The Global Fool

our planet is our village

Global Threats: Children’s Exposure to Toxic Pesticides
May17

Global Threats: Children’s Exposure to Toxic Pesticides

By Roberta Attanasio In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a policy statement to outline the harmful effects of pesticides in children, and to make recommendations on how to reduce exposure. According to the statement, prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems. In addition, the statement pointed out that recognizing and reducing children’s exposure to pesticides requires improved medical training, public health tracking, and regulatory approaches, and made recommendations on specific actions that should be taken to decrease such exposure. Despite the recognition of the dangers associated with pesticide use, and the AAP recommendations on limiting children’s exposure, not much has been done since 2012 — indeed, it’s likely going to get worse before it gets better. The AAP recommended that pediatricians should ask parents about pesticide use around the home and yard, offer guidance about safe storage, and recommend parents choose lowest-harm approaches when considering pest control. Are pediatricians following these recommendations? At this time, let’s say this is an open-ended question — although we may guess what the correct answer is. Let’s now move from the local (the American Academy of Pediatrics – AAP) to the global (the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations – FAO). According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), nearly 100 million boys and girls between 5 and 17 years old are engaged in child labor in agriculture. Many are directly exposed to toxic chemicals while working on the farm — however, children are also exposed when they help with family chores or play, and through the food they eat and the water they drink. Exposure can result in acute poisoning and sickness immediately after contact. But often, it also has longer-term, chronic impacts on their health and development. Children are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure for various biological and behavioral reasons. They breathe in more air than adults and so take in more dust, toxic vapors, and droplets of spray. Relative to their body weight, children need to eat and drink more than adults, and if food is contaminated, they absorb more toxins. The surface area of a child’s skin per unit of body mass is greater than that of an adult, and their skin is more delicate. All these factors can lead to greater absorption of chemicals, and children’s organs are less able to detoxify pesticides because they are not yet fully developed. Now, recognizing that education is crucial to limit exposure to pesticides (as stated by the AAP in 2012), FAO and ILO extension workers in Africa and elsewhere are engaging with rural communities to reduce...

Read More
Circular Economy: Turning Waste into Resources
May09

Circular Economy: Turning Waste into Resources

By Roberta Attanasio We take, we make, we dispose — in this daily process, we deplete irreplaceable natural resources and generate not only massive waste, but also extensive environmental and health hazards. Our current economy — or linear economy — is based on the take-make-dispose approach. However, this approach is not sustainable. We need to ask ourselves a crucial question: how can we generate clean prosperity today, while preserving resources and ecological functions for use by future generations? In other words, how can we build a sustainable economy? The answer is: we can do so by adopting a new approach, one based on the so-called circular economy. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a circular economy is one that is restorative by design, and which aims to keep products, components and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles. In the circular economy, materials and products are reused, repaired, refurbished and recycled. Waste can be turned into resources. The inspiration for the circular economy approach is nature. Waste does not exist in nature, because ecosystems reuse everything that grows in a never-ending cycle of efficiency and purpose. Thus, the circular economy approach is based on an economic system in which no materials are wasted. In such a model, “Instead of selling products, we should retain ownership and sell their use as a service, allowing us to optimize the use of resources. Once we sell the benefits of the products instead of the products themselves, we begin to design for longevity, multiple reuse, and eventual recycling. This requires a new generation of materials as well as innovative development and production processes. In addition, we need to define new business models and redefine the concept of legal ownership and use, public tendering rules, and financing strategies. And we need adaptive logistics and a leadership culture that embraces and rewards the circular economy.” The video below, by the European Commission, is a fascinating tour of different creative approaches that are now being used to move towards a circular economy....

Read More
Neonicotinoid Pesticides: Bad for Bees, Bad for Many Other Species
May06

Neonicotinoid Pesticides: Bad for Bees, Bad for Many Other Species

By Roberta Attanasio Do neonicotinoid pesticides harm bees? According to scientific evidence, the answer is “yes”. Indeed, scientific evidence for the toxic effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees is accumulating at an increasing pace. And, on the basis of scientific evidence, the European Commission banned in 2013 the use of three neonicotinoids — clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam — on flowering plants. The ban was motivated by findings from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); these findings were based on the evaluation of the scientific studies available at the time. Now, a report from the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) emphasizes that bees are not the only species affected by the use of these pesticides. The report is based on the findings of an international group of independent scientists with expertise ranging from pollination biology through systems ecology to toxicology. According to the report, there is more and more scientific evidence that widespread use of neonicotinoids has severe effects on species that are important for pollination, natural pest control, and soil productivity. For example, predatory insects such as parasitic wasps and ladybugs that aid in pest control, and earthworms that improve soil productivity, are all harmed. In addition, neonicotinoid use has a negative impact on biodiversity. Neonicotinoids are neurotoxic (poisonous to nerves or nervous tissue of insects and other organisms), and act systemically in the plants — their solubility in water allows them to be absorbed and spread via the plant’s vascular system to all of its tissues. They reach leaves, flowers, roots and stems, even pollen and nectar, and become toxic not only to sap-sucking pests such as aphids or mealybugs, but also to any other species that harvest the different parts of the plant. In addition, exposure is possible across trophic levels, as for example in the case of bees foraging on honey dew, predators exposed through ingesting prey, or soil organisms decomposing contaminated organic matter. There is also evidence for sub-lethal effects of very low levels of neonicotinoids, over extended periods of time, on non-target beneficial organisms. Repeated sub-lethal doses may eventually become deadly once a certain threshold is passed. The EASAC report acknowledges that use of all pesticides is based on the balance between the desired effect on food production and the inevitable risk of collateral damage to non-target species and the environment. However, for neonicotinoids, scientific evidence accumulated over the last two years suggests that, rather than balance, there in imbalance —  the risk of collateral damage is too high when compared to the benefits. Peter Neumann, EASAC’s Chair of the Working Group, wrote in an article published in the journal Nature that the...

