policy

November 22 2017

NC Pesticide Board Meeting Notes

November 14, 2017

12:30 – 4:30 PM

Governor James Martin Building

NC State Fairgrounds

In attendance: Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair and presiding); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Don Rodgers; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary); Ms. Mary P. Kelley

Not in attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chair)

Ethics Reminder

Dr. Scarborough reminded the member to avoid conflicts of interest and/or appearance of conflicts of interest. No members acknowledged conflicts of interest.

Introduction of new Board Member – Mary P. Kelley

Dr. Scarborough introduced Mary P. Kelley who was introduced as the new member of the NC Pesticide Board to represent NC Department of Environmental Quality.

Consider Board minutes from the June 8, 2017 meeting

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is and Mr. Rodgers seconded that motion. Unanimously approved.

HB 74, Agency Rules Review Update – Jim Burnette, SPC&PD

HB 74 requires a periodic review of all rules by the enforcement agency. The Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (DOA&CS) had proposed to the Pesticide Board the staff’s classification of the rules as “necessary with substantive public interest”; “necessary without substantive public interest”; or “unnecessary”, which the Board approved. This approval also allowed for the DOA to published the rules on an agency website for public comment. All comments will then come back to the Board, and then a final decision will be made.

Mr. Rodgers moved that the rules be published for public comment. Dr. Scarborough seconded. Unanimously approved.

Pollinator Outreach Update & PETF Request for DriftWatch and Pollinator Outreach – Patrick Jones, SPC&PD

Mr. Jones gave an update on outreach for the Division’s pollinator protection program that has been going on since June 2014. The goal of this outreach initiative is to increase communication between beekeepers, pesticide applicators, farmers, and landscapers. The Division’s strategy is to get beekeepers to register their hives on BeeCheck, which is a program of DriftWatch, so that applicators can check for hives in the area before they apply pesticides.

Mr. Jones asked the Board for an additional $6,500 for the annual fee to use DriftWatch, $1,500 for publications and “Get to Know Your Beekeeper/Farmer/Applicator/Landscaper” pamphlets, and $2,000 for outreach materials. The total proposal was for $10,000 from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund (PETF).

Dr. Kirkman made a motion to approve the proposal for $10,000 from the PETF. Dr. Hudak-Wise seconded the motion. Unanimously approved.

Auxin Technologies Update – Dr. Alan York, NCSU

Dr. Alan York of the Weed Science Department at NC State University gave a summary about the training that they offered this year on auxin technologies, lessons learned, and next steps. Auxin technologies allow use of dicamba and 2,4 D on cotton and soybeans, which are not new products. Auxin technologies (Xtend – dicamba resistant and Enlist – 2,4D resistant) allow the use for longer period of times and on more land.

Dr. York expressed that many broadleaf crops are extremely sensitive to some of these products, and that many growers did not know this, or didn’t respect it. Last summer, Dr. York felt like it was time to do some outreach and education as to not make the same mistakes as some growers did in the mid-South.

Overall, in the 2017 growing season, there were few complaints from drift of dicamba (15 complaints) that were reported to the DOA&CS. Eight incidents were involving drift onto tobacco, and no official complaints of vegetables or homeowners. Dr. York felt these could be explained by spray drift by growers that were not paying attention to wind speed, direction, etc.

Dr. York discussed how the EPA is examining the label for dicamba and are expected to reduce the maximum wind speed when the chemical can be applied, time of day that the chemical can be applied, and a few other things. Dr. York and DOA&CS will monitor the exact language and develop outreach as they understand the breadth of the proposed changes.

Monitoring Surface Water for Pesticides – John Allran, SPC&PD

Mr. Allran explained the potential changes that made be made through a collaboration with NC DOA&CS, DHHS, and DEQ. This new system would use the current Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) Program to sample and evaluate newer pesticides through randomly sampling 30 streams across the state twice a year. Currently, RAMS evaluates 88 pesticides, but fewer than half of the pesticides are currently registered for use in NC. The Quality Assurance manager with NCDEQ, Nick Jones, wants to streamline this current list and make sure that it is testing for relevant pesticides.

To help to classify the ~900 active ingredients that are registered for use in NC, the DOA&CS developed a methodology that will break down these chemicals into low, moderate, and high risk to aquatic species. This was done through a formulation examining run-off potential through soil adsorption (mobility) and soil metabolism half-life (persistence). The DOA&CS also examined EPA toxicity data on various species of fish and aquatic invertebrates to rank the mortality from exposure as a measure of acute toxicity. Through this system, out of 373 pesticide active ingredients registered for use in NC, 88% rank as moderate or high risk to aquatic species.

Mr. Allran suggested that DEP will use the RAMS Program to collect samples, the DHHS will analyze the samples for 148 pesticides, and potentially more, and the results will be used to compare to EPA Aquatic Life Benchmarks, make management decisions, focus on outreach and education, support enforcement, and report to EPA for use in risk assessment, registration, and label amendments process.

The Pesticide Board members were supportive of the initiative, but no formal action was required.

Settlement Agreements

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division, v.

