Neonicotinoids, a class of pesticide linked to the decline of bee populations worldwide, have also been linked to declining bird populations. Researchers from the University of Saskeccthwan exposed a population of migrating white-crowned sparrows to imidacloprid (a neonicotinoid manufactured by Bayer). Birds given the highest dosage lost significant percentages of their body weight and necessary fat storage with hours of exposure. The same group of birds also deviated from usual eating patterns, and many of the sparrows took an extra 3.5 days to continue their migration. This is a big deal for bird populations. According to Christy Morrissey, an ecotoxicologist at the University of Saskatchewan and a co-author of the study,

There is a major systematic population decline in farmland birds, and these commonly-used pesticides are an identifying mechanism.”

What It Means

Migration is a critical and dangerous time in a bird’s life. There are increased numbers of predators, and timing migration correctly is crucial to successful reproduction. Birds that arrive later than the others will arrive to find that many mates and quality nesting spots have already been chosen. Neonicotinoid exposure caused many birds to delay their migration by an extra 3.5 days, more than enough to negatively affect migrating bird populations. How is the insecticide doing that?

This study found that birds exposed to imidacloprid stopped eating and lost up to six percent of their overall body weight and about seventeen percent of their fat reserves. The stored fat is especially important for migration, as it provides the energy necessary for long migrations. The research team in charge of this study previously reported on the detrimental effects of imidacloprid on birds in 2017, where the birds experienced weight loss and disorientation. Four of the birds in that study died within 24 hours of receiving their last dose of the pesticide, with researchers euthanizing two due to breathing difficulties and foaming at the crop (a pocket in the throat where birds temporarily store food).

Unpleasant, Yet Unsurprising

The majority of research and concern surrounding neonicotinoids has dealt with bees. The European Union voted to ban these types of pesticides with the exception of use in covered greenhouses in order to protect bee populations. Major Canadian cities like Montreal and Vancouver have also banned the insecticide. Bees exposed to neonicotinoids are reported to have more difficulties surviving the winter, maintaining their hive and larvae, experienced problems reproducing, and have compromised immune systems, among other issues.

A 2019 study also found that bees exposed to imidaclopridexperienced flight difficulties for bees in a controlled environment. Like this recent study on birds, researchers found that the bees experienced disruptions in the usual flight patterns. Whereas the birds waited until they were more able to complete their migration, the bees in the study from Imperial College London exhibited hyperactive behaviors for the first portion of their flight which then dropped off, resulting in shorter flights. Daniel Kenna is the first author of the study,

Neonicotinoids are similar to nicotine in the way they stimulate neurons, and so a ‘rush’ or hyperactive burst of activity does make sense…However, our results suggest there may be a cost to this initial rapid flight, potentially through increased energy expenditure or a lack of motivation, in the form of reduced flight endurance.”

Regulating these Pesticides

Neonicotinoids are one of the widely used groups of pesticides in the world. In the U.S., they’ve been sprayed on up to 95% of corn and canola, as well as other crops like soybeans, cotton, sorghum, sugar beets, cereal grains, rice, nuts, wine grapes, and assorted fruits and vegetables. These chemicals have been proven to disrupt bee and bird populations, crucial parts of a working ecosystem. In 2017, the rusty patched bumblebee became the first bee on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) endangered species list, but little else has changed in the U.S. In fact, things are likely to get worse.

The previous administration’s FWS announced plans to phase out neonicotinoid usage by January of 2016. The Trump administration reversed that ban in 2018. The Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of sulfoxaflor, another pesticide shown to harm bee populations, confirms that this administration is unconcerned with the damage these insecticides do to our necessary pollinators.

Sources:

• Decline of migrating birds could be partly due to pesticides – New Scientist
• A Widespread Pesticide Causes Weight Loss and Delayed Migration in Songbirds – Audubon
• Common pesticide makes migrating birds anorexic – Science
• Two Widely Used Pesticides Found to Disorient and Sicken Migrating Songbirds – Audubon
• Bees Exposed to Neonicotinoid Pesticide Become Hyperactive Before Crashing Out, Reducing their Ability to Forage – Newsweek
• Trump administration sued over controversial rollback of insecticide ban – The New Food Economy
• Trump administration to approve pesticide that may harm bees – The Guardian

A new study from researchers at several American universities has found that long-term exposure to air pollution, especially ozone, leads to an increase in emphysema that mirrors that of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 29 years. Chronic lower respiratory illnesses like emphysema are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, but the number of people smoking fell to its lowest recorded point in U.S. history in 2017.

