Viewpoint: Almond growers driving bees to ‘extinction’? Challenging the latest pollinator decline scare stor

Angela Logomasini | February 5, 2020

A recent story in the Guardian titled “The Age of Extinction: Bees; ‘Like Sending Bees to War’: the Deadly Truth Behind Your Almond Milk Obsession,” alleges that almond growers are somehow uniquely responsible for substantial losses of honeybee hives, and that may eventually lead to their extinction. The article gets a large number of facts wrong, but the story really isn’t about almond farms or even honeybees. It’s about the author’s wrongheaded belief that high-yield farming is bad for the environment. Ironically, the author’s implied “solution” would actually wreak havoc on the environment.

The Guardian article contains so many scientifically faulty claims that one could write a book debunking each one, but in this post we will address the bigger point as detailed in this excerpt:

Beekeepers attributed the high mortality rate to pesticide exposure, diseases from parasites and habitat loss. However, environmentalists and organic beekeepers maintain that the real culprit is something more systemic: America’s reliance on industrial agriculture methods, especially those used by the almond industry, which demands a large-scale mechanization of one of nature’s most delicate natural processes. … Environmentalists argue a better solution is to transform the way large-scale agriculture is carried out in the U.S.

The author seems to believe that modern, high-yield farming—which uses technologies that range from agrochemicals to tractors to genetic modification—threatens the existence of wildlife, and in this case, honeybees. The author blames almonds in this piece, but tomorrow it will be something else. Indeed, if people stopped eating almonds, high-yield farming would continue because farmers need technologies to ensure they can produce enough food to feed the world.........To Read More...

Neurotoxins in Your Thanksgiving Meal

Angela Logomasini, Ph.D., Contributor11/21/2017 04:29 pm ET

Note: This originally appeared in The Huffington Post and SAFEChemicalPolicy.org

Should you “go organic” for Thanksgiving, buying only “chemical free” foods? That’s the suggestion of some “health advocates” who say it’s in your best interest to avoid “dangerous” synthetic chemicals, particularly pesticides. Yet not only is it impossible to avoid chemicals, it’s simply not necessary for public health purposes.

All physical things are made of chemicals, so yes, there are chemicals in your turkey, potatoes, and apple pie. Moreover, all food is already technically “organic,” since plants and animals are by definition “organic” or carbon-based. The real question is: Are some chemicals in your food dangerous?
 

Chemicals in your food certainly can be dangerous, whether they are manmade or naturally occurring. Fortunately, federal regulators and food companies track and regulate levels of both natural and synthetic chemicals that appear in food to ensure levels remain negligible.
 

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has done a fantastic job putting the issue in perspective with their Holiday Dinner Menu. It features many naturally forming “rodent carcinogens” (chemicals that cause tumors in rodents exposed to high amounts) found in a traditional American turkey-day meal. Many of these chemicals are natural pesticides that the plants produce to fight off insects, and they are both more potent and more common than man-made pesticides.

ACSH’s menu points out: “The human dietary intake of nature’s pesticides is about 10,000 times higher than human intake of synthetic pesticides that are rodent carcinogens.” Yet the levels of these are unlikely to pose much risk. Manmade pesticides—because they appear at far lower levels—are even less likely to pose risks.
 

While ACSH’s menu focuses on rodent carcinogens, there are also other chemicals or toxins commonly found in food. For example, your pumpkin pie and butternut squash might have traces of toxins known as cucurbitacins, which may also have health benefits, but at high levels in food can make you sick. Your lima beans naturally contain harmless levels of cyanide, and there may be inconsequential traces of arsenic in your carrots as well—all thanks to Mother Nature.
 

A1990 seminal article by scientist Bruce Ames and his colleagues details the potency and impact of such naturally occurring chemicals in food versus synthetic chemicals found in food. There’s no competition: Mother Nature’s chemicals are far stronger and more widespread by a long shot, but risks still remain manageable.
 

