Perilous Pesticides

Published in Environment

Good health depends on clean air, clean water and a clean environment. Hvar Island is perfectly placed to offer all those amenities.

Much of the island is indeed unspoiled. But things aren't perfect on or in the ground. 

Hvar boasts over 200 medicinal plants, and there are strong moves to boost their production to create the highest quality branded products, including etheric oils. With the inclusion of the Mediterranean Diet on UNESCO's intangible natural heritage list in 2013, Hvar's natural assets were brought forward on the international stage.

But every year Hvar's natural abundance is being blighted by indiscriminate and copious pesticide use. It seems that many of Hvar's farmers do not know:

  • that pesticides are poisonous to the environment
  • that pesticides remain in the ground for a very long time
  • that long-term use of pesticides creates resistance in the targets
  • that resistance leads to problems such as super-weeds and super-rats
  • that pesticides spread beyond their area of application
  • that pesticides penetrate into the food chain
  • that pesticides harm human health
  • that visitors and many locals want uncontaminated food and drinks
  • that wild plants are beautiful and beneficial
  • that there are alternative ways of controlling unwanted plants
  • that visitors come to see the island's natural beauty, not a chemical wasteland

Widespread use and perceived risks of pesticides

In 2013, the Washington Post, inspired by a special issue of Science magazine about pesticides, posed the question: "We've covered the world in pesticides. Is that a problem?

report published in 2011 by the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed that in the United States approximately 857 million pounds (lbs) of conventional pesticide active ingredient were applied in 2007, plus about 33 million pounds of organophosphate insecticides. Worldwide, pesticide use was estimated at some 5.2 billion pounds, with the United States accounting for 22%. Herbicides were cited as the most widely used type of pesticide in the agricultural market sector. The EPA stance on pesticides is that "By their very nature, pesticides create some risk of harm... At the same time, pesticides are useful to society. ... Biologically-based pesticides, such as pheromenes and microbial pesticides are becoming increasingly popular and often are safer than traditional chemical pesticides. In addition, EPA is registering reduced-risk conventional pesticides in increasing numbers."

In 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency awarded nearly half a million dollars to three universities for projects to reduce the risks from pesticides, including the risks to bees, through encouraging Integrated Pest Management (IPM): "IPM relies on easy-to-implement, environmentally-sensitive practices that prevent pests from becoming a threat. These practices involve monitoring and identifying pests and taking preventive action before pesticides are used. If pesticides are needed, methods such as targeted spraying may be used. These grants will expand public-private stewardship efforts and reduce pesticide risk in agriculture." This was one of several such initiatives to reduce the damage caused by pesticides of all kinds by reducing pesticide use, although stopping far short of recommending a moratorium.

Neonicotinoids were developed in the 1980s and were first registered for use in the United States in 1984. During the 30-odd years since, doubts about their effects began to be expressed and evidence that they might have ill-effects was collected. One of the grants awarded by the EPA in January 2014 amounted to $167,000 for Louisiana State University, to fund a project researching the impact of mosquito control methods on honey bees. The EPA recognised that there were possible problems connected to neonicotinoid use, especially in respect of honey bees and other pollinators, despite initial confidence that they were safer than previous insecticides. Prior to the EPA actions, in May 2013 a lawsuit was raised againt the EPA by beekeepers and environmental groups including Pesticide Action Network (PAN), claiming that the EPA had failed to protect the honey bees despite 'crystal clear' evidence that neonicotinoids were harming them. The EU passed a two-year moratorium, applied as from December 1st 2013, banning the use of three neonicotinoids, clothlanidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam, although this still left five types of neonicotinoids in use. The ban was in response to a report published in January 2013 from the European Food Safety Authority identifying that the three nicotinoids specifically caused various types of harm to honey bees and their larvae. The European Food Safety Authority was not asked to research the effects of the other five neonicotinoids. In August 2013, Syngenta Crop Protection and Bayer CropScience, two agrochemical companies, challenged the short-term ban on the three neonicotinoids in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Pesticides at war

Are we at war with Nature? That's the assumption that underlies the development of pesticides for agricultural use. Pesticides have been, and still are a weapon in warfare between humans, and the long-term effects are as alarming as the short-term effects were devastating. Agent Orange and other pesticides, about 20 million gallons of them, were used by the United States during the Vietnam war. To this day the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs is dealing with servicemen's concerns linked to the practice. Like manufacturer Monsanto, the United States authorities played down claims that the pesticides have caused long-term harm to soldiers' health. After 2010, 260,000 cases were lodged for damages related to Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam war. An independent study published in February 2014 in Elsevier's Environmental Research, conducted by Columbia University health-policy Professor Jeanne Mager Stellman suggests that possible harmful exposure did not end with the war. The study demonstrated that contaminated aircraft which were used in the Vietnam war and later as cargo transport could have caused illnesses in the postwar crews. In Vietnam itself, succeeding generations are having to live with the terrible health consequences of the poisons used against their people all those years ago.

