Switzerland is holding a referendum that – if successful – would result in a total ban on all synthetic chemical pesticides. This would of course include in relation to prohibiting the use of all toxic pesticides in Switzerland’s farming and food production systems.

Although pesticide use in Switzerland has dropped 40% in the last decade (and which is not far off the wholly inadequate 50% reduction target over 10 years that NGOs here in the UK often call for) an independent group of citizens, including scientists, doctors and growers, have campaigned for a complete ban for the protection of human health and the environment under the campaign title “For a Switzerland without artificial pesticides.” 

Inadequate measures

It is clear from the evidence of catastrophic health and environmental harms from pesticides that merely reducing their use will not result in the necessary protection for people or the environment, as just one single exposure incident can lead to damage to human health or to other species exposed. Further, there are other countries where pesticides reduction targets – advocated by NGOs and others – have spectacularly failed

For example, the 50% reduction target that was previously set in France, along with a pesticides tax, did not work – and wasted the last 10 years – as agricultural pesticide use in France has overall increased! Those pushing for the mere reduction of pesticides also sends the wrong message as it implies that it is okay to use these poisons but just less when it was never okay to use such toxic chemicals in our food production systems and certainly not for spraying in locality of unprotected rural residents and communities.

Nor will the problems with pesticides be solved by Integrated Pest Management (IPM) – which has been advocated by many, including by DEFRA here in the UK, as a way forward – as IPM still uses pesticides to some degree whichever definition one goes by. Many conventional farmers here insist they already adopt IPM practices, even though they are still spraying mixtures of pesticides on a regular basis, year after year, on crops across the UK. So in reality and in practice, IPM appears to be a red herring and is very unlikely to fundamentally change anything.

This problem with pesticides is also not going to be solved by simply substituting one pesticide for another – for example, those deemed as the most hazardous – considering that it is a matter of fact that all synthetic chemical pesticides are hazardous and have inherent health and environmental risks. Further, historically once one pesticide has been withdrawn another toxic chemical will just be introduced in its place. How does that solve anything? The answer is simple, it doesn’t!

Those calling merely for more controls on spraying applications also miss the fundamental point of what the actual problem is, as once agricultural pesticides have been dispersed they simply cannot be controlled and are airborne droplets, particles and vapours and are present in the air irrespective as to whether there is any wind or not. Indeed volatilization (ie. vapour lift off) can occur days, weeks, even months after any application further exposing humans, wildlife, other species, and wider environment.

Scientific studies have in fact found pesticides transported in the air at high levels, including considerable distances (ie. many miles) from where pesticides were originally applied and calculated health risks for residents and communities living within those distances and which includes some of the most vulnerable sub-groups such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those already ill and/or disabled – none of whom should ever have been exposed to these harmful chemicals in the first place!

Air pollution from chemical pesticides is therefore one of the components of atmospheric pollution. There are still no specific restrictions here in the UK – and indeed in most countries worldwide – on the contamination and pollution of the air from the widespread spraying of mixtures of pesticides in rural areas. Yet this is despite the fact that improving air quality is a major public health issue, as well as an environmental one.

While operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and will be in filtered tractor cabs when spraying pesticides – rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all from the innumerable cocktails of toxic chemicals sprayed on crop fields.

Adverse impacts of pesticides

The dangers of pesticides can clearly be seen on the manufacturers product data sheets that carry various warnings such as “Very toxic by inhalation,” “Do not breathe spray; fumes; vapour,” “Risk of serious damage to eyes,” “Harmful, possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation,” “May cause cancer by inhalation,” and even “May be fatal if inhaled.”

Cornell University’s teaching module ‘Toxicity of Pesticides’ clearly states that, “Pesticides can: cause deformities in unborn offspring (teratogenic effects), cause cancer (carcinogenic effects), cause mutations (mutagenic effects), poison the nervous system (neurotoxicity), or block the natural defenses of the immune system (immunotoxicity).” It goes on to warn that “Irreversible effects are permanent and cannot be changed once they have occurred. Injury to the nervous system is usually irreversible since its cells cannot divide and be replaced. Irreversible effects include birth defects, mutations, and cancer.”

High quality, peer-reviewed scientific studies and reviews have concluded that long-term exposure to pesticides can damage the function of different systems in the body, including nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, renal, cardiovascular, respiratory.

Such studies have concluded that exposure to pesticides is associated with a wide range of chronic diseases including various cancers, birth defects, reproductive disorders, neuro degenerative diseases (including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), cardio-vascular diseases, respiratory diseases, diabetes, chronic renal diseases, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus).

A number of recent major international reports have also detailed the damage to human health from existing industrial and chemical-intensive conventional farming systems:

• The United Nations report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food in March 2017 that found that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has been associated with several diseases and conditions including cancer, developmental disorders, and sterility, and that those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure from these chemicals;

• The 2017 IPES-FOOD report that outlines the unacceptable harm caused by the current chemical farming systems; exposes just some of the astronomical health costs externalized by the current system; and finds an urgent and “overwhelming case for action.” The report found that many of the severest health conditions afflicting populations around the world – from respiratory diseases to a range of cancers – are linked to industrial food and farming practices, including chemical-intensive agriculture;

• The 2017 Lancet Commission on pollution and health report on the global deaths and chronic diseases from outdoor air pollution, and which included from the use of pesticides. In fact the lead author was reported as saying that his biggest concern is the impact of the hundreds of industrial chemicals and pesticides already widely dispersed around the world.

There are now over 13,500 mainly affected rural residents who have signed the ongoing UK petition to the Prime Minister and DEFRA Secretary, George Eustice, to urgently secure the protection of rural residents and communities by prohibiting all crop spraying and use of any pesticides near residents’ homes, schools, and children’s playgrounds

The petition has been supported by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, DEFRA non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, Caroline Lucas MP, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, among many others.

The existing pesticides standards here in the UK – and indeed in the majority of countries worldwide – fail on every level to protect human health and the environment.

Even DEFRA’s very own former Chief Scientist Advisor, Professor Ian Boyd. In an article in ‘Science’ in 2017 (when still in post in the top science job at DEFRA) issued a damning assessment of the regulatory approach globally for pesticides sprayed on crops including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” has been ignored; and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change. Professor Boyd has since repeatedly advocated that pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems altogether. 

Here in the UK the new Environment Bill now provides a real opportunity to clean up agriculture once and for all in order to no longer use toxic chemicals in UK farming.

Prohibiting the use of pesticides

The 2017 UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food concluded that moving away from pesticide-reliant industrial agriculture to non-chemical farming methods should now be a political priority in all countries globally.

The same report concluded that the agro-chemical industry has continued to falsely maintain that damage will be caused to agriculture and food production if pesticides are not used. The report stated that “The assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that pesticides are necessary to achieve food security is not only inaccurate, but dangerously misleading. In principle, there is adequate food to feed the world; inequitable production and distribution systems present major blockages that prevent those in need from accessing it.”

In fact, rather than there not being enough food there is actually a huge amount of food wasted every year. One UK report found that as much as half of all worldwide food produced ends up as waste, which is a whopping 2 billion tonnes every year!

Considering the very significant damage that the use of agricultural pesticides has caused then the strategic aim must be to move away from pesticides to a health and environmentally sustainable crop production utilising non-chemical farming methods (such as crop rotation, physical and mechanical control, natural predator management).

The pollution and contamination of our health and environment must be stopped at the highest level, which means if such harmful farming practices are no longer permitted by Governments’ around the world then farmers would have to adapt and find alternative methods that do not put public health and the environment at the risk of harm.

Therefore a complete paradigm shift away from the use and reliance on such toxic chemicals in food and farming production systems is urgently needed.

Such vital protections from pesticides are absolutely integral to the health and existence of all those living in the countryside, as well as other species that are being wiped out from the use of such toxic chemicals and such protections are simply non-negotiable.

This would obviously also be more in line with the objectives for sustainable food and farming, as the usage of complex chemicals designed to kill plants, insects or other forms of life, cannot be classified as sustainable. The huge external costs of pesticide use would also be eliminated if agricultural policies are fundamentally shifted towards utilizing non-chemical farming methods.

The origins of traditional farming methods did not include dependence on chemical inputs for mass production. Such poisons should never have had any place in the air we breathe, food we eat, and the environment we live in.

The inadequate measures put forward by so many parties as a solution to the ever deepening pesticides crisis has clearly been recognised by the independent group of citizens – whose campaign led to the imminent referendum in Switzerland – who rightly concluded that the only real solution for the protection of both human health and the environment is for the complete prohibition of use of all synthetic chemical pesticides.

