J.D.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Dear reader, I hope you find this new edition of the Pesticides Quiz and Primer fun and enlightening, and a pathway to our collective better health. Since the last, 2015, edition, I have become a grandmother, which made completing this update personally more compelling. Coincident with the development of this edition, I am delighted to report that 15 years of Jean English\u2019s MOF&G \u201cOrganic Matter\u201d column are now available for your exploration, in a searchable PDF, covering a wide variety of science, policy, and health developments relevant to organic farming and gardening. Just click here<\/a> <\/strong>to see it. \u201cOrganic Matter\u201d was always my first resource in writing and updating the quiz. When MOFGA\u2019s website was redesigned in 2021, the links to this column no longer worked. We have now substituted links to the Organic Matter Archive for cites to Jean\u2019s column in the quiz answers.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTrue or False:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\n
\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Rachel Carson's 1962 best seller, \"Silent Spring,\" was a wakeup call that led to a reduction in pesticide use in the United States.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False. <\/strong>Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring raised public consciousness and understanding of the risks of pesticides and (a decade later) led to the cancellation of the registration of DDT and several other persistent and highly toxic pesticides (although they continued to be manufactured for use abroad). However, according to EPA estimates, 1.25 billion pounds of pesticide active ingredients were sold in 1995 in the United States, more than double the 540 million pounds sold in 1964. Adjusted for inflation, U.S. pesticide expenditures grew about 3 percent annually from the 1970s to the 1990s. The percentage of crop acres treated with herbicides rose from about 50 percent in the 1960s to more than 96 percent in the 1990s. (Benbrook, C.M., Pest Management at the Crossroads<\/span>, <\/span><\/i>Consumers Union, 1996, at 81-84.)\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The EPA reports in 2011 that pesticide use in the United States decreased 8 percent from 1.2 billion pounds active ingredient in 2000 to 1.1 billion pounds in 2007 (<\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sites\/production\/files\/2015-10\/documents\/market_estimates2007.pdf<\/span><\/a>), and held steady at 1.1 billion pounds in 2011 and 2012. These EPA reports are only \u201coccasional\u201d and there is no more recent report available as of April 2023 (<\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/pesticides\/pesticides-industry-sales-and-usage-2008-2012-market-estimates<\/span><\/a>) The decrease from 2000 to 2007 was mainly in the agricultural sector and is probably largely due to wider use of genetically engineered crops that incorporate pesticides and that are not counted in these sales reports.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Charles Benbrook notes, however: \u201cWhile\u00a0<\/span>Bt<\/span><\/i>\u00a0corn and cotton have reduced insecticide applications by \u2026 123 million pounds [between 1996 and 2011] \u2026 , resistance is emerging in key target insects and substantial volumes of\u00a0<\/span>Bt<\/span><\/i>\u00a0Cry endotoxins are produced per hectare planted, generally dwarfing the volumes of insecticides displaced.\u201d<\/span><\/p>

Benbrook also concludes, \u201cOverall, since the introduction of GE [genetically engineered] crops, the six major GE technologies have increased pesticide use by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%. The spread of GR weeds [weeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide] is bound to trigger further increases, e.g., the volume of 2,4-D sprayed on corn could increase 2.2 kgs\/ha by 2019 (1.9 pounds\/acre) if the USDA approves unrestricted planting of 2,4-D HR [herbicide-resistant] corn.\u201d (Benbrook, C.M., \u201cImpacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. — the first sixteen years,\u201d <\/span>Environmental Sciences Europe<\/span><\/i>\u00a02012,\u00a024:24; <\/span>https:\/\/enveurope.springeropen.com\/articles\/10.1186\/2190-4715-24-24)<\/span><\/a><\/p>

The brightest news in the 2011 EPA report of pesticide usage is that, thanks to stricter regulation under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), use of organophosphate pesticides, potent neurotoxins, decreased more than 70 percent in the United States from 2000 to 2012.<\/span><\/p>

In<\/span> its collection of the 100 most important people of the 20th century,\u00a0<\/span>Time<\/span><\/i>\u00a0magazine wrote: “Before there was an environmental movement, there was one brave woman and her very brave book.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>The hundredth anniversary of Carson\u2019s birth was celebrated on May 27, 2007, with the recognition that the struggle for truth and caution that she pioneered is ongoing. In <\/span>The New Yorker<\/span><\/i>, Elizabeth Kolbert wrote, \u201cAs much as any book can, Silent Spring changed the world by describing it,\u201d but, \u201cSix years into the Bush Administration, it\u2019s basically the ant wars all over again. At key agencies, a disregard for inconvenient evidence seems to be a prerequisite.\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/2007\/05\/28\/human-nature<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0 Meanwhile, Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma blocked a resolution to laud Carson in Congress, blaming her for using \u201cjunk science\u201d to turn the public against DDT. (<\/span>https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/environment-carson-dc\/senator-blocks-honor-for-environmental-pioneer-idUKN2547056820070525<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

The Trump Administration\u2019s 2017 refusal to follow the EPA staff recommendation that the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos be banned in agriculture was an early salvo in the escalation of those \u201cant wars.\u201d<\/span> https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/monkey-cage\/wp\/2017\/04\/12\/why-did-scott-pruitt-refuse-to-ban-a-chemical-that-the-epa-itself-said-is-dangerous\/<\/span><\/a> [see answer to Q. 8]<\/span><\/p>

\"\"
Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Pesticides that have been EPA-approved for use by farmers are \"safe\" when used as directed.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False. <\/strong>Even the EPA concedes that its pesticide registration process is no guarantee of safety. EPA regulations specifically prohibit manufacturers of pesticides from making claims such as “safe,” “harmless” or “non-toxic to humans and pets” with or without accompanying phrases such as “when used as directed.” (40 CFR sec. 156.10(a)(5)(ix))<\/span><\/p>

\"\"<\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n When the EPA looks at a pesticide to decide whether to register it for use in the United States, its primary concern is to ensure that the chemical presents no significant human health or environmental risks.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False. <\/strong>The legal standard for registration set down by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is, unlike most other environmental statutes, a “risk-benefit” standard. EPA must register pesticides if they do not pose “unreasonable risk to man or the environment, <\/span>taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide<\/span><\/i>.\u201d<\/span> (7 USC secs. 136(bb) and 136a(c)(5)(C), emphasis added) This means that if a pesticide presents substantial benefits to farmers in terms of increased yields or decreased labor costs, those benefits are weighed against health and environmental risks. Even if there are substantial health risks, the EPA may decide the economic benefits outweigh the risks. The federal Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) did away with the economic benefit analysis for new tolerances for dietary risk but left it unchanged for human occupational exposures and environmental risks.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n The EPA performs toxicity tests on pesticides before registration.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong>\u00a0Toxicity tests are performed neither by the EPA nor by independent laboratories contracting with the EPA. Pesticide manufacturers provide the data on which the EPA bases its judgments. An inherent conflict of interest exists between EPA’s need for unbiased data and the manufacturers’ need for data that show their products are not hazardous. For examples of biased and fraudulent testing, see Center for Biodiversity, \u201cFailure to Regulate: Pesticide Data Fraud Comes Home to Roost,\u201d April 9, 2015, <\/span>https:\/\/www.biologicaldiversity.org\/news\/media-archive\/a2015\/pesticides_truthout_4-9-15.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Manufacturers contend that fear of lawsuits keeps them honest, but this argument hardly holds water for long-term, chronic consequences of pesticide exposure, such as cancer or decreased sperm counts, which show up years after exposure.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

A March 2013 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that EPA oversight of manufacturer toxicity testing was lacking in many cases: \u201c<\/span>the government has allowed the majority of pesticides onto the market without a public and transparent process and in some cases, without a full set of toxicity tests, using a loophole called a conditional registration. In fact, as many as 65 percent of more than 16,000 pesticides were first approved for the market using this loophole.\u201d<\/span> The report included case studies of two pesticides \u2013clothianidin and nanosilver \u2013 to show how conditional registration has been misused. <\/span>https:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/media\/2013\/130327<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>https:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/experts\/jennifer-sass\/nrdc-reveals-failed-safeguards-pesticides-bad-actor-pesticides-including<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n The federal government prohibits use of pesticides known to cause cancer.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False. In 2010, the President\u2019s Cancer Panel, a congressionally mandated panel of experts working under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, released a landmark report, \u201c<\/span>Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, What We Can Do Now<\/span>.<\/span><\/i>\u201d A letter by the authors to President Obama concluded that the U.S. government has \u201cgrossly underestimated\u201d the \u201ctrue burden of environmentally induced cancers.\u201d (<\/span>http:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/Health\/Wellness\/cancers-environment-grossly-underestimated-presidential-panel\/story?id=10568354<\/span><\/a>) The report noted, \u201c<\/span>Approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are used in EPA-registered pesticides now on the market. Some of these chemicals are used in several different pesticides \u2026 Thus, the total number of registered pesticide products containing known or suspected carcinogens is far greater than 40, but few have been severely restricted in the United States \u2026 P<\/span>esticides \u2026 approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic. Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer.<\/span>\u201d (President\u2019s Cancer Panel, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, 2010, p. 45, <\/span>http:\/\/deainfo.nci.nih.gov\/advisory\/pcp\/annualReports\/pcp08-09rpt\/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf<\/span><\/a> )<\/span><\/p>

Among the formal recommendations of the report are that families reduce their exposure to pesticides by \u201cchoosing, to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues. Similarly, exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots can be minimized by eating free-range meat raised without these medications if it is available.\u201d (President\u2019s Cancer Panel Report, p. 112)<\/span><\/p>

A 2012 review of the epidemiological literature linking pesticides to cancers in occupational studies including agriculture world-wide found that \u201cChemicals in every major functional class of pesticides including insecticides, herbicide, fungicides, and fumigants have been observed to have significant associations with an array of cancer sites,\u201d including prostrate, lung, colorectal, pancreatic and non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancers.\u00a0 The authors conclude: \u201cSince use of pesticides world-wide results in exposure to millions of workers occupationally and to hundreds of millions of people through nonoccupational routes of exposure, identifying potential carcinogens among these chemicals should be an important public health priority.\u201d\u00a0 (\u201cOccupational pesticides exposure and cancer risk.\u00a0 A Review,\u201d\u00a0 by Michael Alavanja and Matthew Bonner, J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2012; 15(4): 238\u2013263, <\/span>https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC6276799\/<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Beyond Pesticides reports that <\/span>\u201c[w]hile agriculture has traditionally been tied to pesticide-related illnesses, 19 of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides and 28 of 40 commonly used school pesticides\u00a0 are linked to cancer.\u201d (<\/span>http:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/health\/cancer.php<\/span><\/a>) The Beyond Pesticides website links to specific research reports, broken down by type of cancer.<\/span><\/p>

One of the most debated and litigated pesticide issues in recent years is whether the herbicide \u00a0 Roundup, with the active ingredient glyphosate, is a carcinogen. The EPA reports that glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide in the United States, in terms of area treated; that about 280 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to an average of 298 million acres of crop land annually; and that \u201cglyphosate is important for noxious and invasive weed control in aquatic systems, pastures\/rangelands, public lands, forestry, and rights-of-way applications. Glyphosate is the leading herbicide used to control invasive species in the United States.\u201d<\/span> https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2019-04\/documents\/glyphosate-response-comments-usage-benefits-final.pdf<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In March, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization,\u00a0stunned pesticides proponents by declaring the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate along with the widely used insecticides Malathion and Diazinon, “probable carcinogens.\u201d (<\/span>http:\/\/www.iarc.fr\/en\/media-centre\/iarcnews\/pdf\/MonographVolume112.pdf<\/span><\/a>) The classification is not binding on governments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs released a \u2018Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential\u201d in 2016, concluding that the herbicide is not a probable carcinogen. <\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2016-09\/documents\/glyphosate_issue_paper_evaluation_of_carcincogenic_potential.pdf<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 That conclusion has been affirmed in subsequent agency reviews. <\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ingredients-used-pesticide-products\/glyphosate<\/span><\/a><\/p>

