EPA Reversal of Harmful Pesticide Ban Violated Federal Law, Says Appeals Court

The Environmental Protection Agency under the direction of Scott Pruitt removed a 2012 ban of a harmful pesticide, chlorpyrifos, in 2017, a move that a federal appeals court ruled violated federal law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has given the government agency 60 days to remove chlorpyrifos from the market. The pesticide is widely used on citrus fruit, apples, corn, wheat, and other crops. It’s been proven harmful to children even in small quantities. The government refused to ban the chemical earlier in March this year, but this split decision ruling demands that the EPA finalize that ban. Appeals Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff wrote in the majority’s opinion,

The panel held that there was no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children…”

Children at Risk

Chlorpyrifos is one of the leading pesticides listed in cases of pesticide poisonings. In adults, it impairs the nervous system functions and can lead to convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and, in extreme cases, death. Children are especially at risk, as prenatal exposure can lead to health consequences like low birth weight and delayed motor development. Even tiny amounts of the pesticide can lead to neurological conditions in small children from reduced IQ to loss of working memory and attention deficit disorders. It’s been banned from residential use since 2000, and the science supports banning this chemical.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The pesticide does have an important backer in its corner, though…the manufacturer of the product, Dow Chemical. In spite of the residential ban and the proven toxicity of the chemical, Dow sells roughly 5 million dollars of chlorpyrifos in the U.S. every year. The company maintains that the science identifying their product as a serious health hazard is flawed and inconclusive. This attitude was echoed by Scott Pruitt when he reversed the Obama administration’s ban of chlorpyrifos use for food crops in March 2017.

Harmful Patterns

Through all of the turmoil that is the Trump Administration, the EPA has developed some distressing patterns of behavior. The first of these is their desire to eliminate many environmentally friendly programs or regulations, particularly those from the Obama era. These withdrawals are often to the detriment of public health, like reversing this ban, withdrawing from the Clean Air Act, and allowing dangerous pesticide use to continue with little oversight.

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

The agency also has a tendency to consider the needs of businesses before they consider the environment. The EPA has gone on the record in the last year saying that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. A statement hasn’t been released after the landmark judgment against Monsanto this August, but if business continues as usual, glyphosate will remain “not likely” to cause cancer.

And now the EPA is being called out by an Appeals Court for a chemical that at the very least deserves a closer, objective look. It’s sad to say, but even if this pesticide is removed from use, business will find another to replace it. The EPA will approve it, because business comes first.

 Sources:



EPA Is Allowing Use of Unapproved Pesticides – New Study

A report released by the Center for Biological Diversity reveals that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows the use of unapproved pesticides in the case of an emergency. The term emergency is defined in the dictionary as an unforeseen combination of circumstances. Looking at the instances of emergency approval from the EPA though, it’s clear the agency does not see it the same way. This loophole allows farmers to use deliberately unapproved or untested pesticides often without a public review or comment process, deliberating bypassing environmental and safety concerns.

It’s disgusting to see the EPA’s broken pesticide program bending over backward to appease the pesticide industry. These exemptions put people and wildlife at tremendous risk because they allow poisons to be applied in ways that would otherwise be illegal.” – Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney in the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program

The report particularly highlights sulfoxaflor, a pesticide that was banned for killing bees while still being approved for 78 emergency approvals over the past six years and affecting more than 17.5 million acres of farmland. This pesticide had actually been approved for spraying on cotton, but that approval was canceled by a judge in 2015. That reversal didn’t stop sulfoxaflor from being sprayed on cotton and bee-favorite sorghum through the emergency approval program. The EPA has yet to examine the effect this program has had on pollinators, though that isn’t anything we didn’t know.

One of the conditions for the approval of an emergency pesticide petition is “loss of pesticide,” wither through insects developing resistance or regulatory agencies canceling the pesticide. This is also known as the EPA doing its job. Yet the agency is more than willing to undermine its previous decisions and credibility. When will we be left with the bill for these shortcuts…or has it already arrived.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Should We Peel Fruits & Veggies to Minimize Pesticide Exposure?