Read More
Clean Air: The Effects of U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standards on Human Health
May04

Clean Air: The Effects of U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standards on Human Health

By Roberta Attanasio A little more than a year ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that in 2012 around 7 million people died — accounting for one in eight of total global deaths — as a result of exposure to air pollution. These estimates more than doubled the previous ones, and confirmed that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. The WHO concluded that reducing air pollution globally could save millions of lives. But, what policy changes would be most effective at saving lives? The answer comes from a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change (May 4, 2015.) The study, (US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits), was based on data from the Census Bureau as well as detailed maps of the more than 2,400 fossil-fuel-fired power plants operating across the U.S. It outlines how changes in carbon dioxide emissions could lead to considerable health benefits for the U.S population. According to the WHO, the diseases caused by air pollution include ischemic heart disease (40%), stroke (40%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11%), lung cancer (6%), and acute lower respiratory infections in children (3%). For the new study, the researchers analyzed three possible policy options for power plant carbon standards. The policy option leading to the biggest health benefits was the one that included changes proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 2, 2014, in the Clean Power Plan. Modeling analysis indicated that this option could prevent an expected 3,500 premature deaths in the U.S. every year, and avert more than a thousand heart attacks and hospitalizations annually from air pollution-related illness. Thus, according to the study, the formula presented in the draft Clean Power Plan is on the right track to provide large health benefits, and these health benefits depend entirely on critical policy choices that will be made by the EPA in the final Clean Power Plan expected in July. The Plan is the nation’s first attempt to establish standards for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. It is also viewed as an important signal of U.S. leadership in the run-up to international climate negotiations in Paris in December. Jonathan Buonocore, one of the researchers involved in the study, said in a press release: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Power plants are the nation’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change. However, they release not only carbon dioxide, but also other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter — precursors to smog and...

Read More
Global Threats: Contamination of Surface Waters by Agricultural Insecticides
Apr26

Global Threats: Contamination of Surface Waters by Agricultural Insecticides

By Roberta Attanasio The use of agricultural insecticides — toxic substances developed to target and kill insects that damage crops — has sparked controversy since the dawn of the “chemical age”, which started in the 1950s. The benefits of agricultural insecticides — for example, increased food production — are undeniable. Unfortunately, along with benefits, there are considerable unwanted effects. Ideally, insecticides must be lethal to the target insects, but not to non-target species. However, these toxic substances do not target only insects — they target many more organisms, including man. Thus, the toxic brew of agricultural insecticides threatens the ecological integrity of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Indeed, agricultural systems play a significant role in global environmental degradation — among other harmful effects, they drive the loss of aquatic biodiversity. In 2013, a team of researchers from German and Australian institutions showed that the loss of aquatic biodiversity in regions of Germany, France, and Australia, is primarily due to the disappearance of several groups of species — stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies, and dragonflies — which are especially susceptible to insecticides. These insects are important members of the food chain right up to fish and birds. Despite these worrisome results, the degree of insecticide contamination worldwide was unknown until two weeks ago, when results from a new study (Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale) showed that surface water pollution resulting from the current use of agricultural insecticides constitutes an excessive threat to aquatic biodiversity. For the new study, researchers at the Institute for Environmental Science of the University of Koblenz-Landau evaluated, for the first time, comprehensive global insecticide contamination data for agricultural surface waters. They examined 838 studies conducted between 1962 and 2012 and covering 2,500 aquatic sites in 73 countries, using the legally-accepted regulatory threshold levels (RTLs) as defined during the official pesticide authorization procedures. The researchers found that insecticide contamination occurs rarely in the aquatic environment — only an estimated 2.6% of the samples contained measurable levels of insecticides. However, for the sites containing insecticides, the results were alarming — more than 40% of the water-phase samples, and more than 80% of sediment samples in which insecticides were detected, yielded concentrations that exceeded the respective RTLs. They concluded that insecticides pose substantial threats to the biodiversity of global agricultural surface waters and that the current regulatory risk assessment schemes and pesticide authorization procedures fail to protect the aquatic environment. Ralf Schulz, one of the researchers, said in a press release: “Potential reasons for these findings are failures of current risk assessment procedures, or the non-adherence of farmers to pesticide application prescriptions.” It is likely that the global picture emerging from the...

Read More