Whitewash

by Carey Gillam

  Children are especially susceptible to the adverse effects of pesticides, as demonstrated by epidemiologic evidence of associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems. And pesticide-laden diets, the snacks and cereals laced with weed- and bug-killing chemicals that so many of our children consume, are a big concern. More than seven years ago, in May 2010, scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University released a study showing that exposure to residues of pesticides commonly found on vegetables and fruit can double a child’s risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that leaves kids with problems concentrating, hyperactivity, and impulse control issues.5

  The 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics has been calling on regulators to strengthen pesticide oversight and take steps to better protect children, including the advancement of less toxic pesticide alternatives. The doctors’ group is but one of numerous organizations representing medical professionals, scientists, consumers, environmentalists, and others who are demanding a healthier path forward.

  So how do we get there? There are no easy answers, though many experts have ideas about how to start. Even some of the biggest agro-chemical companies are beginning to acknowledge that new measures are needed for the future.

  One partial solution may be found within the soil itself. In areas not ravaged by overuse of pesticides, a handful of soil can hold millions of microbes that carry rich traits to help plants grow better. Different traits interact with plants in different ways, but scientists have started harnessing and reproducing these beneficial microbes with the aim of converting them into commercial crop tools—sprays, coatings on seeds, and more—that could help crops resist disease and pests, absorb nutrients more efficiently, and generally improve overall plant health, quality, and yield. Industry leaders say they are working on treatments for corn and beans, wheat, canola, cotton, and many types of fruits and vegetables.

  Some such “biologicals” have already been brought to market, with mixed but promising results. Many of the early generation of products combine microbials with synthetic pesticides, but the hope of many developers is that eventually the biologicals, which include both biopesticides and biostimulants, can stand on their own and that these more natural crop treatments can supplant harmful synthetic chemical offerings such as glyphosate. Because these microbial solutions are drawn from naturally occurring bacteria and fungi, they face far fewer consumer concerns and an accelerated path through the regulatory approval process.

  Even the titans of the pesticide industry have jumped into the race to develop these new crop treatments, in recognition, no doubt, of the perilous future the current pesticide treadmill portends. The work started with small research and development firms, but as the potential value emerged, the big agricultural players quickly jumped in, buying up or partnering with the smaller firms. Monsanto tried to outpace competitors by testing more than 2,000 microbial strains at the same time on hundreds of thousands of field plots around the United States, a strategy Monsanto claims gives it the largest microbial research program in the world. The company partnered with a smaller biotech company called Novozymes in its quest to dominate the biologicals market, which analysts project at around $2 billion with a growth rate of 10–15 percent in the next few years. And though the company is careful not to criticize its own history of pushing harmful pesticides into the market, Monsanto’s top scientist, Robb Fraley, calls the move badly needed.

  “By working with a plant’s own naturally-occurring processes, we have the potential to create products that are very precise and specific in how they work and may require smaller and fewer applications than current agricultural products,” he said. “That’s better for farmers, more sustainable and consistent with our vision to create products that enable farmers to produce more and conserve more.”6

  Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention under President Barack Obama, has long been a big fan of the movement toward more biologically based crop applications. Jones spent twenty-six years as an EPA staffer working on chemical safety issues before being named by Obama to oversee the chemical safety office in 2013, so he has deep insider knowledge of the agency’s strengths and weaknesses when it comes to protecting the public from pesticides. During a meeting in his office in the hulking EPA headquarters, he told me that the agency wanted to encourage the development of biopesticides because they “have very favorable human health and environmental profiles,” and he predicted that they were likely to overtake synthetic chemicals in agriculture at some point. The EPA set up an approval system that was pushing the new biopesticides through in less than a year, compared with the two to three years or more it takes for many synthetic pesticides. The EPA also has offered reduced fees associated with registering biopesticides. “We’re pretty bullish about them,” Jones said. “We go out of our way … to express our enthusiasm for biopesticides.”7 Jones left the EPA with the transition to Donald Trump’s team, but the biopesticide program continues.

  The EPA defines biopesticides as products derived from natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. The agency believes they are inherently less toxic than conventional pesticides and are safer for the people applying them. They also typically are effective in very small quantities and decompose quickly, reducing exposure and pollution problems. Biopesticides generally affect only the targeted pest and closely related organisms, in contrast to broad spectrum, conventional pesticides that may affect nontarget organisms such as birds, insects, and mammals.8

  One example of how biopesticides can help farmers is seen in a naturally occurring single-cell yeast found on golden delicious apples and in the tissues of other plants. Scientists determined that this yeast could be isolated and applied to apples and pears after harvest to control particular fungal pathogens. Researchers have also developed products that rely on types of bacteria that attach to and infect or otherwise suppress types of roundworms that can be very damaging to strawberries and other fruit, vegetable, and field crops. In addition, scientists are discovering ways to arm plants to defend themselves against disease-carrying pathogens.

