Fungicides

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 introduced new criteria for the approval of pesticide active substances, including hazard based exclusion criteria with regard to certain classification criteria, environmental concerns, and endocrine disrupting properties. The Regulation specifies criteria for substances with carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction properties (CMR), Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and substances that are persistent, bioaccumulable and toxic (PBTs) including those very persistent and very bioaccumulable. The Regulation also calls for specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties, and pending the adoption of these criteria, enacts the so-called ‘interim criteria’, based on classification considerations and ‘toxic effects on the endocrine organs’. Since 2014, EFSA has published 15 Conclusions on new active substances and 26 on applications for renewal that explicitly summarise the assessment of potential endocrine effects under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. For 24 active substances, including 3 microbial pesticide active substances, the available information has not led to the detection of specific concerns, however in the case of two substances EFSA has recommended additional studies to confirm this conclusion. Hazard or risk based concerns have been identified from the available information for 15 substances.

Sublethal exposure to fungicides can affect honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in ways that resemble malnutrition. These include reduced brood rearing, queen loss, and increased pathogen levels. We examined the effects of oral exposure to the fungicides boscalid and pyraclostrobin on factors affecting colony nutrition and immune function including pollen consumption, protein digestion, hemolymph protein titers, and changes in virus levels. Because the fungicides are respiratory inhibitors, we also measured ATP concentrations in flight muscle. The effects were evaluated in 3- and 7-d-old worker bees at high fungicide concentrations in cage studies, and at field-relevant concentrations in colony studies. Though fungicide levels differed greatly between the cage and colony studies, similar effects were observed. Hemolymph protein concentrations were comparable between bees feeding on pollen with and without added fungicides. However, in both cage and colony studies, bees consumed less pollen containing fungicides and digested less of the protein. Bees fed fungicide-treated pollen also had lower ATP concentrations and higher virus titers. The combination of effects we detected could produce symptoms that are similar to those from poor nutrition and weaken colonies making them more vulnerable to loss from additional stressors such as parasites and pathogens.

“Reading the emails make(s) me want to throw up” tweeted the Food Babe after reading a lengthy series of them posted online by the NY Times on Sept 5th. The emails in question result from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and are posted in the side bars of a front-page article by Times reporter Eric Lipton (“Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show”). The article is highly disturbing, but, as the Food Babe implied, the Times buried the real story. The real scoop was not the perfidy and deceit of a handful of individual professors. Buried in the emails is proof positive of active collusion between the agribusiness and chemical industries, numerous and often prominent academics, PR companies, and key administrators of land grant universities for the purpose of promoting GMOs and pesticides. In particular, nowhere does the Times note that one of the chief colluders was none other than the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

„Beim Lesen der E-Mails haut es mich einfach in die Luft", twitterte ‚Food Babe‘ nach dem Lesen einer langen Reihe von E-mails, die die New York Times am 5. September ins Netz gestellt hatte. Die betreffenden Mails resultierten aus einer Anfrage im Rahmen des „Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)“ und wurden zu einem frontseitigen Artikel, den Times-Reporter Eric Lipton geschrieben hatte ("Food Industry Enlisted Academics in GVO Lobbying-Krieg – das zeigen E-Mails" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-i… ) in einer On-line-Seitenleiste publiziert. Was am Artikel aber stört und was auch ‚Food Babe‘ stillschweigend hinnimmt, ist, dass die NY-Times die wahre Geschichte verbirgt. Der Renner war nicht nur die Perfidie und der Betrug von einer Handvoll von einzelnen Professoren, sondern der tatsächliche Renner aus den E-Mails war, dass darin der Beweis der aktiven Absprachen der Agrarindustrie und der chemischen Industrie mit zahlreichen und oft prominenten Wissenschaftlern, PR-Unternehmen, und Schlüssel-Administratoren der Agro-Universitäten zum Zweck der Förderung von GVO und Pestiziden offen gelegt wurde. Insbesondere publiziert die NY Times nirgendwo, dass eine der Haupt-Verschwörer kein anderer als der Präsident der „Amerikanischen Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften (AAAS)“ war.