 

Humans cannot win a war against nature. We are powerless when there is a major earthquake, tsunami, mudslide, flood or fire. The more herbicides are splashed round the environment, the more resilient the weeds, the more prevalent the superweeds. Similarly, insects targeted by insecticides develop resistance: this happened quickly with DDT because of its widespread undiscriminating use in the late 1940s. It's an ever-increasing spiral. As more powerful pesticides are developed to deal with the new 'threats', more damage is done to the environment, wildlife, and human health. It is recognized that pesticides damage wildlife, and various studies show the dangers to insects such as butterflies and earthworms. Like other pesticides, Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup (Cidokor) and other herbicides, is especially toxic to fish. The situation regarding bee health is now a worldwide concern. There's no pretending that bees are not declining, and while there may be many factors at work, there's no doubt that pesticides are among them. As bees decline, so does our supply of natural healthy foods. On Hvar, honey from bees which have fed on rosemary, lavender or other herbs is particularly prized. Bee-harming chemicals aimed at killing mosquitoes have been sprayed along Hvar's roads routinely for many years, a practice which surely needs to stop.

Flawed premises and processes in pesticide evaluation

The concept that there is a safe level for human ingestion of any kind of poison is absurd. Does anyone deliberately serve up a poisonous mushroom on the assumption that it won't do any harm? Would people who want healthy nutritious food on their plates choose poisons, given an informed choice?

The process by which international organizations investigate, evaluate or validate reports of ill-effects from pesticides is agonizingly slow. The results are often questionable, to say the least. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) established the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) which had its first meeting in 1963 and annually thereafter. In 2005, WHO was warned that a geological survey in Denmark and Greenland had found glyphosate levels in groundwater at 5 times the level permitted under EU permitted levels for drinking water. Being concerned about 'Chemical hazards in drinking-water - glyphosate and AMPA" (Aminothylphosphoric acid, a by-product of Glyphosate), the Joint Meeting was asked to re-evaluate glyphosate. The resulting JMPR report on glyphosate described the results of feeding GM modified maize and soya beans to a lactating goat and six laying hens, and reviewed the various field studies relating to glyphosate, which of course were carried out by the agrochemical firms producing the herbicide. Unsurprisingly, the Meeting concluded that neither long-term nor short-term intake of glyphosate was likely to pose a risk to public health. Did the report reassure those who had expressed concerns about the groundwater pollution? I doubt it.

A 2006 JMPR report sponsored jointly by FAO and WHO with the support of the International Programme on Chemical Safety was entitled 'Pesticide residues in food - 2006. Toxicological evaluations'. It starts with a disclaimer that "The summaries and evaluations contained in this book are, in most cases, based on unpublished proprietary data submitted for the purpose of the JMPR assessment". Indeed. That doesn't sound either balanced or objective. Thirteen main types of pesticides are evaluated through animal studies conducted on behalf of the agrochemical firms. For instance Crompton Corporation, part of agrochemical company Chemtura, submitted 29 unpublished papers relating to Bifenazate, a new acaricide for killing spider mites, "intended for use on apples, pears, nectarines, peaches, plums, prunes, strawberries, grapes, hops and ornamentals". Boscalid is a fungicide used "against a broad spectrum of diseases in a wide range of crops", and thirty unpublished studies submitted by BASF AG Germany were evaluated by the JMPR. Bayer CropScience (Germany) submitted 142 unpubished studies in support of cyfluthrin, "a synthetic cyano-containing pyrethroid insecticide", and its derivative beta-cyfluthrin, a new combination at the time of the report.

The studies submitted for the evaluation involved unspeakable suffering for hundreds of animals subjected to inhumane experiments, including dogs, goats, rats, rabbits and hens. In the 2006 report, most of the unpublished studies evaluated were classified as comnplying with good laboratory practice. However, in the case of cyfluthrin: "Not all pivotal studies with cyfluthrin were certified as being compliant with good laboratory practice (GLP). These studies were carried out before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines on GLP were promulgated. However, the quality of these studies was considered to be acceptable."

Effects seen in the laboratory from tests on rats, mice, dogs or other animals are not necessarily relevant to the human experience. If nothing else, humans don't live under laboratory conditions. Long-term ill-effects from ingesting pesticides, the effects on unborn babies and those on growing children can only be seen through experience and observation over the years. Can we afford to wait and see?

Science and myth

The principle of killing plants with poisons is hard to understand or justify. Science is being misused to support pesticide use. Chemical pesticides have been in use for many decades on the assumption that they are 'safe' - until proven otherwise. New pesticides are always touted as being safer than previous versions, very often on the flimsiest evidence. DDT was sold on a large scale in the United States and round the world as the definitive answer to the problem of invasive and illness-causing insects such as the malarial mosquito. A 1947 propaganda film promoting the product for malaria control even showed a character depicting an entomologist apparently eating the poison in a bowl of porridge. Another propaganda film from 1946 aimed at the American market enthused about the use of DDT in the form of Pestroy as an insecticide to be used in all corners of the home, as well as through blanket bombing from aircraft.

DDT was banned in the United States in 1972, although doubts about DDT's safety had been voiced many years previously, most strongly through Rachel Carson's book 'Silent Spring', published in 1962. The 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants, with 152 signatories, came into effect in 2004. It established complete bans on several pesticides, and restricted use for DDT, which could still be used against malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Cause for concern

Data concerning the effects of pesticides are collected and collated on a database called 'Beyond Pesticides, Protecting Health and the Environment with Science, Policy and Action'.' It lists asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and several types of cancer as being linked to pesticides with increasing certainty.