Disregarding this reality, media hype about conventional produce and synthetic pesticides suggests they pose serious health risks. Much of this hype appears politically driven. For example, after a Trump administration decision rejecting an environmental activist petition to ban the pesticide known as chlorpyrifos, media attacks exploded. They absurdly allege that the pesticide is a dangerous “neurotoxin” similar to chemical warfare agents such as sarin gas and that it’s use could actually lead to brain damage.
 

It is true that chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxin. It inhibits the effectiveness of an enzyme called cholinesterase, which is necessary for proper functioning of the nervous system. In very low, dilute doses, the impact of chlorpyrifos on insects’ nervous systems is enough to kill them. In humans, exposure must reach relatively high and concentrated levels for a period of time before significant health effects can occur. Federal pesticide regulation keeps human exposures low enough to avoid health effects in people.
 

Human exposure to chlorpyrifos is, in fact, quite insignificant. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture surveys, only very tiny traces of chlorpyrifos show up on produce. For example, their 2015 survey found that out of 10,158 fruits and vegetable samples, only 84—less than one percent—had traces of chlorpyrifos, which means more than 99 percent of the produce tested had no measurable levels of chlorpyrifos. For the few samples that had residues, the highest measurement on any sample was 0.38 parts per million (ppm), but most residues were far lower. FDA lists the highest concentrations found for each fruit and vegetable, the average of which is just 0.06 ppm.
 

To grasp how incredibly insignificant chlorpyrifos exposure is, compare it to levels of natural neurotoxins found in just one of the most popular Thanksgiving dishes: mashed potatoes. Potatoes naturally contain neurotoxins known as glycoalkaloids. The most prevalent glycoalkaloids are solanine and chaconine, and they are basically naturally occurring pesticides that protect the potatoes from pests. Glycoalkaloids are also found in other foods—including apples, cherries, and blueberries used to make holiday pies, as well as tomatoes and peppers in your salad—but at very low levels.

Just like chlorpyrifos, these chemicals inhibit cholinesterase, but levels are usually too low to have any health impacts. Potatoes containing under 200-250 ppm of glycoalkaloids are generally considered safe. Potatoes on the market in the United States naturally contain an estimated 20-150 ppm (average of 80 ppm) of glycoalkaloids. If you store potatoes in the light, both glycoalkaloids along with chlorophyll increase and the potatoes take on a greenish hue and begin to sprout. You should trash such potatoes because the glycoalkaloids can eventually exceed safe levels.

So now, let’s go back to compare the average level of glycoalkaloids found in healthy potatoes to levels of chlorpyrifos residue on vegetables and fruits. For potatoes it’s 80 ppm, while the average high for the small percentage of fruits and veggies that had chlorpyrifos residues was just 0.06 ppm. Remember also that more than 99 percent of 2015 USDA-sampled produce contained no chlorpyrifos residues.
 

Yet groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council have suggested such inconsequential traces of chlorpyrifos in your holiday meal could be dangerous. Would you take them seriously if they said the same about your mashed potatoes? Probably not, but it’s clear that your Thanksgiving potatoes likely have neurotoxins that are multitudes higher than trace levels of chlorpyrifos found on all of the fruits and veggies on your plate combined.
 

That said, it remains true that food contamination is a real safety concern, but most food risks come from, ironically, the “organic” part of the universe: from living creatures such as E. coli or Salmonella. Such pathogens contaminate food as a result of improper preparation (such as under cooking certain meats), cross contamination of pathogens found in raw meat to other foods, improper storage, or simply keeping food to long. Fortunately, we do have some control over those most dangerous risks.
 

Now you know there’s no need to fret about trace chemicals in your holiday meals! So relax and enjoy a fear-free and healthy Thanksgiving dinner.

Is Using Pesticides an Act of Chemical Warfare?

Angela Logomasini • November 9, 2017 @ Competitive Enterprise Institute

A substance that “belongs to a class of chemicals developed as a nerve gas made by Nazi Germany is now found in food, air and drinking water,” thanks to President Donald Trump according to an article found online. This “neurotoxin” is in “same chemical family as sarin nerve gas,” which has been used as a chemical weapon in Syria, notes another writer.