Public Comment – Bev and Scott Veals

Bev and Scott Veals of Carolina Beach spoke to the Board about a current situation with a neighbor that uses pesticides to chemically mow his yard. They have had ongoing problems with this neighbor for years and have complained on numerous occasions to the DOA&CS about potential violations.

Mrs. Veals is a three-time cancer survivor who has chemical sensitivity due to her radiation therapy. Mr. Veals has spoken with the neighbor on numerous occasions to try to find a compromise on when he can spray chemicals and Mrs. Veals wouldn’t be exposed; however, the neighbor is insistent that he will continue to spray even if that means that Mrs. Veals will be exposed.

Mrs. Veals feels that this is not a unique problem in neighborhoods across the state and wanted to reach out to the Board about potential for collaboration on education and outreach. The Board was receptive to this and felt it appropriate to continue the conversation.

August 28 2017

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

The first time I learned about food stamps, I was six years old and starting the first grade in a new state. Our family, having just moved from Pennsylvania to North Carolina, was gradually becoming accustomed to the grocery store “giants” of the south. I formed a list in my head of all the new company names—Lowes Foods, Harris Teeter, Kroger, and Food Lion. The list sounded more like an inventory of foreign animals, set with their respective genus and species, than a compilation of grocery store names. Among the disarray of learning new street names and retail shops, I overheard my parents discussing another unfamiliar word, food stamps. I asked my father if grocers stamped our food and if the ink would get into our mouths when we ate it. Though my father laughed and assured me that we weren’t eating ink-saturated food, there were other hidden dangers in the food we purchased. We were just unaware of them at the time.

What my family, and millions of other families across the United States, didn’t know was that a dangerous chemical known as Bisphenol-A, or BPA, inhabited several packaged food and drink items, including bottled water and canned foods. This consumer ignorance was recently highlighted in a news report that aired on CBS in which reporter Steve Sbraccia discussed the hazards of purchasing canned products containing BPA. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) states that “the primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through the diet.” Presently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assumes that “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods” and fails to consider the long-term effects of BPA on the human body. According to a study published by Environmental Health Perspectives, BPA exposure increases estrogen sensitivity in the mammary gland, demonstrating that responses to BPA are potent in pubescent phases but most potent in prenatal stages. By assessing only acute toxicity, the FDA is choosing to ignore the neurological and reproductive effects of BPA that occur over time and harm many, especially infants and children who are most sensitive to toxins.

Today, despite the persistence of environmental organizations and the public to remove BPA from numerous products, BPA persists in the lining of several canned food items found in local grocery stores. According to a study published in 2015 by the Breast Cancer Fund, over 67% of canned food products from the 192 that were tested contain BPA. Among those tested are canned items from local retailers like Kroger and Harris Teeter. 13 out of 21 cans tested from Kroger and 2 out of 6 cans tested from Harris Teeter contained BPA.

Canned products are often more cost efficient, which may be more appealing to low income consumers or consumers who receive federal aid much like my family did. In many cases, purchasing cans is more convenient to the average, time-conscious consumer who would rather buy canned beans than boil and soak dried beans overnight. Most consumers, however, unknowingly purchase canned items that may contain BPA. My grandmother, a native to Mexico, purchases cans of pickled jalapeños from a company named Conservas La Costeña, sold in local grocery stores. My mother purchases La Costeña whole black beans. In the Breast Cancer Fund’s 2015 report on BPA, 1 out of 1 of the Conservas La Costeña cans tested and 2 out of 2 of the cans tested from their parent company Vilore Foods contained BPA.

While we may not be physically consuming “ink-stained food” like I feared when I was six years old, local grocery stores such as Kroger and Harris Teeter continue to market items that contain BPA in their can linings. In a recent study conducted by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) from January to April 2017, 252 canned items were tested for BPA across eleven states, including North Carolina, and 38% of those cans contained BPA. Of the four major retail stores tested—Kroger, Albertsons, Dollar Tree, and 99 Cents Only—24 of the 73 canned items from Kroger, approximately 33%, contained BPA. Despite a decrease of BPA found in canned items, about a 1.8% reduction since 2015, several canned products sold in local grocery stores still contain BPA, potentially triggering endocrine disruption and other health concerns.

Those most likely to purchase canned items—and, thus, those more likely to be exposed to these toxins—are low-income or fixed-income consumers. According to a 2016 survey published by the AARP Foundation, individuals aged 50 and above that purchase canned items have an average annual income of $40,000 or less. These consumers identify their chief motives for purchasing canned products as “easy/quick preparation” and “long shelf-life.” A study published by Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) indicates that males, individuals from rural and low-income areas, and individuals aged 50 or below have higher percentages of BPA concentration in their bodies. These individuals are also more likely to not have proper health insurance providing access to a doctor for preventative treatment. In order to reduce the toxics exposure, local grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Kroger should aim to eliminate products containing BPA from their shelves or at least include warning labels to increase consumer awareness of these hazardous products. Regardless of whether you use food stamps to purchase food, you are hyperconscious of time, or you enjoy the ease of purchasing canned items, you deserve to know what is in your food.

Click here to view Toxic Free NC’s BPA Policy Brief!

