Hygeia AnalyticsLogo

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About Hygeia
    Analytics
    • Dynamic Presentations
    • Keywords and Site Map
    • Hygeia Analytics – Who We Are
    • Why Hygeia?
    • Funding and “Sound Science”
    • Acronyms and Glossary
    • Sign-Up for Updates
  • Nutrition
    • Introduction and Nutrition 101
      • Good Fat Bad Fat
      • Fatty Acids
        • Primer on the Fatty Acids in Milk
      • Impact of Livestock Feeding
    • Antioxidants
      • Organic Farming Elevates Antioxidants
      • Maximizing Antioxidant Intake
    • Organic vs. Conventional Foods
      • Milk and Dairy Products
        • 2018 Grassmilk Paper
        • PLOS ONE Study
        • Dairy Meta-Analysis
      • Multi Food Meta-Analyses
        • Meat Products
        • Plant-Based Foods
        • Smith-Spangler et al.
        • Dangour et al.
        • The Organic Center Report
      • Food Specific Comparisons
        • General
        • Fruits and Vegetables
        • Wine and Wine Grapes
    • Considering Nutritional Quality
      • Impact of Genetics and Production Systems
      • New Tool for Food Security
      • Transforming Jane Doe’s Diet
      • Nutritional Quality Index
    • Nutrient Decline
    • Other Choices and Challenges
      • Human Health
      • Dietary Choices
  • Pesticides
    • Usage
      • Pesticide Use Data Sources
        • Pesticide Use Indicators
      • PUDS – The Pesticide Use Data System
    • Dietary Risks
      • The Dietary Risk Index (DRI)
    • Risk Assessment and Regulation
      • Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
      • Glyphosate/Roundup Case Study
      • The Lowdown on Roundup
      • Does Glyphosate/Roundup Cause Cancer?
      • 2019 Glyphosate Genotoxicity Paper
    • Impacts of GE on Pesticide Use
    • Environmental, Human Health, and Other Impacts of Pesticides
  • Ag Biotech
    • Key Historical Documents – Donald Duvick
    • Key Historical Documents – Arpad Pusztai
    • Herbicide Resistant Crops
    • Weed Resistance
    • Bt Transgenic Crops
    • Resistant Insects
    • Health Risks and Safety Assessments
    • Regulation of GE Crop Technology
    • Marketing, Economics, and Public Relations
    • Patenting and Intellectual Property Issues
    • Labeling
  • Other Issues
    • Animal Products
    • The Future of Food
    • Global Food Security
    • Natural Resources and Climate Change
    • Alternatives to Industrial Ag
    • Policy and Politics
    • Scientific Integrity
    • Soil Health
    • Yields
  • Recent Posts
    • Hot Science
    • In The News
    • Hygeia’s Blog
  • Special
    Coverage
    • Organic Apples in Washington State
    • Dicamba Drift Crisis
    • Organic Food Consumption Lowers Cancer Risk
    • Organic Integrity

Dow Seeks Expansion for Neonic Replacement Sulfoxaflor, Despite EPA Classification of “Very Highly Toxic”

Posted on October 17, 2018 in Environmental Impacts, In The News, Pesticides | 945 Views

With neonicotinoid insecticides under fire for contributing to pollinator decline, Dow AgroSciences is pushing its sulfoxaflor insecticide as an alternative.

As Environmental Health News reports, Dow applied to the EPA for an expansion of the registration of sulfoxaflor to allow use on “rice, avocados, residential ornamentals and at tree farms and greenhouses.”

Courts ordered Dow to include label language about the danger sulfoxaflor insecticides pose to bees and other pollinators.

But, is this new insecticide safer than the neonics it is trying to replace?  Studies have shown that sulfoxaflor also harms pollinators, such as this research published this summer that documented a 54% decline in offspring in bumblebee colonies exposed to the insecticide (Siviter et al., 20

Plus, sulfoxaflor has a rocky regulatory history.  Classified in EPA’s own studies as “very highly toxic” to bees, Dow’s first labels were approved in 2013 — “Transform” and “Closer.”  The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned this registration in 2015 after a lawsuit, finding that the labels didn’t do enough to prevent harm to bees and other pollinators.

It was registered again in 2016 with added label language prohibiting use “on crops attractive to bees before and during bloom” and when bees are actively foraging (very similar to standard language on neonicotinyl labels).  In the interim, EPA has also allowed many Section 18 (of FIFRA) “emergency exemptions,” resulting in over 17 million acres of farmland being treated with sulfoxaflor over the past couple of years (Bienkowski, 2018).

With mounting data pointing to serious pollinator decline, EPA’s inclination to allow wider use of sulfoxaflor is a classic example of “risk trading.” It is also why, despite all the evidence of pesticide-induced pollinator decline, the “spray our way out” approach to pest and weed management remains regrettably central to modern agriculture in America.

Sources:

Brian Bienkowski, “Dow wants to bolster use of a pesticide shown to hurt bees’ reproduction,” Environmental Health News, published online October 16, 2018.

Harry Siviter, Mark J. F. Brown & Ellouise Leadbeater, “Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee reproductive success,” Nature, 561, 109–112, 2018.

 

 

Posted in Environmental Impacts, In The News, Pesticides | Tagged Bees, Neonicotinoids, Pesticide Impacts, Policy and Politics

Related Posts

Will This 9th Circuit Order Finally Get Chlorpyrifos Out of the Food Supply?→

FAQs re Biden-Harris Ag and EPA Transition Priorities→

Implications of EPA’s Decision to Renew Dicamba Registration for Over-the-Top Use→

Neonic Seed Treatments in the (Science) News→

Dr. Benbrook Testifies Before the Philadelphia City Council as they Consider Glyphosate Ban→

Guest Blog: The Big Meat Gang Is Getting Awfully Smelly→

Why Promoting Organic Integrity Must Become a Top Priority for USDA→

Guest Blog: Finding the Root Cause of Organic Fraud→

©2016 Hygeia-Analytics.com. All Rights Reserved.

Menu