Neurological diseases associated with pesticides are a particular concern. For instance, links between Glyphosate (the active agent in herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup or Syngenta's Touchdown) with Parkinson's disease have been demonstated in a 2003 study from Brazil, a 2011 study from China reporting on a patient who had worked in a factory producing glyphosate, and a 2012 study entitled 'Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and autophagic mechanisms'. In January 2013, researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) published a study linking a fungicide called benomyl with Parkinson's disease. That fungicide has been banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In February 2014, the UCLA researchers published a further study investigating possible links between a number of other pesticides and Parkinson's disease. They found eleven which could increase the risk of developing Parkinson's, even at lower levels than were commonly used in practice, while fifteen others showed no increased risk. Most worrying was the statement by lead author Jeff Bronstein that "These pesticides are pretty ubiquitous and can be found in our food supply. They are used in parks and golf courses and in pest control inside buildings and homes. So this significantly broadens the number of people at risk".

Kidney damage has been linked to pesticide use in countries across the world, with epidemics of a rare kidney disease killing thousands of people. Although the exact causes of the disease have not been established, there has been enough certainty to cause countries like El Salvador to pass measures in September 2013 banning commonly used pesticides, including Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup / Cidokor.

Animal studies showed that some pesticides were carcinogenic before this could be proved in humans. Gradually, proof is emerging that human cancers can also be caused by pesticides. Glyphosate has been linked to breast cancer. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in January 2013 identified four insecticides (three organophosphate and one organochlorine) as being specifically linked to aggressive prostate cancers. DDT and other pesticides have been linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, as have several other types of pesticide, for instance in a Canadian study published in 'Cancer Epidemiology' in 2001, and in another Canadian study from 2013 published by Springer Link. Glyphosate was among the pesticides associated with an increased risk of hairy cell leukaemia, a sub-type of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, in a 2002 Swedish study published in 'Leukaemia and Lymphoma'. Pesticides have been strongly linked to childhood cancers, not only through direct exposure, but in cases where the child's father is exposed to pesticides.

Knowledge, awareness and experience

Science is moving slowly - and, it seems, reluctantly - to establish facts about ill-effects from pesticides. Sponsored studies and the arguments of the agrochemical companies are accepted at face value by many regulators, while independent studies showing evidence of pesticide risks and ill-effects are often ignored, sometimes even denigrated. The voices of those opposed on reasonable and scientific grounds to pesticide use are drowned out by the commercial chorus of the chemical profiteers.

The principle of allowing the agrochemical firms to set the stage in evaluating pesticides is deeply flawed. Poisons are being produced and marketed in frightening numbers and quantities all the time. Claims that they are safe are almost invariably on shaky ground, and most often proven untrue over time. The 2005 JMPR report on glyphosate stated very tellingly in its introduction: "Information that would be useful for the continued evaluation of the compound: Results from epidemiological, occupational health and other such observational studies of human exposure".

Full-blown scientific studies come late after the events, and have to catch up with the latest developments in the agrochemical world. The real effects of pesticides could best be seen in detailed information collected by healthcare workers. Questions about pesticide use and exposure should be as routine as asking whether the patient smokes or drinks alcohol. A question which will become increasingly important as genetically modified foods enter the Croatian market is whether the patient looks to buy organic foods and other products or not.

In the United Kingdom, even in the 1980s there was a lot of awareness of pesticide-related problems in medical circles. Myalgic encephalomyelitis, a type of chronic fatigue syndrome, was known to be endemic among farmers, especially fruit farmers, although pesticide exposure is not listed directly as a possible causative factor in current UK National Health Service information about the illness. Some years ago in the UK, a farmer came to me for treatment because of an extremely painful and swollen hand, which had been a problem for some weeks, without any obvious cause. After exhaustive investigations, it turned out that the cause was Paraquat poisoning, a herbicide he had been using on his kitchen garden. A homeopath colleague provided the cure, which took some time. Sadly, a few years later, the patient developed leukaemia. Meanwhile, his son, who did most of the large-scale spraying on their conventionally-run farm, had suffered years of ill-health with myalgic encephalomyelitis.

 

On Hvar there are surprising numbers of people who suffer from poor health. Smoking is a big factor in many of the illnesses, but it is likely that pesticide exposure plays a large part, especially in the many cases of leukaemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Parkinson's Disease and hormonal disruptions in young women. 

The dangers of pesticides show up through practice and experience. It's a risky and costly experiment in terms of environmental and human health. Poisons are just that, and poisons carry risks of harm. They should not be released for use in the environment anywhere in the world unless they are proven safe beyond doubt. As that is not possible without human experimentation, they should not be used at all.

