s s
Daily News Blog


  • Archives

  • Categories

    • Agriculture (430)
    • Announcements (290)
    • Antibacterial (103)
    • Aquaculture (13)
    • Biofuels (5)
    • Biological Control (1)
    • Biomonitoring (14)
    • Cannabis (4)
    • Children/Schools (184)
    • Climate Change (23)
    • Environmental Justice (69)
    • Events (60)
    • Farmworkers (76)
    • Fracking (1)
    • Golf (10)
    • Health care (25)
    • Holidays (24)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (31)
    • International (226)
    • Invasive Species (23)
    • Label Claims (32)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (149)
    • Litigation (210)
    • Nanotechnology (51)
    • National Politics (266)
    • Pesticide Drift (66)
    • Pesticide Regulation (493)
    • Pesticide Residues (23)
    • Pets (14)
    • Resistance (48)
    • Rodenticide (16)
    • Take Action (259)
    • Uncategorized (9)
    • Wildlife/Endangered Sp. (240)
    • Wood Preservatives (20)


Petition Seeks Nationwide Refuge Ban of GE Crops and Neonicotinoid Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2014) Beyond Pesticides joined Center for Food Safety (CFS), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and Center for Biological Diversityearlier this week in filing a formal petition for rulemaking with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The petition demands that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the DOI bureau tasked with managing and regulating the system of National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) across this country, establish better protections for wildlife and their habitat by prohibiting the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops and neonicotinoid pesticides in NWRs as well as other necessary policy changes.

The petition asserts that the allowed cultivation of GE crops and use of neonicotinoid pesticides on lands designated as NWRs violates not only the purpose and protective standards of the National Wildlife Refuge Act (NWRA), which seeks to conserve, manage and restore fish wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the present and future generations, but also threatens endangered species by resulting in destruction of critical habitat protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Specifically, pollen from GE crops drift and contaminate related wild plants and natural crops. There is also the problem that GE crops are overwhelmingly engineered for one function -to be resistant to pesticides. Accordingly, application of pesticides goes hand-in-hand with GE crops, which have been shown to dramatically increase pesticide release into the environment, including wildlife refuges. Massive pesticide exposure from pesticide-promoting GE crops has also caused weeds to mutate, creating an epidemic of herbicide-resistant ‚Äúsuperweeds.‚ÄĚ

Neonicotinoids, a relatively new class of pesticides, are often applied  as a coating to agricultural seeds that results in the chemical moving through the plants vascular system and expressing itself in nectar, pollen, and guttation droplets. Severely damaging to pollinators, studies have found that honey bees are particularly at risk if exposed to neonicotioid pesticides at high concentrations and sublethal doses. Widespread pollinator loss threatens native plants and the species that rely on them for survival, as well as our nation’s food supply.  Over 80% of flowering plants rely on pollination services from these critical species.

To remedy the legal violations and better protect the environment and wildlife dependent on NWRs from the dangers posed by GE crops and neonicotinoids, the petitioners request that FWS take several actions. First and foremost, te petition ask FWS to issue a rule that bans the planting of GE crops and use of neonicotinoids on NWRs. Second, the petitioners request that as a part of the rule, amend existing regulations to exclude GE crops and neonicotinoids as compatible uses. In carrying out this action, the petition asks FWS to include specific instructions and deadlines for expeditiously phasing out such practices where they exist. Concerning the ESA, he petitioners request that FWS take specific actions in order to comply with the mandates of ESA and reassess endangered species impacts. Lastly, the petition requests that FWS monitor and report on GE crops, pesticide use, and GE volunteers, so that the public is informed about farming practices on refuge lands.

As one of the petitioners notes, ‚ÄúAccording to federal policy, GE crops are forbidden unless their use is essential to accomplishing refuge purposes. The fact that refuges in the Northeast and Southeast have stopped using GE crops without any ill effects belies the notion that they are ever ‚Äėessential‚Äô for managing wildlife refuges,‚ÄĚ said PEER executive director Jeff Ruch.

Confounding as it may be that GE crops (or any agricultural practices for that matter) as well as pesticide use has been permitted on NWRs, the fact remains that these practices have proceeded without consideration for the essential purpose of NWRs and the increasingly important role they must play in carving out a protective space in which native plants and wildlife can find reprieve from the ever-expanding modern-day assaults to the environment. The petitioners assert that use of GE crops and neonicotinoids on areas specifically set aside for conservation and wildlife protection, just doesn’t make sense.

‚ÄúPermitting GE crops and neonicotinoid pesticides in Natural Wildlife Refuges threatens one of the few places that pollinators should be able to find shelter from the onslaught of toxic poisons threatening their existence and all that depend on them,‚ÄĚ said Jay Feldman, executive director for Beyond Pesticides.