You might think such outlandish claims come from some looney conspiracy group, but they actually appeared in The New York Times and the Washington Post. These claims are off-the-chart absurd, and they belittle the pain of people who really have suffered from chemical warfare, in addition to misrepresenting the real issue at hand.

The chemical in question is not some dangerous warfare agent, it’s a common pesticide known as chlorpyrifos. Farmers have safely used it for decades without any measurable adverse public health impacts. And sure, it’s like sarin gas—but only for bugs.

Before tackling these outlandish claims, consider the impact of such rhetoric. Some lawmakers have embraced this absurdity hook, line, and sinker. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) and six other Democratic Senators recently proposed the “Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017” (S. 1624), legislation that would ban chlorpyrifos.

These legislators are trying to tack this bill onto the reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), which sets application fees and decision deadlines for Environmental Protection Agency pesticide registrations. Holding up PRIA might muck up the pesticide regulatory process, slow pesticide registrations, and impede collecting of registration fees from industry.

But far worse, if Congress passed this ban, it would be more difficult for farmers to produce food, which means higher prices for consumers. For details see this Huffington Post article or my paper on the topic.

While the benefits of judicious use of pesticides are quite clear and documented, the claims about chlorpyrifos being risky lack substance. In fact, there’s no hard evidence that anyone has ever suffered ill effects from legal use of, and trace exposures to, chlorpyrifos.

Essentially, the New York Times piece, authored by Nicolas Kristof, indicts chlorpyrifos largely because it’s classified as a neurotoxin. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide, which means it works by inhibiting the effectiveness of an enzyme called cholinesterase, which is necessary for the proper functioning of the nervous system.

In very low, dilute doses, the impact of chlorpyrifos on insects’ nervous systems is enough to kill them. In humans, exposure must reach relatively high and concentrated levels for a period of time before significant health effects can occur. Federal pesticide regulation keeps human exposures low enough to avoid health effects on people, while still high enough to kill crop-destroying insects.

To put the issue in more perspective, if we applied Kristof’s logic to chemicals naturally formed in foods, we would need to ban many fruits and vegetables. Many foods naturally contain chemicals that are safe at low doses, but could be harmful at concentrated, relatively high levels.

Consider potatoes. They naturally contain a “neurotoxin” called solanine, which that also inhibits cholinesterase. It forms as part of the skins and protects the potato from insects. If you store a potato long enough, the solanine levels also become more concentrated, which can make you sick. You can tell if a potato is building up solanine concentrations because it also builds up chlorophyll, which is harmless, but also gives the aged potatoes a green hue.

There are cases when improper storage has produced very toxic potatoes that have make people sick and even put them in comas. But you don’t have to stop eating potatoes or their skins because they don’t contain enough solanine to cause effects—unless you store them improperly or for too long. So if your potatoes go green and sprout shoots, toss them in the trash.

Solanine is also naturally formed in many healthy foods including vegetables like tomatoes, eggplants, and peppers, as well as in some fruits including blueberries, apples, and cherries. But because levels are low, you can enjoy the health benefits of these foods without much concern about this naturally forming neurotoxin.

Unlike plants that produce solanine, plants grown with the aid of chlorpyrifos or other pesticides, do not continue to build up the concentration of these synthetic pesticides—quite the opposite. In fact, most foods have no detectible residues of synthetic pesticides and anything remaining can be washed off.

So you can see that what Kristof and the Washington Post writers neglect to mention is that it’s the dose that makes the poison. As this health advisory shows, chlorpyrifos has not been shown to cause cancer even where there is relatively high exposures, and the only other observed health effects (such as dizziness and/or vomiting) occur in high/over exposure scenarios. Accordingly, the trace exposures of chlorpyrifos from food and the environment have not been shown to pose any substantial risk to humans.

Kristof also implies that this chemical is dangerous by pointing out that most home uses for chlorpyrifos were canceled in 2000. Yet it was the companies that make chlorpyrifos that chose to discontinue registrations for in-home uses because heavy regulations make those uses unprofitable—not because there were any significant risks.