Pesticide penetration

Pesticides have far-reaching effects. Glyphosate, for instance, has spread, way beyond the theoretical predictions. It has been found in ground-water, despite the original assurances that this was unlikely. It has also been found that fertilizers can reactivate glyphosate and cause damage to non-target plants. Most worryingly, residues of Glyphosate persist in our food. Not surprisingly, surveys to test for the amounts of pesticide absorbed by humans have shown widespread contamination. A 2011 study on Berlin residents, designed to test whether city-dwellers who were not in direct contact with pesticides were at risk of Glyphosate contamination found levels of the herbicide above the amounts permitted in drinking water in all the urine samples tested, and called for urgent action to change the practices of applying Glyphosate to food crops. A study conducted in 2013 on 182 urine samples collected from 18 European countries showed that 44% contained quantifiable levels of Glyphosate and 36% AMPA. The highest concentration of Glyphosate was in a sample from Latvia at 1.8 μg/L and the highest level of AMPA at 2.6 μg/L was in a Croatian sample. Rather than recognize the trend of ever-increasing amounts of poisons in our foods as the danger to health which it undoubtedly is, the American Environmental Protection Agency simply raised their values for what they term safe permitted levels. This flies in the face of all the evidence of the potential harm to human health associated with pesticides.

We have been warned

Many pesticide users have been lulled into a sense of false security by the claims advanced by pesticide manufacturers and their supporters. But the myths that pesticides can be benign and safe have long been challenged, for instance in a report by Andre Leu, Chair of the Organic Federation of Australia, published about ten years ago. FAO and WHO publish what they term are maximum residual levels of pesticides such as glyphosate in foodstuffs. To those who study the evidence objectively, the truth is that no level of pesticide is acceptable in human food, animal feed or the environment. The need for more stringent testing of all chemicals in common use was emphasized in a paperpublished in the Lancet Neurology in March 2014, in the light of increasing evidence that chemicals can be toxic to young children's nervous systems, and can cause neurodevelopmental disabilities including autism. Children are considered especially vulnerable to adverse effects from pesticides, which are specifically monitored by the EPA in the United States. But given the level of evidence that exists already, is it really necessary to make more animals suffer for the sake of trying to prove the contrary?

Indeed, there have been many warnings about the risks of pesticides over many years. The World Resources Institute is a global organization which has worked tirelessly since 1982 with the mission "to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth's environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations". Among its many peer-reviewed publications is a report from 1996 'Pesticides and the Immune System: The Public Health Risks'. The report states that enough is known about the effects of pesticides on the immune system to take preventive action, even though more needs to be known about the exact linkages. The executive summary states of the study: "Although some pesticides have been restricted or banned because they pose risks of cancer, birth defects, or neurological damage, little attention has so far been given to what may be their greatest risk: impairment of human and animal immune systems. According to this new report, there is considerable evidence that widely used pesticides may suppress immune responses to bacteria, viruses, parasites, and tumors, making people significantly more vulnerable to disease....The authors show that steps now underway to resolve this issue are far from adequate. If pesticides are undermining people's ability to withstand infectious and parasitic diseases -- still the world's main causes of death -- then pesticide policy must be profoundly altered. This report may be a path-breaking step in that direction."

Even the slightest element of doubt about pesticide safety should be cause enough to stop their use.

EU aiming to limit pesticide use

The EU has been more robust than FAO and WHO in addressing the problems of pesticide contamination and encouraging the growth of organic farming. Croatia's entry into the EU on July 1st 2013 brought with it many new restrictions and regulations. Among the more helpful, potentially, are the regulations governing the use of pesticides. The aims are "to reduce the risks and impacts attached to pesticide use on people's health and the envirnoment". One of the possible recommended actions is total ban: "EU countries minimise or ban the use of pesticides in critical areas for environmental and health reasons". This could well apply to Hvar.

Another action relates to training pesticide suppliers and users in responsible practices: "Professional pesticide users, distributors and advisors get proper training. EU countries establish competent authorities and certification systems". According to the EU 2009 Directive, EU Member States had to establish systems of initial and additional training for distributors, advisors and professional users of pesticides and certification systems by November 26th 2013. In accordance with EU regulations, Croatia has produced its National Action Plan relating to pesticides, including a new system of training distributors and professional users.

Non-professional pesticide users

The EU regulations may or may not help to introduce rationalization of pesticide use in industrial agriculture. The problem on Hvar, and probably elsewhere, is that many pesticide users are not professionals. Many have no understanding of the nature of the poisons they are handling and spreading around. And very many have never read the instructions, or, if they have, they've forgotten what the instructions said. These are the people who need educating, and apparently they are not covered under the legislation.

The most widely used herbicide on Hvar is Cidokor, the Croatian name for Roundup, whose active ingredient is Glyphosate. Recently Syngenta's Ouragan (Touchdown) has been heavily promoted on the island as an "eco-product", despite being based on Glyphosate, the same active ingredient as Cidokor / Roundup. Between January and March 2014, in contrast or defiance to the EU's policies aimed at limiting the use of pesticides, Glyphosate preparations have been sprayed liberally around fields and along some roadsides, including the Stari Grad Plain (the historic Ager or Hora) which is on UNESCO's cultural heritage list. The sprayers are blasé about their actions. Their reasoning goes something as follows: "It's the mildest poison there is"; "It doesn't go into the vines / olives / fruits / vegetables"; "it doesn't last in the soil", "I don't have time to control weeds any other way". Many admit to using more of the pesticide than stated in the instructions - just as the 1946 film proudly proclaimed that Pestroy contained more DDT than the government recommended at the time. The Roundup / Cidokor / Glyphosate over-users assume that greater quantity makes the poison more effective. In fact the opposite is true. Quoting Australian website www.roundup.com: "...be sure not to exceed the recommended dosage. The exact quantities are calculated so that glyphosate kills the weeds entirely in a certain time frame, this is because the chemicals must reach the roots before leaves are completely dead. Therefore, an excessive quantity of weed killer could prematurely kill the leaves, rendering the treatment useless." Protective clothing is also emphasized: "..all application of these chemicals should be carried out wearing rubber gloves, garden boots and long-sleeves." Similarly, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers practical safety tips for pesticide users which include wearing protective clothing and changing clothes immediately after applying pesticides.