Rural residents and communities across the UK will be watching and waiting to see whether – against all the odds – Switzerland will lead the world in banning pesticides in its food and farming production system. We would love the chance to have such a vote here and would urge Swiss voters to grab – with both hands – this possibly once in a lifetime opportunity to protect your health and your environment from toxic pesticides.

• Georgina Downs is a health and agricultural journalist and campaigner. She runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, which specifically represents rural residents affected by agricultural pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, nurseries, among other areas.

Watching the Upper House do the right thing – as I had said in my previous article they needed to do – by finally voting in the interests of human health rather than in the big business interests of other sectors (eg. farming unions, pesticide companies, among others) was truly heartening after a 20 year battle to get such protection written into law.

This was a significant victory for all those affected by the use of agricultural pesticides sprayed in our localities. As the Lords adopted new Clause 38 entitled “Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health,” is for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near – (a) any building used for human habitation, (b) any building or open space used for work or recreation, or (c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to, schools and childcare nurseries, and hospitals.

The Government has fundamentally failed to protect people in the countryside from agricultural pesticides and has also knowingly allowed rural residents and communities to continue to suffer from both acute and chronic adverse health effects without taking any action to prevent the exposures, risks, and adverse health impacts from occurring.

As I have always maintained from the outset of my campaign this is definitely one of biggest public health scandals of all time.

Yet there is the risk that this very welcome – and long fought for – victory may well be short-lived, as the Agriculture Bill returns to the House of Commons this Monday when MPs debate and vote on whether to keep in or kick out the Lords adopted amendments.

Much of the focus – both politically and in the mainstream media – has been on two other amendments adopted by the House of Lords related to trade. This has become a titanic tussle between those – headed up by food campaigner and chef Jamie Oliver – wanting to maintain the UK’s existing food and animal welfare standards and those – headed up reportedly by Dominic Cummings, the unelected and seemingly wholly unaccountable advisor to Boris Johnson – who have their eyes firmly on the future trade deals post-Brexit between the UK and other countries, particular with the United States. 

Existing UK pesticides standards not protective

It has to be said that whilst other food and animal welfare standards in the UK may well be high, when it comes to the use of agricultural pesticides there has been a complete absence of any protection for rural residents and communities under the UK standards, and indeed even under the EU regime. The really rather astonishing gaps in the approvals process and protection system for rural residents and communities have been raised by the campaign I run – the UK Pesticides Campaign – since 2001.

Even DEFRA’s very own former Chief Scientist Advisor, Professor Ian Boyd. In an article in ‘Science’ in 2017 (when still in post in the top science job at DEFRA) issued a damning assessment of the regulatory approach worldwide for pesticides sprayed on crops including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” has been ignored; and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change. He has since repeatedly advocated that pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems. When I highlighted his comments at a meeting in 2018 with DEFRA Minister George Eustice he said he agreed with that position, (not that that was reflected of course in any way, shape or form in the Government’s original draft of the Agriculture Bill nor the revised version that followed).

Therefore I cannot stress enough how the existing pesticides standards in the UK (and the EU) simply do not currently protect rural residents and communities and which has just been backed by the House of Lords by a considerable majority with the adoption of new Clause 38 into the Agriculture Bill for prohibiting pesticide use near homes, schools, childcare nurseries, hospitals, amongst other places where people are present.

Clause 38 of the UK Agriculture Bill

Further, not only are the standards on agricultural pesticides in the UK not protective of human health, but they are clearly not protective of other species such as bees and other pollinators, birds, and overall biodiversity, and nor of the wider environment in general considering the increasing evidence of damage to air, water quality, and soils.

Therefore it is quite wrong for anyone to say that the standards on pesticides in the UK are high and fully protective of human health and the environment, as they simply are not. (And that is even before any trade deals with other countries where there is the risk of many more of these health and environmentally damaging pesticides coming in!)

The bottom line is that the risks and adverse health and environmental impacts of agricultural pesticides exist as a direct result of the actual widespread release in the first place of cocktails of these highly toxic chemicals. As once pesticides have been dispersed they cannot be controlled and have been shown to be transported in the air and travel considerable distances from where originally applied, including at high levels.

Further, this is irrespective as to whether there is any wind or not. Indeed volatilization (vapour lift off) can occur days, weeks, even months after applications further exposing those living in the locality and which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with wind! 

Full cross party support in the Lords

The new Clause 38 to the Agriculture Bill as amended by the House of Lords on Report (and which is also listed as amendment 11 in the Commons Lords amendments document) had full cross party support – having been tabled by former DEFRA Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty – and was agreed with a considerable majority. 

As Lord Whitty said in the debate on his amendment on 22^nd September that it is “vital” to protect human beings “primarily, residents in rural areas, by requiring spraying to be well away from homes, public buildings and places where the public are congregated. In particular, it moves towards protecting those who live, full-time, adjacent to crops that are subject to blanket applications and those who attend public spaces adjacent to such fields.” And that it “requires Ministers to come forward with regulations establishing a minimum distance between such applications and the buildings.”

As Conservative peer Lord Randall of Uxbridge then stressed in the debate “…this is about protecting human life. If we have not yet learned that people sometimes assure us that everything is all right when it patently is not, we need think only of the tobacco industry…and of asbestos. We would be failing ourselves, the public and our fellow human beings if we did not recognise the harmful nature of pesticides…However, one thing we can do is to get this amendment into the Bill, because it would protect so many people.”

As the Shadow Spokesperson for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch then made clear in the debate “This is an immediate issue of public health protection.” Indeed there are now nearly 12,300 people – the majority of which are affected rural residents – who have signed the ongoing petition to the Prime Minister and DEFRA Secretary that calls for the same protective measures contained in new Clause 38 (amendment 11).

The petition has been supported by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, DEFRA non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, amongst others.

Operators are protected but rural residents are not

While operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and will be in filtered tractor cabs when spraying pesticides – rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all.

To see an example of the spraying of agricultural pesticides in the locality of the home and garden of one family see video here.

It is important to stress that this is about the permitted dispersal – under Government policy – of crop pesticides in the locality of homes, schools, nurseries etc., and the exposures, risks, and acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents, and therefore this is obviously not about the misuse, abuse or illegal use of pesticides, but the actual use of agricultural pesticides in the locality of such people and places.

The Lords fully recognised in its debates on this amendment that more than enough evidence already exists of the risks and adverse health impacts of agricultural pesticides on rural residents and communities. Yet any reports of harmful effects are supposed to inform that the approvals system is failing. It is not supposed to be the case that toxic chemicals are approved and then monitoring reports the damage, but that such chemicals that pose a risk to human health are not approved in the first place.

The principal aim of pesticide policy is clearly based on the risk of harm, and not that harm has to have already occurred, and so no one should be put at risk of harm from any pesticide.

Yet reports of acute and chronic harm for rural residents and communities have existed for decades and the only way to prevent such harm occurring and protect human health is to prohibit the use of agricultural pesticides in substantial distances in the locality of where rural communities are present, as no pesticides should ever have been permitted to be sprayed in the locality of such unprotected people.

The new Clause 38 in the Agriculture Bill is therefore crucially important for securing the protection of rural residents and communities from agricultural pesticides, especially the most vulnerable groups such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those already ill and/or disabled – none of whom should ever have been exposed to these poisons in the first place!

Tory backbenchers

Indications are that, as per in the Lords, opposition parties will again support this crucial amendment for public health protection.

Therefore, whether new Clause 38 is kept in the Agriculture Bill does now appear to hinge on what Tory backbenchers decide to do and if any have the conscience – and of course the courage – to rebel against the Government whip. One such backbencher, having explained he was already going to be rebelling on another amendment said “I cannot rebel twice as I will be seen as a serial rebeller.”

My first reaction on hearing that is that this is a serious public health protection failure that is exposing millions of rural citizens to harmful chemicals and so any concern for how one is viewed doesn’t even come into it when compared with the catastrophic damage pesticides are causing to human health and life. But secondly, surely when it is a case of the Government getting it wrong then it is absolutely right for anyone with a moral compass to disassociate from that position. We need people to speak up and speak out on this public health policy failing sooner rather than later, as the health and lives of so many innocent people depend on those in a position to do so doing the right thing to secure our protection.

The voting record will be able to show which Tory MPs, if any, did do the right thing.

Further, unlike the trade amendments, new Clause 38 to the Agriculture Bill obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. As it is a necessary and crucial public health protection measure that has been urgently needed to be introduced for decades. Indeed I have campaigned for it both here in the UK and in the EU since 2001 (as the EU regime also does not properly protect rural residents and communities from pesticides).