  Overall, as I write this, the EPA has approved more than 430 biological active ingredients for use in pesticides. Use of these solely for U.S. agriculture is well over 4 million pounds now, compared with 900,000 pounds in 2000.

  But while biologically based crop treatments may sound like a fast fix, there are several complications. To begin with, microbes that do their jobs well in certain soils and under certain climatic conditions don’t necessarily function as hoped for when used in different settings. Living microbes often also need interaction with other specific organisms to function as desired, a dynamic that can complicate transitioning of the microbes into useful products. As well, concerns about toxicity don’t completely disappear with microbial products, meaning thorough testing is still needed.

  Matthew Wallenstein has been studying the complicated interplay of these invisible biological communities for years as a research scientist in the natural resource ecology laboratory at Colorado State University. Wallenstein, who holds a doctorate in ecology, is focusing his work on organisms that can enhance plant growth by improving nutrient uptake and enhancing soil health. He and two other Colorado State soil microbiologists started a company called Growcentia that sells organic soil supplements to enhance plant growth.

  “We have an opportunity to continue to improve the productivity and efficiency of crop production by taking advantage of what nature has invented,” he said. “Within a handful of soil you have a whole tropical rain forest worth of biodiversity, tens of thousands of different species that have evolved an incredible array of traits, and there is a huge potential to tap some of those natural abilities.” But, he said, while “there is a lot of science in the lab that shows great potential, there are many remaining challenges to get it
to work on millions of acres.”9

  What truly is needed to reduce pesticides and all the harm they create is a paradigm shift in the way we view food production and incentivize farmers. Rather than making a frenzied push for the cheapest and easiest crops to grow in a production system dependent on an arsenal of chemicals, we must set new priorities that emphasize long-term gains over short-term profits.

  Some agricultural and policy experts say diverse organic agriculture is the model to pursue because it reduces pesticide use while creating nutritious food in a healthy environment. But converting a conventional farm to a certified organic operation can take years and exact a financial toll on farmers during the transition. The standards are fairly rigorous—organic farmers must demonstrate that they are protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and using only approved substances on their farms. Consumer demand for organic foods has been rising steadily as consumers become more aware of the dangers of pesticides, pushing U.S. organic food sales to a record high of $43 billion in 2016.10 Organic products are now available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores in the United States and nearly three out of four conventional grocery stores, with sales of organic products amounting to more than 5 percent of total U.S. food sales, according to recent industry statistics. Certified organic acreage and livestock have been expanding in the United States for many years, particularly for fruits, vegetables, dairy, and poultry, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

  Still, many consumers balk at paying the higher prices that typically are attached to organic products. And while there is a lot of research indicating that organic yields may come close to conventional ones, they often fall short of matching production levels achieved with pesticides, making it hard to convince conventional farmers to cast aside their long-relied-upon weed killers, insecticides, fertilizers, and fungicides. Organic industry advocates say they need more federal, state, and local programs to help support organic research. From 2002 to 2014, the USDA supplied roughly $142 million in research grants to address many components of organic agriculture, such as how to manage weeds adequately to sustain crop yields while protecting and building soil health.11 But the investments will need to expand to bring organic production in line with consumer demand, organic industry leaders say.

  An increasing number of environmental and agricultural experts say there is a middle ground—even if producers are not willing to take all the steps required to be considered an organic producer, they still can make changes that lower pesticide exposures and better protect people and the environment. Techniques that reduce the need for pesticides include planting cover crops, rotating different types of crops from season to season, using animal waste to fertilize fields, and creating large buffer zones around fields that offer diverse native plants. The buffer zones attract natural predators, such as birds, that will eat insects harmful to crops, which means farmers can cut down on insecticides. All the strategies help protect and replenish the soil, which is critical to long-term production of nutritious and abundant food supplies. “The hallmark of a truly sustainable system is its ability to regenerate itself. When it comes to farming, the key to sustainable agriculture is healthy soil, since this is the foundation for present and future growth,” states a report by the Rodale Institute, which encourages and teaches sustainable farming practices.12

  The term “agroecology” has come to define this effort to turn farming away from the resource-intensive, fossil-fueled, and pesticide-dependent practices tied to mass production of a few select crops, and instead toward a view of agricultural land as precious ecosystems to be protected. Change will mean many things, including more research into agroecological techniques—such as strategies for fighting crop pests and diseases without pesticides—and into the breeding of enhanced varieties of important crops. Change also requires educating farmers about truly sustainable practices, which will be critical for the future of food production as the global population expands. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization is among many groups and individuals around the world pushing agroecology initiatives as part of a badly needed turning point in the global food system.