Nonetheless, environmental activists petitioned EPA to ban agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos as well in 2007, but the Trump EPA rejected that petition for good reasons. The EPA staff wanted to ban the chemical based on one faulty study that EPA’s Science Advisory Panel found to be “possibly inappropriate” for use in a regulatory decision. Panel members also noted that the data was highly flawed, the effects alleged lacked biological plausibility, and its methodologies were questionable. The EPA has continued its scheduled scientific safety review, after rejecting this activist call to ban it based on junk science.

All that Kristof’s article and similar pieces show is that the left appear to have become completely unhinged since the election of Donald Trump. So perhaps Kristof is right about one thing: Trump’s legacy does involve damaged brains, but the damage is self-inflicted by those who are blinded by their own ideology

Point: Trump’s War on Junk Science

Angela Logomasini July 10, 2017

According to many news outlets, President Donald Trump has “declared a war on science.” Yet judging from at least one recent decision, the opposite is true. The Trump administration is trying to prevent policies based on junk science.

A key example is the Trump administration’s denial of an activist petition to ban agricultural uses of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which farmers have safely used for decades. This decision makes sense when you consider the history.

Residential uses of chlorpyrifos, such as for bug spray, were phased out starting in the year 2000, but not because it was proven dangerous. Rather, chemical company Dow Agrosciences voluntarily phased out home uses because Environmental Protection Agency regulations proved too expensive and onerous, making the product unprofitable.......To Read More....

 

BPA Junk Science Headaches

Angela Logomasini December 13, 2013

Could your affection for bottled water be responsible for your bout with migraines? Apparently so, if you believe the latest headlines about the chemical bisphenol A (BPA). But its wise to be wary of such silly claims.

First of all, it’s wrong to suggest that single serving bottled water commonly contains BPA, because that’s simply not true. BPA is not used for single-serving, flexible plastic water bottles, as pointed out on the International Bottled Water Association website. They note: “It [BPA] is not, however, used in any retail-sized PET bottled water containers.” Nor is it used for most food storage containers like GladWare and other more flexible plastic food storage containers. So go ahead and put those containers in the microwave and leave your bottled water in the car and sun despite the claims that doing so will release BPA! They don’t have any BPA to release. But even if they did, I wouldn’t worry…..To Read More….

Disregard Toxic Advice on Turkey Day

by Angela Logomasini on November 25, 2013

Toxic chemicals lurk in the “typical” Thanksgiving meal, warns a green activist website. Eat organic, avoid canned food, and you might be okay, according to their advice. Fortunately, there’s no need to buy this line. In fact, the trace levels of man-made chemicals found in these foods warrant no concern and are no different from trace chemicals that appear in food naturally.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) illustrates this reality best with their Holiday Dinner Menu, which outlines all the “toxic” chemicals found naturally in food. The point is, at such low levels, both the man-made and naturally occurring chemicals pose little risk. This year the ACSH puts the issue in perspective explaining:….To Read More….

Germs In Reusable Grocery Bags Can Prove Deadly

by Angela Logomasini on January 30, 2013 · 0 comments

in Environment, Features, Health and Illness, Precaution & Risk

Cloth supermarket bags may be fashionable, but they can also prove deadly, according to a recent research paper published by the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The researchers point out that after the city of San Francisco banned plastic bags, the number of emergency room visits for bacterial related diseases increased significantly. A Reason.com blog post explains the connection:

Basically people were schlepping leaky packages of meat and other foods in their canvas bags, then wadding to the bags somewhere for awhile, leaving bacteria to grow until the next trip, when they tossed celery or other foods likely to be eaten raw in the same bags.

It is in fact plausible that at least some portion of these illnesses did in fact result from reusable bags. Another study conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University in 2010 measured bacteria in a sample of reusable bags, finding many containing dangerous bacteria, such as coliform (found in half the bags) and E. coli (found in 12 percent of bags). They also noted that consumers reported that they rarely wash the bags in an attempt to control the development of such pathogens….To Read More……

My Take – This was as a result of greenies demanding a solution to another non-problem.

