Editor and General Manager
In the mid-1980s there was a mild panic throughout the United States over the perceived threat of attack by “killer bees.” A common pattern took shape; in Brazil, the escape of a few members of a colony of an intentionally mutated type of bee that was somewhat more aggressive than the domestic honeybee (and a more prolific honey producer) morphed into greatly exaggerated tales of swarms soon to invade the country and commit mass murder. Turns out, as anyone who has followed the spread of colony collapse disorder (CCD) knows, it was the bees that should have been afraid.
Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated a link between neonicotinoids, a neuro-active insecticide, and CCD (Lu C., et al. “Sub-lethal Exposure to Neonicotinoids Impaired Honey Bees Winterization Before Proceeding to Colony Collapse Disorder,” Bulletin of Insectology, May 9, 2014, and other studies). Future research will need to detail the specific relationship between sub-lethal neonic (as it is called) exposure and CCD for all parties to be convinced, and, as it is bees that are directly affected and not people, even that may not be enough to get neonics off the shelf.
In use, seeds are coated with the water-soluble neonics, which are then taken up by the plant. With a majority of members in support, the European Commission voted in 2013, out of concern for honeybee colonies, to restrict the use of neonics. No such legislation has been passed in the United States.
Manufacturers Bayer CropScience and Syngenta maintain the products are safe for bees. To what end? Much like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, resistance to insecticides is spreading in targeted populations. According to an article by Alex Morris (“The Bee Killers,” Rolling Stone, August 27, 2015), if coated seed products are counted, the use of insecticides is spreading, yet a recent EPA study found that not using neonics had little or no effect on soybean crop yields.
Environmental pollution has been prominent in recent news. The August 5th spill of toxic waste into the Animas River in Colorado was widely covered. What got less play was a September 16th follow-up Denver Post article reporting that every two days 230 old and abandoned mines in Colorado leach heavy metals into streams and rivers in amounts equal to the Animas River spill. The EPA, which had a team at the Gold King Mine to begin cleanup when the Animas River spill occurred, estimates a $20–64 billion price tag to clean up some half-million abandoned mines across the country. I imagine that price goes up when accidental spills accompany the cleanup.
On August 28th, The Huffington Post carried a feature by Mariah Blake detailing the long legal nightmare of residents of Parkersburg, West Virginia (“Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia”) over the dumping of waste products from C8, the chemical that gives Teflon its “slip,” and that is used in many consumer products. DuPont, the manufacturer, kept internal concerns about the product’s negative health effects hidden—literally for decades—while continuing to dispose of it in wells near its Parkersburg plant. The long-term consequences for many residents and employees have been devastating. Various litigations have resulted in settlements, and further suits are pending. C8 has been taken off the market, but its residue will be with us for years.
Replacements for C8, though, are just entering the market. These new products, minor variations from the original, provide the same functionality as their predecessor and remain untested by the EPA. This is because the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976, requires the EPA to “compile, keep current and publish a list of each chemical substance which is manufactured and processed in the United States.” It does not require that new chemicals be tested or their safety validated before they are put into use: the compiled information comes from manufacturers.
An important step: on June 23rd, the House of Representatives passed the TCSA Modernization Act of 2015. The bill would place protecting public health as its highest, but not its sole, priority. As of this writing, the Senate has yet to take it up.
In terms of caring for the environment, it seems the U.S. falls somewhere between those who ignore the responsibilities of good stewardship, such as China (with whom we have in common being nonsignatories to international climate change agreements), and Europe, where a majority of countries are more progressive. Certainly the EPA is not funded, and indeed not geared toward, checking new products for toxicity before they are used. It may not even be practical for the EPA and other state and federal environmental monitors to fulfill that role; it’s just too big a task. But the new TSCA and further legislation should impose strict testing and reporting guidelines on manufacturers whose prime motivation is profit. “Pro-business” politicians must know that the price for remediation at polluted sites and of healthcare for adversely affected individuals has to be added to the “payables” side of the ledger. Wouldn’t we be better off being cautious and paying modestly higher product prices now?
There needs to be greater consequences for hiding the concerns of internal scientists about products that will be dispersed through the air we breathe, the water we drink and the foods we eat—consequences that will be much more meaningful than a fine that snips a few million dollars off top-end gains. Testing must be thorough and transparent and the use of products must be delayed until they are proved safe and efficacious while the grass is still green and the sky is still blue and the bees are still buzzing. The economic costs and human toll of pollution are just too high to ignore.
Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/Labcompare; [email protected]