DDT Pollution Dumped off Los Angeles Coast Has Not Broken Down Decades Later, Scientists Find

Eco Watch

The pollution is even worse than earlier feared. Story here.

RELATED: Research Suggests Our Past, Prolific Use Of The Insecticide DDT May Still Be Contributing To A Scourge Of Modern-Day Diseases Related To Obesity.

Some revolutionary advice for producers of seedless watermelon - and perhaps other fruits and vegetables, too!

by Larry Powell

A wild bee on a sunflower. A PinP photo.
 

For two years, US researchers studied the impact that both bee pollinators and beetle pests had on seedless watermelon.

        What they found was striking.        

Flea beetles feast on turnip-tops in Manitoba, A PinP photo.

    In both years, pollination by the bees was “the only significant factor” in both fruit set and marketable yield - even when compared to the harm done by the pests. Not only that, the wild bees increased those yields anywhere from one-&-a-half to three times more than honeybees.

    So the researchers conclude; If you want better yields, it’s more important to protect the bees that pollinate them than to kill the pests which eat them! 

    “These data," they state, "advocate for a reprioritization of management, to conserve and protect wild bee pollinations, which could be more critical than avoiding pest damage for ensuring high yields.”

    But the lead author of the study, Ashley Leach, is hesitant to extrapolate those findings to other crops like grains and oilseeds, so dominant on the Canadian prairies, for example. 

    He tells me in an email; "Our findings are intricately linked" to crops reliant on pollination (like seedless watermelon).

    "The pest we studied can have a variable effect of yield," Leach told me. 

    "However, multiple studies have found that insecticides may negatively impact pollinators so any reduction in insecticide spray could potentially impact yield and associated pollinator health outcomes. 

    "I wouldn’t recommend growers stop applying insecticides unless they don’t see a loss in yield, or they have another pest management practice in place."

    The findings are published in the “Proceedings of the Royal Society.”

Spraying herbicides from helicopters? Concerns mount over plans for southern B.C. forests

The Narwhal

The huckleberry. A Wikimedia photo.

To the forestry industry these plants are pests, but for berry pickers they are important foods and medicine. Story here.

RELATED:

Contaminants found in traditional berries of First Nations people in Manitoba, but still declared to be safe to eat. (Video).

Bees are dying from toxic chemicals and the feds won't save them.

The National Observer

A PinP photo.

After years of review, Ottawa recently approved a common class of pesticides known to harm pollinators like bees and other insects. Story here.

RELATED: 

Plight of the Humble Bee. Canadian regulators refuse to protect precious pollinators from known toxins.

Health Canada approves another product known to be deadly to beneficial organisms.

The Western Producer

Members of the "neonic" family are known mass-killers, esp. of pollinators such as honeybees. "Karen" holds dead bees at Hayes Valley Farm.

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has announced that neonicotinoid insecticides are not a threat to aquatic insects when used as a seed treatment on canola and in many other instances. Details here.

A third of global farmland at 'high' pesticide pollution risk

PHYS ORG

A public domain photo.

A third of the planet's agricultural land is at "high risk" of pesticide pollution from the lingering residue of chemical ingredients that can leach into water supplies and threaten biodiversity, according to research published Monday. Story here.

Residues of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides (known as "Plant Protection Products," or PPPs), being found in pollen and nectar, are "a significant stressor" for bees and other pollinators.

Environmental Research

   

Popular insecticides harm birds in the United States

Nature Sustainability

The increased use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the continental United States may have impacted bird populations and reduced bird diversity, according to a paper published this week in Nature Sustainability. 

Overall tree swallow populations declined by 49% between 1966 and 2014, according 

to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. A PinP photo.

Bird biodiversity is declining at a marked rate. Bird populations in the United States have decreased by 29% since 1970, which has been attributed to various factors including the increased use of pesticides in agricultural production. Nicotine-based pesticides — known as neonicotinoids — have been used increasingly in the United States over recent decades.  Previous research has shown that neonicotinoids are potentially toxic to birds and other non-target species. However, the impact of these pesticides on bird diversity in the United States is unclear. 