The best way to remove chemical residue from fruit has been found, and it’s peeling them. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst tested three different liquids to soak apples in for 12-15 minutes, the bleach solution that farmers dunk fruit in after harvest, a liquid slurry of baking soda, and plain old tap water. The baking soda was the best option for receiving surface pesticides. Even though the baking soda was effective, researchers concluded that peeling is the best way to avoid fungicides and pesticides as it’s the only way to remove some of the chemicals the fruit absorbs.

Things to Be Concerned About

Twenty percent of the fungicides and four percent of the pesticides scientists treated the apples with soaked into the flesh of the apple, and the only way to remove that is to peel it. For this experiment, the apples were soaked in fungicide for 24 hours. This is not a faithful recreation of conventional apple growing practices, and it’s likely that real-world apples have absorbed even more fungicide than those used in the experiment.

Of the three solutions, the one used by the agricultural industry is unlikely to have any effect at all. The positive baking soda results took 12-15 minutes to manifest. Apples are washed in a Clorox bleach solution for 2 minutes post-harvest, but researchers found that it did not effectively remove any pesticides. Organic produce can also use pesticides, and there’s no way to truly eliminate them, nor do standard industry practices suggest that considering consumer health is a priority.

Take it Off…

The solution offered again and again? Peel your fruits and vegetables! But this is problematic from a health viewpoint. That’s where a lot of the nutrients are, including much of the all-important fiber. Fiber is a critical component in fruit, as it’s the fiber that slows down the body’s absorption of the fruit’s natural sugars.

Fiber is not the only nutrient you reduce when the apple is peeled. A peeled apple has less potassium and vitamin C. It’s also missing compounds called triterpenoids that kill cancer cells and prevent the new cancer cells from growing. The peel also includes antioxidants that help prevent the oxidation of polyunsaturated fats.

Most Options Are Not Great Options

Don’t want any agricultural chemicals on your food? Only buy organic…but even that isn’t a failsafe. Organic food is still sprayed with approved pesticides, and our environment is so saturated with glyphosate that the likelihood of your organic apple coming into contact with it is quite good. Other solutions take away as much as the help. Peeling can eliminate a greater amount of pesticides, but it comes at the expense of health benefits. Safe food options are disappearing. Are we worried yet?

Recommended:
Sources:



New Study Reports Pesticides In Conventional Produce Lowers Fertility

The study involved 325 women who went to a fertility clinic in Boston. Data on their eating habits and pregnancy outcomes were examined by researchers. The findings showed women in the study who ate fruits and vegetables with higher levels of pesticide residue impaired their ability to get pregnant and sustain pregnancy.

Women in this study were participating in the Environment and Reproductive Health Study. The objective was to identify determinants of fertility among couples studied at the Fertility Center. Variables were considered, including smoking, diet habits, and supplement intake. Researchers concluded:

“…intake of high–pesticide residue [fruits and vegetables] was associated with lower probabilities of clinical pregnancy and live birth among women undergoing infertility treatment.

Related: Dicamba – The Herbicide Monsanto is Promoting to Replace Roundup’s Glyphosate

They report that their findings are consistent with animal studies that have shown low-dose pesticide ingestion likely causes adverse effects to fertility.

We already knew that women occupationally exposed to pesticides and women exposed to pesticides used in agriculture by virtue of living in or near agricultural production areas experience greater risk of infertility, pregnancy loss and other adverse reproductive outcomes.” – Dr. Jorge Chavarro of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Women in the study were 35 years old on average. Most were white and had at least a college education. They all underwent fertility treatments between 2007 and 2016.

Researchers estimated that replacing a single serving day of produce containing high levels of pesticide residue with a different, lower-pesticide option could increase pregnancy odds by 79 percent, and increase the chances of a live birth by 88 percent.

Recommended: You Need Sulforaphane – How and Why to Grow Broccoli Sprouts 

Women in the study were 35 years old on average, typically white, and they had at least a college education.

Dr. Chavarro stated that the study is the first to show that low doses of pesticide residue in conventionally grown fruits and vegetables can have adverse health effects. He also stated that washing produce does not reduce pesticide exposure, and buying organic fruits and vegetables makes sense for foods that typically have high levels of pesticide residue.