Therefore it is completely immaterial what side of the Brexit fence one is sat when it comes to this particular amendment, as it is a measure that was needed to be introduced when the UK was in the EU and a measure just as needed now we are out.

In hope..

All that the many thousands of rural residents and communities affected by this glaring protection failure can hope for now is that the House of Commons follows the House of Lords example and votes for the protection of human health to ensure that the vital new Clause 38 (amendment 11) on prohibiting agricultural pesticides in the locality of our homes, schools, nurseries, hospitals and other places, is kept in the Agriculture Bill.

Will the House of Commons now do the right thing and vote to protect rural residents and communities from the cocktails of toxic pesticides sprayed on crops? 

Rural residents across the UK are very much hoping that – this Monday – MPs will stand up for the health and safety of their constituents!

• Georgina Downs is a journalist and campaigner. She runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, which specifically represents rural residents affected by pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, among other areas.

A prime example of this is the outright condemnation in the UK House of Lords in July of the UK Government’s total failure to protect rural residents and communities from the cocktails of pesticides sprayed on crops in the locality of homes, schools, nurseries etc.

Most striking of all was who led that condemnation. Lord Whitty, a former DEFRA Food and Farming Minister no less who spoke of his own concerns over the UK’s pesticides policy when having been a Minister at DEFRA, including the closeness between the Government regulators for pesticides (the Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD), formerly the Pesticides Safety Directorate) and the pesticide companies they are supposed to regulate.

It should be noted that such closeness has now been highlighted even further considering the recent appointment of the former Director for many years of pesticides safety at the CRD, Dave Bench, and who has just started his new post as Chief Executive of the Crop Protection Association that represents the pesticide companies’ interests. I mean that really is the appointment to top all revolving doors by a long way!

During the debate on pesticides at the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill in July, Lord Whitty did not hold back when he said, “When I more or less did the Minister’s job 20 years ago, I inherited the responsibility for pesticides, and I was concerned then about the degree to which the pesticide industry influenced the regulatory structures… There was a degree of producer capture, and that anxiety has not gone away…” 

‘Whistleblower’

This was recently echoed in a rather extraordinary email I received from a former senior civil servant who worked at various Government agencies – including DEFRA and HSE – and whose role was to advise/brief DEFRA Ministers on pesticides and who had to try and counter the very policy failings I was raising of the lack of human health protection.

The email from this former civil servant to me said, “I simply wanted to say two things: firstly, I’m very glad to see that you’re still fighting and campaigning – I could not agree more with the aims of your campaign. Also, I only wish now…that I had been at the time braver and more able to speak out against the mulishly aggressive intellectual dishonesty and subservience to the pesticides companies that was behind so much of what I was asked to do….I wish you every best for the future.”

Receiving an email like this from someone who has been tasked to specifically counter your campaign arguments is both heartening and infuriating, as the overwhelming feeling is – if only people would speak up and speak out on this public health policy failing sooner rather than later, as the health and lives of so many innocent people depend on those in a position to do so doing the right thing to secure our protection.

One such person who did do the right thing is DEFRA’s very own former Chief Scientist Advisor, Professor Ian Boyd. In an article in ‘Science’ in 2017 (when still in post in the top science job at DEFRA) he issued a damning assessment of the regulatory approach worldwide for pesticides sprayed on crops including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” has been ignored; and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change. He has since repeatedly advocated that pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems. When I highlighted his comments at a meeting in 2018 with DEFRA Minister George Eustice he said he agreed with that position (not that that has been reflected of course in any way, shape or form in the Agriculture Bill in its current form!)

Amendment 78

So back to the House of Lords and in particular the man who really has become the champion for fighting for protection for us rural residents and communities, Lord Whitty.

Following the Committee Stage in July the Agriculture Bill is now back again in the House of Lords for the Report Stage. Lord Whitty has re-tabled his crucial amendment (listed as amendment 78) for the protection of human health from agricultural pesticides entitled “Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health.”

This amendment – which is due to be voted on by the House of Lords tomorrow – has full cross party support from Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb of the Green Party, Lord Randall of Uxbridge from the Conservatives, and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville who is the Lib Dem Spokesman for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Amendment 78 is related to prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near – (a) any building used for human habitation, (b) any building or open space used for work or recreation, or (c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to, schools and childcare nurseries, and hospitals.

Amendment 78 to the UK Agriculture Bill. Click to Enlarge.

The same amendment for the protection of rural residents and communities also received widespread support across the House of Lords at the earlier Committee Stage.

During the debate on this amendment at that earlier Committee stage in July, Lord Whitty also said,

“Much of the Bill is about the protection of wildlife, the health and welfare of farm animals, biodiversity, plant conservation, and water and air quality, but there is little recognition of the terrible damage to humans of ingesting chemical pesticides directly into their lungs, eyes and bloodstream. Many chemicals used in agriculture, including on UK farms and elsewhere, can, on their own or in combination, cause the breakdown of parts of the human immune system. They can poison the nervous system and cause cancer, mutations ​and birth defects. Rural residents are well aware of the problems. Campaigners on this have dossiers on rural families who have suffered, and I shall give your Lordships a couple of examples of the testimonies.  

One is from a woman in the countryside in the north of England: “I have brought up my family of three next to a frequently sprayed arable field. On many occasions, the spray has gone over the children as they’ve played. It has covered our washing and gone through our windows. We are long-term tenants on this land, yet we are treated as if this has nothing to do with us. We do not know what these chemicals are, only that the farmer, when mixing them and pouring them into his tank, wears full protective clothing and then sits in a protected cab.” 

Another says: “I live in a rural area and have done all my life. The spraying of crops has been carried out almost daily. I suffer from two chronic diseases, one of which is likely to be fatal.” 

Another resident says: “My neighbour sprays so close we can sometimes feel the drops on our faces and there is nothing we can do. My children are at risk.” 

Lord Whitty also pointed out in the debate that, “There is no need for any more proof that such chemicals are dangerous, particularly to those who are frequently exposed.”

And he also stated that, “It is wrong to claim that the EU or UK systems are safe. In particular, they do not protect those who live close by…This amendment would at least have the effect of protecting residents and the public from the hazardous health impacts of spraying near buildings and spaces used by the public. Ultimately, we need to see a longer-term strategy to develop non-chemical methods of crop protection, but this is an improvement that we can impose now, and one which should be part of the Bill.”

Co-signer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb also reinforced the vital importance of such protection and said, “Banning the application of pesticides in areas of human habitation, work and education will directly protect people from their toxic consequences.” 

Co-signer Lord Randall of Uxbridge stated, “We have talked about the need to look after biodiversity and the environment, but what could be more important than the health of fellow human beings?”

Labour front bench support

At the end of the debate on this amendment at Committee stage in July, the Shadow Spokesperson for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Baroness Jones of Whitchurch pledged full support for Lord Whitty’s amendment which she pointed out focuses “on the impact of pesticides on human health, which is, rightly, also a great cause for concern.”  

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch then said, “My noble friend Lord Whitty also raised the concerns of those living in rural areas adjoining fields where crops are being sprayed, sometimes indiscriminately. They come with health warnings that are rarely shared with the local population. Clearly these practices can cause substantial pollution, not only to the individuals concerned but to the air quality in nearby areas. It was notable that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, rightly pointed out the irony that water courses seem to be better protected than human beings. As my noble friend Lady Henig said, it is a sad fact that the health impacts of these chemicals often become clear all too late in the day,” and then stated again that the amendment is a “reasonable prospect, on any measure.” 

Government inaction

The only notable line from the DEFRA Minister in response to the debate was stating that the Government agrees that pesticides should not be used where they may harm human health. Yet it’s a matter of fact that agricultural pesticides are used where they are not only a clear risk to health, but worse still, where they are harming human health.

As detailed in my previous article, rural residents and communities across the UK continue to be adversely impacted by the cocktails of pesticides sprayed on crops in our localities with thousands of reports of various known acute and/or chronic health effects.

Indeed, there are now nearly 12,000 people, the majority of which are affected UK residents, who have signed the petition to the Prime Minister and DEFRA Secretary that calls for the same protective measures that are contained in the vital amendment 78.

The petition has been supported by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, DEFRA non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, amongst others.

While operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and will be in filtered tractor cabs when spraying pesticides – rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all. To see an example of the spraying of agricultural pesticides in the locality of the home and garden of one family (see video here).

Further, the exposure and risk for rural residents and communities is from the actual release of cocktails of harmful agricultural pesticides into the air where people live and breathe – as once pesticides have been dispersed they are airborne droplets, particles and vapours and are in the air irrespective as to whether there is any wind or not. Indeed volatilization (ie. vapour lift off) can occur days, weeks, even months after any application further exposing those living in the locality and which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with wind!