Why do people believe glyphosate-based herbicides are safe and innocuous except to weeds? Glyphosate in itself was thought to have low toxicity, but this is increasingly being shown to be untrue. Glyphosate forms about 48% of preparations like Cidokor / Roundup Classic. It is mixed with a surfactant, polyoxyethyleneamine, for application on plants, and the sufactant possibly increases glyphosate toxicity by several orders of magnitude. Recent studies indicate that Roundup is "toxic to human DNA at concentrations diluted 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications". The studies through which Roundup was allowed on the U.S. market were on Glyphosate alone, not on the full product. Unbelievable, but tragically true.

Is 'responsible use' the answer?

As the dangers of pesticides have become so obvious that they cannot be ignored entirely, pesticide proponents often refer to 'responsible use' as the answer to the problem. This entails following the isntructions to the letter, using only as much pesticide as is prescribed, repeating applications at the prescribed intervals and using protective clothing.

One of the issues of responsibility which never seems to be addressed is how to publicize appropriate warnings. People need to know when pesticide spraying is about to happen, when it is in the process of happening and when it has just happened. In most countries, cultivated fields are accessible to walkers, and they, as well as any dogs which might accompany them, should be protected against exposure.  

On Hvar the fields are mostly so small that one's neighbour's pesticides are inevitably a problem for anyone who wants to farm organically. The proximity, coupled with the fact that pesticides travel through air, soil and in underground water, make conventional and organic farming incompatible on the island. In practice, organic farming is impossible if neighbouring fields, even those some distance away, are doused in chemical poisons. 

Natural alternatives

Natural pesticides and methods to control unwanted insects, plants and rodents have been in use throughout human history. They are extremely relevant today. Apart from strimming, rotavating and ploughing, the traditional way of controlling unwanted plants in Hvar fields was to plant vegetables such as beans among the vines, cabbages under the almond trees. This is known technically as intercropping. You get useful healthy food crops without dangerous poisons, a double benefit. It was also commonplace to take out old vines and plant the fields with vegetables or other crops for a time, as a type of crop rotation. Encouraging the spread of clover under the olive trees created the double benefit of keeping unwanted plants out and fixing nitrogen in the soil, making arificial fertilization unnecessary. There are experiments in creating natural alternatives to chemical herbicides, and there are many organic products available for weed control. Unwanted insects can also be controlled by natural means, especially through good preventive practices including encouraging beneficial insects, and using nematodes.

It is possible to farm successfully organically. In many countries, efforts are being made to turn away from chemical pesticides in favour of more natural farming methods, even in large-scale agriculture, for instance in Vietnam  and Australia. Novel methods have been used in India to persuade farmers to go organic. In Croatia organic farming is not well developed, but it has been reported that vegetable growers in northeastern Croatia are showing increasing interest in abandoning conventional practices. Well, it's a start. More hearteningly, since 2013 some Croatian farmers have joined the WWOOF Independents Scheme which invites volunteers to come and work on organic farms in different countries around the world. Croatia does not yet have a national WWOOF group, by contrast with neighbouring Serbia, which joined in 2011 and Macedonia, which joined in 2007.

There are organic farmers on Hvar. One of them is Jakov Franičević (pictured above), owner of the highly prized restaurant Konoba Humac, who has battled for the acceptance of organic farming methods for the best part of thirty years. Jakov and his wife Keti have also worked tirelessly to preserve Hvar's cultural heritage, including its landscape, dry walls and old stone buildings. He has often been derided and criticized in the past for his 'green' beliefs and practices, but the tide is turning, and many of those who were previously sceptical are now going organic. If the whole island abandons chemical pesticides and artificial fertilizers, the environment will be saved and better health ensured for future generations. If not.....

WHEN YOU POISON NATURE, YOU POISON YOURSELF AND ALL AROUND YOU

GO HVAR GO - ORGANIC!

© Vivian Grisogono 2014

 

You are here: Home environment articles Perilous Pesticides

Eco Environment News feeds

  • An area nearly a third larger than India turned permanently arid in past three decades, research shows

    An area of land nearly a third larger than India has turned from humid conditions to dryland – arid areas where agriculture is difficult – in the past three decades, research has found.

    Drylands now make up 40% of all land on Earth, excluding Antarctica. Three-quarters of the world’s land suffered drier conditions in the past 30 years, which is likely to be permanent, according to the study by the UN Science Policy Interface, a body of scientists convened by the United Nations.

    Continue reading...

  • Filter performs well in removing plastic pollution from water and Chinese researchers say it appears to be scalable

    A sponge made of cotton and squid bone that has absorbed about 99.9% of microplastics in water samples in China could provide an elusive answer to ubiquitous microplastic pollution in water across the globe, a new report suggests.