Pesticide Levels In Produce

The environmental working group puts out a list of the worst offenders and the better choices for conventional produce, helpful to those on a budget or who don’t have access to enough organic produce. The * indicates the item may be genetically modified. And don’t forget, grow your own!

Related: How to Regrow Your Favorite Herbs and Save Lots of Money

EWG’s Clean Fifteen

  1. Sweet Corn*
  2. Avocados
  3. Pineapples
  4. Cabbage
  5. Onions
  6. Sweet peas frozen
  7. Papayas*
  8. Asparagus
  9. Mangos
  10. Eggplant
  11. Honeydew Melon
  12. Kiwi
  13. Cantaloupe
  14. Cauliflower
  15. Grapefruit

EWG’s Dirty Dozen

  1. Strawberries
  2. Spinach
  3. Nectarines
  4. Apples
  5. Peaches
  6. Pears
  7. Cherries
  8. Grapes
  9. Celery
  10. Tomatoes
  11. Sweet bell peppers
  12. Potatoes
Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Why Are Our Natural Pollinators in Decline?

The loss of biodiversity is a worldwide, urgent crisis. Plant biodiversity is closely connected to insect biodiversity because pollinators assist the plants with reproduction and genetic variation. Research shows that commercial honey bee populations (various species) have decreased in the United States by 30-40% since 2006. Since the majority of food production relies on honey bees, it is important to determine the causes of these changes and implement the necessary solutions, such as reducing pesticide use on crops and implementing more organic agricultural practices. As consumers, our choices directly impact the environment, because many environmental issues are connected to the mass production of food and other goods. Sometimes we do not know about these issues until it is too late to fix them.

Pollinator Decline

The process used to detect declines in insect pollinator populations is very challenging, expensive, and time-consuming. It can take up to 20 years of monitoring to detect a small decline per year in some species such as birds, fish, and plants. With insects, it can take even longer due to the necessary sample sites, and long-term studies to determine the abundance and diversity of species, and it can be difficult to identify specimens to the species level. Although it would require a large investment to establish accurate pollinator monitoring programs at the regional, national or international level, it is worth the investment.

Agricultural and Ecological Value of Pollinators

The value of worldwide insect-pollinated crops is estimated around $200 billion per year. Insect pollination increases the size, quality, and quantity of fruit and/or seeds for the majority of our major crops worldwide. Global agricultural production will decrease significantly if pollinators drastically decline in number, requiring extensive investment to increase their numbers. If too many pollinator species were to go extinct, it would also require the use of alternative pollination techniques in order to maintain current food production rates. This would increase prices for consumers because other pollinating methods, hand or mechanical, are very expensive. It would be advisable to proactively prevent the decline of pollinators before the declines reach crisis levels.

Most of the insect decline research has been focused on “managed” honey bee colonies that are raised by beekeepers. However, there are not many programs that monitor the status of native bees and other wild pollinators such as flies, wasps, moths, and butterflies, which actually can be more effective pollinators of crops than managed honey bees.

In addition to pollinating crops, approximately 75 to 90 percent of all flowering plants are pollinated with the help of insects and other animals. Insects and flowering plants also serve a vital role as a food source for many species within ecosystems around the world. The ecological value of the insects and the plants they pollinate cannot truly be quantified, but it exceeds the contributions to agriculture.

Organic Certification

One potential solution to pollinator species decline would be an increase in organic agricultural practices. Overall, these practices are safer for pollinators and other wildlife. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a certification process for organic products. In order to qualify for certification, crops must meet a strict set of criteria established by the National Organic Program (NOP) which preserve natural resources and biodiversity (see USDA under “sources” for details). In general, USDA organic crops cannot be exposed to:

  • Radiation
  • Sewage
  • Prohibited pesticides
  • Synthetic fertilizers
  • Genetic modification

Organic livestock regulations include:

  • No antibiotics
  • No growth hormones
  • Fed 100% organic diet
  • Have access to the outdoors
  • Meet animal health and welfare standards

If a multi-ingredient product is labeled USDA organic, it must contain at least 95% organic ingredients. Residue testing is done on an annual basis by accredited certifying agents. The USDA Organic Seal is a leading global standard in organic agriculture.