\u00a0In 2017, Monsanto was ordered to disclose internal emails and email exchanges with federal regulators in a lawsuit by people who claimed they contracted non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma from exposure to Roundup. According to the New York Times, \u201c<\/span>The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the\u00a0Environmental Protection Agency\u00a0had worked to quash a review of Roundup\u2019s main ingredient, glyphosate which was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.\u201d (Danny Hakim, \u201cMonsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents,\u201d <\/span>New York Times, <\/span><\/i>March 14, 2017, <\/span>https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/03\/14\/business\/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html?_r=0<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Ironically, in the same month as these disclosures, the Trump Administration USDA decided to scrap plans in the works for over a year to test 315 samples of corn syrup, which is predominantly produced from \u201cRoundup Ready\u201d corn, for residues of glyphosate.(<\/span> http:\/\/glyphosate.news\/2017-04-06-usda-scrubs-plan-to-test-foods-for-dangerous-levels-of-monsantos-glyphosate.html<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In July 2017, the State of California listed glyphosate as a known carcinogen under California Prop 65, which requires consumer warnings on all packages of products containing listed chemicals.\u00a0 Monsanto sued to overturn the listing, won in the trial court, but the California appellate court upheld the listing in April, 2018. (<\/span>https:\/\/oehha.ca.gov\/proposition-65\/crnr\/glyphosate-listed-effective-july-7-2017-known-state-california-cause-cancer<\/span><\/a>;<\/span> https:\/\/www.commondreams.org\/news\/2018\/04\/20\/win-science-and-democracy-court-rules-california-can-list-glyphosate-probable<\/span><\/a>) In April, 2019 the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released the long-awaited Draft Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate, which supported and strengthened the IARC\u2019s 2015 determination that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. <\/span>https:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/bio\/jennifer-sass\/atsdr-report-confirms-glyphosate-cancer-risks<\/span><\/a> But in August 2019 the Trump Administration EPA flew to the defense of Roundup and similar products, announcing that it will not approve California mandated product labels linking glyphosate with cancer. <\/span>https:\/\/newfoodeconomy.org\/epa-california-cancer-glyphosate-monsanto-prop-65\/<\/span><\/a>) And in 2020 a federal court sided with Bayer in California litigation and ruled that glyphosate warning labels could not be required under Prop 65. <\/span>https:\/\/www.centerforfoodsafety.org\/press-releases\/6053\/judge-overrides-california-state-warning-label-of-glyphosate-pesticide-as-probable-carcinogen-under-proposition-65#<\/span><\/a><\/p>

\u00a0Writing for the journal <\/span>Environmental Sciences Europe<\/span><\/i> in 2019, Charles Benbrook took a hard look at why the IARC and the EPA reached such diametrically opposite conclusions as to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.\u00a0 His conclusions:\u00a0 \u201c(1) in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant [manufacturer]-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive (83 of 118); (2) EPA\u2019s evaluation was largely based on data from studies on technical [pure] glyphosate, whereas IARC\u2019s review placed heavy weight on the results of formulated \u2026 assays [studies of glyphosate-based herbicides including additives that can enhance the toxicity of the active ingredient]; (3) EPA\u2019s evaluation was focused on typical, general population dietary exposures assuming legal, food-crop uses, and did not take into account, nor address generally higher occupational exposures and risks [such as farmworkers and other commercial applicators, and do-it-yourself homeowners].\u201d Charles Benbrook, \u201cHow did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?\u201d <\/span>Environmental Sciences Europe, <\/span><\/i>January 14, 2019,\u00a0 <\/span>https:\/\/enveurope.springeropen.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12302-018-0184-7<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Despite the EPA\u2019s position,\u00a0 American juries have come down decidedly on the side of plaintiffs in suits against Monsanto claiming their non-Hodgkin lymphomas were caused by exposure to glyphosate, awarding billion dollar punitive damage verdicts that have been reduced by trial judges to millions.\u00a0 (See reports in the <\/span>Maine Organic Farmer & Gardener,<\/span><\/i> Jean English,<\/span> \u201cOrganic Matter,\u201d December 2018-February 2019; June-August 2019; September-November 2019)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

As Claire Brown put it in <\/span>The New Food Economy<\/span><\/i>, \u201cSimply put, it may become too expensive for Bayer [owner of Monsanto] to keep Roundup on the shelves for much longer.\u201d(<\/span>https:\/\/newfoodeconomy.org\/epa-california-cancer-glyphosate-monsanto-prop-65\/<\/span><\/a>)<\/span> In 2020, Bayer reached a settlement agreement to pay more than $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims while continuing to sell the product without adding warning labels about its safety. (<\/span>https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/06\/24\/business\/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html<\/span><\/a>) <\/span>In 2021,\u00a0 Bayer announced that it would stop selling Roundup with glyphosate for residential lawns and gardens use in 2023, a move it claimed \u201cis exclusively geared at managing litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns.\u201d \u201cRoundup\u201d will still be marketed, but with an alternative, as of yet unidentified, active ingredient.\u00a0 (<\/span>https:\/\/cen.acs.org\/environment\/pesticides\/Bayer-end-glyphosate-sales-US\/99\/web\/2021\/07<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In 2021 the Maine legislature approved legislation sponsored by Maine Senate President Troy Jackson that would have banned the aerial spraying of glyphosate in Maine forests. Governor Janet Mills vetoed the measure.\u00a0 <\/span>Maine Public<\/span><\/i> quoted Senator Jackson: \u201c\u2018The science across the country, across the world, says that this stuff kills people, kills wildlife,\u2019 Jackson says. \u2018And all that it is, is a giveaway to the large landowners so they can maximize their profits off the lives of the people in Maine and the wildlife in Maine.\u2019\u2026A logger by trade, Jackson has seen the effects of clearcutting and herbicide use in the woods of northern Maine. For years, he and other residents have been raising concerns about possible water contamination and related health effects from the chemical. But they got strong pushback from large landowners and the forest products industry who say the use of aerial herbicides in Maine is limited and that it’s the most efficient way to control vegetation that competes with more valuable timber species like spruce and fir.\u201d Susan Sharon, \u00a0 \u201cMills Vetoes Bill That Would Have Banned Aerial Herbicide Spraying In Woods,\u201d <\/span>Maine Public, <\/span><\/i>June 25, 2021, <\/span>https:\/\/www.mainepublic.org\/environment-and-outdoors\/2021-06-25\/mills-vetoes-bill-that-would-have-banned-aerial-herbicide-spraying-in-woods<\/span><\/a><\/p>

The Guardian<\/span><\/i> reports that a study published in January, 2023 by scientists with the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control \u201cmeasured glyphosate levels in the urine of farmers and other study participants and determined that high levels of the pesticide were associated with signs of a reaction in the body called oxidative stress, a condition that causes damage to DNA. Oxidative stress is considered by health experts as a key characteristic of carcinogens.\u201d (Carey Gillam, \u201cPeople exposed to weedkiller have cancer biomarkers in urine \u2013 study,\u201d <\/span>The Guardian, <\/span><\/i>January 20, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/us-news\/2023\/jan\/20\/glyphosate-weedkiller-cancer-biomarkers-urine-study<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Evidence is mounting that glyphosate residues are pervasive in our food system. In 2017, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced that it found traces of glyphosate in nearly one third of 3,188 domestic and imported food products it tested. \u00a0 (<\/span>http:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/news\/health\/cfia-report-glyphosate-1.4070275<\/span><\/a>) A study of residues of glyphosate and its metabolite in the urine of 100 adults found substantial increases in prevalence and amount of exposure over two decades:\u00a0 from 12 detects in samples from 1993-96, to 70 detects in samples from 2014-16.\u00a0 The mean concentration of glyphosate in detects more than doubled during this period. (\u201cAnalysis: Glyphosate exposure trends demand a public health driven response,\u201d by Dr. Richard Jackson and Charles Benbrook, Environmental Health News, Oct 30, 2017;\u00a0 <\/span>http:\/\/www.ehn.org\/analysis-glyphosate-exposure-trends-demand-a-public-health-driven-response-2502467074.html<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Carey Gillam reported in <\/span>The Guardian <\/span><\/i>in 2018 that internal FDA documents reveal that the FDA has had trouble finding any food that does not contain traces of glyphosate. Residues have been found in crackers, granola, cornmeal, honey and oatmeal products \u2013 sometimes exceeding the legal limit of 5.0 parts per million.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(\u201cWeedkiller found in granola and crackers, internal FDA emails show,\u201d by Carey Gillam, <\/span>The Guardian<\/span><\/i>, April 30, 2018;\u00a0<\/span>https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/us-news\/2018\/apr\/30\/fda-weedkiller-glyphosate-in-food-internal-emails<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Jean English reports in the <\/span>Maine Organic Farmer & Gardener, <\/span><\/i>Winter 2018-2019, that \u201c<\/span>Independent <\/span>tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found\u00a0glyphosate residues in all but two of 45 samples of products made with conventionally grown oats<\/span>,<\/b>\u00a0such as oat cereals, oatmeal, granola and snack bars. Almost three-fourths of those samples had glyphosate levels higher than 160 parts per billion (ppb), which EWG scientists consider protective of children\u2019s health with an adequate margin of safety, so a single serving of those products would exceed EWG\u2019s health benchmark. About one-third of 16 samples made with organically grown oats contained glyphosate \u2013 at levels well below EWG\u2019s health benchmark.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>(<\/span>Jean English, \u201cOrganic Matter,\u201d <\/span>The Maine Organic Farmer & Gardener, <\/span><\/i>Winter 2018-2019; <\/span>https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/news-insights\/news-release\/roundup-breakfast-weed-killer-landmark-cancer-verdict-found-kids-cereals<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

EWG\u00a0 updates: <\/span>https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/news-insights\/news\/2018\/10\/new-round-ewg-testing-finds-glyphosate-kids-breakfast-foods-quaker-oats<\/span><\/a>;<\/span><\/p>

https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/news-insights\/news-release\/2018\/10\/roundup-breakfast-part-2-new-tests-weed-killer-found-all-kids<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/childrenshealth\/monsanto-weedkiller-still-contaminates-foods-marketed-to-children<\/span><\/a>;<\/span>\u00a0 <\/span>https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/news-insights\/news\/glyphosate-contamination-food-goes-far-beyond-oat-products<\/span><\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>

And a 2018 study by government scientists in Canada found glyphosate in 197 or 200 samples of honey they examined.\u00a0 (\u201cWeed killer residues found in 98 percent of Canadian honey samples,\u201d by Carey Gillam, <\/span>Environmental Health News, <\/span><\/i>March 22, 2019; <\/span>https:\/\/www.ehn.org\/weed-killer-residues-found-in-98-percent-of-canadian-honey-samples-2632384800.html<\/span><\/a>) <\/span>See also, answer to Q. 9,\u00a0 Roundup inerts)<\/span><\/p>

In January, 2024, the highly influential American Academy of Pediatrics, a \u201cgo-to source for practicing pediatricians and some parents,\u201d released a guidance urging parents to avoid foods with ingredients from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The guidance cautioned, as reported in <\/span>Science, <\/span><\/i>\u201cabout potential health harms, especially to infants and children of residues in food from the weed killer glyphosate, which is widely used on genetically engineered crops.\u201d Meredith Wadman, \u201cPediatrics academy faces pushback on GMO advice,\u201d <\/span>Science,<\/span><\/i> September 20, 2024, <\/span>https:\/\/www.science.org\/content\/article\/pediatrics-academy-accused-fearmongering-over-gmo-ingredients-kids-diets<\/span><\/a>; Steve Abrams, Jaclyn Albin, and Philip Landrigan, \u201cUse of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children,\u201d <\/span>Pediatrics, <\/span><\/i>January, 2024, <\/span>https:\/\/publications.aap.org\/pediatrics\/article\/153\/1\/e2023064774\/196193\/Use-of-Genetically-Modified-Organism-GMO<\/span><\/a><\/p>

For the recent story of the EPA\u2019s handling of another Monsanto herbicide, dicamba,\u00a0 associated with increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and liver cancer in farmers, see Tom Perkins, \u00a0 \u201c<\/span>EPA accused of failing to regulate use of toxic herbicides despite court order,\u201d <\/span>The Guardian, <\/span><\/i>April 24, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2023\/apr\/24\/epa-monsanto-toxic-herbicides-dicamba<\/span><\/a>:\u00a0 \u201cThe EPA\u2019s move is another example of the agency \u201ctreating the pesticide industry not as regulated companies, but as clients\u201d, said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director with the Center For Biological Diversity.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n The EPA takes the necessary precautions to ensure pesticide levels are safe for infants and children.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> Developing fetuses, newborns and young children are among the most vulnerable to pesticides in our population, and the least protected. A 1993 study by the most preeminent scientific body in the United States, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, found that “infants and children differ both qualitatively and quantitatively from adults in their exposure to pesticide residues in foods. Children consume more calories of food per unit of body weight than do adults. But at the same time, infants and children consume far fewer types of foods \u2026 The current regulatory system does not, however, specifically consider infants and children \u2026 Current testing protocols do not, for the most part, adequately address the toxicity and metabolism of pesticides in neonates and adolescent animals or the effects of exposure during early developmental stages and their sequelae in later life.” (National Research Council, \u201cPesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children<\/span>,<\/span><\/i>\u201d<\/span> 1993, Pages 1 -13; <\/span>http:\/\/www.nap.edu\/openbook.php?isbn=0309048753<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Council recommended a 10-fold additional safety factor in setting pesticide tolerances for pesticide residues on foods to protect children. The 1996 federal Food Quality Protection Act mandated revision of tolerances to accomplish this. In 2006 the EPA announced that it had completed a 10-year review of U.S. pesticide safety, focusing on the special risks presented to children. However, environmental activists and some of the EPA\u2019s own scientists question whether the EPA had enough information to set safe tolerance levels. (See answer to Q. 16.)\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Concern continues to grow that widespread exposure to pesticide residues in food and home environments contributes significantly to growing rates of childhood cancers, asthma, obesity, autism, and other endocrine and neurodevelopmental disorders in the United States and abroad. (See generally, Andre Leu, \u201cThe Myths of Safe Pesticides\u201d<\/span> (2014), Pages 13-25, 40-47; Pesticide Action Network, \u201cA Generation in Jeopardy: How pesticides undermine our children\u2019s health and intelligence,\u201d<\/span> 2012; <\/span>http:\/\/www.panna.org\/publication\/generation-in-jeopardy<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>and Environmental Working Group reports, answer to Q. 5)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In 2010 the President\u2019s Cancer Panel (see answer to Q. 5) concluded: \u201cThere is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children\u2019s health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children\u2019s environmental health.\u201d\u00a0 (<\/span>http:\/\/deainfo.nci.nih.gov\/advisory\/pcp\/annualReports\/pcp08-09rpt\/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf<\/span><\/a>, Page 98)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