Scientific studies have found agricultural pesticides transported in the air at high levels, including considerable distances from where pesticides were originally applied.

The UK Government’s stated position that pesticides are strictly regulated and scientific assessment shows that there are no risks to people and the environment is simply not correct considering that since 2009 EU (and UK equivalent) laws have legally defined rural residents living in the locality of pesticide sprayed crops as a “vulnerable group” recognised as having “high pesticide exposure over the long term,” and further, the risks of both acute and chronic effects of such exposure is again recognised in Article 7 of the EU Sustainable Use Directive.

Rural residents are thus clearly at high risk of harm and yet EU and UK equivalent laws stipulate that there must be no harm to human health in any capacity.

Adverse health impacts

High quality, peer-reviewed scientific studies and reviews have concluded that long-term exposure to pesticides can damage the function of different systems in the body, including nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, renal, cardiovascular, respiratory systems.

Such studies have concluded that exposure to pesticides is associated with a wide range of chronic diseases including, cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, brain (including childhood brain cancer), kidney, testicles, pancreas, oesophagus, stomach, bladder, bone, as well as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, soft tissue sarcoma, leukaemia, (including childhood leukaemia).

Other chronic health impacts that pesticides have been associated with in studies include, birth defects, reproductive disorders, neuro degenerative diseases (including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)), cardio-vascular diseases, respiratory diseases, diabetes, chronic renal diseases, and autoimmune diseases (such as rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus).

The economic costs of the health conditions that pesticides can cause are massive. Obviously it goes without saying that the personal and human costs to those suffering chronic diseases and damage, and the impacts on all those around them, cannot be calculated in financial terms. Yet if such harmful agricultural pesticides were not sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, schools etc. then such pesticide related health conditions would clearly be preventable.

Even based on the acute effects reported by residents and which the Government itself already monitors and records cases on (including acute effects such as chemical burns to the eyes and skin; rashes and blistering; damaged vocal chords; difficulty swallowing; respiratory irritation; breathing problems; asthma attacks; headaches, dizziness, nausea; vomiting; stomach pains; flu-type illnesses; and aching joints), then immediate action is supposed to be taken, as any reports of any adverse health effects, whether they are acute or chronic, are not supposed to just be accepted by Government when pesticide laws clearly require there to be “no harmful effect” on human health.

Reports of acute and chronic harm for rural residents and communities have existed for decades and the only way to prevent such harm occurring and protect human health is to prohibit the use of agricultural pesticides in the locality of where rural communities are present, as no pesticides should ever have been permitted to be sprayed in the locality of such unprotected people.

Securing protection for rural residents

Amendment 78 therefore provides an opportunity to get support in the House of Lords for securing such health protection, especially for the most vulnerable groups such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those already ill and/or disabled – none of whom should ever have been exposed to these poisons in the first place!

Further, as DEFRA Minister Lord Gardiner said during the Committee Stage debate (when referring to a different issue, to do with diet and healthy eating) it is important that people are in the best health possible considering Covid 19 – as anyone with underlying health conditions is susceptible to the virus – and yet agricultural pesticides are already known to cause damage to the immune system, respiratory system, nervous system etc. Thus action to protect rural residents is also vital in the current climate of Covid-19 of needing people to be in the best possible health and not compromised from synthetic pesticides and other agro chemicals harmful to health.

Amendment 78 is the only amendment that can provide actual protection for rural residents and communities and secure the health of this highly vulnerable group.

Whether amendment 78 is voted through does now appear to hinge on what the Labour front bench (led by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, along with Lord Grantchester and Baroness Wilcox of Newport) decides to do. Having fully and firmly supported this same amendment at Committee Stage, there is no doubt these peers will most likely be coming under huge pressure from various parties to not support amendment 78, including the farming unions and other business interests, as well as certain pesticide NGOs (that for many years have waged rather staggering and orchestrated attempts to hijack and confuse the residents issue and weaken the protection requirement needed).

All that the many thousands of rural residents and communities affected by this scandalous protection failure can hope for now is that the House of Lords in general votes in the interests of human health rather than in the interests of other sectors.

Will the House of Lords do the right thing and vote in favour of finally protecting rural residents and communities from the cocktails of toxic pesticides sprayed on crops?

Rural residents across the UK are very much hoping the House of Lords will help put an end to this scandal!

• Georgina Downs is a journalist and campaigner. She runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, which specifically represents rural residents affected by pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, among other areas.

Sustained—and financed—largely on the promise of spectacular success at some unidentified point in the future, the research and development of new types of GMO foods, made with a whole host of new genetic engineering technologies, has gathered pace in recent years.

These days, without most people being aware of it, genetic engineering is spreading from the crops in the field to the animals in the barn.

Using new genome editing (sometimes referred to as “gene editing”) techniques like CRISPR, biotech breeders are proposing to breed a brave new world of farm animals that don’t get sick, don’t feel pain and produce more meat, milk and eggs at a lower cost than ever before.

Not many NGOs are currently working on this issue and it can be hard to find good information to help make sense of it all. But two recent reports provide in-depth information on the mechanics as well as the ethical issues around gene-edited farm animals.

One, from Friends of the Earth, entitled “Genetically Engineered Animals: From Lab to Factory Farm,” is an extensively referenced report that provides key background information and highlights the urgent need for safety assessments of genome-edited animals.

The other, “Gene-edited Animals in Agriculture,” is a report from a day-long roundtable in June 2019, co-hosted by my organization, Beyond GM, and Compassion in World Farming in the UK. The roundtable involved individuals representing a wide range of perspectives. What emerged was a fascinating glimpse into not only the technology, but also the ethics and values systems that underpin that technology.

If you are new to the subject of genetically engineering farm animals for food, if it concerns you or if you just want to know more in order to be an informed consumer, these two reports provide an important starting point.

What are gene-edited animals?

Gene editing is a type of genetic engineering. It is used as an umbrella term for a suite of new technologies, of which CRISPR is the most well-known.

With gene editing, as with older genetic engineering techniques, the organism’s genetic material is changed directly and artificially, by humans using laboratory techniques. This means that gene editing, like other forms of genetic engineering, produces GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

Currently, research priorities for gene-edited animas focus largely on a few high-value animals. Pigs are the priority farm animal, followed by cattle and poultry. Genome-edited fish—particularly salmon and tilapia—are also being developed.

How is gene editing being used on farm animals?

Much of the current research and development is focused on health problems in farm animals raised in intensive, industrial systems. Genome editing has been proposed as a way to protect animals from disease by altering their immune response to diseases like PRRS (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome) and ASFv (African Swine Fever) in pigs and ISA (Infectious Salmon Anemia, or “salmon flu”) in farmed salmon.

Researchers are also looking at creating animals with desirable commercial attributes, such as the ability to produce more muscle mass (meat) while consuming less feed.

They are also looking for ways to adapt animals to their environments, such as cattle with “slick” coats that protect them from extreme heat.

These problems targeted by the biotech industry are real. But most of them are also manmade—a consequence of the crowded factory farm conditions in which the animals are raised, and the spread of industrial livestock operations into geographical areas (e.g. tropical climates) not well suited to this kind of farming.

Poor health in animals often arises as a result of the systems in which they are kept. Gene editing should not be used to address diseases that primarily arise from keeping animals in stressful, crowded conditions. Such diseases can, and should be tackled by improving things like housing and hygiene, and lowering stocking densities, before turning to selective breeding – of any kind.

What advantages are claimed for gene-edited farm animals?

Genome editing has been proposed as a solution for sustainably feeding a growing world population. Producing animals that grow faster and eat less, argues the biotech industry, reduces input costs for the farmer and, on a global scale, helps reduce the amount of crops diverted to livestock as feed, and may also help to reduce the impact of industrial meat production on global warming.

Gene-editing could be used to control reproduction, for instance to produce more female dairy cows (thus more milk) or more female chickens (more eggs). “Gender skewing” in this way, say biotechnologists, has the added bonus of lowering the number of male cows and chickens culled shortly after birth.

There are also claims that genome editing could be used to “edit out” animals’ ability to feel pain and stress. This, it is argued, would reduce the animals’ suffering in factory farm conditions. Opponents argue, however that this is unethical, reduces the animals to little more than a machine and furthers the interests of those who support factory farming.

Another major argument for gene editing is that it can speed up the breeding process—producing in 2 years an animal that might take 10-15 years via traditional breeding.