Rates of chronic lung disease in this country are going up and increasingly it is recognized that this disease occurs in nonsmokers…We really need to understand what’s causing chronic lung disease, and it appears that air pollution exposures that are common and hard to avoid might be a major contributor…”

Dr. Joel Kaufman

Nuts and Bolts

Of the air pollution examined in this study, researchers found that ground-level ozone, or O3, pollution had the biggest effect on emphysema. The study took place over a period of 18 years in six different cities in the United States – Chicago, Winston-Salem, N.C., Baltimore, Los Angeles, St. Paul, Minnesota, and New York. It found that cities, where average ozone levels rose by 3 ppb (parts per billion), saw a corresponding rise in emphysema rates.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut 

We were surprised to see how strong air pollution’s impact was on the progression of emphysema on lung scans, in the same league as the effects of cigarette smoking, which is by far the best-known cause of emphysema…”

According to Dr. Kaufman

The United States and Europe have seen declining levels of ozone in cities over the past 30 years. However, countries like India and China have seen the opposite trend. In 2015, the average ozone levels in 74 major Chinese cities increased by 3.4 percent. India and China accounted for 79 percent of premature respiratory deaths attributed to ozone pollution in a 2010 study. That can have serious effects on public health.

The New Normal

In 2015, air pollution killed 6.5 million people worldwide. It’s likely those numbers will keep rising. In the United States, the Trump Administration has been dismantling EPA policies designed to keep air pollution in check. They have finished or are currently in the process of rolling back 22 regulations that govern air pollution and emissions, including changes to the Clean Air Act. Why are we going backward?

Sources:

• Air pollution can accelerate lung disease as much as a pack a day of cigarettes – University of Washington
• Association Between Long-term Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution and Change in Quantitatively Assessed Emphysema and Lung Function – JAMA
• Increasing Air Pollution Causes Lung Disease Equivalent to Smoking Pack of Cigarettes a Day for 29 Years – Newsweek
• Ozone Pollution Grows, but It Can Be Fixed – Scientific American
• One million premature deaths linked to ozone air pollution – Phys Org
• 83 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump – New York Times

Three unrelated strains of Candida Auris have emerged on three different continents simultaneously, and a new study says rising temperatures due to climate change are to blame. Dr. Arturo Casadevall from Johns Hopkins University is one of the study’s authors, and according to him,

The argument that we are making based on comparison to other close relative fungi is that as the climate has gotten warmer, some of these organisms, including Candida auris, have adapted to the higher temperature, and as they adapt, they break through human’s protective temperatures…What this study suggests is this is the beginning of fungi adapting to higher temperatures, and we are going to have more and more problems as the century goes on…”

Why This Is Scary

C. auris came to the medical world’s attention in 2009, and it has proven to be a particularly troublesome microbe. It often occurs with other infections, leading to the fungus being misidentified and mistreated. C. auris also displays multi-drug resistance and outbreaks usually happen in a healthcare setting like a hospital.

Silent and Deadly

In all the noise about climate change, it’s easy to forget that we aren’t the only organism that will be forever altered by the changes to the Earth’s climate. It would be a mistake to forget that, especially when you realize how much more easily bacteria and fungus will be able to adapt. Candida auris is a new kind of infection, one that’s immune to our usual antifungals, difficult to properly detect, and can be transmitted through person to person contact. This fungus is a new, scary plague, and it won’t be the last.

Sources:

• Deadly Fungal Infection Emerged Because of Global Warming, Study Says – Time
• On the Emergence of Candida auris: Climate Change, Azoles, Swamps, and Birds – American Society for Microbiology
• Rise of Candida auris blamed on global warming – Science Daily

I got curious about carbon sequestration and did some math.