A 2016 study found significant decreases in I.Q. and verbal comprehension in seven year olds whose mothers had, during pregnancy, lived within approximately 1 km from agricultural fields in California where multiple neurotoxic pesticides were used. (\u201cPrenatal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticide Use and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children,\u201d by Robert B. Gunier et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 7\/25\/2016;<\/span> https:\/\/ehp.niehs.nih.gov\/doi\/10.1289\/EHP504<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara, in a 2017 study of over 500,000 births between 1997 and 2011 in California\u2019s San Joaquin Valley, found that premature births rose by about 8 percent and birth abnormalities by about 9 percent where pesticide use was the greatest. (\u201cAgricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California,\u201d by Ashley Larsen et al., Nature Communications, Aug. 29, 2017;<\/span> https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41467-017-00349-2<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

For a compelling photo essay on the impact of\u00a0 pesticides on children in farming communities in Argentina, where birth deformities increased four-fold after 10 years of intensive cultivation of genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans, see \u201cLegal Toxins\u201d by Alvaro Ybarra Zavala (<\/span>https:\/\/vimeo.com\/102238995<\/span><\/a>, see also <\/span>http:\/\/www.i-sis.org.uk\/Devastating_Impacts_of_Glyphosate_Argentina.php<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

A 2020 Environmental Working Group investigation published in <\/span>Environmental Health<\/span><\/i> found that for almost 90 percent of the most common non-organophosphate pesticides, the agency had neglected since 2011 to apply the Food Quality Protection Act\u2013mandated children\u2019s 10-fold health safety factor to the allowable limits. (\u201cEWG Study: EPA Fails To Follow Landmark Law To Protect Children From Pesticides in Food,\u201d February 12, 2020,<\/span> https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/news-insights\/news-release\/ewg-study-epa-fails-follow-landmark-law-protect-children-pesticides-food<\/span><\/a>; Olga Naidenko, \u201cApplication of the Food Quality Protection Act children\u2019s health safety factor in the U.S. EPA pesticide risk assessments,\u201d <\/span>Environmental Health, <\/span><\/i>February 10, 2020, <\/span>https:\/\/ehjournal.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12940-020-0571-6<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n \u201cWeed and Feed\u201d and other combinations of fertilizers and pesticides are safe, environmentally responsible and effective means to give your lawn all the care it needs to thrive.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> These products fundamentally contradict the principles and practices of organic cultivation as well as of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which require least toxic means of pest management to be applied only after a pest problem has been identified, and not routinely. For this reason, and based on a recommendation of Maine Board of Pesticides Control staff, Governor John Baldacci took the important step of banning these fertilizer\/pesticide mixtures, and other pesticides used for purely cosmetic purposes, for use on state-owned and managed office buildings and their grounds. (\u201cAn Order Promoting Safer Chemicals in Consumer Products and Services,\u201d February 22, 2006,\u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/www.maine.gov\/tools\/whatsnew\/index.php?topic=Gov_Executive_Orders&id=21193&v=Article<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Unnecessary use of lawn and yard care synthetic chemicals is a skyrocketing problem in Maine.\u00a0 According to the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, use of yard care pesticides in Maine increased <\/span>sevenfold <\/span><\/i>from 1995 to 2007; more than 6.2 million pounds of yard care pesticides were brought into Maine in 2007. (<\/span>https:\/\/19january2017snapshot.epa.gov\/sites\/production\/files\/2016-02\/documents\/pespwire-winter.pdf<\/span><\/a>, p. 5)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

\"BPC<\/p>

For information and resources on how to have a beautiful yard with fewer or no synthetic chemicals, see the BPC\u2019s YardScaping web pages:\u00a0 <\/span>http:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/yardscaping\/index.htm<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Cancer is the primary risk from chronic, long-term exposure to pesticides.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> Neurotoxicity, as well as risks to the human immune, reproductive and endocrine systems, may be equally or even more significant.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Neurotoxicity<\/b><\/p>

A 2006 analysis published in the distinguished medical journal <\/span>The Lancet <\/span><\/i>concluded that tiny amounts of common pollutants, including pesticides, may be causing a \u201csilent pandemic\u201d of neurological disorders impairing development of fetuses and infants. Among the potential consequences are lower IQ scores and conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder and cerebral palsy. (Grandjean and Landrigan, \u201cDevelopmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals,\u201d <\/span>The Lancet<\/span><\/i>, November 8, 2006; <\/span>http:\/\/www.env-health.org\/IMG\/pdf\/06tl9094page.pdf<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

A 2014 follow up study by the same authors analyzed strong epidemiological evidence of the neurotoxicity of six industrial chemicals, including the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos (trade names Lorsban, Dursban),\u00a0 banned for most residential uses\u00a0 in the United States under the FQPA but still used in food production. The authors concluded, <\/span>\u201cTo control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.\u201d ( Grandjean and Landrigan, \u201cNeurobehavioral effects of developmental toxicity,\u201d <\/span>The Lancet<\/span><\/i>, February 14, 2014, <\/span>http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/laneur\/article\/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3\/abstract<\/span><\/a>)<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

A 2016 EPA Human Health Risk Assessment of chlorpyrifos found <\/span>residues in many foods at levels up to 14,000 percent higher than \u201csafe\u201d limits. \u201cEPA: Toxic Pesticide on Fruits, Veggies Puts Kids at Risk,\u201d by Miriam Rotkin-Ellman and Veena Singla, Natural Resources Defense Council, Jan. 6, 2017; <\/span>https:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/experts\/miriam-rotkin-ellman\/epa-toxic-pesticide-fruitsveggies-puts-kids-risk<\/span><\/a>; \u201cChlorpyrifos Revised Human Health Risk Assessment (2016),\u201d U.S. EPA, <\/span>https:\/\/www.regulations.gov\/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Chlorpyrifos<\/span> is used on about 40,000 farms on about 50 different types of crops, ranging from almonds to apples.\u00a0 EPA scientists concluded that exposure to chlorpyrifos was potentially causing health consequences, particularly learning and memory declines among farmer workers and young children, and the agency in late 2016 proposed to ban all agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos.\u00a0 Under the Trump Administration, one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt\u2019s first actions was to reject the proposed ban, commenting that <\/span>\u201c[b]y reversing the previous Administration\u2019s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making \u2013 rather than predetermined results.\u201d<\/span> https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/03\/29\/us\/politics\/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/newsreleases\/epa-administrator-pruitt-denies-petition-ban-widely-used-pesticide-0<\/span><\/a>). Pruitt\u2019s action came 20 days after a private meeting with the CEO of Dow Chemical, the primary chlorpyrifos manufacturer, and two months after Dow contributed $1,000,000 to the Trump inaugural balls. ( <\/span>https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/news-and-analysis\/2018\/03\/thanks-scott-pruitt-30-million-pounds-brain-damaging-pesticide-will-be#.WxbExO4vzIU<\/span><\/a>) The American Academy for\u00a0 Pediatrics and the Environmental Working Group sent a letter to Pruitt protesting the rejection of the ban, observing that <\/span>\u201c[t]he risk to infant and children\u2019s health and development is unambiguous. The clear statutory language of the FQPA requires that EPA revoke tolerances in the face of uncertainty. EPA has no new evidence indicating that chlorpyrifos exposures are safe. As a result, EPA has no basis to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos, and its insistence in doing so puts all children at risk.\u201d\u00a0<\/span> (<\/span>https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/testimony-official-correspondence\/nation-s-pediatricians-ewg-urge-epa-ban-pesticide-harms-kids#.WxbGKu4vzIV<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

In June 2021 Maine Governor Janet Mills signed legislation requiring the phase out of chlorpyrifos in agriculture by 2022, a bill sponsored by Representative Victoria Doudera of Camden and strongly supported by MOFGA.\u00a0 The Maine Medical Association lauded the legislation, saying “This bill would ensure that pregnant mothers, babies and young children will not be exposed to this harmful pesticide through chlorpyrifos application in Maine.\u201d\u00a0 Christian Wade, \u201cMaine Approves Ban on Pesticide Chemical,\u201d <\/span>The Center Square, <\/span><\/i>June 11, 2021, <\/span>https:\/\/www.thecentersquare.com\/maine\/mills-approves-ban-on-pesticide-chemical\/article_36a51606-cab9-11eb-841b-936452383386.html<\/span><\/a>; 7 MRSA sec. 606.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Not to be outdone, in August 2021, the Biden Administration announced that it was banning chlorpyrifos for use on food crops because it has been linked to neurological damage in children. As a result of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering the administration to halt the agricultural use of the chemical unless it could demonstrate its safety, the ban was expedited to take effect in six months. This is estimated to eliminate more than 90 percent of the use of chlorpyrifos in the US. The federal ban is limited, however– unlike the Maine legislation– to food crops. \u00a0 Coral Davenport, \u00a0 \u201cE.P.A. to Block Pesticide Tied to Neurological Harm in Children,\u201d <\/span>New York Times, <\/span><\/i>August 18, 2021, <\/span>https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/08\/18\/climate\/pesticides-epa-chlorpyrifos.html<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Enter from backstage in the continuing battle over chlorpyrifos: the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2023 vacated the EPA\u2019s order banning use of the pesticide on food crops, concluding it was \u201carbitrary and capricious,\u201d and directing the EPA to conduct further review to consider whether it could end some food uses of chlorpyrifos but allow others to continue.\u00a0 Erin Fitzgerald, \u201cIn Shocking Decision, 8th Circuit Sends Chlorpyrifos Food Use Ban Back to EPA,\u201d Earthjustice press release, November 2, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/earthjustice.org\/press\/2023\/in-shocking-decision-8th-circuit-sends-chlorpyrifos-food-use-ban-back-to-epa<\/span><\/a> (For an analysis of the conservative \u201cpolitical-party bias\u201d of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, compared with the lack of such bias in the Ninth Circuit, see Robert Steinbuch, \u201cAn Empirical Analysis of Conservative, Liberal, and Other \u2018Biases\u2019 in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Eighth & Ninth Circuits, 11 <\/span>Seattle J. for Soc. Just.<\/span><\/i> 217 (2012), <\/span>https:\/\/lawrepository.ualr.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=faculty_scholarship<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

In May 2023, researchers from UCLA and Harvard Researchers reported a study that pinpointed 10 pesticides that significantly damage neurons involved in the onset of Parkinson\u2019s disease. \u201cThe study utilized California\u2019s extensive pesticide use database and innovative testing methods to identify pesticides directly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, which are crucial for voluntary movement. Combinations of pesticides used in cotton farming were more harmful than any single pesticide.\u201d (Jason Millman,\u00a0 \u201cIdentifying Pesticide Culprits in Parkinson\u2019s Disease,\u201d <\/span>Neuroscience News.com, <\/span><\/i>May 18, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/neurosciencenews.com\/parkinsons-pesticides-23276\/<\/span><\/a>; Kimberly Paul et al., \u201cA pesticide and iPSC dopaminergic neuron screen identifies and classifies Parkinson-relevant pesticides,\u201d <\/span>Nature Communications, <\/span><\/i>May 16, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41467-023-38215-z<\/span><\/a>) See also, Carey Gillam, \u201cRevealed: The secret push to bury a weedkiller\u2019s link to Parkinson\u2019s disease,\u201d <\/span>The Guardian<\/span><\/i>, June 2, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/us-news\/2023\/jun\/02\/paraquat-parkinsons-disease-research-syngenta-weedkiller<\/span><\/a>, reporting Syngenta\u2019s effort to \u201csecretly influence scientific research regarding links between its top-selling weedkiller [paraquat] and Parkinson\u2019s.\u201d<\/span><\/p>

For a fascinating examination of the challenges of connecting outbreaks of brain diseases in New Brunswick, Canada, to environmental causes, with forest applications of the herbicide glyphosate among the potential culprits, see Greg Donahue, \u201cThey All Got Mysterious Brain Diseases.\u00a0 They\u2019re Fighting to Learn Why,\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i>, August 14, 2024, <\/span>https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/08\/14\/magazine\/canada-brain-disease-dementia.html<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Hormone disruption<\/b><\/p>