This notion of speed, however, may be misleading. Although genome editing is promoted as a fast technology with limitless possibilities, no gene-edited animals have yet made it into farms or the food chain.

Most of the “innovations” you read about in the media are based on studies performed to show what might be theoretically, technically possible. These PR stories are often released by research institutions as a way of attracting the interest of funders that might be interested in financing further work.

But if gene editing can help relieve animals’ suffering, isn’t that a good thing?

Most researchers involved in this work (as opposed to the large biotech companies that eventually market the finished product) are concerned for animal welfare and believe that what they are doing will help animals.

It is worth remembering that those involved in conventional selective breeding believe that they, too, are doing “good.”

However, decades of evidence show that selective breeding for specific traits can have a negative impact on animal health, including skeletal and metabolic diseases, lameness, reproductive issues and mastitis.

The fact is, the more we breed animals to be little more than “production units” in industrial farms, the less likely it is to benefit the animal—whatever the method.

How successful have attempts at gene editing been so far?

Results in animals thus far are not as predictable or reliable as researchers had hoped.

For example, a recent Wall Street Journal investigation reported unintended effects including enlarged tongues and extra vertebrae.

Brazil’s plans to breed hornless dairy cattle, gene-edited with TALENs were recently abandoned when a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that one of the experimental animals contained a sequence of bacterial DNA that included a gene-conferring antibiotic resistance. In theory, this antibiotic-resistance gene could be taken up by any of the billions of bacteria present in a cow’s gut or body—and from there be spread beyond the farm.

Other recent research has shown that edited mouse genomes can acquire bovine or goat DNA. This was traced to the standard culture medium for mouse cells, which contains DNA from whichever animal species it may have been extracted from. This mix-and-match DNA is potentially a problem for other genome-edited animals, too. And it raises some urgent questions about authenticity and traceability.

Studies like these, which are appearing with ever-greater frequency, suggest that the science of genome editing in animals is a long way from providing watertight solutions to the problems associated with factory-farmed animals.

Are there any gene-edited animals on the market now?

Although it is promoted as a fast technology with limitless possibilities, genome-edited animals have yet to appear on farms or in the food chain.

The only genetically engineered animals currently on the market is the GMO salmon on sale in Canada and the U.S. This was produced using older style genetic engineering.

Can we achieve the same improvements in farm animals with traditional breeding?

Conventional breeding can also produce robust animals that are suited to their geographical locations. Both farmers and consumers are showing increasing interest in these kinds of “heritage breeds.” And supporting them also helps to protect the diversity of the animal gene pool.

Conventional breeding also has the advantage of not requiring complex regulation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is currently trying to “simplify” things by proposing that it, rather than the FDA, should have oversight on genome-edited animals and that these animals should be exempt from regulation.

Given the scientific uncertainty around genetically engineered animals, this kind of blinkered rubber-stamping should alarm consumers.

Surely, gene editing is just another tool in the toolbox. Is it right to discount it entirely if one day it might be a useful tool?

Most people agree that our food system is no longer functioning optimally, that it needs to change and is, in fact, changing. Genetic engineers believe that they have something that can help agriculture change. They often refer to gene editing as a “tool in the toolbox.”

This suggests that rather than being a universal panacea, genome editing may be a technology with useful but limited applications and several caveats—i.e. you don’t use a wrench when you need a hammer.

Arguably, more important than the “tool” is the “toolbox” itself, which is what we use to frame our questions, the points of reference we use and how we organize our thoughts.

All over the world, the “toolbox” is the intensive, industrial farming model—these days referred to as “sustainable intensification.” This model drives much of the thinking and decision-making around agriculture and agricultural policy.

In a world where agroecology and regenerative farming are the dominant systems, decisions around genome editing, about when—or indeed if—it is needed might look very different.

There is now a large body of opinion suggesting that, whichever yardstick is used—welfare, sustainability, environment, nutrition—the industrial farming system is damaging and outdated.

If we envisage the future of farming where the industrial model will continue to dominate, then genome editing may take on a more prominent role.

However, if we envisage a future for farming as largely agroecological, and invest in and work conscientiously towards that kind of system change, then it is possible that gene editing won’t have a role to play.

In that future, instead of creating genetically engineered animals to fit into factory farms, we will develop sustainable and ecological animal agriculture systems that support animal welfare, preserve and restore biodiversity and protect public health.

• This article first appeared on the Organic Consumers Association website.

The study suggests that by restoring biodiversity, we can vastly enhance the soil’s potential to store carbon.

That’s good news for the climate. And there are co-benefits: healthier, more resilient soil and plants, not to mention wildlife habitats.

Scientists have long believed that soil aggregates—clusters of soil particles—were the principal locations for stable carbon storage. These clusters develop when tiny particles of soil clump together.

Mycorrhiza—the microscopic fungi which live in healthy soils—produce sticky compounds that help “glue” these clusters together helping to stabilize and protect the carbon particles inside them.

Now, a recent study out of the Michigan State University (MSU) Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, suggests that this soil clustering is most efficient when soil has a healthy “pore structure.” And the key to a healthy pore structure is plant biodiversity.

According to the report, soils from restored prairie ecosystems, with many different plant species, had many more pores of the right size for stable carbon storage than did a pure stand of switchgrass.

Pores and clusters

Soil pores are the spaces between soil clusters (soil without pores is basically rock!). The pores are formed by the movement of roots, fungi, worms and insects, and by expanding gases trapped within these spaces.

The amount of carbon that soil can hold depends on the type of soil—and soil type also affects porosity and carbon storage.

Clay-based soils, for instance, hold organic carbon for longer than sandy soils. The ins and outs of this “carbon budget” are also affected by regional climate, how often the soil is disturbed and even the levels of organic material, which in turn are influenced by  the health and diversity of in the soil.

A connected network

Soil pores, large and small, form a connected network underground and are important because they are reservoirs for groundwater and for the oxygen that plants need to thrive.

But what the MSU scientists found was that they also provide the optimal micro-environment for accumulating carbon.

Over a period of nine years, the researchers studied five different cropping systems in a replicated field experiment in southwest Michigan. Of the five cropping systems, the two with the highest plant diversity had many more pores of the right size for stable carbon storage.

According to Alexandra Kravchenko, MSU professor in the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences and lead researcher on the project:

“What we found in native prairie, probably because of all the interactions between the roots of diverse species, is that the entire soil matrix is covered with a network of pores. Thus, the distance between the locations where the carbon input occurs, and the mineral surfaces on which it can be protected is very short.”

That, he says, means that a lot of carbon is being stored in the prairie soil. In contrast he noted that in monoculture switchgrass the pore network was much weaker, so the microbial metabolites had a much longer way to travel to the protective mineral surfaces.

Monocultures of corn were even worse at storing carbon than the switchgrass.

The upshot is that while we tend to think the best way to put more carbon in soil is to have plants produce more biomass, either as roots or as residue left on the soil surface to decompose, a focus on plant diversity may be a more effective and elegant long-term solution.

Fast and slow cycles

That’s because soil is dynamic. In any field there are likely to be several different natural carbon cycles operating simultaneously at any one time.  Carbon in the soil is made up of different types of organic materials at differing stages of decomposition. In terms of carbon turnover and storage, these materials fall into three broad categories, or pools: “fast pools,” “slow pools” and “stable pools.”

For climate change mitigation slow and stable pools are key.

Some carbon, in the form of plant residues and the carbon secreted by plant roots, will only stay in the soil for a short time—weeks to years—before it is emitted back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. This fast pool is necessary, in part, because it provides an important source of energy for soil microorganisms.

The “slow pool,” where carbon can remain for years to decades, is made up of processed plant material, microbial residues leftover from the fast pool, and carbon molecules that are protected from microbes in soil clusters. This pool helps to maintain soil structure and the distribution of soil nutrients.

A third “stable pool” is made up of decomposed organic material—humus—as well as soil carbon that is well protected from microbes. It can be found below one meter deep and can retain carbon for centuries to millennia.

There is also a fourth “pool” of what’s known as recalcitrant organic carbon, made up of organic material that doesn’t decompose.

We can do better

We can’t rely on soil as our only means of climate change mitigation. Nor can we escape the fact that climate and soil are locked into a kind of push–me-pull-you battle. The more our climate changes, and the more heat and drought we experience, the more soil structure will be affected. making it harder for soil to sequester carbon.

Under these circumstances more soil carbon will enter the “fast pool” cycle releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

But we can keep learning about our soil and how it works, and use this knowledge to help make it much more efficient and impactful in terms of the carbon it can sequester. One way to do this is through careful and conscious land management.