Madhu Khanna and colleagues studied the effects of neonicotinoids on birds in the United States from 2008–2014. They analysed data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey to identify county-level changes for four different bird species groups — grassland birds, non-grassland birds, insectivorous birds and non-insectivorous birds — and combined this with county-level data on pesticide use. 

The authors found that an increase of 100 kg in neonicotinoid usage per county, a 12% increase on average, contributes to a 2.2% decline in populations of grassland birds and 1.6% in insectivorous birds.  By comparison, the use of 100 kg of non-neonicotinoid pesticides was associated with a 0.05% decrease in grassland birds and a 0.03% decline in non-grassland birds, insectivorous birds and non-insectivorous birds. Since impacts accumulate, the authors also estimate that, for example, 100 kg neonicotinoid use per county in 2008 reduced cumulative grassland-bird populations by 9.7% by 2014. These findings suggest that neonicotinoid use has a relatively large effect on population declines of important birds and that these impacts grow over time. The authors also found that the adverse impacts on bird populations were concentrated in the Midwest, Southern California and Northern Great Plains.

RELATED:

New Studies Show Farm Chemicals Are Affecting More Than Bees. Bird Populations are Declining, Too. Is modern agriculture's hold on nature becoming a death grip?

Agrochemicals speed the spread of deadly parasites

CLIMATE&CAPITALISM

The schistosoma parasite worm. Image credit -
David Williams, Illinois State University.

Even low concentrations of pesticides can increase transmission and weaken efforts to control the second most common parasitic disease. Details here.

Toxic Tides - The Tragedy of Fish Farming Everywhere

One of the biggest challenges facing the aquaculture industry everywhere, is Lepeophtheirus salmonis, the sea-louse (below).

It's a parasite which attacks both farmed and wild salmon, causing lesions and infections which stunt their growth. But the costs of de-lousing are high. And so are the losses suffered by the industry in the marketplace. Many lice can actually kill many fish.

Sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, on farmed

Atlantic salmon, New Brunswick, CA. Photo by 7Barrym0re 

To fight back, the fish-farmers dump pesticides into the waters (below). But, because they’re released directly into the environment, they not only kill the lice, but place beneficial, “non-target” organisms at risk, too. And several of these live in the open ocean, beyond the confines of the farms.

The latest (but not the only) cautionary tale about the wisdom of this practise, has just emerged from Norway. 

A team of researchers there exposed (in the lab), an important food source for the fish, to varying levels of hydrogen peroxide (H202).  It's the active ingredient in several such products.

The  food source was a zooplankten called Calanus spp. 

It's abundant in coastal waters where many salmon farms are located and is a key component in the North Atlantic food web. It's important, not only to young farmed fish, but to wild herring and cod, as well. 

The lab results were convincing.

In just one hour, at only 10% of levels the farmers would apply, 92% of the juvenile Calanus spp. and all of the adult females died. And, at much lower doses (1% or less), the ability of the organisms to take in oxygen was greatly reduced. Their “escape response” was destroyed, making the likelihood of them being eaten by predators, "extremely high." 

The researchers concluded, "Present recommended levels of application underestimate the impact of the pesticide on non-target crustaceans." 

A SERIOUS DISEASE OF CHINOOK SALMON, ORIGINATING FROM FISH FARMS IN NORWAY, HAS NOW SPREAD TO WILD SALMON OFF THE BC: STUDY.

I interviewed the lead author of the study, Rosa Escobar Lux of the Marine Austevoll Research Station, Norway.

PinP: Do you have any evidence that the abundance of Calanus spp. may be affected to the degree that the fish themselves are becoming "food-deprived?" 

Dr. Escobar Lux: "No. Our experiments were done in a laboratory which can answer some of our questions but it does not give definite answers to what is happening in the wild.  Also, there's a need for dispersion models to help us understand the real magnitude of the effects."

The findings of her team were published recently in the Canadian science journal, FACETS.

Is evidence of harm confined to the lab?

Another study from Norway published just last month, takes us beyond the lab, into open waters (or "the wild" as Dr. Escobar Lux puts it). It reveals, elevated levels of the pesticide diflubenzuron (DFB) are being found in commercially-valuable northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Norwegian fjords. Salmon farms there use a medicated feed containing that product. Lab tests have shown it can be lethal to the shrimp, and actually becomes more toxic in warmer waters. This raises added concerns in a world that is heating up fast.