While Rachel Carson wrote of the hormone (\u201cendocrine\u201d) disrupting and reproductive effects of pesticides in Silent Spring in 1962, it took an astonishing 34 years, until the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), for Congress to mandate that the EPA consider these effects in regulating pesticides. It took another nine years before the EPA announced in June 2007 that it would begin screening 73 pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, malathion and atrazine, for their risk of endocrine disruption, once it finalized its standards for review. (72 FR 33486) While some regulatory actions by the EPA under the FQPA have considered endocrine effects, a 2011 report of the Inspector General found that the EPA\u2019s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, 14 years after passage of the FQPA, had missed many deadlines and \u201chas not determined whether any chemical is a potential endocrine disruptor.\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/office-inspector-general\/report-epas-endocrine-disruptor-screening-program-should-establish<\/span><\/a>) A 2012 study published in <\/span>Endocrine Reviews<\/span><\/i> argued that the approach the EPA was taking to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals and assess their risk was fundamentally flawed, because it relied on the centuries old notion that the \u201cdose makes the poison,\u201d or that smaller doses create less risk: \u201c<\/span>For decades, studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology \u2026 because EDCs can have effects at low doses that are not predicted by effects at higher doses \u2026 Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.\u201d (Laura Vandenburg and coauthors, \u201cHormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses\u201d, <\/span>Endocrine Reviews<\/span><\/i>, Volume 33, Issue 3, 1 June 2012, p. 378\u2013455,\u00a0<\/span> https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/edrv\/article\/33\/3\/378\/2354852<\/span><\/a> ) The EPA has largely rejected this assessment, in a draft report praised by the American Chemistry Council.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

It was not until June, 2015 that EPA published its first preliminary results for testing for \u201cestrogen receptor bioactivity\u201d on 1,800 chemicals.\u00a0 That report, 19 years after Congress mandated consideration of endocrine disruption effects,\u00a0 cautioned that \u201c<\/span>[t]hese data do not provide a scientific basis, by themselves, supporting a conclusion that chemicals or substances have potential for endocrine disruption.\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/endocrine-disruption\/endocrine-disruptor-screening-program-edsp-estrogen-receptor-bioactivity<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

In March, 2023, 27 years after passage of the FQPA, the EPA released the results of its \u201cTier 1\u201d testing of 52 chemicals for potential endocrine disruption, culled from the original 1,800 selection:\u00a0 \u201cOf the 52 chemicals evaluated, there was no evidence for potential interaction with any of the endocrine pathways for 20 chemicals, and for 14 chemicals that showed potential interaction with one or more pathways, EPA already has enough information to conclude that they do not pose risks. Of the remaining 18 chemicals, all 18 showed potential interaction with the thyroid pathway, 17 of them with the androgen pathway, and 14 also potentially interacted with the estrogen pathway.\u201d\u00a0 Those 18 chemicals are slated for further, \u201cTier 2\u201d testing. The EPA release cautioned that \u201cthe screening results for these 52 chemicals are only determinations of their potential to disrupt endocrine function. A result indicating potential should not be construed as meaning that EPA has concluded that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor.\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/endocrine-disruption\/endocrine-disruptor-screening-program-edsp-tier-1-assessments<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

A comprehensive report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization, State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012, pointed out the alarmingly \u201chigh incidence and the increasing trends of many endocrine-related disorders in humans,\u201d including \u201clarge proportions (up to 40%) of young men in some countries have low semen quality, which reduces their ability to father children;\u201d \u201cgenital malformations, such as non-descending testes (cryptorchidisms) and penile malformations (hypospadias), in baby boys;\u201d \u201cthe incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birth weight;\u201d \u201cincreased global rates of endocrine-related cancers;\u201d and \u201cthe prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes [which] has dramatically increased worldwide over the last 40 years.\u201d Put simply, the report noted that \u201c[h]uman and wildlife health depends on the ability to reproduce and develop normally. This is not possible without a healthy endocrine system.\u201d The report identified industrial chemicals, including pesticides, as a probable cause of these disruptions of the endocrine system: \u201c[c]lose to 800 chemicals are known or suspected to be capable of interfering with hormone receptors, hormone synthesis or hormone conversion. However, only a small fraction of these chemicals have been investigated in tests capable of identifying overt endocrine effects in intact organisms. The vast majority of chemicals in current commercial use have not been tested at all.\u201d (<\/span>http:\/\/www.who.int\/ceh\/publications\/endocrine\/en\/<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

For a summary of the evidence that pesticides play a significant role in impairing the endocrine system, see Andre Leu, \u201cThe Myths of Safe Pesticides,\u201d<\/span> 2014, Pages 34-47.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n The \"Inert Ingredients\" included in pesticides are biologically inactive and hence not hazardous.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> Inerts are almost always chemically functional and are added intentionally to enhance the performance of the “active\u201d ingredient. They are generally solvents, emulsifiers, synergists or compounds that in some way make the active ingredient work better. Recent research demonstrates that the inerts not only enhance the intended effect of the active ingredient; they also may enhance its toxicity to humans and wildlife. Hence our regulatory system, which bases safety reviews primarily on testing active ingredients and which fails to even inform consumers of the identity of the inerts, is fundamentally flawed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In 2006, the attorneys general of fifteen states, including Maine, petitioned the EPA to require that inert chemicals be disclosed in pesticides labeling. The petition stated that 360 chemicals used as inerts in pesticides had in fact been identified by the EPA or OSHA as hazardous under regulatory schemes other than the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The petition argued that the public interest in knowing about these hazardous additives trumped any claim the manufacturers asserted about trade secrets: \u201cthe public\u2019s interest in disclosure of a hazardous ingredient overrides any commercial interest in preserving confidentiality.\u201d<\/span> (<\/span>https:\/\/ag.ny.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/court-filings\/Petition.As_Submitted._8_1_06.pdf<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0 <\/span>In 2009, in response to this and a similar petition by\u00a0 environmental organizations, the Obama Administration EPA requested public input on two alternative proposals regarding inert ingredient disclosure: one to disclose only ingredients identified as hazardous; the other to require disclosure of all inerts. The EPA noted that it \u201cagrees with the petitioners that inert ingredient disclosure should be greatly increased.\u201d The EPA proposal astutely noted that disclosure <\/span>\u201cmay lead to less exposure to \u2026 hazardous inert ingredient[s] because consumers will likely choose products informed by the label.\u201d In turn, \u201cpesticide producers will likely respond by producing products with less hazardous inert ingredients.\u201d<\/span> (74 FR 68215 \u2013 Public Availability of Identities of Inert Ingredients in Pesticides, <\/span>http:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/granule\/FR-2009-12-23\/E9-30408<\/span><\/a>) When the EPA failed to take further action on this rulemaking for the next three years, on March 5, 2014, the <\/span>Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, and Physicians for\u00a0Social Responsibility, represented by Earthjustice,\u00a0 sued the EPA. (<\/span>http:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=12888<\/span><\/a>) In the last weeks of the Obama Administration, the EPA announced that it was removing 72 inert ingredients from its list of approved ingredients in pesticide products, noting that \u201c<\/span>Many of the 72 inert ingredients removed with this action are on the list of 371 identified by the [environmental ngo] petitioners as hazardous.\u201d<\/span> (<\/span>https:\/\/19january2017snapshot.epa.gov\/newsreleases\/epa-prohibits-72-inert-ingredients-use-pesticides_.html<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

On January 9, 2017, the EPA announced that it would begin rulemaking to require that so-called \u201cinert\u201d ingredients be listed on the label with the \u201cmore neutral term \u2018Other ingredients.\u2019\u201d In encouraging manufacturers to substitute \u201cother\u201d for \u201cinert\u201d on their labels before rulemaking becomes final, the EPA noted that \u201c\u2026<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>EPA has long known and acknowledged that some inert ingredients are not benign to human health or the environment. The “inert” ingredients in some products may be more toxic or pose greater risks than the active ingredient.\u201d (\u00a0<\/span>PRN 97-6: Use of Term “Inert” in the Label Ingredients Statement, <\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/pesticide-registration\/prn-97-6-use-term-inert-label-ingredients-statement<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Trump Administration did not proceed to prohibit the use of the term \u201cinert,\u201d or require public disclosure of those ingredients. Nor has the Biden Administration. In July, 2017, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a rulemaking petition with the EPA asking it to fundamentally revise pesticide approval procedures, to require and assess safety data on the entire formulation, rather than just the \u201cactive\u201d incredients. (<\/span>https:\/\/www.centerforfoodsafety.org\/press-releases\/5012\/center-for-food-safety-demands-trump-administration-close-pesticide-loopholes<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

In a July 2022 EPA web page, \u201cBasic Information about Pesticide Ingredients,\u201d the EPA states that<\/span> \u201cthe name \u2018inert\u2019 does not mean non-toxic. All inert ingredients must be approved by EPA before they can be included in a pesticide. We review safety information about each inert ingredient before approval. If the pesticide will be applied to food or animal feed, a food tolerance is required for each inert ingredient in the product, and we may limit the amount of each inert ingredient in the product.\u201d\u00a0 The public, however, is not entitled to identification of those inert ingredients:\u00a0 \u201cUnder federal law, the identity of inert ingredients is confidential business information. The law does not require manufacturers to identify inert ingredients by name or percentage on product labels. In general, only the total percentage of all inert ingredients is required to be on the pesticide product label.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ingredients-used-pesticide-products\/basic-information-about-pesticide-ingredients<\/span><\/a><\/p>

In October, 2022, the Center for Food Safety sued the EPA for failing to respond to its 2017 petition, and failure to adequately consider and regulate the toxicity of \u201cinert\u201d ingredients. Contrary to the language in the above EPA web page,\u00a0 the CFS contends that \u201cmost EPA regulations only require toxicological data from a pesticide\u2019s active ingredients, rather than requiring data from active, inert, and adjuvant ingredients in the pesticide. The [CFS 2017] petition alleges that without considering the effects of all ingredients, the EPA cannot determine whether a pesticide formulation will have unreasonably adverse effects on the environment.\u201d (Walker Livingston, \u201cCenter for Food Safety sues EPA over unanswered petition on inert ingredients in pesticides,\u201d <\/span>AgencyIQ, <\/span><\/i>October 18, 2022, <\/span>https:\/\/www.agencyiq.com\/blog\/center-for-food-safety-sues-epa-over-unanswered-petition-on-inert-ingredients-in-pesticides\/<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Research on the controversial herbicide Roundup has focused on disturbing evidence concerning one of its inert ingredients. As reported by Beyond Pesticides,\u00a0 \u201cAbout 100 million pounds of Roundup are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year and until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, rather than the mixture of \u2018inert\u2019 ingredients found in the herbicidal product. In this new study, \u2018Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells,\u2019 researchers found that Roundup\u2019s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells \u2013 even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns, and which correspond to low levels of residues in food or feed. One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself \u2013 a finding the researchers call \u2018astonishing.\u2019 POEA is a surfactant, or detergent, derived from animal fat. It is added to Roundup and other herbicides to help them penetrate plants\u2019 surfaces, making the weed killer more effective.\u201d (<\/span>http:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=1997<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric S\u00e9ralini, \u201cGlyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells,\u201d<\/span> Chem. Res. Toxicol.<\/span><\/i>200922197-105, December 23, 2008, <\/span>https:\/\/pubs.acs.org\/doi\/abs\/10.1021\/tx800218n<\/span><\/a>.) <\/span>\u00a0POEA is not one of those inert ingredients removed by the Obama Administration from permitted use in pesticides in 2016.<\/span><\/p>

Even more disturbing is the fact that after publication of this research, in May 2013, the EPA granted Monsanto\u2019s petition to <\/span>increase<\/span><\/i> maximum residue limits of glyphosate on food and other crops. (78 FR 25396, <\/span>http:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/pkg\/FR-2013-05-01\/pdf\/2013-10316.pdf<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

A 2018 study of inert and active ingredients in Roundup and other pesticides published in Toxicology Reports concluded that \u201cthe difference between \u2018active ingredient\u2019 and \u2018inert compound\u2019 is a regulatory assertion with no demonstrated toxicological basis.\u201d (\u201cToxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides and other pesticides,\u201d N. Defarge et al., Toxicology Reports, Vol. 5, 2018; <\/span>https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S221475001730149X<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Pesticides may be used in Maine only if they have gone through the EPA's registration process.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False. <\/strong>The Maine Board of Pesticides Control and similar agencies in other states regularly apply to the EPA, at the request of pesticide applicators, for “emergency approval” of unregistered pesticides to meet “special local needs,\u201d or \u201cFIFRA 24c Special Local Needs Registrations. \u00a0 To accommodate applicators because of administrative delays in formally registering products, these applications are often granted, repeatedly for the same product. These products have been registered for some agricultural and other uses, but not for the \u201cspecial local needs\u201d use, so no tolerance setting \u201csafe\u201d levels of residue has been set. <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/24C_registrations.shtml<\/span><\/a><\/p>