Better farming, grazing practices are key

A 2017 study estimated that with better management, global croplands have the potential to store an additional 1.85 gigatons carbon a year. That’s equal to the annual emission of the global transportation sector.

While the capacity of soil to store carbon isn’t infinite, some scientists believe our global soils could continue to sequester carbon at this rate for 20 to 40 years before becoming saturated. Plenty of time for us to get our collective act together on lowering global emissions.

Farmers can help soils reach their carbon storage potential by planting cover crops, practicing crop rotation, rotational grazing and agroforestry, minimising tillage and using green and animal manures. All of these things, which are key activities of organic and regenerative farmers, help slow down carbon turnover and encourage sequestration.

An added bonus is that carbon storage isn’t just something we do for the future. It directly benefits farmers today by improving soil fertility, reducing erosion and increasing resilience to droughts and floods.

Healthy soil also produces healthy plants—which means better nutrition for all of us.

Regenerative farmers know that healthy soil doesn’t just help us fight climate change. Improving biodiversity, soil structure and workability and the level of nutrients in our foods it will also help us adapt to and survive it—and that really is a future worth fighting for.

• This article first appeared on the Organic Consumers Association website.

Just a few years ago the idea of genetically engineered farm animals seemed like science fiction to most consumers. But it’s a sign of how powerful the industry has become, and how quickly the science is advancing, that we’ve reached the stage where regulators are having to draft new regulations to deal with the influx new applications.

Behind the scenes there have been squabbles over not just what the regulations will say, but which government department should take the lead.

Meanwhile, “pharm” animals – animals genetically engineered to produce drugs – have been around since for more than two decades. But the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption – GMO salmon – was only recently approved. More are on the way, at an alarming pace, and without adequate testing and consideration for the impact these GMO foods will have on human health and the environment, much less for the animals themselves.

Long and winding regulatory road

Currently genetically engineered animals are under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – it was the FDA that last year approved genetically engineered salmon. Recently, acting Commissioner Ned Sharpless admitted that the Agency has had to take on more staff just to deal with the scientific evaluation of these biotech creations.

In the background, however, there are questions about why the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which would normally claim jurisdiction over meat products, has been blocked from taking charge or even sharing jurisdiction with the FDA. With lab grown meat, for example, the two agencies have recently agreed to share regulatory oversight.

Regulation of GMO crops is also shared. The FDA, for instance, is responsible for regulating the safety of GM crops that are eaten by humans or animals, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates biopesticides – crops genetically engineered to expresses a pesticide trait such as the Bt toxin – and the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) regulates the planting, importation or transportation of GM plants.

This “coordinated framework” is vital because genetic engineering in food is a disruptive technology that crosses multiple regulatory borders. Yet the FDA now strongly rejects the idea of sharing the regulatory burden of gene edited animal products with other agencies, even though this contradicts previous statements about its commitment to working closely with other agencies.

Since drugs require a higher evidentiary standard than foods, the FDA approach could be good news.  But decades of hard lessons from GMO crops suggest that how these new gene-edited animals are evaluated, what evidence is considered and, importantly, what is rejected, what resulting regulations permit and don’t permit and who ultimately benefits from them should be of concern to every single consumer.

How did we get here?

The USDA’s 2018 decision not to require labels on food created using so-called “new” GMO techniques – now referred to as ‘gene editing’ – would seem to stand in stark contrast to the position of the FDA, which contends that animals whose genomes have been similarly re-engineered should go through a rigorous evaluation before being released onto the market.

But take a closer look at how the regulatory landscape has evolved over the last few years and it’s easy to see how the two agencies have been in lockstep (intentionally or otherwise) to ease older-style GMOs into the market and deregulate the newer, gene-edited products. U.S. regulatory agencies apply different rules for genetic engineering, than they do for gene-editing technologies, such as CRISPR. However, as this Friends of the Earth report indicates, not everyone agrees that the two technologies differ enough that one should be more scrutinized and regulated than the other.

In November 2015, for instance, the FDA gave its first approval for the AquAdvantage Salmon, genetically engineered to grow twice as fast as natural salmon.

By 2016, Congress made the USDA the leading player in the labeling of genetically engineered food.

In 2017, the FDA issued new guidance for the regulation of gene-edited animals stating that all animals whose genomes have been intentionally altered in this way will be evaluated for safety and efficacy under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

By late 2018, the USDA had issued its controversial final rule for the labeling of genetically engineered foods, widely thought to be a disaster for food transparency – not the least because it uses the term “bioengineered,” or BE rather than the commonly understood term “genetically engineered.”

Although the AquAdvantage salmon is included on the USDA’s list of BE foods that must be labeled, numerous loopholes in the rule mean that products made with genetic engineering or containing GMOs will not be labeled. In addition, AquaBounty won’t be required label the salmon as a GMO food until 2022.

In response to the USDA’s new powers over labeling, in March 2019, then-FDA Commissioner Gottlieb reversed the regulation prohibiting the importation of AquAdvantage salmon, effectively opening up U.S. markets to the GMO fish. This means there could, in theory, be a period when the fish are on sale—but not labelled.

Around the same time Gottlieb launched a Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan, a PR offensive to engage “stakeholders.” The plan included public webinars on animal genome editing, and a whole slew of guidance documents on the benefits of plant and animal biotechnology.

The GMO salmon is not produced using newer gene-editing techniques. For these foods – including those from gene-edited animals – the USDA, as already stated, is taking a hands-off approach.

In March of this year, only a few months after the USDA said it would not require labeling on gene-edited foods, Calyno soybean oil made from a gene-edited soybean had the dubious distinction of being the first unlabeled gene-edited food to come on the U.S. market.

‘Pharm’ animals

With hindsight the progression seems obvious. But why is livestock intended for human consumption regulated as a drug? The FDA says it is because “an rDNA construct that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of the resulting animal meets the definition of a drug.”

That may be true but, in reality, the FDA framework provided by the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is also the only one currently in play.

What many consumers don’t realize is that FDA has been regulating animals this way for a decade.

In fact the agency issued its first draft guidance on how transgenic animals (animals genetically engineered with a gene from one or more foreign species) should be regulated as animal drugs in 2008. This decision paved the way for the approval of farm animals genetically re-engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs.

The first commercial drug produced in this way, ATryn, an antithrombotic (a drug used to prevent blood from clotting) derived from the milk of genetically engineered goats, was approved in February 2009.

Worldwide, there are now ongoing experiments with genetically engineered animals – some of which are being designed as living, breathing bioreactors for producing drugs at industrial scale in their milk, eggs, blood and urine. This is known as “pharming.”

Current FDA guidance for consumers on gene-edited animals makes it clear that there is little to no difference in the way the FDA regulates pharm animals and those intended for the human food chain.

ATryn was only the beginning. In 2014, the FDA approved Ruconest, a drug collected from the milk of genetically engineered rabbits and used to treat hereditary angioedema (swelling under the skin, triggered by an allergy to animal dander, pollen, drugs, venom, food or medication).

In 2015, the FDA approved a genetically modified chicken that makes a drug called Kanuma, used to treat lysosomal acid lipase deficiency – a rare genetic condition that prevents the body from breaking down fatty molecules inside cells.

There are also experimental cows genetically engineered to produce human antibodies.

The big advantage of these innovations, say biotech companies, is lower production costs. Once the animal is reengineered it can simply keep pumping out drugs for the cost of maintaining chickens and goats in cages and pens.

The regulatory framework already in place for these “pharm” animals is undoubtedly what put the FDA in position to take the lead with regard to all genetically engineered livestock.

Is it different for animals?

The regulatory approach to gene-edited non-human animals stands in stark contrast to our precautionary approach to the idea of gene-edited humans. In both cases gene editing has been proposed as a way of altering things like appearance, vulnerability to disease and gender.

For instance in 2018, Chinese biophysicist, He Jiankui, claimed he created the first genetically modified babies. His goal was to gene-edit embryos using CRISPR to give them the ability to resist HIV infection. The claim prompted an international outcry about ethics and safety.

The PR around gene-editing suggests that the technology is precise enough to target only specific areas of the genome. Other claimed benefits center on the idea that gene editing does not involve the insertion of foreign genes, or transgenes. Instead it either uses genes from related species (cis-genes) or simply snips out specific genes (known as ‘knock-out). This latter claim is somewhat misleading since new technologies like CRISPR can also be used to produce transgenic plants and animals.

How much we are willing to believe in these benefits, depends to a large extent on how much we are willing to buy in to the same tired mindsets that underpin older types of genetic engineering. Chief among these is the scientifically-flawed notion that single genes have single functions and that genes are like Lego bricks where you can simply replace a red brick with a yellow one without consequence.