July 19 2017

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

In December of 2016, Gina McCarthy—the former administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA—delivered a letter to the current administration of the EPA, petitioning a delay in the implementation of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Prior to this petition, most of the revised WPS was scheduled to officially go into effect on January 2, 2017. This petition proposed that the EPA place the implementation date behind a full year due to violations such as failing to provide adequate educational materials regarding WPS rule changes. In February of 2017, Barbara Glenn—the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, or NASDA—urged the EPA to publish an official letter relaying their agreement to delay implementation. Glenn requested that the EPA delay WPS until “adequate enforcement guidance, educational materials, and training resources have been completed and the state lead agencies have the tools, time, and resources necessary to effectively implement the rule changes and assist the regulated community with compliance activities.” The EPA is yet to publicly release an effective date for WPS since its recent decision to grant NASDA’s petition.

The most recent revision to WPS was published in the Federal Register in November of 2015, which aimed to strengthen protections for farmworkers and their families. Since 2015, there have been hundreds of incidents of pesticide exposure that have jeopardized the health and lives of farmworkers. In February of this year near Bakersfield, California, an aerial application of a fungicide was applied to an almond farm while six workers were still in the field. This farm failed to notify and remove their workers prior to application, needlessly exposing them to a harmful pesticide. Despite the $500 fine that was issued to the employer for violating WPS, it is impossible to reverse the harmful effects caused by pesticide exposure. In addition to this, in June of this year, two pesticide exposure incidents occurred on a farm in Watsonville, California within a week of each other. Over 25 farmworkers were exposed to harmful insecticides and fungicides in two separate cases of pesticide drift that occurred in rapid succession of one another. As a result, several farmworkers were hospitalized due to severe dizziness, eye irritation, and other symptoms of illness. Violations such as the ones in Bakersfield and Watsonville further indicate an importance for effective revisions and swift enforcement of the WPS, changes that may not be implemented in time to help farmworkers currently suffering from pesticide exposure in their day-to-day lives.

A new regulation under the revised WPS aims to lessen the burden of toxics exposure by addressing the issue of children having direct contact with pesticides. The EPA has included a “first-time ever minimum age requirement,” which states, “Children under 18 are prohibited from handling pesticides.” It has long been known that the developing organ systems of children often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The EPA recognizes that children are more susceptible to toxics exposure, because children take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults. Children under 18 are at a higher risk of becoming developmentally and cognitively impaired due to pesticide exposure. The new WPS rule change would reduce the negative effects of toxics exposure on children by prohibiting them from handling pesticides. The choice to delay implementation of WPS prevents employers from enforcing safety measures such as this one, harming children who continue to handle pesticides.

By delaying implementation of the revised WPS, the EPA is allowing farmworkers to continue to be exposed to pesticides while maintaining limited regulation. While the EPA has managed to implement a couple of changes to WPS in 2017, many changes still remain unaffected. According to their website, the EPA plans to execute three major changes under WPS on January 2, 2018. These requirements under the revised WPS are listed as the following: “pesticide safety training must cover the expanded content; pesticide safety information (posters) must meet the revised standards; and handlers must suspend applications if workers or other people are in the application exclusion zone.” New regulations under the WPS such as the suspension of pesticide application while workers or others are present will help minimize the risk of pesticide exposure. Ensuring that these requirements are enacted as soon as possible is the best way to protect farmworkers and their families.

June 26 2017

Notes by Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern, Toxic Free NC

In attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chairman); Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chairman); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Don Rogers; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Pat Jones (Substitute for the Secretary)

Not in attendance: Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Consider Board Minutes from March 14, 2017

Dr. Hudak-Wise moved that the minutes be approved as is, which was seconded by Mr. Rogers. This was unanimously approved.

Presentation by Dr. Gary Roberson (NCSU) titled, “Agricultural Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Technology”

Dr. Roberson, an associate professor in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at NC State University, presented on the various applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for commercial use. In UAV technology, sensing is used to monitor satellite imagery and other data in order to improve the agricultural landscape. Electronic sensors can track temperatures, decipher relative heat indexes, and gather soil properties. Dr. Roberson discussed several guidelines set by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for operating UAV technology at the commercial level, including the minimum age to obtain a license and where to access information on testing (see https://www.faa.gov/). Since this is an emerging technology, Dr. Roberson stressed the importance of educating the public on the requirements for a commercial license and application information.

The current options for UAVs are fixed wing, rotary wing, and hybrids. Fixed wing UAVs are smaller, electric-powered drones that possess the capacity for multiple sensors such as RGB, thermal, and hydro spectral cameras that can be used for gathering a wide range of data; this technology is an especially significant advancement in the surveillance and surveying world. Rotary wing is the most common among UAV users due to its various sensor controls and its vertical take off and landing, which requires less space and planning.

Dr. Roberson elaborated on the use of UAV technology to collect heat signatures of livestock and to track crop and plant health. In addition to this, Dr. Roberson mentioned the possibility of using UAV technology to monitor water quality at the state level in the future. UAV technology is helpful in identifying regions where crops have been negatively affected by natural phenomena such as disease, erosion, and microburst wind damage. Dr. Roberson concluded that UAV technology could assist farmers and crop scouts in discovering problems with crop growth in a timely manner to promote recovery.