Many Norwegian fishers report, they're catching fewer shrimp in fjords where salmon farms are operating. Experts want further studies to find out if shrimp populations are already crashing. 

And yet another recent study reaches a similar conclusion, that 

hydrogen peroxide's toxicity may already be making itself felt in the open ocean, on northern shrimp. Conducted by mostly Norwegian researchers, they find hydrogen peroxide may be causing "gill damage and delayed mortality" to the shrimp, more than a kilometre from fish farms there.

Even older studies, some done in Canada, point to several other marine creatures being vulnerable to aquacultural pesticides, too. These not only include zooplankten like the kind already referred to, but commercially valuable catches such as lobster and shrimp!

Last year, experts "rounded up" those studies and combined them in  a single, "systematic and exhaustive" review. 

They concluded that hydrogen peroxide wasn't the only suspect product. Three others, cypermethrin, deltamethrin and azamethiphos - each used extensively in the industry - had similar effects. 

The review concludes, "Aquaculture has consequences for the environment. Salmon and trout cage culture has required the use of large quantities of pharmaceuticals. Our results show clear negative  effects at concentrations lower than those used in treatments against sea lice in all of the species studied." 

Despite all of this, in 2016, quite some time after much of this research was known, Health Canada granted "full registration for  the sale and use" of pesticides using hydrogen peroxide as their active ingredient" for the treatment of sea lice on Atlantic salmon reared in marine aquaculture sites." That was at least five years after the first warnings about the pesticides I was personally able to find…warnings that our government officials must have been aware of. 

A year later, the Department also registered azamethiphos for an identical use, giving identical reasons for doing so. 

In its documents approving registration of both products, Health Canada concludes, "Under the approved conditions of use, the products have value and do not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.  <They are> relatively benign products that pose little or no risk to salmon, the marine environment, non-target species, or human health." 

It went on to recommend that the industry, facing one of its worst years for sea lice that year, be allowed one treatment more of H202 than was usually allowed. 

In addition to H202, Canada has, for at least a decade, also permitted the use of deltamethrin, at least in Atlantic Canada.  Cypermethrin, however, is prohibited. 

In the course of my investigation, I was only able to find out how much hydrogen peroxide is being used in aquaculture.

Health Canada figures (see table) show more than one million kilograms were sold in 2016. That placed the active ingredient among the top ten best-sellers that year (9th). It did not register in the top ten the following year. (The government counts products sold for aquaculture as "agricultural."

This image shows how industry applies pesticides within their operations.

If that figure sounds high, amounts used in Norway - the world's largest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon - are "through the roof" by comparison. One source says, the industry in that country applied 132 million kilograms of H202 between 2009 and 2018. That would be at least than 13 times more per year than the Canadian usage!

So why do regulators continue to register these products?

The importance of aquaculture to human society is widely recognized. In their own studies, the researchers describe it as "One of the best prospects to help meet the growing need for protein in the human diet." 

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization estimates, almost 19 million people worked in that sector in 2015. The world now produces about as much farmed fish as that taken in the wild. Once non-fish products (plants, shells and pearls) are added in - more than 100 million tonnes, or US$163 billion dollars worth of products, were produced by "ocean-farming" that year. It's considered the fastest-growing source of food for human consumption and is made up mostly of "finfish" such as the Atlantic salmon.

In Canada, government figures show, aquaculture employed 14 thousand people, full-time in 2009. For some reason, it's the most recent figure available. In 2013, production in the sector was valued at almost $1 billion. This country is ranked as the world's 4th-largest producer of farmed salmon. 

The website of the Canada Food Inspection Agency proudly states:

"Canada is one of the world's most trusted and respected food suppliers, trusted to provide safe and wholesome products and respected for our commitment to global food security. Canada's strong regulatory system forms the basis of this positive reputation."  (Emphasis mine.)

Are there better ways?

Researchers with Fisheries and Oceans Canada are among those looking for alternatives. They're trying to find out whether physical light traps and biological filters may be able to attract and remove the sea lice from the farms. There's no sign, yet that such methods are about to replace that heavy pesticide use, however. 