    Just as importantly, the filter’s production appears to be scalable, the University of Wuhan study authors said in the paper, which was peer-reviewed and published in the journal Science Advances. That would address a problem that has stymied the use of previous microplastic filtration systems that were successful in controlled settings, but could not be scaled up.

    Continue reading...

  • Government should point to evidence of FSA licensing of additive, says chair of environment and climate change committee

    The government must urgently reassure consumers that feed additives given to cattle to reduce methane emissions are harmless, and a vital tool in tackling the climate crisis, the chair of an influential parliamentary committee has warned.

    Lady Sheehan, chair of the environment and climate change committee of the House of Lords, called on ministers to step up as a row has blown up over the prospective use of the additive Bovaer in British dairy herds supplying Arla, the dairy company.

    Continue reading...

  • Tooting, London: The ferruginous duck at my local-ish pond is likely an escapee, meaning hardcore birders might not bother with it. But not I

    A day of incipient winter, sun bright in sharp blue sky. Hat and gloves weather. Tooting Common pond is home to ducks and geese and swans (oh my!) – what a birding friend dismissively calls “the usual rubbish”. But for a few weeks now there has been a glamorous addition, a rarity, flown in from wherever to bestow a hint of the exotic on these everyday urban surroundings.

    A ferruginous duck – “fudge duck” for short, the nickname felicitously combining abbreviation and a succinct description of the bird’s colour. Reports say that it’s a first-winter female “of unknown origin”. This is code for “probably escaped from a wildfowl collection but without a leg ring we can’t be certain”. Hardcore birders, valuing the truly wild above all else, might sniff at an escapee, but a bird is a bird. Besides, I have never seen a ferruginous duck, and while I wouldn’t usually make a special journey for a sighting, this is merely a short extension of my daily walk. It would be rude not to.

    Continue reading...

  • Energy company’s deal with Japan’s Jera will allow it to focus on exploiting oil and gas assets

    BP has agreed a deal worth up to £4.5bn to build offshore windfarms with Japan’s biggest power producer, in a shift that will allow it to gain some access to zero-carbon wind energy while focusing on fossil fuels.

    The FTSE 100 company will create a 50-50 joint-venture with the Japanese power generator Jera to combine their offshore wind assets, the companies announced on Monday.

    Continue reading...

  • Conservation groups join those who helped plant woodland in opposing expansion of bottling plant

    Harrogate Spring Water, which is owned by the multinational Danone, is planning to cut down a wood planted by schoolchildren in order to expand its bottling factory in the North Yorkshire town.

    Two primary schools, along with other local volunteers, helped to plant 450 trees in a project aimed at fighting climate breakdown organised by the Rotary Club of Harrogate almost 20 years ago.

    Continue reading...

  • An alliance of political groups is harnessing real fears about the local impact of wind and solar farms – and using them to spruik nuclear power

    The entrance is marked by an AI-generated image of a dead whale, floating among wind turbines. On the first floor of the East Maitland bowling club, dire warnings are being shared about how offshore wind may impact the Hunter region – alongside a feeling of not being consulted, of being steamrolled.

    “Environment and energy forums” like this one in late November have been held up and down the east of Australia, aiming to build a resistance to the country’s renewable energy transition.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

    Continue reading...

  • Researchers mapped brick kilns across India and used climate models to forecast the levels of heat stress workers face between now and 2050

    • Photographs by Ishan Tankha

    “I work with fire. But this has been the hottest ever, even for me,” says Harilal Rajput, squinting in the blazing midday sun. Rajput, 41, is a chief fire worker at a brick kiln near the town of Danapur on the outskirts of Patna, capital of the eastern state of Bihar. He is a migrant worker; his wife, a farmer, lives in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh with their three children.

    It is almost 1pm on a June afternoon and neither Rajput nor the nine fire workers he supervises have had any food since the previous night. They will eat only when their eight-hour shift ends at about 4pm. His team, he says, is “running on water”.

    Continue reading...

  • Investigation uncovers how chemicals like diquat, banned in the UK but legal to export, are causing health problems in the global south

    Valdemar Postanovicz was at home after a day tending to his tobacco crop when his limbs seized up. “All of the right side of my body was paralysed. I couldn’t feel my foot and my hand. My mouth twisted to the right,” he says.

    He feared it was a stroke. In fact, he was suffering ­symptoms of acute ­pesticide poisoning. Postanovicz, 45, had absorbed Reglone, a powerful herbicide based on the chemical diquat. “It was only one time in my life, but I felt so sick,” he says.

    Continue reading...

  • Carbon-positive farming is a simple concept: remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it into the soil. How can it work for back yard gardens?

    My vegetable garden is a jungle. The grass is waist-high, the weeds have consumed my gardening tools and representatives from all classes of the animal kingdom – possibly also a jabberwocky – are enjoying a comfortable existence in there, eating my salad greens and each other.

    Letting things go feral seemed like a good idea. I had recently learned about carbon-positive agriculture, sometimes called carbon farming, and wanted to apply those principles on a smaller suburban scale in my Blue Mountains vegetable and fruit-growing endeavours. The goal: ever more luscious tomatoes, enormous zucchini, sweet raspberries and bushels of tart, juicy apples.

    Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds

  • An unheralded breakthrough at the recent UN biodiversity conference highlights the often-overlooked connection between our health and the planet’s, a Conservation International expert says.

  • A recent study on climate solutions downplays nature’s potential, two Conservation International experts say.

  • A new study found that seaweed forests may play a bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought — absorbing as much climate-warming carbon as the Amazon rainforest. But not all seaweed forests are created equal.

  • For the conscientious consumer, finding the perfect present can be a challenge. Not to worry, Conservation International's 2024 gift guide has you covered.

  • A Conservation International scientist shares what can be done to prevent an ‘outright alarming’ future for whale sharks.

  • A new Conservation International study measures the cooling effects of forests against extreme heat — with eye-opening results.

  • EDITOR’S NOTE:Few places on Earth are as evocative — or as imperiled — as the vast grasslands of sub-Saharan Africa. In a new Conservation News series, “Saving the Savanna,” we look at how communities are working to protect these places — and the wildlife within.

    MARA NORTH CONSERVANCY, Kenya — Under a fading sun, Kenya’s Maasai Mara came alive.

    A land cruiser passed through a wide-open savanna, where a pride of lions stirred from a day-long slumber. Steps away, elephants treaded single-file through tall grass, while giraffes peered from a thicket of acacia trees. But just over a ridge was a sight most safari-goers might not expect — dozens of herders guiding cattle into an enclosure for the night. The herders were swathed in vibrant red blankets carrying long wooden staffs, their beaded jewelry jingling softly.

    Maasai Mara is the northern reach of a massive, connected ecosystem beginning in neighboring Tanzania’s world-famous Serengeti. Unlike most parks, typically managed by local or national governments, these lands are protected under a wildlife conservancy — a unique type of protected area managed directly by the Indigenous People who own the land.

    Conservancies allow the people that live near national parks or reserves to combine their properties into large, protected areas for wildlife. These landowners can then earn income by leasing that land for safaris, lodges and other tourism activities. Communities in Maasai Mara have created 24 conservancies, protecting a total of 180,000 hectares (450,000 acres) — effectively doubling the total area of habitat for wildlife in the region, beyond the boundaries of nearby Maasai Mara National Reserve.

    “It's significant income for families that have few other economic opportunities — around US$ 350 a month on average for a family. In Kenya, that's the equivalent of a graduate salary coming out of university,” said Elijah Toirai, Conservation International’s community engagement lead in Africa.

    © Jon McCormack

    Lions tussle in the tall grass of Mara North Conservancy.

    But elsewhere in Africa, the conservancy model has remained far out of reach.

    “Conservancies have the potential to lift pastoral communities out of poverty in many African landscapes. But starting a conservancy requires significant funding — money they simply don't have,” said Bjorn Stauch, senior vice president of Conservation International’s nature finance division.

    Upfront costs can include mapping out land boundaries, removing fences that prevent the movement of wildlife, eradicating invasive species that crowd out native grasses, creating firebreaks to prevent runaway wildfires, as well building infrastructure like roads and drainage ditches that are essential for successful safaris. Once established, conservancies need to develop management plans that guide their specified land use for the future.

    Conservation International wanted to find a way for local communities to start conservancies and strengthen existing ones. Over the next three years, the organization aims to invest millions of dollars in new and emerging conservancies across Southern and East Africa. The funds will be provided as loans, which the conservancies will repay through tourism leases. This financing will jumpstart new conservancies and reinforce those already in place. The approach builds on an initial model that has proven highly effective and popular with local communities.

    “We’re always looking for creative new ways to pay for conservation efforts that last,” Stauch said. “This is really a durable financing mechanism that puts money directly in the pockets of those who live closest to nature — giving them a leg up. And it’s been proven to work in the direst circumstances imaginable.”

    © Will McCarry

    Elijah Toirai explains current conservancy boundaries and potential areas for expansion.

    Creativity from crisis

    In 2020, the entire conservancy model almost collapsed overnight.

    “No one thought that the world could stop in 24 hours,” said Kelvin Alie, senior vice president and acting Africa lead for Conservation International. “But then came the pandemic, and suddenly Kenya is shutting its doors on March 23, 2020. And in the Mara, this steady and very well-rounded model based on safari tourism came to a screeching halt.”

    Tourism operators, who generate the income to pay landowners' leases, found themselves without revenue. Communities faced a difficult choice: replace the lost income by fencing off their lands for grazing, converting it to agriculture, or selling to developers — each of which would have had drastic consequences for the Maasai Mara’s people and wildlife.

    © Will Turner

    A black-backed jackal hunts for prey.

    “But then the nature finance team at Conservation International — these crazy guys — came up with a wild idea,” Alie said. “In just six months they put this entirely new funding model together: loaning money at an affordable rate to the conservancies so that they can continue to pay staff and wildlife rangers.”

    Conservation International and the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association launched the African Conservancies Fund — a rescue package to offset lost revenues for approximately 3,000 people in the area who rely on tourism income. Between December 2020 and December 2022, the fund provided more than US$ 2 million in affordable loans to four conservancies managing 70,000 hectares (170,000 acres).