In the case of the gene-edited babies, a group of scientists and bioethicists from seven countries has recently called for a “global moratorium” on gene editing that can lead to changes that can be passed on to offspring. The scientists noted that even efforts at simple genetic corrections, for instance, in order to cure a disease, can have unintended consequences.

For example, a common variant of the gene SLC39A8 decreases a person’s risk of developing hypertension and Parkinson’s disease, but increases their risk of developing schizophrenia, Crohn’s disease and obesity. Its influence on many other diseases and its interactions with other genes and with the environment, they said, remains unknown.

Unintended consequences

Is it so different for non-human animals?

That’s not a question that has benefitted from much examination. But recently, when Chinese researchers engineered rabbits to make them meatier, the animals developed enlarged tongues; similar experiments on pigs led some to develop an additional vertebrae.

Sheep gene-edited to produce a particular colour of wool had more spontaneous abortions; calves in Brazil and New Zealand, genetically engineered to be less vulnerable to heat stress, died prematurely.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of these adverse effects is that they aren’t unique to genetically engineered livestock.

Genetic selection for high milk yield is the major factor causing poor welfare and health problems in dairy cows. Breeding hens to produce more and more eggs causes osteoporosis creating a substantial risk of fractures, as well as lameness. Likewise, breeding pigs for rapid growth leads to leg disorders and cardiovascular malfunction.

Our system for producing livestock is very broken. But instead of fixing the system, genetic engineering aims to better adapt the animals to crowded, filthy and inhumane living conditions and further entrench a factory farming system that is not fit for a humane and sustainable society.

Slow down the conversation

Gene-editing and other technologies clearly pose a challenge for regulators. Legislative definitions can quickly become obsolete with every new technological development. And in the rush to finalise our regulatory approach, the current debate about genetically engineered livestock seems to skip over several key issues.

It underrepresents the best interests of the animals and fosters the notion that animals which fail to thrive in factory farm conditions as somehow genetically inadequate. Frustratingly, given the potential for distressing side effects, it avoids the question of why the re-engineering of non-human animals is being given less ethical consideration than the re-engineering of humans.

It also hides the real lack of diversity among those academics driving the debate.

For example, a Google search on the topic of gene-edited animals for food will turn up a disproportionate amount of articles by or featuring Dr Alison Van Eenennaam, a specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology at the University of California, Davis—and a former Monsanto employee.

Van Eenennaam believes that requiring regulation for genetically engineered animals is “insane” and has a particular interest in using CRISPR, to eliminate the horns of dairy cows and to breed all-male terminator cattle that will produce only male offspring—a project she calls “Boys Only.” While she is often presented as an independent, one-woman advocate for gene-edited animals, documents acquired by US Right to Know have shown that she coordinates with agrichemical companies and the PR companies on messaging.

That messaging supports the notion of “substantial equivalence” between GMO and non-GMO organisms and thereby discourages research that could provide meaningful insights into the risks that re-engineering an animal at the cellular level may entail for the animals, or for those consuming their meat, milk and eggs.

Importantly it deepens the schism between public concerns about safety, ethics and environment and the academic/scientific/regulatory discussion which is centred mostly on expediency and the profits to be made from tech ‘innovation’.

Regulators around the world are grappling with these issues, while being pressured by industry to come up with quick solutions. It’s worth asking, however, whether the sense of urgency is real or manufactured and whether, given how much there is still to learn, a slower and more nuanced conversation – combined with a moratorium on gene-edited livestock – might shine much needed light on some important issues and produce a better outcome for the animals and for consumers.

• This article was first published on the Organic Consumers Association website. It is reproduced here with permission.

Much recent attention has focused on how microplastics – tiny pieces ranging from 5 millimetres down to 100 nanometres in diameter – are filling the seas and working their way into the creatures that live in them. That means these ocean microplastics are entering the food chain and, ultimately, our bodies.

But fish and shellfish aren’t our only food sources that can contain microplastics. And, in fact, other sources that don’t come from the sea might be much more worrying.

A portion of consumer-grade mussels in Europe could contain about 90 microplastics. Consumption is likely to vary greatly between nations and generations, but avid mussel eaters might eat up to 11,000 microplastics a year.

It’s harder to know how many microplastics we might be consuming from fish. Most studies to date have only analysed the stomach and gut content of these organisms, which are usually removed prior to consumption. But one study has found microplastics in fish liver, suggesting particles can get from digestive tissues to other body parts.

Microplastics have also been found in canned fish. Numbers identified were low, so the average consumer might only eat up to five microplastics from a portion of fish this way. The particles found might also come from the canning process or from the air.

Another marine food source of microplastics is sea salt. One kilogram can contain over 600 microplastics. If you eat the maximum daily intake of 5 grams of salt, this would mean you would typically consume three microplastics a day (although many people eat much more than the recommended amount).

However, other studies have found varying amounts of microplastics in sea salt, possibly because of different extraction methods used. This is a widespread problem in microplastics research that makes it hard or impossible to compare studies. For example, one study seems to only have looked for microfibres (tiny strands of artificial materials such as polyester) while a further study only looked for microplastics larger than 200 micrometres.

The sea salt study mentioned above didn’t attempt to remove and count all the microplastics from its salt samples and instead gave an estimate based on the proportion of particles that were recovered. This means it showed 1 kilogram of salt contained at least 600 microplastics – but the actual figure could be a lot higher.

Non-marine sources

Despite these findings, other research demonstrates that far more microplastics in our food are likely to come from other sources than the sea. Land animals also eat microplastics although – as with fish – we tend not to eat their digestive systems. There’s limited data about this part of the food industry, but a study of chickens raised in gardens in Mexico found an average of 10 microplastics per chicken gizzard – a delicacy in some parts of the world.

Scientist have also found microplastics in honeyand beer. We might be swallowing tens of microplastics with each bottle of the latter.

Perhaps the biggest known source of microplastics that we consume is bottled water. When researchers examined a variety of types of glass and plastic water bottles, they found microplastics in most of them. Single-use water bottles contained between two and 44 microplastics per litre, while returnable bottles (designed for collection under a deposit scheme) contained between 28 and 241 microplastics per litre. The microplastics came from the packaging, which means we could be exposing ourselves to more of them every time we fill up a plastic bottle in order to reduce waste.

There is also evidence that microplastics in food come from indoor dust. A recent study estimated that we could get an annual dose of almost 70,000 microplastics from the dust that settles on to our dinner – and that is only one of our daily meals.

So, yes, we are eating small numbers of microplastics from marine products. But it may only take drinking a litre of bottled water a day to consume more microplastics than you would from being an avid shellfish eater. And the other question scientists have yet to answer when it comes to microplastics in our food is how much harm they actually do

• Christina Thiele is a PhD Candidate in Marine Microplastics, University of Southampton; Malcolm David Hudson is an Associate Professor in Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton.
• This article originally appeared on The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission.

The health risk presented by air pollution depends on how much dirty air we breathe over time. Pollution levels in UK cities regularly exceed the limits set by the World Health Organisation. But people’s exposure to pollution can vary greatly between people living on the same street, or even the same house.

Currently, health authorities estimate exposure to air pollution based on outdoor pollution at a person’s home address. But we don’t just sit outside our front doors all day – we each follow our personal daily schedules. The environment at home, in transit and at work or school all affect our exposure to pollution. Knowing this can help governments to create more effective policies and provide better advice to the public on how to reduce their exposure.

By equipping volunteers with portable pollution sensors, scientists have shown that exposure to air pollution during the day can vary substantially. For example, commuting during peak hour can account for a significant proportion of the pollution we’re exposed to – even though commuting only takes up a small part of our day.

By contrast, being indoors is often associated with lower exposure to pollution, because buildings provide some protection against outdoor pollutants. But gas cookers, wood burners and household cleaning products can also create high levels of indoor pollution.

How habits influence exposure

With all these different sources and levels of pollution around us, our daily activities and habits have a big influence on how much polluted air we breathe. Even couples who live together can have different exposures: a person who stays at home may experience up to 30% less pollution than their partner who commutes to work.

A 24-hour measurement of a person’s pollution exposure, which varies throughout the day. McCreddin et al., CC BY-SA

Small changes in our daily routines can significantly reduce our exposure to air pollution. In a study in London, participants were able to decrease their exposure during commuting by 25% to 90% by choosing alternative routes or modes of transport. Active commuters who walk or cycle are usually less exposed to pollution than people travelling by car or bus – this might be because vehicles travel in a queue, so air pollution from the vehicle directly in front gets drawn in through ventilation systems and trapped inside. The air is also much cleaner on overground trains than on the underground.