Proposal for a Part-Time Bilingual (Pesticide) Specialist; Request for Funding

Mr. Pat Jones, the Deputy Director for Pesticide Programs, proposed that the board fund a part-time position for a bilingual specialist within the division. The bilingual specialist will translate and reproduce information on pesticide use (e.g. pest control and disposal) in documents such as exams, brochures, pamphlets, signs, and other outreach materials. The Title 6 Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that employers must provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency in the workplace. In an effort to reduce the chances of insubordination with Title 6 and to provide opportunities for all workers to access pesticide information, Mr. Jones urged the board to further consider funding the position for the proposed bilingual specialist, Carmina Hanson, a native Spanish speaker, at the requested amount. The proposed hourly rate for the part-time position was $24.50 for 20 hours per week, a yearly salary of $25,084.

Mr. Harding made a motion to accept the proposal, and Dr. Hudak-Wise made a motion to second it. The motion was unanimously accepted.

Proposal for the Production and Distribution of Pesticide Record-Keeping Manuals; Request for Funding

Dr. Wayne Buhler, the interim department head and professor in the Department of Horticultural Science at NC State University, proposed that the board fund the production and distribution of pesticide record-keeping manuals. The manual assists the private grower (primary audience) as well as the commercial applicator (see https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/north-carolina-agricultural-chemicals-manual/pesticide-use-and-safety-information) in regulating their pesticide use as well as providing detailed information on state and federal application restrictions. The manual is a simple way for the grower to monitor their pesticide use and to maintain written records of this information.

The record-keeping branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service and the USDA, no longer in existence, requested a revision of the manual to remove all North Carolina specific information in order for the manual to be used at the federal level. Dr. Buhler requested that the board fund the production and distribution of 15,000 revised manuals through the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for $44,400. In addition to the proposed funds from the board, the NC Agro Medicine Institute accepted Dr. Buhler’s proposal for assistance in funding the project.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Dr. Langley seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for a Design and Construct an Inexpensive Demonstration for Pesticide Storage, Mixing, and Loading Facility for Small Farmers; Request for Funding

Mr. Jerrold Moody, the Avery County Extension Director, proposed that the board assist in funding the design and construction of a facility for pesticide storage, mixing, and loading. Mr. Moody expressed concern regarding unsafe disposal methods in terms of the potential negative environmental and human health impacts. This facility would also serve as a means to promote educational awareness on pesticide disposal and storage. The proposed funding for the new pesticide facility was $15,360.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for WPS Respiratory Support; Request for Funding

Mrs. Jessica Wilburn (in substitution for Dr. Robin Marcom), a Nurse Coordinator at the NC Agromedicine Institute, proposed that the board fund supplies such as outreach materials, fit testing materials, and other educational materials to promote WPS respiratory support. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, workers must have a medical evaluation, be fit tested, and undergo respiratory training before operating a respirator and must maintain these record for at least two years. The proposed amount for funding ($30,000) would also cover translation, printing, and distribution services.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Settlement Agreements

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v. Violator

June 20 2017

By Patricia Patterson, Toxic Free NC Policy Advocacy Intern

In July of 2015, among growing concern for pollinator populations and the need for growers and beekeepers to communicate more effectively about pesticide application, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture requested $27,750 from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund to register the state for online mapping programs through FieldWatch. FieldWatch, Inc., formerly known as DriftWatch, is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting pollinator protection and human health and safety through the implementation of mapping registry programs. DriftWatch and BeeCheck are programs under FieldWatch, Inc. that map and track specialty crops and beehives. These online programs allow both organic and conventional farmers to register the location of their fields and/or beehives as well as access locations of surrounding fields and apiaries.

The FieldWatch map mimics Google Earth with registered locations displayed as color-coded pins. While it may be simple to filter between conventional and organic growing conditions and crop types on the map, users are deprived of distance accuracy in heavy-registered areas. Pesticide applicators may not access all surrounding apiary/field locations on FieldWatch due to the voluntary registration policy and location overload. Aside from the location pins on the map, FieldWatch does not provide a method for gauging the relative distance from an apiary or field to a user’s location, and it does not provide the exact location of a beehive (see Figure 1). Beekeepers may register several hives under one address, but FieldWatch does not monitor the exact location of each hive. Oversights such as these can lead to misinformation, pesticide drift, and can cause harmful pollinator and crop damage.

Figure 1. Registered Beehives in North Carolina (June 2017, retrieved from https://nc.driftwatch.org/map)

In North Carolina, approximately 34 fields are registered in FieldWatch as “organically grown” or certified organic; 16 of those are certified organic, and 18 are “organically grown.” About 250 fields are registered as “conventionally grown” (see Figure 2). Unlike organic farmers, conventional farmers apply synthetic chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides to their crops. The mishandling of pesticides by conventional farmers, including unregistered conventional farmers, can impact the health of pollinators in North Carolina and damage surrounding crops. The prevalence of conventional farming indicates a need for greater communication between beekeepers and farmers that choose to use pesticides, a need that may not be met due to the lack of total participation by all farmers and beekeepers in North Carolina.