  To support such efforts, governments must shift subsidies and research funding from agro-industrial monoculture practitioners to small farmers using agroecological methods. There is no time to wait, according to Hilal Elver, who was appointed in 2014 as the United Nations’ “special rapporteur,” or designated independent expert, tasked with examining food and human rights issues across the globe. As a lawyer, research professor, and codirector of the Project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Elver has been among a number of international voices calling for systemic changes in agriculture. Industrialized agriculture is not only failing to feed the world but also contaminating the environment and poisoning its inhabitants, she and many others assert. “Agroecology is a traditional way of using farming methods that are less resource oriented, and which work in harmony with society,” Elver said in a speech delivered in Amsterdam in 2014. “New research in agroecology allows us to explore more effectively how we can use traditional knowledge to protect people and their environment at the same time.”13

  Changing long-standing habits is hard. Some economists who study agricultural sustainability say that moving farmers from a focus on short-term production to long-term conservation would require financial incentives from the government. These types of “green payments” to farmers who plant crops that are beneficial to the ecosystem have already started in the United States as a way to promote cover crops. The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has been deploying teams of farmer/teachers across the country to convince farmers of the benefits of cover crops and to help spread the word that using them could earn a check from the government worth $40 to $60 per acre for up to three years. Farmers are told that adding crops such as oats, hay, rye, or buckwheat instead of using a steady rotation of corn and soybeans can enrich the soil substantially. The programs are making some progress but still lack robust government support. NRCS staffers are discouraged, for example, from touting the pesticide-reduction benefits that cover crops bring, and telling farmers to cut back on pesticides is frowned upon.

  Without an overhaul of the current multibillion-dollar government system of farm subsidies, real change will be hard to come by. Since the 1930s, the United States has offered financial support to farmers to help them manage variations in weather, market prices, and other factors all aimed at ensuring a stable food supply, and such aid to U.S. farmers now amounts to billions of dollars each year through various programs. But support has historically been focused on only a few crops, including corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice, and usually has been skewed toward helping the largest and most financially secure farm operations, leaving more than half the nation’s farmers without any type of farm subsidy. Thanks in part to those subsidies, we have an oversupply of many of these core crops. Take corn, for instance. U.S. government reports show that close to, or well over, a billion bushels of corn are left over from what gets used in America or sold overseas each year.14 Corn growers, not coincidentally, typically use a variety of high-priced pesticides in their operations that translate to hefty profits for agro-chemical companies. There clearly is ample room for a shift in priorities and funding.

  Greg Stegner, a lifelong Missouri farmer and a resource conservationist with the USDA’s NRCS, has made a series of changes on his own 500-acre farm that show the benefits of cover cropping and cutting back on pesticides. He tries to convince other farmers that while more work may be involved in some of the practices, the long-term payoffs are worthwhile. Younger farmers want to listen, while the older ones tend to want to stick with what they know works, he said. Government incentives are confusing and often contradictory, Stegner said, and remain too focused on prioritizing farmers to focus on growing crops such as corn. “I’ve realized our government programs aren’t really here
to help us farmers much,” he said. “It’s about cheap food for the population … and profits for the big corporations.”15

  Perhaps most critically, we need immediate, widespread reform of our regulatory system. Transparency at all levels is vital. Corporate influence over regulators must be curtailed, and safety data on pesticide products can no longer be secreted away from the scrutiny of the public and of independent scientists. A responsible government cannot rely on safety testing that is conducted by self-interested corporations but must support research performed by truly independent academic and government scientists. This work could be funded by a registration tax on each new pesticide that a company wants to bring to market. And when it comes to determining what, if any, safe levels exist for pesticide residues in food, regulators should depend not on corporate-generated science, as they currently do, but on robust independent research that takes into account cumulative exposures people face each day in this pesticide-laden world.

  The FDA and the USDA should accept the recommendations of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and start routinely testing food products for glyphosate residues as long as the weed killer remains widely used on food crops. It is unconscionable that the primary agencies consumers must rely on for food safety guidance have spent decades declining to test for possible contamination of such a pervasive crop chemical. The lack of action is especially egregious considering that the agencies have known for years about research linking glyphosate to cancer and other diseases. At the very least, U.S. regulators need to let the public know what other common pesticides are used on food but not tested for each year, along with the potential effects of not testing. The GAO recommended as much to the agencies in 2014, but the advice was ignored.16