This chapter provides insights into the difficulties and challenges of performing risk evaluations of agrochemicals. It is a critical review of the current methodologies used in ecological risk assessment of these chemicals, not their risks to humans. After an introduction to the topic, the current framework for ecological risk assessment is outlined. Two types of assessments are typically carried out depending on the purpose: i) regulatory assessments for registration of a chemical product; and ii) ecological assessments, for the protection of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, which are usually site-specific. Although the general framework is well established, the methodologies used in each of the steps of the assessment are fraught with a number of shortcomings. Notwithstanding the subjectivity implicit in the evaluation of risks, there is scepticism in scientific circles about the appropriateness of the current methodologies because, after so many years of evaluations, we are still incapable of foreseeing the negative consequences that some agrochemicals have in the environment. A critical appraisal of such methodologies is imperative if we are to improve the current assessment process and fix the problems we face today.

Pope Francis slams both GMOs and pesticides in a draft of his major environmental document that was leaked Monday. On pesticides Pope Francis states; “We get sick, for example, due to inhalation of large amounts of smoke produced by fuels used for cooking and heating. This is added to by….fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and toxic pesticides in general. Technology that is linked to finance, claims to be only solving problems…this solves a problem by creating others. “It creates a vicious circle in which the intervention of the human being to solve a problem often worsens the situation further. For example, many birds and insects die out as a result of toxic pesticides created by technology, they are useful to agriculture itself, and their disappearance will be compensated with another technological intervention that probably will bring new harmful effects… looking at the world we see that this level of human intervention, often in the service of finance and consumerism, actually causes the earth we live in to become less rich and beautiful, more and more limited and gray, while at the same time the development of technology and consumerism continues to advance without limits.”

One of nature’s best scavengers is under serious threat in Africa, largely from poison. According to the first analysis of African vultures, populations of seven species have fallen by 80% or more over three generations. Most of these species may qualify as critically endangered. “The rates of decline stand out as being pretty rapid,” says conservation biologist Rhys Green of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the new analysis. The situation for African vultures, he says, “is not yet irrecoverable, but it is serious.”

Ethoxyquin ist ein Konservierungsstoff in Viehfutter, der über den Fleischverzehr in den menschlichen Organismus gelangt. Die Wirkungen sind kaum bekannt. Was man aber weiß, ist alarmierend. In einem eigens beauftragten, bisher so noch nie durchgeführten Stichprobentest zeigt "planet e.", dass die Chemikalie in Muttermilch und menschlichem Fettgewebe nachweisbar ist und sich anreichert. Eine andere Studie belegt, dass Ethoxyquin die Erbsubstanz schädigt. Was die Substanz und seine Abbauprodukte im menschlichen Körper insgesamt bewirken, ist quasi unerforscht. Eine der wenigen Wissenschaftler, die sich mit der Giftigkeit von Ethoxyquin befasst haben, ist Dr. Alina Blaszczyk. Bei ihren Forschungen mit menschlichen Blutzellen beobachtete sie, dass die Chemikalie zu Chromosomenbrüchen führt, also die Erbsubstanz schädigt. Mit dieser Beobachtung liegt der Verdacht nahe, dass Ethoxyquin krebserregend ist. Zudem erkannte die norwegische Wissenschaftlerin Dr. Victoria Bohne bei Versuchen mit Ratten, dass die Substanz die Bluthirnschranke überwindet, also bis in das Gehirn vordringt. Für Experten wie den niederländischen Toxikologen Dr. Henk Tennekes ist das Anlass zu größter Sorge. Sein Verdacht: Schon während der Schwangerschaft könnte Ethoxyquin die Gehirnentwicklung von Föten stören.

Schweizer Gewässer sind mit einem Cocktail von Pestiziden belastet. Manche dieser Substanzen wie Insekten- und Pilzgifte würden bei den Überwachungsprogrammen zu wenig beachtet, urteilen nun Forschende in einer in der Fachzeitschrift «Aqua Gas» veröffentlichten Studie. Der Grund ist laut den Wissenschaftlern der Wasserforschungsanstalt Eawag, dass Insektizide und Fungizide in Gewässern meist in geringeren Konzentrationen vorliegen als Unkrautvernichter (Herbizide). Dadurch waren sie bislang schwerer nachzuweisen. Doch seien gerade Insektizide sehr toxisch und vermutlich der Grund, warum es in Flüssen oft keine Insekten mehr gibt. Das Projekt «Nawa Spez» hatte bereits letztes Jahr zu Tage gefördert, dass Schweizer Flüsse mit zahlreichen Pflanzenschutzmitteln verunreinigt sind. Dafür waren fünf typische Schweizer Bäche auf Pestizide untersucht worden. Im aktuellen Artikel setzt sich das Team um Juliane Hollender nun detaillierter mit den Insekten- und Pilzgiften auseinander und bezieht alle wichtigen Insektizidgruppen ein, wie die Umweltchemikerin erklärte.