Figure 2. Registered “Conventionally Grown” Crops in North Carolina (June 2017, retrieved from https://nc.driftwatch.org/map)

Thousands of North Carolinian farmers and beekeepers may not be registered in FieldWatch because of technological and educational barriers. FieldWatch states that those who do not own a computer should contact their state’s data steward to create an account. For non-computer users, this contact information, provided online under FieldWatch’s “Contact Us” page, may not be accessible. Potential users may also be unaware of FieldWatch due to its current voluntary policy for crop site registration and insufficient marketing for farmers without access to a computer. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture promotes the use of FieldWatch when they are doing outreach with beekeepers. This effort has led to the registration of 6,180 beehives, approximately 1,452 apiary locations, on FieldWatch. However, only a few hundred pesticide applicators have registered among over 50,000 farmers across the state. This is a prime example of how beekeepers disproportionately bare the burden of keeping their bees away from pesticides. The state of North Carolina possess the opportunity to reduce local crop damage and promote pollinator protection, but operating under a voluntary crop site registration policy restricts the potential for positive change for our environment and food systems.

March 27 2017

In attendance: Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair and presiding); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Don Rodgers; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Not in attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chair)

Consider Board Minutes from December 12, 2016

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is, which Dr. Kirkman seconding. Unanimously approved.

Inquiry into follow-up from Dr. Melissa Perry

Dr. Scarborough asked Mr. Burnette if there had been any follow-up from questions that he asked Dr. Perry after her presentation on the human health effects of neonics. Mr. Burnette replied that there had been none.

Consider Exemption Request from the Requirements of 02 NCAC 09L.1003(3)

Chris Elder of the Plant Industry Division of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) requests an exemption to dispense particles above the set threshold of 40ft because the Department dispenses mating disruption pheromones at 100ft to combat the gypsy moth.

Mr. Rodgers commented that the gypsy moth was expected to take over North Carolina, but through these efforts, that coverage has been limited.

Dr. Hudak-Wise made a motion to accept the request for exemption, Mr. Rodgers second the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

Consider Elimination of the NC WPS Designated Trainer Exam

Renee Woody of the NCDA&CS, Pesticide Division, requested elimination of the WPS Designated Trainer Exam do to the revised WPS requiring annual trainings. Ms. Woody said that up-to-date, EPA approved train-the-trainer materials are available on the Pesticide Education Research Collaborative (PERC) website that can meet the same requirements as the State’s exam. The State’s exam was not set in rule, but the Department was requesting consent to not offer the exam from the Board.

Dr. Kirkman made the motion to eliminate the WPS Designated Trainer Exam in North Carolina. Mr. Harding second the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund, Request for Funding

Ms. Woody also put forth a request for funding from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for the pesticide contain recycling program. Currently there are 67 counties across North Carolina that have active pesticide recycling programs. For 2016, 557,310 pounds of pesticide containers were recycled into agricultural drainage pipes.

Ms. Woody requested $60,000 for the program that would be transferred in county grants to run their programs ($51,875), promotional materials ($5000), and for the John L. Smith Award ($3,125).

Dr. Kirkman made a motion to accept the request, and Dr. Hudak-Wise second the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

Settlement Agreements

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

For a full description of the Settlement Agreements, please click the following link: March 2017 Board Settlement Agreements

Presentation from Dr. Jay Overmyer, Syngenta, titled “Neonicotinoid Insecticides: Focus on Syngenta Studies with Thiamethoxam”

Dr. Jay Overmyer presented to the Board on the work that Syngenta is doing with neonicotinoid insecticides, honeybee health, and the effects of Syngenta’s product, thiamethoxam, on honeybees, aquatic species, and birds. Dr. Overmyer highlighted the importance of this class of insecticides to growers and the work that Syngenta is doing to replicate full field studies with honeybees and their neonicotinoid products. Dr. Overmyer also went on to talk about the multiple factors that affect honeybee health, with pesticides being one of them.

The majority of the presentation concentrated on the field studies that Syngenta conducted between 2014 and 2015 near Mebane, North Carolina. The studies showed that there was a decrease in pollen storage leading to less brood and lower adult population numbers. However, Syngenta was not allowed by the EPA to feed the hives over the winter season, so there were losses across the study, including the control hives, leading to less than significant results. The EPA ordered the study to be supplementary and for Syngenta to redo the full field study, which they are in the process of doing.

Dr. Overmyer also concluded that the risk of thiamethoxam to honeybees and birds is relatively minimal, and that although aquatic insects are sensitive to neonicotinoids, the exposure rates are usually not in concentrations that would have a great impact on them.