Liberal Lawmakers To Rethink California “Green Chemistry”

By Angela Logomasini

California’s Green Chemistry regulations have proven so unruly even the state’s liberal lawmakers have begun to question the cost. The state legislature passed the law in 2008, but the state bureaucracy has repeatedly failed to develop workable implementation regulations. The problem isn’t the regulations — its the underlying law.  The regulations would list about 1,200 chemicals on “concern lists” based largely on political and unscientific grounds. Next it would identify products that use those chemicals and put them on lists too, pushing industry to redesign these products. The result will be higher prices for consumers, less innovation and potentially inferior and perhaps even more dangerous replacement products.  

 Last summer, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released “final” implementing regulations, followed by a 45-day public comment period (later extended to Oct. 11). In September, DTSC held a public hearing at which many industries expressed grave concerns about the impact of the proposed regulations……. Given the high stakes for California businesses, and ultimately consumers, delaying the rule is a good idea. But rather than just rethink the rule, lawmakers need to revisit the law and the entire concept of government-forced green chemistry. For more information on this topic, check out CEI’s green chemistry paper and my prior blog post.  To Read the Whole Article…

My Take - I think it is grossly unfair for the California legislature to change one iota of this "brilliant" piece of greenie reality.  This is what the people of California wanted....and this is what they deserve!   

Along with the extremely high gas prices, the high electricity prices, the lack of industry (since they are all moving out) and all the misery that goes with "going green".  

We need to encourage Californians to stay the course.  

We should laud and admonish them to continue to be the ultimate shining example ...the true exemplar of "green"....for the nation and the world; a permanent and classic example of how "green" impacts reality. 

That way we will have sufficient evidence for all time to show just how stupid "green" really is and that way the rest of us can overcome any similar efforts in the world of the sane.  RK

Life’s hard. It’s even harder when you’re stupid. - John Wayne.

 

Observations From the Back Row

Bureaucratic Green Chemistry

by Angela Logomasini

California bureaucrats recently released their proposed regulations implementing the state’s 2009-passed “green chemistry” law. The law supposedly will make life safer for California residents by ensuring that all products are designed to be “green.”  But it is destined to fail — costing consumers without delivering benefits — because policymakers foolishly assume that bureaucrats are better situated than business to decide what makes a product safe. It’s the same fatal conceit on which the Soviets once based their failed economic policies.

 Is California Getting Too Much CARB?
“Californians recently have been learning about $54 million that was unspent by the Department of Parks and Recreation, and about $37 billion in ‘special funds’ throughout state government that is spent without oversight. But perhaps the biggest state bureaucracy that goes unaccountable is the California Air Resources Board, headed by Chairwoman Mary Nichols. Its yearly operating budget is $860 million. But even that figure pales in comparison with the immense powers it is assuming on Jan. 1, when it begins implementing a ‘cap and trade’ scheme in which greenhouse-gas emissions supposedly will be controlled by capping the total amount allowed in the state, but allowing high-pollution companies to buy extra capacity, in the form of ‘permits,’ from lower-polluting companies.”

Markets, Not Mandates, Are the Key to Sustainable Development

By Fred L. Smith, Jr., Michelle Wei - Originally published in Real Clear Markets

What exactly is sustainable development? Former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Brundtland, speaking at the United Nations' Stockholm Conference in 1972, described it as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."  Today's advocates of sustainable development, however, take a more short-sighted view of the concept. They believe resources are necessarily finite; thus, they call for caps on human activity. These advocates are asking for a return to a pre-industrial mindset - a path that will result in massive depopulation, poverty, and inequality.
 

Greenies look forward to your "showering behavior" being monitored
In the future, don’t expect any privacy. Every move, every purchase, even every thought — as personality profiling becomes more sophisticated — will be observed, logged, and analyzed. Big Brother will certainly be watching us.  We might expect our shopping and showering behaviors to be tracked as part of our individual carbon budgets. As you drive around a city, your combined congestion and pollution charge could vary depending on which route you take, on the time of day, and on how much you add to local air pollution. Globally, important conservation sites might be guarded, not by fences or rangers, but by remote sensors and cameras, monitored by teams of volunteers on the other side of the planet.

My Take - I do so wish that more people read Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell.

###