Colony Collapse Disorder

The causes of pollinator decline are still being researched. Although there has been a decline in pollinators for many years, colony collapse disorder (CCD) was first reported in the U.S. in 2006, when whole colonies of adult honey bees began mysteriously dying. Studies have linked CCD to viruses, bacteria, fungi, mites, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, habitat loss and cross-country transport. Pollinators also become malnourished as their habitat is destroyed, and as climate change leads to changes in flowering seasons.

Impacts of Chemicals Used in Conventional Agriculture

Herbicides

Although honey bees have received the most attention, species such as the monarch butterfly have also drastically declined since 2012. As herbicides destroy their larval food source, milkweed, they experience nutritional deficiency and habitat loss. Monarchs are known for their long migrations, and they require sufficient nutrition to survive such journeys. Pollinators are dependent on vegetation, just as vegetation is dependent on pollinators. When herbicides kill targeted plants, there are unintended consequences on many other plant species and the animals that rely on their presence. One example of this is the monarch butterfly, which has been negatively affected by the loss of milkweed. Many species of insects rely on very specific plant species for nectar, pollen, and nesting material. Applying herbicides can reduce the abundance of arthropods in general, which includes butterflies, moths, true bugs, flies, and bees among many others. Not only does this reduce insect biodiversity, but the other animals that feed on them, such as birds are also affected. Overall, it is important to minimize the areas of herbicide exposure, especially to native habitat surrounding croplands. It is also important to use selective herbicides that will not affect non-targeted plant species.

Fungicides

Some studies have shown that fungicide presence can contribute to CCD in honey bees. In contrast, other studies have shown that a fungal gut infection, could be the cause of the collapse in bee populations and that a fungicide could reduce CCD. It most likely depends on the type of fungicide used, and whether it is applied to crops or given directly to hives to treat a fungal infection. Because CCD is so complex, continued research is necessary to determine whether a fungicide is one potential solution, but it appears there are positive and negative effects.

Insecticides

A class of insecticides called neonicotinoids have been linked to immune suppression in honey bees, which allows for an increase in fungal infections. The European Commission has banned three neonicotinoids while further research is conducted; however, it is known that neonicotinoids can remain in the environment for at least six years. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted studies on the residues of neonicotinoids in agricultural environments, there have not been very many studies focused on the levels existing in water sources, due to insecticide runoff. Most species rely on natural water sources for survival, in which case, these chemicals could potentially be found in many animal species.

Two types of neonicotinoids are major pesticides used to treat corn and soybeans in the United States. In addition, plants used for backyard landscaping, that are sold in commercial nurseries, may also have been grown using these pesticides. The toxicity for oral exposure in bees is much higher than contact exposure. For instance, according to the calculated LD50 (lethal dose, and the amount it takes to kill half of an adult hive in 24 hours), and the quantities applied to corn fields, the amount of neonicotinoid in one corn kernel would be enough to kill an entire colony. These findings suggest that testing the drinking water of bees is an important factor when determining the level of toxicity, which typically is underreported. The repeated exposure to various pesticides in nectar, pollen and drinking water, have a direct effect on the decline of bees and other insects.

The costs of neonicotinoids outweigh the benefits which the EPA may have overestimated. They may increase the yield of some crops, but have the potential to reduce biodiversity, negatively impacting species at multiple levels in ecosystems. Ultimately, a growing human population increases the demand for pollinator-dependent crops to meet worldwide consumer needs, yet pollinators continue to decline. This imbalance between supply and demand would most likely cause a food shortage, increasing the price of food for consumers.

Fertilizers

The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers instead of manure-based methods can cause significant nitrate contamination of nearby freshwater systems. The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers allows farmers to continually grow crops on the same land without waiting for nutrients to return naturally. This appears to be a practical solution to feeding a growing human population; however, studies also show that there is enough food produced annually to feed the current population, it is just an issue of distribution and waste. While issues surrounding food distribution and waste production are very complex, the simple solution of overusing synthetic fertilizers is having negative long-term effects on the environment. Runoff from agricultural land can cause “dead zones” in bodies of water where the oxygen is depleted due to eutrophication (algal bloom, death, and decomposition). This leads to the collapse of local ecosystems and loss of biodiversity because species, such as fish and other invertebrates can die from a lack of oxygen.