Presentation from Dr. Jill Sidebottom, NC Agricultural Extension, titled “Neonics and Mountain Conifers”

Dr. Jill Sidebottom presented to the Board about how nenoicotinoids are being used to fight the Hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) in Western North Carolina. Right now, imidacloprid and dinotefuran are primarily being used for control. Imidacloprid is being used as a foliar application, whereas dinotefuran is primarily used as a root treatment. Dr. Sidebottom also expressed that there is concern amongst the general public and beekeepers in Western NC about the use of neonicotinoid products. Dr. Sidebottom noted that the Agriculture Extension office promotes Integrated Pest Management through ground covers at Christmas tree operations to reduce pesticide inputs and provide habitat for beneficial insects, like pollinators.

Dr. Sidebottom also discussed the more recent threats from Elongate hemlock scale (EHS), which was introduced from Asia in 1908 and creates an armored scale that buries itself under the wax of the needle. This has created an additional problem for Agricultural Extension, which has added to the problems that still exist after 60 years of research and 23 chemicals that have been used to try to treat these various pests. EHS has caused problems between North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Florida’s Department of Agriculture because Florida purchases over a million trees from North Carolina and EHS could potentially harm two of Florida’s native conifers (torreya tree and the Florida yew). Dr. Sidebottom concluded that EHS is more of a regulatory problem than a destructive pest, but that she is trying different chemical and non-chemical approaches to managing EHS.

NC Pesticide Board chooses no regulatory action on neonics

After the completion of Dr. Sidebottom’s presentation, Mr. Harding moved that the Board take no action on the neonicotinoid class of chemicals at this time. Dr. Kirkman proposed an education campaign as opposed to “no action”, with the Department of Agriculture assisting to make sure that neonicotinoids are not overused. Dr. Hudak-Wise then proposed as a clarifying point that the Board takes no regulatory action. Mr. Harding said that was fine as an amendment, but was supportive of educational efforts. Mr. Rodgers noted that the EPA still is conducting reviews and that that information should be provided to the Board upon completion. Mr. Harding agreed and felt that there was no “need to get out ahead of the EPA” on the subject, which is suppose to have a full assessments of nenoicotinoids out by the end of 2017. Dr. Hudak-Wise suggested to amend the motion to be “no regulatory action, but would like staff to consider educational opportunities.” Mr. Rodgers second the motion. Dr. Hudak-Wise suggested, “if something were to come up pertinent to this information, then we [the Board] would reexamine.” Mr. Harding agreed and also stated though that neonicotinoids are “an important class of chemistry for their growers.” Dr. Kirkman said that he felt that this issue would not be going away and as researchers found out more information that there was potential for the Board to look at it again. The final motion was unanimously approved.

December 21 2016

Contact:

Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity, (971) 717-6405, laburd@biologicaldiversity.org
Jeannie Economos, Farmworker Association of Florida, (407) 886-5151, farmworkerassoc@aol.com
Preston Peck, Toxic Free North Carolina, (919) 833-1123, preston@toxicfreenc.org

Fifteen Conservation, Farmworker Groups Urge EPA to Protect People, Pollinators From Dangerous Pesticide Mixtures

Agency Has Approved Nearly 100 Pesticide Products Without Considering Harmful Synergistic Effects of New Chemical Combinations

PORTLAND, Ore.— Fifteen organizations representing more than 5 million members sent the Environmental Protection Agency a letter today urging it to follow through on its duty to protect people and the environment from dangerous pesticide mixtures. The letter comes on the heels of an investigation revealing that more than two-thirds of pesticide products the EPA approved for four major companies over the past six years contain mixtures that make them more toxic than the individual pesticides on their own. The information on synergy was found in publicly available patents filed by chemical companies, but apparently was not shared with the EPA by the chemical companies.

The letter also follows a yet-unanswered July 2016 petition asking the EPA to require pesticide companies to provide data on the synergistic effects of pesticide products when seeking approval for those products.

“The EPA has essentially ignored the well-known fact that pesticides, when combined, are often more dangerous than on their own,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Our request is simple and just makes good common sense: The EPA needs to require pesticide companies to disclose data on pesticide synergy and it needs to carefully and transparently consider this information in determining whether these chemicals are safe for use on our food and lawns.”

Farmworkers are on the frontlines of pesticide exposure and are frequently exposed to pesticides even when using the best precautions. Yet, the EPA has ignored how pesticide synergy may effect this vulnerable population.

“Federal regulators must step up and determine how the synergistic effects of pesticides are affecting farmworkers, especially pregnant women and their newborn children,” said Jeannie Economos, pesticide safety and environmental health project coordinator with the Farmworker Association of Florida. “This is a serious public-health issue we should all be concerned about.”

Beginning in 1984, the EPA’s own regulations specifically said the agency could request data and testing on pesticide synergy from pesticide companies, but in 2007 the agency deleted this provision, calling it unnecessary. As a result, the risks of synergistic combinations have been routinely overlooked by the EPA in its approval of pesticides for food, lawns, ornamental plants and everyday products.

“There is a major gap in the EPA’s knowledge when it comes to understanding the risks posed by pesticides,” said Preston Peck, policy advocate with Toxic Free North Carolina. “We have no idea how these chemicals interact with each other in the environment and should not be using them indiscriminately until that information gap is filled.”