Meanwhile, research published about five years ago, seems to put an even finer point on the importance of finding alternatives - not just to pesticides - but to aquaculture itself!  Growth of the industry could actually be worsening the problem. Since sea lice numbers are proportional to fish size, "expanded salmon farming has shifted the conditions in favour of the parasites. Salmon farms are often situated near migrating routes of lice in the open ocean." 

And, as if that weren't enough, the lice are now showing resistance to three of the five compounds being used against them.

On January 11th, I e-mailed Canada's Minister of Health, Patty Hajdu (responsible for the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency); Fisheries and Oceans Minister, Bernadette Jordan and the "Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance," to comment on my story. 

I did not get a substantive response.

                                                            -30-

How Has This Pesticide Not Been Banned? Opinion.

The New York Times
Government scientists say chlorpyrifos is unsafe. And yet it’s still in use. Details here.

A "crop-duster" sprays a pesticide believed to be chlorpyrifos
on a canola crop in Manitoba. Circa 2006. A PinP photo.

A related story that may interest you:

Thirteen years after the pesticide chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) sickened a Manitoba family, Health Canada is proposing it be severely restricted in Canada. The European Union will ban it in the new year. 
by Larry Powell

Thirteen years after the pesticide Lorsban sickened a Manitoba family, Health Canada is proposing it be severely restricted in Canada. The European Union will ban it in the new year. by Larry Powell

In the fall of 2006, Loyd Burghart told his story to "Planet in Peril." Burghart, a livestock farmer in the Swan Valley of western Manitoba, said he, his wife, Donna and their four children inhaled fumes from the chemical, Lorsban (chlorpyrifos) which a neighbour had been sparing on a nearby crop. (Many farmers in that part of the province had done the same that year, in an effort to control a severe infestation of  Bertha Army worms.) 

Some time after the incident, Burghart, his wife 
and one of their children, pose by a mother sow and 
piglets in their yard. A PinP photo.

The spray had left Burghart's entire family with severe symptoms. He says he, himself, was left writhing with severe pain in his eyes. 

It's not immediately known how many other Canadians have suffered in similar incidents. But it's hard to believe this was the only case. (Burghart was also worried how the chemical might impact the health of his animals and their feed.)

Health Canada announced recently it will propose that Lorsban be banned for "almost all agricultural uses." It will still be allowed for things like mosquito control. The pesticide has been linked to developmental problems in humans. 

And, it has just been announced that the European Union will ban it next year, as well. 

Lorsban is described as a "broad spectrum insecticide," used to control bugs in cereals, oilseeds, grains, fruits and vegetables.

'Landmark New Research' Links Neonics With Collapse of Fisheries

Common Dreams

"Marine Life" by Andrey Narchuk is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 

"Just awful, what gruesome harm we are inflicting on the environment." Story here.

RELATED: Two stories by Larry Powell.

• New Studies Show Farm Chemicals Are Affecting More Than Bees. Bird Populations are Declining, Too. Is modern agriculture’s hold on nature becoming a death grip?
• Will New Research From Europe Nudge Canada into a "Neonic" Ban?

Environmentally-Caused Disease Crisis? Pesticide Damage to DNA Found 'Programmed' Into Future Generations

EcoWatch
Researchers have found that concentrations of atrazine in drinking water were highest in May and June when farmers sprayed with the herbicide. They also found that birth defects peaked during the same months. Story here.

A US Geological Survey map.

RELATED:

• Overwhelming evidence supports need for Canadian atrazine ban.
• Research Suggests Our Past, Prolific Use of the Insecticide DDT May Still Be Contributing To A Scourge Of Modern-Day Diseases Related To Obesity - by Larry Powell

Wild ground-nesting bees might be exposed to lethal levels of neonics in soil.

ScienceDaily

In a first-ever study investigating the risk of neonicotinoid insecticides to ground-nesting bees, University of Guelph researchers have discovered hoary squash bees are being exposed to lethal levels of the chemicals in the soil. Story here.