Organic methods have a lower yield than conventional methods, which is partially due to the prohibited use of synthetic fertilizers. However, the price we pay for ecosystem damage caused by excess nitrogen is tremendous. One potential solution is the use of leguminous cover crops, such as beans, peas, and clover, to perform nitrogen fixation at a sufficient rate to increase crop yield. Legumes are known for attracting nitrogen-fixing bacteria to their roots. When used as a cover crop (planted over the soil in the offseason), they can help to add nutrients and organic matter to the soil for future crops while also reducing erosion.

Crop yield and GMOs

Reducing wasted food is key to meeting the food demands of the world. Americans waste 215 meals per person, per year. Some argue that in order to use organic farming methods to produce enough food for the world, it would require more land to produce the same amount of food, which would lead to further deforestation and biodiversity loss. Another argument is that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) help us provide enough food for the world, and genetic modification is not permitted by USDA organic certification. However, organic agriculture could produce enough food for the current population, and a potentially larger population without increasing the land use, partially through the use of leguminous cover crops for nitrogen fixation. Organic agricultural methods around the globe do have a lower yield than conventional; however, it depends on the context, and can range from 5 to 34 percent lower. It depends on the crop type, growing conditions and standard of organic practices. Perennial plants, fruit trees, legumes and oilseed crops are the best candidates for high output under organic conditions. Growing a diverse selection of crops, that are grown without insecticides or genetic modification, can protect pollinator populations while maximizing crop yield.

Instead of debating crop yield between conventional and organic agriculture, the focus should be shifted to how much food is wasted, and learning how to be more resourceful with our food, in order to supply enough nutrition worldwide. In this way, we can utilize safer farming methods that support biodiversity while still providing food for a growing human population.

Related: Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods

Conclusion

It is estimated that organic food sales have increased by approximately 20 percent each year since 1990. As consumers continue to become more educated about organic certification and the ways it can affect the environment and their health, the demand will most likely increase. From a long-term environmental perspective, we cannot afford to continue to use conventional agricultural practices. The price premium on organic products today should be considered an investment in the future for our planet and our ability to feed the world.

If insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and synthetic fertilizers have been shown to negatively affect pollinators and many other species, it can be assumed that the use of USDA organic standards in agriculture could be one way to decrease the rate of decline in wildlife populations, and preserve biodiversity. The majority of worldwide crops rely on pollinators for efficient yield. If pollinator populations continue to decline, there will be a significant reduction in food production and an increase in prices for consumers. Purchasing organic foods directly supports an industry using methods found to be safer for bees and other pollinator species. It also meets the demand for higher standards in production and health. If consumers demand certified organic garden and landscaping plants, or at least plants grown without neonicotinoid pesticides, they can assist local pollinator populations with a safe food source. As a result of this demand, the agriculture and retail industries will respond, and organic options will become more affordable and readily available.

Sources:



Birth Defect Gastroschisis Is on the Rise

The CDC reports a frightening birth defect, gastroschisis, is on the rise both worldwide and in the United States. Its cause is unknown.

What is Gastroschisis?

Gastroschisis is birth defect that occurs when the muscles of the abdominal wall fail to form correctly and a hole (large or small) results. The infant is born with intestines and sometimes other organs outside of the body.

In addition to the necessary corrective surgery, the infant may be challenged with damage to the intestines. Exposure to amniotic fluid in utero can cause the intestines to shorten, twist, or swell. Children with large protrusions or multiple organ exposure may require several surgeries to correct the defect. Gastroschisis increases the risk of medical complications and mortality. Long-term complications include digestive issues and difficulty absorbing nutrients.

What Is the Cause of Gastroschisis?

The cause is unknown and the reason for the rise in this defect is also unknown. The CDC reports, “A 2008 review noted that risk factors associated with gastroschisis, after adjusting for maternal age, have included lower socioeconomic status, lower body mass index and other indicators of poor nutrition (lower intake of high-quality nutrients and dietary fats), smoking, use of illicit drugs, alcohol, or analgesic medications, and genitourinary infections. Additionally, among multiparous and multigravida mothers, a change in paternity since the previous pregnancy has been associated with gastroschisis. Studies have also indicated possible age-specific associations between gastroschisis and prior pregnancy loss, as well as with certain infections.”