November 30 2016

By Preston Peck, Policy Advocate, Toxic Free NC

Last month, I attended the first “Diálogos Internacionais sobre a Luta Contra os Agrotóxicos” (International Dialogue about the Fight Against Pesticides) in Guarerema, Brazil as one of four delegates from the United States. There were two other representatives from Farmworkers’ Association of Florida and another from CATA, based in New Jersey. I was ecstatic for the opportunity to hear from other advocates located around the globe about their own struggles against agrochemical companies, the poisonous products these companies promote, and methods of creating alternative agricultural systems. Simultaneously, I was humbled by the invitation to participate as I had never been to South America and knew very little about the state of the agricultural problems that the people faced. Toxic Free NC saw this as a means of carrying out part of our vision of “North Carolina as an integral member of a just global community”…so I went for it.

The conference lasted three days in the mountains of Guarerema (a small town about an hour east of São Paulo) on the Southeastern coast of Brazil. It was held at the Escola Nacional Florestan Fernandes (ENFF), which is a school associated with Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement, or Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), where activists are taught about social justice, how to organize for change, and the history of the movement. It was a beautiful place, secluded from the vibrant and busy atmosphere of São Paulo, where bananas and guava trees dominated the mountainsides.

mountainside — *Backside of ENFF, the school where the conference was held, showing the beauty and bountiful supply of bananas and guavas*

bananas — *Bananas right outside the ENFF cafeteria!*

There were around 30 participants in the conference from the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay, who all brought a unique perspective to the dialogue as we discussed our individual struggles with pesticides and the multinational corporations that produce and promote them. There were a various experts and activists there that spoke on a variety of topics ranging from the science of the toxicity of common pesticides; the impact of neoliberalism and capitalism on agricultural chemical production, use, and trade; and the regulation and policy of pesticides. There were also film screenings of people that were directly impacted by pesticides through their work or just by their proximity to operations that use agrochemicals in food production.

over-worked-and-under-spray — *Screening Toxic Free NC’s 2011 documentary “Overworked & Under Spray” to show the realities of youth farmworkers in North Carolina before a panel discussion on policy*

These panels and screenings provided an opportunity for rich conversation on the interconnectedness of our struggles, and a platform to share strategies to combat the harsh realities of chemical exposure. Participants recognized that to combat the “Big 6” pesticide producing companies (Bayer, DuPont, Dow, Syngenta, Monsanto, and BASF) that dominate our agricultural system, we must work together collectively, identifying that our struggles are the same in different political contexts. The impact of these chemicals are all too real for many people as many participants had either themselves lost, or knew someone that lost a loved one to pesticide exposure.

We are pushing back though. We are continuing to fight. We will win.

This was the attitude of the last day of the conference where we came together to talk about collective strategy, thank one another for their tireless efforts in the movement, and take a march in solidarity and remembrance to all of those who have fallen to pesticide exposure and a broken agricultural system. After the march, standing on the hillside, looking over the valleys, I felt a sense of rejuvenation of passion for this work. Seeing others from around the world instilled in me a stronger fight and a stronger will to change this broken system. For my family, for those that will come after me, and for a future without needless poisoning.

Marching in solidarity through the campus

UPDATE:

The week after the conference, and after I left ENFF, there was a raid on the campus by the Brazilian Police where 10 police cars surrounded the school grounds, then jumped through the check-in station, live shots were fired, and two MST leaders were arrested. This raid was part of of Operation “Castra” that took place simultaneously in three Brazilian states (São Paulo, Mato Grosso do Sul, and Paraná) and aim was to take down leaders of the Landless Movement, which the current government defines as a criminal organization. In a press release, the MST denounced the “escalation of repression of the struggle for land, which is dominated by agribusiness interests associated with the violence of the state of emergency”. Click here to watch a brief movie of the raid on ENFF.

Police arrest a MST leader, while holding guns up at bystanders loaded with live ammunition

This is yet another unfortunate example of how immediate the threat is to those that attempt to stop the powerful chemical industry and other multinational corporations that influence legislators. Fortunately, no one was hurt during these raids and there has been a strong showing of support in the month after. I know many of these people that were at this school and they are no criminals. They are fighting for justice in an oppressive world. They are literally fighting for their lives. This social movement is repudiated by human rights organizations and under Brazilian Supreme Court judgments. I stand in solidarity with those affected by these unjust actions to oppress those without access to land, clean water, or clean food.

September 16 2016

Zika and the insecticides being used to address the threat of spread, are of major concern for us at Toxic Free NC. The organophosphate insecticide widely used in South Florida and responsible for the recent bee kill in South Carolina is also toxic to humans. For North Carolina, as with South Carolina, with no insect-born contraction of the disease, chemical prevention needs to be weighed against the threats that they pose. Comprehensive mosquito population reduction is needed to ensure both human and environmental health in our state.

Here’s a couple of things to help curb concerns:

The cases ofZikain humans in North Carolina are all from people who contracted the virus while traveling, no mosquito has been found to carry in NC as of this writing.
The species of mosquito that carriesZika, Aedes Egypti, is not prevalent in NC.(Though that could be because researchers have been focused on other species).

That said, the CDC does list Charlotte as one of two NC cities that are of concern, especially if more common mosquito species become carriers.