According to my sources, we have about 770,000,000,000 (770 billion) tons of excess carbon dioxide that we need to remove from our atmosphere.

One ton of carbon equals 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide has two oxygen molecules for every carbon).

So we need to remove 210,000,000,000 tons of carbon from the air.

One tree removes 13 pounds of carbon per year. Let’s give it a ten-year lifespan for this purpose. One tree sequesters 130 pounds of carbon in a ten year time period.

A forest contains about 100 trees per acre.

So an acre of trees over a ten year period can sequester 13,000 pounds or 6.5 tons of carbon.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut

So we need about 32,300,000,000 (32.3 billion) acres of trees planted to capture the excess carbon within a decade.

And this assumes we don’t add any more C02 to the atmosphere. Plus we are losing 200,000 acres of rainforest every day (73,000,000 acres a year), so that too would have to stop.

What about hemp?

Glad you asked! An acre of hemp can absorb 4.2 tons of carbon per year per acre. That’s 42 tons in a decade. But we can’t just chop down the hemp, let it decompose, and plant more. We need to do something with the hemp, or else much of that carbon goes back into the air. That’s where hempcrete (we need this bad, look it up!) and a variety of textiles and other uses come in! We can make much better concrete out of hemp and concrete is a massive source of C02 output (Cement is the source of about 8% of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions).

So if we only planted hemp instead of the trees we need (obviously we should do both) we would need 5,000,000,000 (5 billion) acres of hemp. Let’s add another billion acres for fertilizer production and transportation and other production-C02 costs.

If you want to correct my math drop me a comment:

Sources:

• How much carbon emissions would 1 acre of hemp absorb? – Quora
• Hemp: The Solution for Global Warming – SunStrands
• Facts and information on the Amazon Rainforest – Raintree Nutrition
• We need to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere, not just reduce emissions – The Conversation
• How many trees would I have to plant to solve Global Warming? – Stack Exchange

Due to concerns that the insecticide can harm the brain and nervous system, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned chlorpyrifos for household uses in 2000 but agricultural companies are still allowed to spray it on our food.

In August of 2015 public health groups petitioned the agency to reconsider their decision, stating the pesticide should be banned from agriculture. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the EPA to review a petition. The EPA has reviewed the decision and decided not to ban chlorpyrifos.

EPA has determined that their objections must be denied because the data available are not sufficiently valid, complete or reliable to meet petitioners’ burden to present evidence demonstrating that the tolerances are not safe.”

CNN

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

It is a tragedy that this administration sides with corporations instead of children’s health. But this is only a setback. Lawmakers in states like Hawaiʻi and New York are now showing the rest of the country that banning this dreadful pesticide is not only possible, but inevitable.”

Attorney Patti Goldman of Earthjustice – represents the groups that took the issue to court

Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxic pesticide that kills a number of pests including insects and worms. By inhibiting the acetylcholinesterase enzyme it destroys the nervous systems of insects. The enzyme also regulates nerve impulses in the human body. Acute poisoning causes convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and sometimes death. Chlorpyrifos is one of the pesticide most frequently linked to pesticide poisonings.

Related: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

Chlorpyrifos is associated with neurodevelopmental harms in children. Prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos can lead to “lower birth weight, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development.”

The hits keep coming for pharmaceutical giant Bayer and their popular herbicide Roundup as a California jury awards two plaintiffs $2.055 billion dollars in damages. The verdict came in the case of Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, Calif., who say that three decades of exposure to Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are the cause of their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Each plaintiff received $1 billion in punitive damages and an additional 55 million in collective compensatory damages. Bayer refuted the jury’s findings in a statement released on Monday,

Bayer is disappointed with the jury’s decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month, the consensus among leading health regulators worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the 40 years of extensive scientific research on which their favorable conclusions are based.”

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Not the Only One

This is not the first successful verdict against Roundup within the last year, all of them occurring in California. The first judgment was reported in August of 2018, where judges awarded $289 million in damages (later reduced to $78 million). The second happened in March of this year, where a San Francisco jury found in favor of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman to the tune of $80 million in damages.