But these factors do not always apply. Megan Lehman shared the following on Facebook: (Quoted with permission)

I have always wondered what caused my precious baby boy to be born with this condition, and let me tell you, it was not alcohol, drugs, or poverty that they are now discovering increases the risk. What I did do, and very early on in my pregnancy before young and stupid me knew better, was ride on a tractor while my husband worked the fields on his family farm.”

…expectant mothers need to be warned of pesticides, chemicals in our foods, and maybe even in the prenatal vitamins that we take so carefully. An increase in incidence means something is causing it and likely many other issues as well.”

How Prevalent Is Gastroschisis?

The prevalence of gastroschisis has been on the rise since the 1980s and has risen in every category of race/ethnicity and maternal age group. Collected data showed the number of cases doubled during 1995–2005 compared to earlier reports. Reports comparing 1995-2005 with 2006-2012 show another 30% increase. Prevalence has risen from 3.6 per 10,000 births to 4.9 per 10,000 births. (Based on data collected from 14 states’ surveillance programs.)

Over the past 30 years, Utah has seen a ten-fold increase in gastroschisis” – IBIS

During the period 1995- 2012 the increased was:

  • 68% for infants born to young white mothers less than 20 years old.
  • 268% for infants born to young black mother less than 20 years old.

trends - gastroschisis 1995-2005 - CDC

This alarming increase in prevalence among young black mothers does not denote higher overall numbers in this racial group. White and Hispanic young mothers report higher overall incidences.

Incidence Per 10,000 Births by State

  • Arizona – 5.5 per 10,000 births (1:1818)
  • Arkansas – 6.3 per 10,000 births (1:1587)
  • California – 5.4 per 10,000 births (1:1852)
  • Colorado – 4.4 per 10,000 births (1:2273)
  • Delaware – 6.1 per 10,000 births (1:1639)
  • Florida – 4.4 per 10,000 births (1:2273)
  • Georgia – 4.5 per 10,000 births (1:2222)
  • Illinois – 4.0 per 10,000 births (1:2500)
  • Indiana – 4.5 per 10,000 births (1:2222)
  • Iowa – 5.1 per 10,000 births (1:1961)
  • Kansas – 5.0 per 10,000 births (1:2000)
  • Kentucky – 3.6 per 10,000 births (1:2778)
  • Louisiana – 5.0 per 10,000 births (1:2000)
  • Maine – 6.2 per 10,000 births (1:1613)
  • Maryland – 5.1 per 10,000 births (1:1961)
  • Massachusetts – 3.5 per 10,000 births (1:2857)
  • Michigan – 1.7 per 10,000 births (1:5882)
  • Minnesota – 3.8 per 10,000 births (1:2632)
  • Mississippi – 2.9 per 10,000 births (1:3448)
  • Nebraska – 5.6 per 10,000 births (1:1786)
  • New Hampshire – 2.2 per 10,000 births (1:4545)
  • New Jersey – 2.2 per 10,000 births (1:4545)
  • New York – 2.4 per 10,000 births (1:4167)
  • North Carolina – 4.4 per 10,000 births (1:2273)
  • North Dakota – 9.0 per 10,000 births (1:1111)
  • Oklahoma – 6.5 per 10,000 births (1:1538)
  • Puerto Rico – 5.1 per 10,000 births (1:1961)
  • Rhode Island – 4.2 per 10,000 births (1:2381)
  • South Carolina – 1.2 per 10,000 births (1:8333)
  • Tennessee – 5.7 per 10,000 births (1:1754)
  • Texas – 5.9 per 10,000 births (1:1695)
  • Utah – 5.1 per 10,000 births (1:1961)
  • Vermont – 2.5 per 10,000 births (1:4000)
  • Virginia – 1.3 per 10,000 births (1:7692)

* States not listed did not report to the study or did not report gastroschisis numbers.

Statistics listed copied with permission from the Avery’s Angels Gastroschisis Foundation website. Their cited source is the National Birth Defects Prevention Network October 2013, Birth Defects Research Part A, Clinical And Molecular Teratology Vol. 97 Number 10, and the 2013 Congenital Malformation Surveillance Report.