\"\"<\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Washing and peeling fruits and vegetables removes all or most pesticide residues.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> It may reduce some residues, but definitely not all. The Environmental Working Group\u2019s 2023 Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce reports on pesticide contamination of fresh produce using USDA and FDA testing data. EWG reports: \u201cThe USDA peels or scrubs and washes produce samples before testing, whereas the FDA only removes dirt before testing its samples. Even after these steps, the tests still find traces of 251 different pesticides.\u201d In this year\u2019s report, nearly 75 percent of non-organic fresh produce sold in the U.S. contained residues of potentially harmful pesticides.\u00a0 Blueberries and green beans joined the Dirty Dozen list of the 12 fruits and vegetables sampled that have the highest traces of pesticides. Those most contaminated foods were: Strawberries; Spinach, Kale, Collard and Mustard greens; Peaches; Pears; Nectarines; Apples; Grapes; Bell and hot peppers; Cherries; Blueberries; Green beans. Consult the website for more on the pesticides detected, and the \u201cClean Fifteen.\u201d (\u201cEnvironmental Working Group\u2019s 2023 Shopper\u2019s Guide to Pesticides in Produce,\u201d<\/span> https:\/\/www.ewg.org\/foodnews\/summary.php#summary<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

A 2012 study in Europe also found that washing did little to remove pesticide residues; peeling was more effective, but most vitamins are found in the peels of fruits and vegetables. (<\/span>http:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-2112767\/How-pesticides-persist-wash-fruit-veg.html<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Washing and peeling would have little effect, moreover, on systemic pesticides (pesticides that are absorbed by plants and distributed throughout all parts of the plants), such as neonicotinoids, introduced in 1998 and growing in use significantly. (<\/span>http:\/\/www.motherearthnews.com\/nature-and-environment\/systemic-pesticides-zmaz10onzraw.aspx#axzz39ztnmMjA<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Imported fruits and vegetables are more likely to have pesticide residues than domestic.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False. <\/strong>This was thought to be the case, as many pesticides illegal in the United States are still manufactured in the United States and elsewhere for use in other countries. The developing world has a far less comprehensive system of pesticide regulation than the United States.\u00a0 However, a 1999 study by Consumer Reports found that, surprisingly, domestic produce had more, or more toxic, pesticide residues than imported in two-thirds of the cases studied. Domestic peaches had a pesticide toxicity score 10 times higher than imported peaches. <\/span>(<\/span><\/i>Consumer Reports<\/span>, <\/span><\/i>March, 1999, p. 28)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

A 2009 study published in the Journal of Food Chemical Toxicology reached similar findings:\u00a0 \u201c<\/span>Of the 15 pesticides for which quantifiable residues were detected from both domestic and imported fruit and vegetable samples, domestic exposures were significantly higher for 11 pesticides while imported exposures were higher for the remaining four. The five pesticides showing the highest exposures all demonstrated greater domestic exposures than imported exposures.\u201d<\/span> (<\/span>http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/19059451<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

The 2022 report of the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, which tests for 750 different pesticides in domestic human food samples from 35 states and imported human food samples from 79 countries\/economies, found that \u201cno pesticide residues were found in 40.8% of the domestic samples and 48.4% of the import samples.\u201d However, where residues were found,\u00a0 imported foods were somewhat more likely to violate U.S. standards: \u00a0 \u201c96.8% of domestic and 88.4% of import human foods were compliant with federal standards, that is, the pesticide tolerances set by EPA.\u201d (FDA Releases FY 2020 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report, August 10, 2022, <\/span>https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/food\/cfsan-constituent-updates\/fda-releases-fy-2020-pesticide-residue-monitoring-report<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n You can help increasingly threatened pollinator insects by cultivating bee-friendly plants in your garden.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

Not necessarily<\/strong>\u2013 unless you\u2019re careful about the source of your seeds or plants. <\/span>A study released in June 2014 by Friends of the Earth, \u201cGardeners Beware, 2014,\u201d revealed that 51 percent (36 out of 71) of \u201cbee-friendly\u201d garden plant samples purchased at top garden retailers (Home Depot, Lowe\u2019s and Walmart) in 18 U.S. and Canadian cities\u00a0 contained highly controversial neonicotinoid insecticides \u2013 a key contributor to recent bee declines: \u201cSome of the flowers contained neonicotinoid levels high enough to kill bees outright assuming comparable concentrations are present in the flowers’ pollen and nectar.\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/foe.org\/resources\/gardeners-beware-2014\/<\/span><\/a>) The same month, a meta-analysis of 800 studies by a Task Force on Systemic Pesticides convened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that neonicotinoid pesticides \u201c<\/span>are causing significant damage to a wide range of beneficial invertebrate species and are a key factor in the decline of bees.\u201d<\/span> (<\/span>https:\/\/saiplatform.org\/our-work\/news\/systemic-pesticides-pose-global-threat-to-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services\/<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In May 2014, a study released by the Harvard School of Public Health <\/span>replicated a 2012 finding from the same research group linking low doses of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), in which bees abandon their hives and eventually die. The study also found that low doses of a second neonicotinoid, clothianidin, had the same negative effect. The study\u2019s findings suggest that the pesticides, rather than mites or other bee pathogens, are a primary factor in triggering CCD. <\/span>(<\/span>http:\/\/www.hsph.harvard.edu\/news\/press-releases\/study-strengthens-link-between-neonicotinoids-and-collapse-of-honey-bee-colonies\/<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Since these findings many major retailers with thousands of U.S. locations have made commitments to keep neonicotinoid-treated plants out of their stores.\u00a0 Consult the Friends of Earth\u2019s webpage on Retailer Commitments on Pesticides and Pollinator Health for up-to-date information on these commitments. <\/span>https:\/\/foe.org\/nursery-retailer-commitments\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>

The EPA\u2019s regulatory actions to protect pollinators by restricting the use of neonicotinoids as of July, 2022 are summarized at <\/span>https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/pollinator-protection\/epa-actions-protect-pollinators<\/span><\/a><\/p>

On June 11, 2021, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed the nation\u2019s strongest restriction on bee-killing neonicotinoids into law, which was strongly supported by MOFGA. Sponsored by Rep. Nicole Grohoski of Ellsworth the legislative resolve prohibits the use of the most harmful neonic pesticides in residential landscapes. Environment Maine, Maine governor signs bill to save the bees, June 11, 2021, <\/span>https:\/\/environmentamerica.org\/maine\/media-center\/maine-governor-signs-bill-to-save-the-bees\/<\/span><\/a>; see also, Beyond Pesticides, <\/span>https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2021\/06\/maine-bans-consumer-use-of-neonicotinoid-insecticides-with-some-exceptions\/<\/span><\/a>;\u00a0 Maine Board of Pesticides Control, <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/applicators\/neonicotinoids.shtml<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/span>See MOFGA Deputy Director Heather Spalding\u2019s summary of this and other accomplishments in the 2021 legislative session, and the need for yet further progress: \u201cTime for an Intervention with Pesticide Regulators: 60 Years After \u201cSilent Spring,\u201d We Need Systemic Change,\u201d <\/span>https:\/\/www.mofga.org\\\/news\/time-for-an-intervention-with-pesticide-regulators\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>

\"\"<\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Using \u201cantibacterial\u201d or \u201cantimicrobial\u201d soaps is not necessarily the best way to keep your family healthy.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

True.<\/strong> <\/span>In September, 2016, the FDA issued a final rule that prohibits <\/span>consumer antiseptic wash products (including liquid, foam, gel hand soaps, bar soaps, and body washes) containing the majority of the antibacterial active ingredients, which are legally classified as pesticides.<\/span> The FDA concluded that \u201cthere isn\u2019t enough science to show that over-the-counter (OTC) antibacterial soaps are better at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water. To date, the benefits of using antibacterial hand soap haven\u2019t been proven. In addition, the wide use of these products over a long time has raised the question of potential negative effects on your health.\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/ForConsumers\/ConsumerUpdates\/ucm378393.htm<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

Of particular concern is the pesticide triclosan and its chemical cousin triclocarban, which since the 1990s have been added to numerous consumer products, including soaps, body washes, toothpaste, deodorant, facial cleansers and other cosmetics. The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that surveys have found residues of triclosan in more than 75 percent of Americans tested, and that the chemical <\/span>has been associated with lower levels of thyroid hormone and testosterone, which could result in altered behavior, learning disabilities or infertility.<\/span> https:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/media\/2013\/131122<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

After the 2016 ban on washing products, triclosan remained allowed in many other consumer products, including Colgate Total toothpaste and hand sanitizers, as well as surgical scrubs. (<\/span>https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/09\/07\/well\/live\/why-your-toothpaste-has-triclosan.html?_r=0<\/span><\/a>) The FDA banned it in hospital soaps in 2017 and hand-sanitizer in 2019 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is now removed from virtually all products.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The National Institutes of Health has awarded a team of researchers at the University of Maine $420,000 to research the potentially negative effects of triclosan on the body\u2019s mast cells \u2013 cells that <\/span>respond to cancer, fight bacterial infections and play a role in central nervous system disorders such as autism. These researchers have also found that triclosan disrupts mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of the cell in many species, including human skin cells.<\/span>(<\/span>http:\/\/vitalsigns.bangordailynews.com\/2014\/08\/01\/public-health\/is-your-antibacterial-soap-safe-umaine-researchers-study-common-ingredient\/<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> email from Professor Julie Gosse, 3\/27\/17; <\/span>https:\/\/umaine.edu\/news\/blog\/2018\/05\/25\/biochemist-physicist-team-see-antibacterial-tcs-deform-mitochondria\/<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>https:\/\/umaine.edu\/news\/blog\/2020\/12\/30\/gosse-caps-decade-of-research-into-troublesome-triclosan\/<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Pesticides contribute to the contamination of our soils and water with \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

True.<\/strong> PFAS \u2014 \u201cper- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances\u201d \u2014 are any of a family of more than 9,000 synthetic chemicals widely deployed since,the 1950s in a multitude of industrial and consumer products. They are extremely stable and hard to break down in the environment, and hence known as \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d And highly toxic. Beyond Pesticides reports that \u201cPFAS is present in the bloodstreams of 97% of the U.S. population. Exposure to these compounds has been linked to a variety of human health anomalies, including cancers, kidney dysfunction, neurodevelopmental compromise in children, immunosuppression, pre-eclampsia, increased risk of cardiometabolic diseases (via exposure during pregnancy), and respiratory system damage.\u201d <\/span>https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2022\/04\/maine-moves-to-ban-pesticides-and-fertilizers-contaminated-with-pfas\/<\/span><\/a> PFAS have been identified as contaminants in soil and water in Maine and across the nation. Using municipal and industrial sludge as fertilizer is a major source of this contamination, but use of synthetic pesticides is likely a significant source as well.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

On October 21, 2022, Pamela J. Bryer, Ph.D., the Pesticides Toxicologist for the Maine Board of Pesticides Control reported to the Board that the federal pesticide product registry database (NSPIRS) identified 69 active ingredients contained in a total of 1,493 registered pesticide products that are likely to contain PFAS. Additionally, pesticide products that do not contain PFAS by intentional addition are likely contaminated by PFAS in the containers in which they are stored and sold.\u00a0 Approximately 20 to 30% of the plastic containers used for pesticides are fluorinated. An EPA study concluded that oil-based and water-based fluids are both likely to contain PFAS following storage in fluorinated plastic containers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