California Dreaming

In every statement following the verdicts against them, Bayer has cited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) classification of glyphosate as non-carcinogenic. Until recently, that was powerful evidence for the pharmaceutical corporation. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer listed glyphosate as cancer-causing. There were strenuous objections from then Monsanto and the EPA, but emails released in an early 2017 lawsuit suggested that prominent employees at the government agency had suppressed research unfavorable to glyphosate. The State of California recognized glyphosate as carcinogenic in July 2017. Since then, lawsuits against the herbicide have gained increasingly more traction.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut 

Money on the Mind

Three juries have found in favor of plaintiffs vs. Bayer, and there are anywhere from 4,000 to 11,000 lawsuits pending. It remains to be seen if spending large quantities of money on court cases will be enough for Bayer to pivot to a different product or begin to take responsibility for their product. Monsanto made $1.9 billion in gross revenue from herbicide products in 2015. The current bill for Roundup cases is $2.213 billion dollars. Is it enough?

Sources:

• California Jury Awards $2 Billion To Couple In Roundup Weed Killer Cancer Trial – NPR
• Jury returns $2 billion verdict against Monsanto for couple with cancer — the biggest so far – CNN
• Bayer statement on jury’s decision in California State Glyphosate Trial – Bayer
• EPA Says Roundup Is Safe While Bayer Is Losing Millions In Lawsuits – Organic Lifestyle Magazine

The CEO of agriculture company Calyxt has confirmed that their gene-edited soybean oil is currently at use at locations in the Midwest. Although he was unable to name the locations using the product for competitive reasons, this marks the first appearance of a gene-edited food in restaurants. Unlike GMOs, gene-edited plants do not contain genetic material. The editing is applied only to the plant’s own DNA, altering or adding already present traits. The soybean oil now being used in restaurants has been edited to have a longer shelf life and contain no trans fats.

No Label, No Warning, No Problem…?

As a consumer, the arrival of gene-edited foods leaves something to be desired. For one thing, the company isn’t releasing where these oils are being used. For those who are concious of what they’re eating, that’s an issue.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Gene-edited foods are also exempt from labeling. Since the changes to the plant could potentially happen through traditional breeding methods, the U.S. regulatory agencies does not consider the product to be genetically engineered. Compnaies are not required to report anything to the Food and Drug Administration, although they can request an evaluation. has Calyxt?

This attitude contrasts with the European Union’s take on gene-edited foods. Last year, the Court of Justice in the European Union ruled that gene-edited crops will be subjected to the same regulations as GMOs. There is language allowing for exemptions, but those have conditions, according to the court. Only plants that have “conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are exempt from those obligations.” This is a much more decisive stance than that of the U.S. government, which is exercising little to no oversight.

Market Players

Depending on the poll, the percentage of American people in favor of GMO labeling is anywhere from 89 to 96. The number of countries banning or heavily regulating those products is growing. What we think of when we think genetically modified food is becoming more expensive to bring to market and there is much less demand for it. Major companies are looking for another advantage, and genetically engineered plants allow them to use many of the same resources at their disposal with fewer regulatory hassles and less consumer knowledge.

Related: Best Cooking Oils – Health benefits, Smoke Point, Which to Use and Avoid

Calyxt is the first company to get gene-edited crops into restaurants, but it will not be the last. Syngenta, an agribusiness giant and producer of GM seeds, has plans to have genetically engineered products on the market in the next decade. The ChemChina owned corporation is also planning to expand into tomatoes, rice, and sunflowers. Arcadia Biosciences, another biotech firm based in Davis, CA, is also developing genetically engineered foods. Bayer (formerly Monsanto) is also getting into action, partnering with Pairwise, a gene-editing company based in North Carolina.

Business Friendly

The U.S. government has not tried to check the speed at which companies have been able to develop and implement genetically engineered foods. Once again, they are choosing big business over truly examining a new food technology with the potential to seriously damage our health and the environment.

Sources:

• Gene-edited Food Quietly Arrives in Restaurant Cooking Oil – AP News
• Restaurant in the midwest is first in the US to use gene-edited food – Earth.com
• Gene-Edited Foods Are Coming to Your Plate But Aren’t Being Regulated – Bloomberg
• CRISPR plants now subject to tough GM laws in European Union – Nature.com