Displaying public information about pollution hot spots and ways to avoid them can help. The Wellbeing Walk is a signposted backstreet walking route taking ten to 15 minutes between London’s Euston and King’s Cross stations, which exposes walkers to 50% less pollution than the main road. Since its launch in 2015, the number of people taking the healthier path has tripled. There need to be many more initiatives like this in cities.

Modelling human movements

Being able to tell when and where people are most exposed to pollution makes it possible to compare the benefits of different solutions. That’s why scientists have created computer models to simulate different scenarios. By combining information on outdoor pollution, pollution on transport and people’s travel routes, these models help us understand how people’s movements contribute to their personal exposure.

Computer exposure models for cities, including London, Leicester and Hong Kong among others, are beginning to give us a better picture of how people are exposed to harmful pollution. But the answers they provide are often complicated.

For example, the model for London suggests that on average citizens are exposed to less pollution than previously estimated. But many individuals still experience extremely high pollution during long periods on transport – so a lengthy commute by car, bus or underground could mean you’re among the most affected.

What’s more, the model does not yet account for pollution created indoors through cooking or wood burning. Including these additional sources of pollution may well shake up the results.

More data, please

The UK’s clean air strategy aims to halve the number of people exposed to particulate pollution above World Health Organisation guidelines by 2025. But surprisingly little is known about pollution levels inside our homes, schools and workplaces. If the strategy is to meet its goal, the government will need more data and better methods to estimate people’s exposure to air pollution.

Any model needs to be confirmed using actual measurements, to ensure we can trust what the model predicts about our exposure. Although the technology is advancing, portable pollution sensors are still bulky and heavy. Recruiting volunteers to carry these sensors wherever they go can be difficult. Phone-integrated sensors could make this easier in the future, but their reliability is still debated among scientists.

Improving outdoor air quality is currently a top priority in cities across Europe – and rightly so. But measurements and computer models are indicating that our exposure to pollution is much more varied and complex than currently estimated. We should build on this knowledge to develop measures that deliver the greatest reduction in human exposure and empower citizens to make healthier choices in their daily routines.

• Johanna Buechler is an Air Quality Policy Researcher at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Research Associate, UCL
• This article first appeared on The Conversation. It is reproduced here with permission.

This matters because such insects are critical both for the reproduction of wild plants and for agricultural food production.

The decline of these pollinators is linked with destruction of natural habitats like forests and meadows, the spread of pests such as Varroa mite and diseases like foulbrood, and the increasing use of agrochemicals by farmers. Although there have been well documented declines in managed honeybees, non-Apis (non-honeybee) pollinators such as bumblebees and solitary bees have also become endangered.

There are more than 800 wild (non-honey) bee species in Europe alone. Seven are classified by the IUCN Redlist as critically endangered, 46 are endangered, 24 are vulnerable and 101 are near threatened. Collectively, losing such species would have a significant impact on global pollination.

Though much of the media focus is on honeybees, they are responsible for only a third of the crop pollination in Britain and a very small proportion of wild plant pollination. A range of other insects including butterflies, bumblebees and small flies make up for this pollination deficit.

Not all pollinators are created equal

Pollinators also vary in their effectiveness due to their behaviour around flowers and their capacity to hold pollen. Bigger and hairier insects can carry more pollen, while those that groom themselves less tend to be able to transfer pollen more effectively. Bumblebees, for example, make excellent pollinators (far superior to honeybees) as they are big, hairy and do not groom themselves as often.

Where they are in decline, honeybees suffer primarily from pests and diseases, a consequence of poor nutrition and artificially high population density. This differs from other pollinators, where the decline is mainly down to habitat destruction. It seems pesticides affect all pollinators.

Curiously, the issues facing non-Apis pollinators may be exacerbated by commercial beekeeping, and attempts to help honeybees may even harm efforts to conserve wild pollinators.

The problem is that there are only so many flowers and places to nest. And once the numbers of honeybees have been artificially inflated (commercial-scale beekeeping wouldn’t exist without humans) the increased competition for these resources can push native non-Apis pollinators out of their natural habitats. Honeybees also spread exotic plants and transmit pathogens, both of which have been shown to harm other pollinators.

Over the coming decades, farmers and those who regulate them are faced with a tough challenge. Agricultural output must be increased to feed a growing human population, but simultaneously the environmental impact must be reduced.

The agriculture sector has tried to address the need to feed a growing population through conventional farming practices such as mechanisation, larger fields or the use of pesticides and fertiliser. Yet these have contributed to widespread destruction of natural landscapes and loss of natural capital.

Limited resources and land use pressure require conservation strategies to become more efficient, producing greater outcomes from increasingly limited input.

Cooperative conservation

So-called agri-environment schemes represent the best way to help insect pollinators. That means diversifying crops, avoiding an ecologically-fragile monoculture and ensuring that the insects can jump between different food sources. It also means protecting natural habitats and establishing ecological focus areas such as wildflower strips, while limiting the use of pesticides and fertilisers.

As pollinating insects need a surprisingly large area of land to forage, linking up restored habitats on a larger scale provides far more evident and immediate benefits. However, so far, connections between protected areas have not been a priority, leading to inefficient conservation.

We need a substantial shift in how we think about pollinators. Encouraging land managers to work cooperatively will help create bigger, more impactful areas to support pollinators. In future, conservation efforts will need to address declines in all pollinators by developing landscapes to support pollinator communities and not just honeybees.

• Philip Donkersley is a Senior Research Associate in Entomology, Lancaster University
• This article originally appeared on The Conversation. It is reproduced here with permission

The court’s decision is a big win for public transparency and a firm rejection of the Trump administration’s position that it can unilaterally decide whether to withhold government documents from public and court review.

In 2015, the FDA approved a GE salmon made from the DNA of three different animals: Atlantic salmon, deep water ocean eelpout, and Pacific Chinook salmon. The GE version is intended to grow faster than conventional farmed salmon, reportedly getting to commercial size in half the time.

Even though this is the first time any government in the world has approved a GE animal for commercial sale and consumption, so far the FDA has taken a lackadaisical approach to evaluating the salmon’s potential for harm to wild salmon and the environment. If the GE salmon were to escape, it could threaten wild salmon populations by outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, by mating with endangered salmon species, and by introducing new diseases.

The world’s preeminent experts on GE fish and risk assessment, as well as biologists at U.S. wildlife agencies charged with protecting fish and wildlife, heavily criticized the FDA for failing to evaluate these impacts. But the FDA ignored their concerns, so in March 2016, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the agency.

As part of the lawsuit, the FDA is required to compile a record of documents that illuminate the path the agency followed to reach its decision to approve the GE salmon—much like a student is required to show their work for a math problem in middle school.

A complete record is essential in all cases. But it is especially important here because the FDA has so far refused to release most of the documents related to its decision, despite repeated requests for that information from Earthjustice’s diverse set of clients under the Freedom of Information Act.

The public has a right to know how the agency came to this seemingly ill-informed decision, especially because the FDA’s approach will likely serve as a precedent for the assessment of future GE food animals. Withholding that information is illegal because government agencies like the FDA are funded by taxpayer dollars, which means that any records they create, with only limited exceptions, can and should be available to the public and to citizens seeking to hold the government accountable in court.

In January 2017, a US District Court judge agreed, concluding that “the government is wrong to assert that these types of materials…should be excluded” from the record. The FDA is now required to fully complete the record with all relevant documents no later than July 2017. Several months later, the FDA asked the appeals court to override that judge’s decision.

In its petition, the administration made a sweeping argument, with severe ramifications for effective court review of government actions—that defendant agencies can determine unilaterally what information to give to courts reviewing their decisions, and do not have to disclose any internal materials, even if the agency considered those materials in its decision. If adopted, this view would have had far-reaching consequences for public review of agency decisions that have major impacts on everyday life.

The FDA is now required to fully complete the record with all relevant documents. The district court is expected to set a deadline after a hearing in late February. In addition to working to ensure the timely completion of that process, Earthjustice will thoroughly review the full basis for the agency’s decisions.

“Our courts provide a level playing field where not even the federal government is above the law,” says Earthjustice attorney Steve Mashuda. “Federal agencies cannot avoid accountability by omitting inconvenient facts and presenting a fictional account of their decisions.”

• This article was originally published under the title ‘Judges to FDA: Government Must Pull Aside Curtain on Genetically Engineered Salmon’ on the Earthjustice website. It is reproduced here with permission and with a short summary for ease of reading.
• For more on this story see our article: US gives the OK to GMO salmon.