A report of a study released in May, 2023 by the Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility revealed that California\u2019s most-used insecticide, Intrepid 2F, along with two other pesticides, Malathion 5EC and Oberon 2SC, were contaminated with potentially dangerous levels of PFAS.\u00a0 Center for Biological Diversity, \u201cHigh Levels of Dangerous \u2018Forever Chemicals\u2019 Found in California\u2019s Most-Used Insecticide 40% of Tested Agricultural Pesticide Products Contain PFAS,\u201d May 2, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/biologicaldiversity.org\/w\/news\/press-releases\/high-levels-of-dangerous-forever-chemicals-found-in-californias-most-used-insecticide-2023-05-02\/<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>https:\/\/www.biologicaldiversity.org\/campaigns\/pesticides_reduction\/pdfs\/J113812-1-UDS-Level-2-Report-Final-Report.pdf<\/span><\/a>; Matthew Rozsa, \u201cHow did nonstick “forever chemicals” get into our food? Blame pesticides,\u201d <\/span>Salon<\/span><\/i>, May 16, 2023, <\/span>https:\/\/www.salon.com\/2023\/05\/16\/how-did-nonstick-forever-chemicals-get-into-our-food-pesticides\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Help is on the way, but it may be a long and winding road.\u00a0 In 2021, the Maine legislature passed a landmark law banning carpets or rugs, or fabric treatments containing PFAS effective January 1, 2023, and providing that effective January 1, 2030 \u201ca person may not sell, offer for sale or distribute for sale in this State any product that contains intentionally added PFAS, unless the department has determined by rule that the use of PFAS in the product is a currently unavoidable use.\u201d 38 MRSA sec. 1614. The legislature also passed a resolve,\u00a0 sponsored by Representative Bill Pluecker, \u201cDirecting the Board of Pesticides Control To Gather Information Relating to Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the State.\u201d The resolve required the BPC to require companies registering pesticides annually with the Board to distributors to \u201cprovide affidavits stating whether the registered pesticide has ever been stored, distributed or packaged in a fluorinated highdensity polyethylene container and to require manufacturers to provide an affidavit stating whether a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance is in the formulation of the registered pesticide.\u201d <\/span>http:\/\/www.mainelegislature.org\/legis\/bills\/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0185&item=3&snum=130<\/span><\/a> Representative Pluecker followed this up with legislation in 2022 that requires the BPC to adopt rules related to pesticide containers, and provides that pesticides that have been contaminated by PFAS, by its containers or otherwise, may not be registered for use in Maine. It also requires separate registration of all \u201cspray adjuvants\u201d \u2013 such as wetting agents or spreading agents –\u00a0 that have been added to pesticide formulations, and that may contain PFAS. <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/documents2\/bd_mtgs\/May22\/8a-LD_2019.pdf<\/span><\/a> For a BPC slide show on its various legislative mandates regarding PFAS and pesticides, see <\/span>https:\/\/legislature.maine.gov\/doc\/8215<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Mofga.org News quotes Bill Pluecker on these legislative successes, responding to a comment in a public hearing: \u201cDescribing PFAS as \u2018something that\u2019s not so good\u2019 is perhaps inaccurate, said the bill\u2019s sponsor Rep. Bill Pluecker of Warren, who also worked hard to pass the ban on sludge spreading. \u2018PFAS causes cancer, it causes low birth weight, it causes high cholesterol \u2014 all things that Maine is struggling with. It has poisoned our farmers, it has poisoned our deer and our fish, it has poisoned our land, water and food. This seems a little worse than \u2018not so good.\u2019\u201d And also quotes Sen. Stacy Brenner, a champion of the successful legislation to ban spreading sludge on Maine farmland, an organic farmer and a member of MOFGA\u2019s board of directors: \u201cWe say that dilution is the solution to pollution, but when we talk about chemicals that are dangerous in the parts per billion level, chemicals that bioaccumulate in our bodies and chemicals that react on the body\u2019s endocrine system, dilution is not the solution. Containment is. Elimination is.\u201d \u201cMofga Celebrates Landmark PFAS Policies, <\/span>Mofga.org News<\/span><\/i>, April 26, 2022, <\/span>https:\/\/www.mofga.org\\\/news\/maine-pfas-legislation\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Maine is a national leader in tackling PFAS in pesticides.\u00a0 This, from the June 6, 2023 <\/span>Maine Public<\/span><\/i>:\u00a0 \u201cUnder a law passed last year, pesticides that contain \u2018intentionally added\u2019 PFAS cannot be sold in Maine starting in 2030. In the meantime, Maine’s Board of Pesticides Control has begun compiling a list of chemicals that the state has flagged as belonging to the PFAS family. The Environmental Working Group, which is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that is heavily focused on chemical safety, used that growing list and pesticide registrations in Maine to identify more than 1,400 pesticides that contain active ingredients that meet the state\u2019s definition of PFAS. The group released a list of those 55 active ingredients on Tuesday as part of its campaign to highlight potential PFAS exposure to agricultural workers, gardeners and consumers. Lillian Zhou, a law fellow with the group, said she believes Maine is the first state to begin collecting this information on PFAS in pesticides. \u2018But we hope that other states will follow too and take the protective approach that Maine has to ban intentionally added PFAS from all pesticides,\u2019 Zhou said. \u2018And we also hope that this will really give pesticide manufactures a push to start phasing out PFAS from their products.\u2019\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/www.mainepublic.org\/environment-and-outdoors\/2023-06-06\/national-group-uses-maine-data-to-highlight-pfas-in-pesticides<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

An excellent resource on regulating and avoiding the risks of PFAS is Marina Schauffler\u2019s newsletter, <\/span>ContamiNation.\u00a0 <\/span><\/i>See, for example, the August 4, 2024, issue: \u201cReducing PFAS Exposure from Food,\u201d <\/span>https:\/\/marinaschauffler.substack.com\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>

For the 2024 update on MOFGA\u2019s campaign against PFAS contamination, including actions you can take and a webinar on PFAS on farms and food, see <\/span>https:\/\/www.mofga.org\\\/advocacy\/pfas\/<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Eating certified organic food or growing your own food organically is the best way to minimize exposure to pesticides in your and your children's diet.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

True,<\/strong> although even some organic food has tested positive for trace residues of synthetic pesticides, as a result of the background exposure to these chemicals in our soils, air, waters and transportation vehicles and storage facilities. Organic foods are much less likely to have residues, and when found, residue levels are well below those found and legally permitted in conventional food. (See Baker et al., \u201cPesticide residues in conventional, IPM-grown and organic foods: Insights from three U.S. data sets,\u201d Food Additives and Contaminants<\/span>, <\/span><\/i>Volume 19, No. 5, May 2002; <\/span>https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/12028642<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

A University of Washington study analyzed pesticide breakdown products (metabolites) in pre-school aged children, comparing children eating at least 75 percent organic food with children eating at least 75 percent conventional food. The study found median concentrations of organophosphate metabolites six times lower in the children with the organic diets, and mean concentrations nine times lower, suggesting that some children eating conventional produce had much higher concentrations of metabolites. (See Curl et al., \u201cOrganophosphorus pesticide exposure and suburban pre-school children with organic and conventional diets,\u201d Environmental Health Perspectives,<\/span> October 13, 2002; <\/span>https:\/\/cfpub.epa.gov\/ncer_abstracts\/index.cfm\/fuseaction\/display.files\/fileID\/13642<\/span><\/a>) A 2006 study in Environmental Health Perspectives similarly concluded that, \u201c<\/span>Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides.\u201d (Chensheng Lu et al., Environmental Health Perspectives<\/span>, <\/span><\/i>Vol. 114, n. 2, February 2006,\u00a0 <\/span>https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/3436519?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

There have been similar findings for adult populations.\u00a0 A 2015 study of 4,500 adults from six U.S. cities examined long-term dietary exposure to 14 organophosphate pesticides. (Curl et al., \u201cEstimating Pesticide Exposure from Dietary Intake and Organic Food Choices,\u201d Environmental Health Perspectives,\u00a0 February 5, 2015, <\/span>https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/25650532<\/span><\/a> ) <\/span>The scientists found that people who reported eating organic fruits and vegetables at least occasionally had significantly lower organophosphate residue levels in their urine when compared to people who almost always ate conventionally grown produce.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Since 2009, six major meta-analyses have been published comparing the health and safety of organic versus conventional foods. Only two of these considered pesticide residues, and both found that pesticide residues are four- to five-fold more common in conventional food. The six studies also found higher nutrient levels in organic food. A large study published in 2016 in the <\/span>British Journal of Nutrition <\/span><\/i>found that <\/span>organic dairy and meat contain about 50 percent more omega-3 fatty acids than conventional products, and a study published in 2014 in the same journal found that organic foods have substantially higher concentrations of a range of antioxidants and other potentially beneficial compounds.<\/span> (Benbrook, \u201cNew Meta-Analysis Identifies Three Significant Benefits Associated With Organically Grown Plant-Based Foods,\u201d July 11, 2014; <\/span>http:\/\/csanr.wsu.edu\/significant-benefits-organic-plant-based-foods\/<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>http:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/thesalt\/2016\/02\/18\/467136329\/is-organic-more-nutritious-new-study-adds-to-the-evidence<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

A 2019 study<\/span> conducted by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health and published in the journal <\/span>Environmental Research<\/span><\/i> found that families eating a 100 percent organic diet rapidly and dramatically reduced their exposure to four classes of pesticides\u2014by an average of 60 percent\u2014over six days. (Meg Wilcox, \u201cCan Eating Organic Lower Your Exposure to Pesticides?\u201d <\/span>Civil Eats<\/span><\/i>, February 11, 2019, <\/span>https:\/\/civileats.com\/2019\/02\/11\/can-eating-organic-lower-your-exposure-to-pesticides\/<\/span><\/a>; Carly Hyland et al., \u201cOrganic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary pesticide levels in U.S. children and adults,\u201d <\/span>Environmental Research, April, 2019,<\/span><\/i> https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S0013935119300246<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

An April 22, 2022 assessment by the Mayo Clinic confirms that organic foods generally have fewer pesticide residues than conventional,\u00a0 and discusses other potential health benefits from organic foods.\u00a0 Mayo Clinic, \u201cOrganic foods:\u00a0 Are they safer?\u00a0 More nutritious?,\u201d Nutrition and Healthy Eating In-Depth, <\/span>https:\/\/www.mayoclinic.org\/healthy-lifestyle\/nutrition-and-healthy-eating\/in-depth\/organic-food\/art-20043880#<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Also keep in mind that some conventionally grown foods are riskier than others<\/span>\u00a0 See the Environmental Working Group\u2019s 2023 Shopper\u2019s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, answer to Q. 11. Also check the Beyond Pesticides resource \u201cEating with a Conscience,\u201d which identifies all the pesticides that can legally be applied to various non-organic food crops in the United States, with links to the health and environmental risk profile of each pesticide. (<\/span>http:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/organicfood\/conscience\/navigation.php<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act has effectively addressed the fundamental inadequacies of our pesticide regulatory system: taking into account the special vulnerability of infants and children, the non-cancer risks such as endocrine disruption, and the cumulative effects of multiple exposures of different pesticides in our diets, our home and working environments, our air and water.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

Probably false. <\/strong>The FQPA was hailed on passage by Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley as a <\/span>“landmark bipartisan agreement that will bring Federal regulation of the Nation’s food producers into the 21st century.”<\/span> But the EPA\u2019s response to congressional mandates under the FQPA has been fraught with criticism from the beginning. The long, controversial history of regulation of azinphos-methyl (AZM) is a case in point. AZM, an organophosphate, was used on a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, including “wild” blueberries in Maine, most often under the brand name Guthion. In the late 1990s, a number of environmental and farmworker protection organizations resigned from a top-level EPA advisory committee over dismay at the EPA’s decision not to suspend registration of AZM immediately. The EPA had concluded that dietary risk from food alone for AZM exceeded the reference dose “safe” level for nursing infants and children age one to six in the United States., without consideration of other exposures, such as pesticide drift or the cumulative effects of other similar chemicals. However, it opted for minor changes in use of the pesticide rather than suspending it. The August 2, 1999, EPA press release urged the American public to continue to\u00a0 eat fruit with AZM residues, even before these “mitigation measures” are implemented: “The food supply is safe; this action just makes it safer.” On environmental and worker protection issues, the EPA was somewhat less reassuring: “Azinphos-methyl also poses unacceptable risks to birds, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and terrestrial mammals. It poses a very high risk to aquatic organisms, perhaps the highest among all the organophosphate pesticides. Azinphos-methyl is also one of the most persistent of the organophosphates applied foliarly. The voluntary risk reduction measures should help reduce many of these risks.” The press release also noted that \u201cAzinphos-methyl is hazardous to workers \u2026 Estimated risks remain unacceptable despite the use of additional protective clothing, equipment, and engineering controls. Post-application risks to reentry workers greatly exceed EPA\u2019s level of concern.\u201d\u00a0 (EPA, \u201cAzinphos Methyl Risk Management Decision,\u201d August 2, 1999,<\/span> https:\/\/archive.epa.gov\/pesticides\/reregistration\/web\/html\/azmfactsheet.html<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Environmental Working Group calculated, based on preschoolers’ consumption of four foods (apples, pears, peaches and apple juice), that 49,500 preschool children exceed EPA’s acute reference dose for azinphos-methyl every day, accumulating to more than 18 million unsafe exposures per year: “Dietary exposure to Guthion alone … presents more than twice the risk allowed in EPA’s \u2018risk cup\u2019 for all [organophosphates]. And Guthion is only the first of at least six organophosphates with a significant dietary risk profile to reach the refined assessment phase within the agency.” (Environmental Working Group, \u201cChildren are Overexposed to Guthion<\/span>,<\/span><\/i>\u201d<\/span> April 1999).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In 2006 the EPA at long last announced that it would phase out all uses of azinphos-methyl by 2012, with some uses phased out by 2007. A spokesperson for the United Farmworkers of America noted that the phaseout was welcome, \u201cbut it is inexcusable for EPA to allow this pesticide to continue poisoning workers for 6 more years.\u201d (Earth Justice press release, November 16, 2006).<\/span><\/p>