‚ÄúNational Wildlife Refuges are vital sanctuaries of our natural heritage, for present and future generations. Allowing chemical companies to profit by poisoning these important ecosystems violates their fundamental purpose and mission,‚ÄĚ said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety.

‚ÄúPesticides and genetically engineered crops are not part of America‚Äôs precious natural heritage,‚ÄĚ said Jonathan Evans toxics and endangered species campaign director for the Center for Biological Diversity. ‚ÄúNational wildlife refuges were founded to be sanctuaries for America‚Äôs wildlife and not laboratories for agricultural experiments.‚ÄĚ

The filing of the petition is one of many efforts on the part of Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, and other allies to stop not only FWS from permitting the growing of GE crops on numerous National Wildlife Refuges across the country, but to stop the unchecked use of these environmentally damaging and wildlife threatening practices. Beyond Pesticides will continue the fight against the dangerous and threatening invasion of GE crops and use of neonicotinoids through not only legal action, but also its public awareness and action campaigns such as Bee Protective and GE labeling initiatives.

Continue the conversation at Beyond Pesticides‚Äô¬†32nd¬†National Pesticide Forum,¬†‚ÄúAdvancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices,‚Ä̬†in Portland, OR April 11-12. The Forum will focus¬†on improving farmworker protections along with solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so¬†register now.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Center for Food Safety


12 Responses to “Petition Seeks Nationwide Refuge Ban of GE Crops and Neonicotinoid Pesticides”

  1. 1
    Kim Orent Says:

    Stop don’t allow the companies to destroy our planet!!!

  2. 2
    Mary Wirz Says:

    The more poison in the ecosystem, the more sectors of the ecosystem die. This really is not difficult to figure out. And yes, humans DO depend on the ecosystem for survival.

  3. 3
    Patrick Carraher Says:

    Most important issue of the day

  4. 4
    Sue Carroll Says:

    Stop allowing this contamination and destruction. Think about the future!!

  5. 5
    Buster Crabb Says:

    I would love to see these scientist in the town square answering questions from the people.

  6. 6
    Karlene Dancingwolf Says:

    We absolutely must prevent further contamination of our Earth with neonicotinoid pesticides and genetically modified organisms. These have been proven to cause long-lasting harm to the environment and, once they’re released, the damage cannot be reversed. Conscientious individuals and companies must stand up to the big 6–Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, DuPont and Dow. It’s all about profit to them; it’s about LIFE to the rest of us.

  7. 7
    Brenda Gaines Says:

    The “Precautionary Principle” is meant to help make decisions that ensure survival when statistical evidence is limited because it has not had time to show up, by focusing on the adverse effects of absence of evidence. PP is there to avoid a avoid a certain class of what is called in probability and insurance “ruin” problems.
    For nature, the “ruin” is ecocide: an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.
    GMO damage is not yet blazingly obvious to the consumer simply because considerable and irreversible consequences have not been recognized.
    Allowing 6 chemical companies to alter the genetic make up of all seeds, plants, and trees on the planet in order to ‘own’ them and make them compatible with toxic pesticides increases the chances of ecocide with each plant they modify.
    The risk of ‘ruin’ is not sustainable, like a resource that gets depleted in the long run. By the ‘ruin’ theory, if you incur a tiny probability of ruin, survive it, then repeat it, you will eventually go bust with probability.

  8. 8
    Mike Hurst Says:

    Keep the pressure on. We need nothing short of a complete BAN on neonicotinoids and GMO’s.
    If you desire signatures for support, please present the opportunity.

  9. 9
    Patty Heilman Says:

    Stop using pesticides in our crops!,,

  10. 10
    Saran Kirschbaum Says:

    Use of GE Crops Neonicotinoid Pesticides are an example of of why the old saying “Don’t let the cat out of the bag” is still applicable.

  11. 11
    Faith Fleming Says:

    Stop all the bad science experiments and leave our food supply alone!

  12. 12
    Maryann T. Says:

    I just read on Wikipedia (about permethrins) that there aren’t safety studies on humans. It says according to urine excretion. only .5% is absorbed. But then it says that in rats, the toxin accumulates in the brain and in fat. What an illogical assumption, that all that is absorbed is excreted! For all we know, all of it is absorbed and 99.5% stays in the body.

    Wikipedia also says that the U.S. and U.K. militaries are now putting permethrin on all uniforms. Is this true?! What a terrible social experiment on our armed forces! Why do people with desk jobs have to wear clothes with a neurotoxin in it?

Leave a Reply

six × = 30