    The loans enabled families in the Maasai Mara to continue receiving income from their lands to pay for health care, home repairs, school fees and more. And because tourism revenues — not government funding — support wildlife protection in conservancies, this replacement funding ensured wildlife patrols continued normally, with rangers working full time.

    Born out of this emergency, we discovered a new way to do conservation.

    Elijah Toirai

    “The catastrophe of COVID-19 was total for us,” said Benard Leperes, a landowner with Mara North Conservancy and a conservation expert at Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association. “Without Conservation International and the fund, this landscape would have not been secured; the conservancies would have disintegrated as people were forced to sell their land to convert it to agriculture.”

    But it was communities themselves that proved the model might be replicable after the pandemic ended.

    “The conservancies had until 2023 before the first payment was due,” Toirai said. “But as soon as tourism resumed in mid-2021, the communities started paying back the loans. Today, the loans are being repaid way ahead of schedule.”

    “Born out of this emergency, we discovered a new way to do conservation.”

    A new era for conservation

    The high plateaus overlooking the Maasai Mara are home to the very last giant pangolins in Kenya.

    These mammals, armored with distinctive interlocking scales, are highly endangered because of illegal wildlife trade. In Kenya, threats from poaching, deforestation and electric fences meant to deter elephants from crops have caused the species to nearly disappear. Today, scientists believe there could be as few as 30 giant pangolins left in Kenya.

    Conservancies could be crucial to bringing them back. Conservation International has identified opportunities to provide transformative funding for conservancies in this area — a sprawling grassland northwest of Maasai Mara that is the very last pangolin stronghold in the country. The fund will help communities better protect an existing 10,000-hectare (25,000-acre) conservancy and bring an additional 5,000 hectares under protection. It provides a safety net, ensuring a steady income for the communities as the work of expanding the conservancy begins. With a stable income, communities can start work to restore the savanna and remove electric fences that have killed pangolins. And as wildlife move back into the ecosystem, the grasslands will begin to recover.

    In addition to expanding conservancies around Maasai Mara, Conservation International has identified other critical ecosystems where community conservancies can help lift people out poverty, while providing new habitats for wildlife. Conservation International has ambitious plans to restore a critical and highly degraded savanna between Amboseli and Tsavo National Parks in southern Kenya, as well as a swath of savanna outside Kruger National Park in South Africa.

    © Emily Nyrop

    A lone acacia tree in a sea of grass.

    Elephants, fire, Maasai and cattle

    Many of the new and emerging community conservancies have been carefully chosen as key wildlife corridors that would be threatened by overgrazing livestock.

    When the first Maasai Mara conservancies were established in 2009, cattle grazing was prohibited within their boundaries. When poorly managed, cattle can wear grasses down to their roots, triggering topsoil erosion and the loss of nutrients, microbes and biodiversity vital for soil health. It was also believed that tourists would be put off by the sight of livestock mingling with wildlife.

    © Emily Nyrop

    Cattle are closely monitored in the Maasai Mara to prevent overgrazing.

    However, over the years, landowners objected, lamenting the loss of cultural ties to cattle and herding. “That was when we changed tactics,” said Raphael Kereto, the grazing manager for Mara North Conservancy.

    Beginning in 2018, Mara North and other conservancies in the region started adopting livestock grazing practices to restore the savanna. Landowners agreed to periodically move livestock between different pastures, allowing grazed lands to recover and regrow,  mimicking the traditional methods pastoralists have used on these lands for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

    “Initially, there was a worry that maybe herbivores and other wildlife will run away from cattle,” said Kereto. “But we have seen the exact opposite — the wildlife all follow where cattle are grazing. This is because we have a lot of grass, and all the animals follow where there is a lot of grass. We even saw a cheetah with a cub that spent all her time rotating with wildlife.”

    “It's amazing — when we move cattle, the cheetah comes with it.”

    The loans issued by the fund — now called the African Conservancies Facility — will enhance rotational grazing systems, which are practiced differently in each conservancy, by incorporating best practices and lessons from the organization’s Herding for Health program in southern Africa.

    © Will Turner

    An elephant herd stares down a pack of hyenas.

    For landowners like Dickson Kaelo, who was among the pioneers to propose the conservancy model in Kenya, the return of cattle to the ecosystem has restored a natural order.

    “I always wanted to understand how it was that there was so much more wildlife in the conservancies than in Maasai Mara National Reserve,” said Kaelo, who heads the Kenya Wildlife Conservancy Association, based in Nairobi.

    “I went to the communities and asked them this question. They told me savannas were created by elephants, fire and Maasai and cattle, and excluding any one of those is not good for the health of the system. So, I believe in the conservancies — I know that every single month, people go to the bank and they have some money, they haven't lost their culture because they still are cattle keepers, and the land is much healthier, with more grass, more wildlife, and the trees have not been cut.

    “For me, it’s something really beautiful.”


    Further reading:

    Will McCarry is the content director at Conservation International. Want to read more stories like this? Sign up for email updates. Also, please consider supporting our critical work.

  • Conservation International is helping recover a savanna habitat nearly twice the size of Manhattan.

  • “Nature is resilient — when given the chance.” A Conservation International study shows where trees can grow back on their own — and fight climate change.

  • "Before, we were working blind": A new Conservation International study gives scientists an unprecedented view into a remote tropical forest.