The big picture on implementation of the FQPA is one of decidedly mixed results, with some major accomplishments that will have a positive impact on health, and much work remaining to be done. On August 3, 2006, the EPA announced that it had completed its 10-year review of pesticide safety mandated under the FQPA. The EPA reviewed about 230 pesticide active ingredients and 870 inert pesticide ingredients, with nearly 10,000 tolerances. Positive outcomes from this review include phaseouts of residential uses of two highly toxic pesticides, diazinon and chlorpyrifos, and cancellation of 17 organophosphate pesticides. In May 2006, as the EPA was poised to announce completion of its FQPA review, nine presidents of unions representing EPA scientists and risk managers wrote a letter to the EPA administrator,\u00a0 expressing concerns that the EPA was about to give approval for organophosphate and carbamate pesticides that may be neurotoxic, especially in developing fetuses, infants and children. They stated that they were \u201cconcerned that the Agency has not, consistent with its principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn conclusions about the developmental neurotoxicity data received from pesticide registrants.\u201d They cited a January 2006 Inspector General report, \u201cOpportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children\u2019s Health through the Food Quality Protection Act,\u201d that points out flaws in the EPA testing process that have yielded a less than \u201ccomplete and reliable database on developmental neurotoxicity of pesticides … upon which to base any final tolerance reassessment decisions as required by the FQPA.\u201d Among other issues, the EPA\u2019s required pesticide testing does not include sufficient evaluation of behavior, learning or memory in developing animals. (Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 114, Number 10, October 2006)\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Reducing organophosphate use in the United States by more than 70 percent between 2000 and 2012 (see answer to Q. 1) is no mean feat, and worthy of celebration. But the problem of pesticides and our health is more fundamental than presumed by those who, in good conscience, worked to pass the Food Quality Protection Act. Synthetic chemical pesticides were born from World War II chemical warfare technology. The current generation of synthetic pesticides is comparable in philosophy, if not precise chemistry. They are the only substances we manufacture that are widely available to consumers without a prescription, and that are deliberately designed to kill.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Regulating these complex molecular chains is a shell game. Work to solve one problem, and another one erupts. Neonicotinoids were widely touted as being safer for humans (especially the pesticide applicators) than competing products, but they turned out to be lethal to pollinators essential to the food chain. Triclosan was added to dozens of personal care and housekeeping products to reduce transmission of disease; turns out there\u2019s no proof it\u2019s more effective than soap and water, and it is disrupting our body\u2019s hormone systems and promoting antibiotic resistant \u201csuperbugs.\u201d<\/span><\/p>

Regulators, prey to the pressures of industry lobbyists (the \u201cblandishments of the hucksters,\u201d as Rachel Carson put it) and often indifferent leadership, will never move fast enough or bravely enough to protect the public and Earth\u2019s ecosystems from the next problem. We would be better off making peace with nature through organic cultivation than to continue the synthetic chemical warfare, adjusting the weaponry to reduce the collateral damage. As Rachel Carson wrote in \u201cSilent Spring\u201d:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

“We still talk in terms of conquest. We still haven’t become mature enough to think of ourselves as only a tiny part of a vast and incredible universe. Man’s attitude toward nature is today critically important simply because we have now acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself \u2026 Now, I truly believe, that we in this generation must come to terms with nature, and I think we’re challenged as mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>

As must this generation as well<\/span>.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n The Maine Board of Pesticides tracks over time and reports to the public annually on the total quantity of pesticides sold and used in Maine. <\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> In 1997, the Maine Legislature enacted what is now Maine Title 22, Chapter 258, \u00a71471-X, in response to a major public policy initiative by MOFGA: <\/span>\u201cState policy; public and private initiatives to minimize reliance on pesticides. <\/b>It is the policy of the State to work to find ways to use the minimum amount of pesticides needed to effectively control targeted pests in all areas of application.\u201d A separate part of this bill, \u00a71471-M, sub-\u00a77, required the Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) to \u201cimplement a system of record keeping, reporting, data collection and analysis that provides information on the quantity of product and brand names of pesticides sold,\u201d and to publish, starting in 1998, \u201can annual pesticides report containing the quantity of product, sorted by the name and United States Environmental Protection Agency registration number, of all pesticides sold in the prior year, with the data further sorted by sector of use wherever possible.\u201d (<\/span>https:\/\/legislature.maine.gov\/ros\/LOM\/LOM118th\/LOM351to393-46.htm<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The effort to develop a pesticide sales and use reporting system was essentially put on the back burner in 2002, citing lack of funding or positions and \u201cthe difficulty in obtaining useful, reliable information on pesticide use in the state.\u201d (Board of Pesticides Control, 2011 Program Evaluation Report, p. 3, <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/documents2\/bd_mtgs\/jun19\/6c-BPC-GEA-Report_11-1-2011_final.pdf<\/span><\/a>;).<\/span> In the BPC\u2019s Report of Pesticides Sales and Use for Calendar Year 2000, March 20, 2002,\u00a0 the BPC explained:\u00a0 \u00a0 \u201cThe statutory reporting requirements as currently constituted do not capture all the pesticide sales in the state and have a potential for some double reporting\u2026it ignores some fairly substantial amounts of sales that go directly from out-of-state to large in-state end-users and licensed restricted use pesticide dealers.\u201d\u00a0 Those included high volume sales to \u201cexterminators, lawncare companies, golf courses, right-of-way maintenance companies, forest management companies\u201d and internet and catalogue sales to any end user.\u00a0 (<\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/documents2\/technical_resources\/Pesticide-sales-and-use-report-2020.pdf<\/span><\/a>, at p. 3) The legislature\u2019s Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry \u201cagreed [in 2002] the current reports were of little value, but did not take any action to require additional groups to report or to extend the requirement for annual reports of incomplete data.\u201d 2011 Program Evaluation Report, p. 3.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In 2012, in connection with the YardScaping program, BPC staff did manage to calculate an alarming 700% increase of home use pesticides distributed into Maine between 2005 and 2011 (see answer to Q. 7).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In 2021, 2022, and 2023 Orono Representative Laurie Osher sponsored bills to require comprehensive data collection and reporting on pesticides. The outcome of the first, 2021, bill was a resolve directing the BPC to \u201cresearch workable methods to collect pesticide sales and use records for the purpose of providing information to the public.\u201d The BPC produced a report detailing how it collected pesticides sales and use data and the results of recent efforts to estimate total usage in Maine.\u00a0 A big gap in data under current law is applications by \u201cprivate applicators,\u201d individuals or companies that apply their own pesticides on farms, greenhouses and nurseries,<\/span> orchards, Christmas tree plantations and forests. These applicators are required to keep data about applications, for review by the BPC on occasional (not necessarily annual) inspection, but not to report it to the BPC as certain pesticide dealers must. The BPC conducted a stakeholder meeting with private applicators which elicited strong opposition to any reporting requirement, for reasons summarized in the report. Using only commercial applicator data, and sales data for general use and restricted use pesticides (which does not include pesticides from out of state sources)[confirm with BPC], the BPC offered the legislature a \u201cbrief and preliminary summary of the 2019 use data.\u201d \u00a0 The total for solid products tallied by weight was 394,378 lbs. The total for liquid products tallied by volume was 24,291 gallons. The summary was broken down by individual pesticide active ingredient. Report to the 130th Maine State Legislature on LD 524 Resolve, 2021, p.11, 12-18, <\/span>https:\/\/legislature.maine.gov\/doc\/7755<\/span><\/a> See also, <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/public\/environmental-health.shtml<\/span><\/a> (click FAQ,\u00a0 \u201cHow much pesticide is being used in Maine?\u201d) providing data on commercial applications and Maine based general and restricted use pesticide sales via spreadsheet for the years 2018 to 2021, with pesticides measured in gallons converted to pounds. This presentation on the BPC website does not total weight for each year, but if the spreadsheet is downloaded and asked to add up the entries for every year, the result is 800,210 pounds for 2018 and 398,381 pounds for 2021. The BPC has not to our knowledge offered an explanation for these figures or claimed that they represent a reliable indication of reduced use of pesticides in Maine. Its note on this report admits: \u201cThis dataset is inherently unreliable; however, it serves the purpose of evaluating annual trends in pesticide usage statewide. The data reported here are provided directly as reported by commercially licensed pesticide applicators. No attempt has been made to ground-truth the accuracy of these summary numbers against the applicator\u2019s log books. Only data from commercial applicators are included.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In the public hearing on Representative Osher\u2019s 2023 bill,\u00a0 <\/span>https:\/\/legislature.maine.gov\/legis\/bills\/display_ps.asp?LD=1770&snum=131<\/span><\/a> , <\/span>Paul Schlein, a MOFGA Public Policy Committee member and former Public Information Officer for the Board of Pesticides Control, summed up progress on tracking pesticide use in Maine to date:\u00a0 \u201cMaine made a promise 26 years ago that has not been kept. In essence, it was to protect health and the environment for all inhabitants\u2014plants and animals\u2014of the wonderful and beautiful State of Maine. \u2026. [quoting from 2021 testimony]<\/span> The State of Maine has the most admirable policy of reducing reliance on pesticides, but no way to accurately gauge that this is occurring. Unfortunately, all that leaves is a rather hollow policy.\u201d <\/span>(<\/span>https:\/\/legislature.maine.gov\/legis\/bills\/getTestimonyDoc.asp?id=10019822<\/span><\/a>) Despite substantial opposition from the conventional farming community to the proposed reporting requirements and public disclosure of pesticide totals,\u00a0 the bill passed as an amended resolve requiring the BPC to\u00a0 \u201cimplement a system of electronic data collection that is efficient for those required to submit reports to the board under Title 22, section 1471-G and useful to the board and members of the public.\u201d <\/span>https:\/\/legislature.maine.gov\/legis\/bills\/getPDF.asp?paper=HP1134&item=2&snum=131<\/span><\/a><\/p>

This is an important step forward on pesticides data reporting.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n In Maine you have no way of knowing whether and when your child\u2019s school is applying pesticides.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> In 2002, thanks to the work of MOFGA and the Maine Toxics Action Coalition, the Board of Pesticides Control passed new regulations about pesticide use in Maine schools. The regulations require all Maine schools to use integrated pest management techniques when applying pesticides, including choosing the lowest risk products. It also provides for staff and parental notification of pesticide use. The school district can decide whether to give notification every time a pesticide is used, or to give annual notification with a pesticide registry system for parents who want notification of each application. Contact your school superintendent to find out how this regulation is being implemented in your school. For a copy of the regulations and more information, see <\/span>http:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/integrated_pest_management\/school\/index.shtml<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Your neighbors don\u2019t have to tell you when they\u2019re applying pesticides, and you have no way to stop them, even if the pesticides make you sick when they drift onto your property.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> The Maine Board of Pesticides Control has two systems for requiring notification by near-by neighbors of outdoor pesticide applications: a self-initiated request for notification, which can be made regarding any application within 500 feet of your property (1,000 feet for aerial spraying), and a pesticide notification registry, which applies to non-agricultural applications within 250 feet. People wishing to be on the notification registry must deliver a copy of a letter provided by the BPC notifying each of their neighbors that they are on the registry, and must sign up for the registry no later than December 31 to be on the registry for the following year. \u00a0 Neither of these provisions requires any evidence of special medical condition or adverse effects from the pesticides. (See\u00a0 <\/span>www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/public\/notification.shtml#byrequest <\/span><\/a>for details.)<\/span><\/p>

MOFGA has long advocated for more effective notification regulations and has worked aggressively for the enactment of a more comprehensive notification system for aerial applications; this was, regrettably, repealed by the Maine Legislature in 2011.\u00a0 (Beyond Pesticides, \u201cPesticide Spray Notification Under Threat in Maine,\u201d <\/span>https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2011\/04\/pesticide-spray-notification-under-threat-in-maine\/<\/span><\/a>; \u201cMaine farmers criticize pesticide law repeal,\u201d\u00a0 Bangor Daily News, June 15, 2011, <\/span>https:\/\/www.bangordailynews.com\/2011\/06\/15\/news\/maine-farmers-criticize-pesticide-law-repeal\/<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

In addition to any legal rights you have regarding pesticides that drift onto your property and make you sick, including common law chemical trespass, negligence, and nuisance actions, the BPC has a regulation for designation of pesticide-free, or restricted, \u201cCritical Pesticide Control Areas.\u201d These may be imposed when the board finds that use of pesticides \u201cis likely to cause serious and\/or longstanding impairment of the health of sensitive individuals or groups of individuals who normally occupy such areas.\u201d (Regulation 60-3; <\/span>http:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/public\/critical_control_areas.shtml<\/span><\/a>) Medical documentation is required, and the zone will not be established until after a public hearing and notification to all affected property owners. The rule has been used successfully only once to protect human health, in the case of a child with multiple chemical sensitivity. For more information contact the BPC at 287-2731.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n <\/i><\/i><\/span>\n Maine municipalities have no power to regulate pesticide use.<\/span> <\/div>\n\n
\n

False.<\/strong> Municipalities have general \u201chome rule\u201d authority to regulate matters that affect the health and welfare of their residents. Maine is one of only seven states that permit local regulation of pesticide use. The Maine legislature soundly rejected two efforts by Governer LePage, in 2017 and 2018, to take away citizens\u2019 right to locally regulate pesticides. (<\/span>https:\/\/www.pressherald.com\/2018\/03\/21\/lepages-bill-to-limit-local-control-of-pesticide-use-appears-headed-for-defeat\/<\/span><\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Thirty-three<\/span> Maine municipalities have imposed restrictions on pesticide use. The communities of Coplin Plantation, Lebanon, Limestone, New Sweden and Rangeley, for example, have prohibited aerial or powered pesticide applications generally, or in certain areas of the community. <\/span>The \u201cMaine Agriculture Protection Act,\u201d however, provides that a municipality \u201cmust provide the commissioner <\/span>\u00a0<\/span>[of the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry]<\/span> with a copy of any proposed ordinance that affects farm operations or agricultural composting operations. The clerk of the municipality or a municipal official designated by the clerk shall submit a copy of the proposed ordinance to the commissioner at least 90 days prior to the meeting of the legislative body or public hearing at which adoption of the ordinance will be considered. The commissioner shall review the proposed ordinance and advise the municipality as to whether the proposed ordinance restricts or prohibits the use of best management practices. This section does not affect municipal authority to enact ordinances.\u201d A farm operation \u201clocated in an area where agricultural activities are permitted may not be considered a violation of a municipal ordinance if the farm operation \u2026 conforms to best management practices as determined by the commissioner in accordance with [the Maine Administrative Procedures Act]…\u201d 7 M.R.S.A sec. <\/span>154<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>155<\/span><\/a>.<\/span> The commissioner contended in 2003 that a proposed Addison ordinance banning aerial spraying was not enforceable as it would prevent blueberry \u201cbest management practices.\u201d This interpretation was disputed by MOFGA in testimony submitted at the public hearing on the Department\u2019s objection, as well as by a well-researched opinion letter by the Addison town attorney.\u00a0 The town ultimately decided nonetheless to repeal the ban.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Municipalities considering ordinances that relate to pesticide storage, distribution or use should be aware of the\u00a0Maine statute <\/span>22 M.R.S.A. sec. 1471-U<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0This requires notice to the Board of Pesticides Control of any such proposed ordinances at least seven days before the meeting of the legislative body or the public hearing at which adoption of the ordinance will be considered, and requires additional notification to the board within 30 days after any such ordinance has been enacted. Failure to do this will result in voiding the statute and starting the enactment process all over again.<\/span><\/p>