Conclusion

We do not know what is causing this birth defect, but we do know our ever-increasing chemical exposure is wreaking havoc on our health and that chemical exposure including pesticide exposure causes birth defects.

We are now faced with chemical exposure in the air we breathe, in the water we drink, in our indoor environments in homes, schools, and offices. We use soaps, lotions, shampoos, toothpaste, and perfumes filled with chemicals. We dye our hair and our bodies. Genetically modified foods with their high levels of pesticides are found in all of our processed foods.

If we do not return to a clean, safe, organic lifestyle, common sense dictates birth defects of all kinds will continue to affect our children in rising numbers.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



New Study Shows Children Should Eat Organic to Reduce Pesticide Levels

For a long time, we have known that organophosphorus (OP) pesticides, like chlorpyrifos and diazinon, are bad for humans, as well as pests. Almost two decades ago, they began to be phased out for residential use due to the risks. Unfortunately, they’re still heavily utilized in agriculture, and researchers in California decided to identify how much of these, and other, harmful pesticides, children are actually ingesting.

The Study Focused on Low-Income Children in Urban and Agricultural Areas

If it feels like you’ve already heard this information, you probably have, but not quite in this way. Previous studies have focused on pesticide levels of children in non-agricultural and suburban areas. As most of us know, these studies have shown that children have lower levels of pesticides when they go organic. The difference with this new study is that children in urban and agricultural areas are exposed to more pesticides in the environment, especially those in low-income families. Therefore, the question was not whether organic diets reduce pesticide levels- we know that they do, but whether children who are exposed to environmental pesticides have reduced levels when they go organic as well. For this reason, the study included participants from the Fruitvale area of Oakland, California, an urban area, and also from Salinas, California, a largely agricultural region.

Children Between the Ages of Three and Six were Analyzed

The study lasted only 16 days, but the results were incredibly apparent. For the first four days, 40 kids between the ages of three and six ate their normal diet, were monitored by an in-home personal trainer before or after extracurricular activities. They then ate an organic diet for seven days and switched back to their regular diet for the remainder of the study. Urine samples were collected every day of the study, and scientists analyzed the samples for pesticide residue and markers.

The Amount of Two Pesticides Reduced By 50% on an Organic Diet

The study revealed that reside for two specific pesticides was cut in half when children went on an organic diet. Levels of a common herbicide also dropped by about one-fourth. Asa Bradman, an author of the study and Associate Director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at the University of California, Berkeley, acknowledges, “There’s evidence that diet is one route of exposure to pesticides, and you can reduce your exposure by choosing organic food.” However, she cautions people not to cut regular fruits and vegetables out of their diet, because they both provide health benefits.

Sadly, Levels of Three of the Most-Common Pesticides Did Not Decline

The study showed that pesticides commonly used in residential applications did not decline. So although there is benefit in going organic, it’s only part of the solution to an overall problem. However, the study did uncover another remarkable find. Because food diaries were also kept, researchers noted that kids ate more healthy grains and produce when they were on the organic diet. In other words, choosing to stick with an organic diet can have other unexpected health benefits.

Pesticides are Linked to Childhood Cancer and Low IQ, Among Other Issues

There is a laundry list of issues that scientists have linked to pesticides. Recently, a study published in the October issue of Pediatrics linked pesticides with a higher risk of developing leukemia and lymphoma. Though that particular study focused on children who were exposed to insecticides indoors, a 47% and 43% increase in cancer rates were noted, respectively. Chensheng Lu, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who headed up the study, said that instances of other cancers, like bladder and prostate, may also increase with exposure to insecticides. Additional studies link pesticides to low IQ and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as well as minor conditions like nausea, skin irritation, and headaches. The same issue of Pediatrics that features this study also covers the story of a seven-month-old victim of SIDS. Analysis of her brain tissue revealed high levels of a pesticide known as DBNP, which she may have been exposed to two weeks prior to her death when her father sprayed the house for flies.

These cases are not rare. Pesticide use can cause acute health issues, and the compounds can build up over time undetected, resulting in long-term health consequences. Keeping children on an organic diet is an essential part of limiting exposure to dangerous and deadly chemicals. However, it’s also clear that parents should take steps to limit environmental exposure as well.