Hoary bees forage on a squash flower.
Ilona Loser

RELATED:

New Studies Show Farm Chemicals Are Affecting More Than Bees. Bird Populations are Declining, too. Is modern agriculture's hold on nature becoming a death grip?

Rachel was right

PAN

Yet another scientific study, released today, shows just how deadly our chemical-intensive farming system has become to pollinators and other insects. Story here,

Bumblebees forage on chives in an organic garden in Manitoba.
A PinP photo.
RELATED:

Recent research contradicts a claim by the chemical giant, Bayer, that its newest bug-killer is safe for bees.

Recent research contradicts a claim by the chemical giant, Bayer, that its newest bug-killer is safe for bees.

by Larry Powell

A honeybee colony in Manitoba. A PinP photo. It's brand name is "Sivanto," (generic name - flupyradifurone). It's an insecticide designed to kill a wide range of bugs which eat food crops such as soybeans. Bayer is registering it in many jurisdictions around the world.

After conducting various field studies, Bayer concludes, "Sivanto displayed a very promising safety profile." The company concedes, it works in ways similar to the neonicotinoids (a group of insecticides which has become notorious for its likely role in pollinator decline). Still, it finds, the product "can be considered safe to most beneficial insects, specifically pollinators." 

Image by Brian Robert Marshall.

But a team of scientists at the University of California, San Diego, reaches a different conclusion. In findings published earlier this year, the team gave a range of Sivanto doses to the bees, including ones they encounter in the field. By itself, the chemical did not appear to be harmful. But, when combined with the fungicide propiconazole (brand name "Banner Maxx"), widely-used by farmers, the harm was "greatly amplified." The bees either sickened or died, apparently because the fungicide weakened their ability to shake off the toxicity. It's not uncommon for pollinators to be subjected to a dizzying array of pesticides all at once, while foraging in the fields. It’s a process called "synergism," in which they can suffer harm they would not,  if  exposed to just a single one. The spokesperson for the team, Dr. Simone Tosi, tells PinP, she does not believe that regulations in the US require manufacturers to test for synergistic effects when they apply to have their products approved. But neither does she think that such regulations prohibit such testing. In a news release, her team says, "We believe this work is a step toward a better understanding of the risks that pesticides could pose to bees and the environment. Our results highlight the importance of assessing the effects pesticides have on the behaviour of animals, and demonstrate that synergism, seasonality and bee age are key factors that subtly change pesticide toxicity." They call for further studies to better assess the risks to pollinators. But at least one of those other studies has already been done. It, too, comes up with similarly negative conclusions. A team from three German universities has found that flupyradifurone binds to the brain receptors of honeybees, damaging their motor skills. Meanwhile, Bayer's marketing plans for its new product are ambitious. It promises to "develop, register and sell" Sivanto in many places across the world, including the US, Europe, Asia, Ghana and Brazil. While Canada isn't mentioned, specifically, there seems little doubt it will end up here, too. The company wants to see its product "in all major climatic zones allowing agriculture."

Last April, over three months ago, I e-mailed the federal Minister of Agriculture, Marie-Claude Bibeau, Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Manitoba's Minister of Health, Kelvin Goertzen and Manitoba’s Deputy Minister of Agriculture to ask them about this new research and whether Sivanto will be registered in Canada. 
Apart from a couple of automated responses, I have gotten no substantive answers. 

RELATED: 

Toxic Pesticides Are Driving Insect ‘Apocalypse’ in the U.S., Study Warns

-30-

Remote lakes in New Brunswick, Canada, remain dangerously polluted, half-a-century after being drenched with the insecticide, DDT, says study.

It's no secret that the now-infamous bug-killer, DDT,

persists stubbornly in the environment. Still, what scientists found in lake sediments they recently analyzed in the Atlantic province, 50 years after it was last used there, shocked them. The sediment in all five lakes they tested (representing numerous watersheds), were laced with DDT at levels up to 450 times beyond what would be considered safe for key aquatic species and even entire food webs.

by Larry Powell

A plane sprays DDT on bud worms in Oregon, 1955. 

Photo by Forest Health Protection.

In some ways, it was like a real war.

In the early fifties, governments and the forest industry teamed up in New Brunswick to launch a massive aerial assault against spruce bud worms. 