The Board of Pesticides Control website provides a link to municipal pesticide use ordinances at <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/public\/municipal_ordinances.shtml<\/span><\/a><\/p>

In November, 2014, the citizens of the town of Ogunquit made history by enacting the first ordinance in Maine, and one of the few in the United States, which, with certain exemptions, prohibits the use of pesticides on lawns and landscapes, both public and privately owned. The ordinance does not apply to commercial agriculture, and allows pesticides approved for use by the National Organic Standards Board.\u00a0 Exemptions include wood preservatives, swimming pool products, pet supplies, and products for control of venomous insects and \u201cnoxious growths\u201d such as poison ivy. (<\/span>http:\/\/bangordailynews.com\/2014\/11\/16\/opinion\/contributors\/ogunquit-leads-the-way-with-ordinance-banning-pesticides\/<\/span><\/a>,<\/span><\/p>

http:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/documents2\/municipal%20ordinances\/Ogunquit_Ordinance_1-1-15.pdf<\/span><\/a>) <\/span>To date, as noted below, five other Maine municipalities have followed suit and restricted pesticide use on private property.<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In September, 2016, the City of South Portland enacted an ordinance that restricts outdoor pesticide applications on public property (effective May 2017) and on private property (effective May 2018) to pesticides which are either approved for organic agriculture by the National Organic Standards Board, or classified as \u201cminimum risk\u201d pesticides by the EPA.\u00a0 The ordinance exempts commercial agriculture, various other pesticides uses, and allows for waivers for public health, safety and control of invasive species.\u00a0 In enacting the ordinance, the City Council made a number of findings related to the risks of pesticide use, including the fact that pesticides were leaching into Casco Bay and that \u201cthe EPA acknowledges, along with the esteemed Mt. Sinai Children\u2019s Environmental Health Center, that children, with their still-developing bodies and brains, are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of lawn and garden pesticides; and children\u2019s behavior (e.g., hand to mouth interactions, proximity to the ground, walking or running through lawns instead of paved sidewalks, especially where there are none), exposes children to far more contact with lawn pesticides than adults.\u201d (<\/span> http:\/\/www.southportland.org\/departments\/sustainability-office\/pesticide-use\/south-portlands-proposed-pesticide-use-ordinance\/<\/span><\/a>, South Portland Pesticide FAQs, https:\/\/www.southportland.org\/departments\/sustainability-office\/pesticide-use\/pesticide-ordinance-faqs\/)<\/span>)<\/span><\/p>

On January 3, 2018<\/span>, after almost two years of debate, task-force meetings and public testimony, Maine\u2019s largest city enacted one of the strongest organic lawn care ordinances in the country. The ordinance bans synthetic pesticides on public and private property beginning July 1, 2018, and will apply to five high-use athletic fields in 2021. Avery Yale Kamila a founder, along with Maggie J. Knowles, of the organization Portland Protectors that spearheaded the ordinance effort, noted that \u201cthe city used 2,200 pounds of high risk weed-and-feed on five student athletic fields last year.\u00a0 This use will be allowed until 2021, and we want to see it stop much sooner.\u201d\u00a0 The ordinance includes a strong outreach and education campaign; violations of the ordinance will be subject to potential civil penalties of $100 to $500.\u00a0 (Jean English, \u201cOrganic Matter,\u201d <\/span>The Maine Organic Farmer & Gardener, <\/span><\/i>March\/May 2018 . In September, 2019,\u00a0 Yale Kamila reports: \u201cThe organic ordinance is working well in Portland. Residents are happy with it and we’ve only had two waiver requests. I regularly talk to residents in other Maine towns who want to pass something similar. I’ve also spoken with quite a few people\u00a0outside of Maine, who have cancer or other health issues, and are considering moving to Portland\/South Portland because of the ordinances. More Maine towns should follow suit, as being an organic town boosts a municipality’s brand.\u201d\u00a0(City of Portland Land Care Ordinance Details, <\/span>https:\/\/content.civicplus.com\/api\/assets\/4b49bdeb-7a75-422d-a48b-10b089436b1e<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

In November 2019, Blue Hill\u2019s Healthy Ecosystem ordinance, advanced by the Blue Hill Healthy Ecosystem Group, passed by an almost 3 to 1 margin.\u00a0 The ordinance recites, among several findings supporting the proposal, the fact that \u201cThe U.S. Geological Survey reports that 33% of major aquifers and 50% of shallow wells contain one or more Pesticides at detectable levels.\u00a0 Maine has no meaningful pesticide spray buffer zones to protect communities and farms from Pesticide Drift.\u201d The ordinance was the first to prohibit not only application but also storage and sale of synthetic pesticides, subject to certain exceptions and exemptions. (<\/span>https:\/\/communityactionworks.org\/maine-town-went-pesticide-free\/<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/documents2\/municipal%20ordinances\/Blue_Hill_Ordinance.pdf<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>

In September 2023, the Hallowell City Council unanimously approved a Land Management Ordinance advanced by Grow Green & Healthy Hallowell.\u00a0 GGHH describes the reasons for joining the growing number of Maine municipalities regulating private pesticide use: \u201cThere is a large body of evidence demonstrating that synthetic pesticides have serious detrimental effects on human health and the environment. The purpose of this ordinance is to safeguard the health and welfare of the residents of the City and their pets, and to conserve and protect the Vaughan Brook Watershed, waters of the Kennebec River, and our wildlife, plants, and soils, by curtailing the use of synthetic pesticides for all outdoor pest and plant management on both public and private property.\u201d\u00a0 (<\/span>https:\/\/growgreenhallowell.org\/<\/span><\/a>; City of Hallowell Ordinaces, Subchapter VII of Ch. 4, <\/span>https:\/\/hallowell.govoffice.com\/vertical\/sites\/%7B9B342949-3E79-4064-B52A-92C27ED57113%7D\/uploads\/Chapter_4_-_Public_Safety_-_rev_2023.10.06.pdf<\/span><\/a>, p. 49)<\/span><\/p>

In November 2023, voters in Cape Elizabeth resoundingly approved a referendum to enact an ordinance prohibiting the use of certain pesticides on residential property in the Town of Cape Elizabeth, subject to various exemptions. <\/span>The ordinance was finalized on June 12, 2024. <\/span>https:\/\/www.capeelizabeth.com\/news\/post\/7755\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>

Nancy Ross, who served as Executive Director of MOFGA when MOFGA\u2019s successful initiative to legislate an obligation to \u201cminimize reliance on pesticides\u201d passed (see Q. 18), led the effort to work with the Cape Elizabeth ordinance committee on the terms of such an ordinance. MOFGA Public Policy Director Heather Spalding provided testimony in support. \u00a0 Concern about controlling invasive plant species was a prominent issue in public hearings on this proposal; ultimately testimony on the effective ways to control invasive plant species by non-chemical methods carried the day; the ordinance exempts applications to treat invasive insect infestations but not invasive plant species. On this topic, see the writeup and video of MOFGA\u2019s 2023 Public Policy Teach-in at the Common Ground Fair: \u201cNurturing Native Wildlife In Your Landscape Without Hazardous Chemicals \u2013 Practical Steps That You Can Take Around Your Home and Policy Actions That You Can Take In Augusta And Washington.\u201d <\/span>https:\/\/www.mofga.org\\\/public-policy-teach-ins\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>

In 2021, Camden homeowner Amelia Bond killed her neighbors\u2019 two majestic oaks and contaminated a neighboring public beach with an illegal application of four pounds of the herbicide Tebuthiuron, aiming to carve out a better waterview (Joe Barrett, \u201cA Wealthy Couple Became Local Pariahs After Poisoning Their Neighbor\u2019s Trees,\u201d <\/span>Wall Street Journal, <\/span><\/i>August 3, 2024, <\/span>https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/us-news\/a-wealthy-couple-became-local-pariahs-after-poisoning-their-neighbors-trees-0bdf4791<\/span><\/a>; Eric Russell, \u201cIn Camden, a story of wealthy neighbors, ocean views and over $1.7 million in fines,\u201d <\/span>Portland Press Herald, <\/span><\/i>May 26, 2024,<\/span> https:\/\/www.pressherald.com\/2024\/05\/26\/camden-couple-paid-1-7-million-for-herbicide-damage-and-its-not-over-yet\/<\/span><\/a>; June 26, 2023 Maine Board of Pesticides Control Consent Agreement and Findings of Fact, signed by Amelia and Arthur Bond, <\/span>https:\/\/www.maine.gov\/dacf\/php\/pesticides\/documents2\/bd_mtgs\/Jul23\/8-Camden_PCA.pdf<\/span><\/a>). In response to outrage about this incident, Camden is considering an ordinance that would require commercial users of pesticides to notify neighbors before they are applied and to provide an annual report documenting their local usage.\u00a0 Sasha Ray, \u201cCamden may regulate herbicides after family illegally used them,\u201d<\/span> Bangor Daily News, <\/span><\/i>August 16, 2024, <\/span>https:\/\/www.bangordailynews.com\/2024\/08\/16\/midcoast\/midcoast-government\/camden-may-regulate-herbicides-after-family-illegally-used-them-joam40zk0w\/<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MOFGA Pesticides Quiz and Primer How much do you know about pesticides and your health? 2024 Edition | By Sharon S. Tisher, J.D. Dear reader, I hope you find this new edition of the Pesticides Quiz and Primer fun and enlightening, and a pathway to our collective better health. Since the last, 2015, edition, I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"no-sidebar","site-content-layout":"page-builder","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"disabled","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"disabled","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"default","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-629","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMOFGA Pesticides Quiz | Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz | Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz and Primer How much do you know about pesticides and your health? 2024 Edition | By Sharon S. Tisher, J.D. Dear reader, I hope you find this new edition of the Pesticides Quiz and Primer fun and enlightening, and a pathway to our collective better health. Since the last, 2015, edition, I […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-04-24T18:58:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/Rachel-Carson-300px-237x300.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@MOFGA\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"66 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/\",\"name\":\"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz | Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/Rachel-Carson-300px-237x300.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-11-16T07:22:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-24T18:58:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/Rachel-Carson-300px.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/Rachel-Carson-300px.jpg\",\"width\":300,\"height\":380,\"caption\":\"Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners\",\"description\":\"Helping farmers and gardeners grow organic food\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/logo-mofga.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/logo-mofga.jpg\",\"width\":200,\"height\":200,\"caption\":\"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mofga.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/MOFGA\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/mofga\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/maine-organic-farmers-&-gardeners-association\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/user\\\/MaineOrganicFarmers\",\"https:\\\/\\\/en.wikipedia.org\\\/wiki\\\/Maine_Organic_Farmers_and_Gardeners_Association\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz | Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz | Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners","og_description":"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz and Primer How much do you know about pesticides and your health? 2024 Edition | By Sharon S. Tisher, J.D. Dear reader, I hope you find this new edition of the Pesticides Quiz and Primer fun and enlightening, and a pathway to our collective better health. Since the last, 2015, edition, I […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/","og_site_name":"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners","article_modified_time":"2025-04-24T18:58:25+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/Rachel-Carson-300px-237x300.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@MOFGA","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"66 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/","name":"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz | Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/Rachel-Carson-300px-237x300.jpg","datePublished":"2020-11-16T07:22:02+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-24T18:58:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/Rachel-Carson-300px.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/Rachel-Carson-300px.jpg","width":300,"height":380,"caption":"Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/mofga-pesticides-quiz\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"MOFGA Pesticides Quiz"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/","name":"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners","description":"Helping farmers and gardeners grow organic food","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/#organization","name":"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association","url":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/logo-mofga.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/logo-mofga.jpg","width":200,"height":200,"caption":"Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/MOFGA","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/mofga\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/maine-organic-farmers-&-gardeners-association\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MaineOrganicFarmers","https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Maine_Organic_Farmers_and_Gardeners_Association"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=629"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/629\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79963,"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/629\/revisions\/79963"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mofga.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}