This is a complex issue and we hope that people weigh their options on how to address it by exploring options such as Integrated Vector Control (IVC). For more depth, click here to check out PAN’s blog post. Given the low threat level in NC, non-chemical interventions are needed in order to ensure continued reduction in the overall mosquito population. With mosquito management practices in place, we can make North Carolina highly unwelcoming for Zika!

We will be monitoring both state and federal policy on this issue, such as the SMASH act currently under review in congressional subcommittee, to make sure decision makers are approaching this issue with the comprehensive care needed for effective human and environmental health protection.

Mosquito Management and other household alternatives

Common mosquito breeding sites to watch for and what can be done to prevent mosquito breeding grounds and control mosquito problem:

Clean roof gutters and downspouts
Do not over-irrigate lawns and fields
Discard old tires in approved disposal sites or store them inside
Empty outdoor containers that might collect water regularly or store indoors
Repair leaky plumbing and outside faucets
Screen rain barrels and openings to water tanks — seal them off from mosquitoes
Keep grass cut and bushes trimmed
Remove leaf piles frequently
Reduce the amount of English Ivy
Empty, clean and refill birdbaths twice weekly and small wading pools weekly
Change water and scrub vases holding flowers or cuttings twice each week, or cuttings in sand
Drain outlets from air conditioners
Connect wastewater drains to approved sewage disposal systems
Store wheelbarrows, carts, canoes and boats upside-down
Stock ornamental ponds with fish that eat mosquito larvae
Fill holes in trees with sand or mortar

Insect Repellents:

In general our recommendations for using any insect repellent are:

Choose oils or lotions rather than sprays, which produce fine particles that are easily inhaled.

Do not apply repellents to broken skin.

When food is being served nearby, be sure to stay well away from preparation and serving areas while applying repellents.

Wash your hands immediately after applying insect repellents.

Do not allow children to apply their own repellent, and do not apply repellents containing DEET or other pesticides directly to children’s skin. If you use such products, they can be applied to clothing instead.*

Do not use sunscreen/repellent combinations. Sunscreen needs to be reapplied more often than repellents, so the combination products can result in overexposure to pesticides.

Wash off all repellent from skin and clothing immediately after coming indoors.

*Citronella can be applied directly to the skin and is competitive with DEET on efficacy. DEET is a neurotoxin so, should you decide to go that route, just be cognizant of where and how much is applied.

Herbal Insect Repellant

15 drops lavender oil

15 drops tea tree oil

10 drops citronella oil

10 drops eucalyptus oil

10 drops cedarwood oil

In a one-ounce plastic squeeze bottle, mix these with your favorite unscented skin oil (olive oil works fine). Not recommended for pregnant women. Keep out of eyes. Try a small amount on your wrist first to check for skin sensitivities. Experiment with other ingredients to develop your own blend!

September 15 2016

In attendance: Dr. Rick Langly (Chair); Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Not in attendance: Mr. Don Rodgers

Ethics Reminder

Dr. Langley read the mandatory ethics statement, requiring any members to disclose conflicts of interests. Dr. Scarborough stated that as a current employee of the agrochemical sector he would participate in the discussion regarding future speakers on the topic of neonicotinoids from industry, but recuse himself from voting.

Consider Board Minutes from July 12, 2016

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is, which Dr. Scarborough seconding. Unanimously approved.

Update on NCDA&CS Pollinator Protection Efforts

Pat Jones, Deputy Director of the Pesticide Division within NCDOA&CS, gave an update on outreach and registration for beekeepers to register their hives voluntarily with BeeCheck (a program of DriftWatch), which allows pesticide applicators to see where beehives are across the state so that they can take precautionary steps. Currently, there are 1,056 apiaries registered across the state, making North Carolina the state with the second highest registered apiaries out of 13 U.S. states enrolled in the program and one Canadian province.

NCDOA&CS will continue outreach and education about the registration program into 2017.

Consider recommendations for neonicotinoid presentations

Per the Board’s request at their July 12^th meeting, the Board received 14 nominations for presentations on the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and their environmental fate. The Board Chair, Dr. Langley, categorized these nominees into three sectors being, “Academia”, “Industry”, and “Other”. The Chair then suggested to hear from two nominees at each of the next three Board meetings resulting in six total presentations. Dr. Hudak-Wise noted that the door will remain open to the rest of the nominees, but this will be the first batch. Selected individuals to present were:

Academia

Dr. Melissa Perry, Professor and Chair of Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University

Dr. Dave Buchwalter, Associate Professor in Toxicology, NC State

Industry

Dr. Jay Overmyer – Technical Team I, Ecotoxicology and Risk Assessment, Syngenta

Dr. David Fischer, Director Pollinator Safety Group, Bayer Crop Science

Other

Dr. Jill Sidebottom, Mountain Conifer IPM Specialist, NC Agricultural Extension

Dave Penrose, MPH, Contract Professor on Aquatic Insect Ecology, NC State

The Chair, Dr. Langley, explicitly prohibited public comments after the selection process.

Settlement Agreements

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

Settlement Agreements