The pests had probably been eating their way through conifer stands in eastern Canada and the U.S. for thousands of years. But now, they were causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage yearly to forests of mostly spruce and fir, highly valued by a growing human population.

By 1968, almost six million kilograms of DDT had been unleashed on the worms. The area treated, varied widely from year to year - from about 80 thousand hectares to two million. Some years, the same area was treated once - others, twice.

 “Budworm City,” established in the early 1950s and used 

as a base for DDT spray operations in northern 

New Brunswick. Photo credit: D.C. Anderson.

Then, some two years later, as awareness of the harm the product was doing to fish and wildlife grew, authorities stopped using it altogether. 

But not before copious amounts had washed off the land and settled into the water directly from the air. 

But this latest research builds even further on what was known back then. 

In the words of the researchers, "Surprisingly, DDT and its toxic breakdown products are still very high in modern sediments - above levels where harmful biological effects tend to occur." 

Populations of a small water flea, Daphnia sp. (below) were found to have gone down significantly in the lakes tested. While such a creature may not sound impressive, it's considered an important invertebrate in the food webs of lakes.

An image of the aquatic organism Daphnia, commonly known as a water flea. They are often numerous in lakes and important grazers of algae, and are eaten by small fish, waterfowl, and large invertebrates. Daphnia are sensitive to their aquatic environment, including DDT levels and other contaminants. Daphniids are used worldwide in toxicology and ecology studies, and are often considered a keystone aquatic species. The postabdominal claw (indicated by the arrow) of Daphnia are preserved in lake sediments and useful to their identification. Photo credit: Kim Lemmen (Queen's University).

L. to r. Environmental Scientist and lead author Dr Josh Kurek,

study co-author Sarah Veinot, field assistant Marley Caddell, and study 

co-author Paul MacKeigan at a remote New Brunswick lake.

The study's lead author, Dr. Joshua Kurek, tells PinP, "Just to be clear, the loss/reduction of Daphnia is a concern, as Daphnia eat algae and are also food for fish. Fewer Daphnia mean less food for fish (and other organisms). It also means less grazing pressure on algae. It's very difficult to quantify. But other studies do show more algae (and blooms of algae), when Daphnia are fewer in lakes."

Excessive growth of sometimes toxic algae can clog lakes, robbing them of their oxygen and killing fish. It has become a huge problem in waterways, worldwide. 

Because New Brunswick had likely become the most heavily-sprayed forested region on the continent, DDT's harmful legacy could well be playing out well beyond the five lakes that were studied. (There are about 2,500 in the province, in all.) 

Another co-author, Dr. Karen Kidd of McMaster University, adds a cautionary note of her own. "The lesson from our study is that pesticide use can result in persistent and permanent changes in aquatic environments."

The project was conducted by experts from three Canadian Universities; Mount Allison, New Brunswick and McMaster. Its findings were published today in the journal,Environmental Science & Technology.

DDT's "rap sheet" is a long one.

                        

Rachel Carson's famous book, "Silent Spring," published in the early 60s, dedicates almost an entire chapter to the New Brunswick experience. Called "Rivers of Death," it documents the loss of countless fish, insects and birds along the Mirimachi River, one of North America's best salmon-fishing spots, in the wake of the spraying. She noted the pilots made no effort to avoid spraying directly over waterways. She also observed that the spraying was having questionable results, in any event, since the amounts applied kept having to be increased, just to keep ahead of the hungry worms.

Also, years ago, DDT was found to cause a thinning of the eggshells of dozens of bird species, leading to reproductive failure. While their numbers have since recovered, raptors, notably the bald eagle, were especially hard hit.

A swift, as depicted in
Bird Craft - 1897.

And, by killing the bugs eaten by insectivorous birds such as the swift (above), DDT has long been recognized as instrumental in widespread species declines, as well. 

RELATED: 

1. Read another version here.
2. New Studies Show Farm Chemicals Are Affecting More Than Bees. Bird Populations are Declining, Too. Is modern agriculture's hold on nature becoming a death grip?
3. Research Suggests Our Past, Prolific Use of the Insecticide DDT May Still Be Contributing To A Scourge Of Modern-Day Diseases Related To Obesity.