Nav: Home

Synthetic chemicals understudied drivers of environmental change

January 24, 2017

DURHAM, N.C. -- The increased use of synthetic chemicals, including pesticides and pharmaceuticals to attack unwanted organisms, has outpaced the rates of change in rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and other agents of global environmental change over the past 45 years, a new Duke-led analysis reveals.

Despite this trend, U.S. ecological journals, meetings and funding sources still devote less than two percent of their pages, talks and dollars to studies on these chemicals, creating a disconnect between real-world needs and scientific focus.

"Pesticide use is leveling off in the U.S. but growing in much of the developing world," said Emily S. Bernhardt, professor of biogeochemistry at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment. "Many chemicals banned in the U.S. are still being widely used elsewhere, despite the fact that in many cases we know little about their long-term ecological effects."

"The amount and diversity of pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other industrial chemicals that humans are releasing into the environment are increasing at rates that match or exceed recent increases in CO2 emissions, nutrient pollution from nitrogen fertilizers, and other drivers of global change," Bernhardt said. "But our analysis shows we're not spending anywhere near the amount of attention or money that we should be to assess their impacts."

The researchers suggest convening a National Academy of Sciences panel to address the issue or creating a new National Institute on the Environment to coordinate existing funding, spur new funding and encourage increased research as good places to start.

"When compared to climate change and nutrient pollution, synthetic chemicals have fallen off the research radar -- despite the threats they pose to human and environmental health," said Emma J. Rosi, an aquatic ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. "Right now, we lack the data needed to assess the ecological impacts of most of the synthetic chemicals in use today. The situation is unsustainable."

In their analysis, which appears Jan. 24 in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Rosi and Bernhardt note that many U.S. government agencies and private global health foundations that used to fund long-term ecological field research on synthetic chemicals have had their budgets cut, or have redirected available funds to human health studies or toxicological tests conducted in a controlled lab environment.

But lab-based efforts are insufficient to understand and predict the individual or collective impacts long-lasting synthetic chemicals and their breakdown products can have when they enter an ecosystem and start to accumulate -- and potentially grow more toxic -- in the tissues of living organisms.

"We need to know more about how synthetic chemicals are altering ecosystems and interacting with other drivers of global change," Bernhardt said. "Our lack of knowledge about how synthetic chemicals alter ecological processes represents a critical blindspot in the rapidly developing field of global ecology."

Mark O. Gessner of the Berlin Institute of Technology conducted the new analysis with Bernhardt and Rosi. The work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and an IGB Fellowship in Freshwater Science.

A second group of scientists at Duke, the University of Michigan, Kent State University and the University of South Florida published a related commentary Jan. 17 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Their analysis provides additional documentation of the steady decline in U.S. government funding for studies on the ecological impacts of synthetic chemicals, and calls upon the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to reverse this trend.

"During the 1990s and early years of this century, the primary EPA source of funding for research on chemicals in our environment was the Science to Achieve Results -- or STAR -- program," said Richard Di Giulio, Sally Kleberg Professor of Environmental Toxicology at Duke. "STAR's funding peaked in 2001 at 1.3 percent of the EPA's budget and is now at about 0.5 percent of the budget."

The drop has occurred, he said, despite the fact that in 2003, the National Academy of Sciences recommended the STAR funding be between 15 percent and 20 percent of the total EPA Office of Research and Development budget.

"We call upon the EPA, NSF and Congress to begin an interagency-funded research program to spur new, and critically needed, ecological research on the effects the millions of chemicals in our environment," Di Giulio said. "It's time to put politics aside and science to the fore."
-end-
CITATIONS:

"Synthetic Chemicals as Agents of Global Change," Emily S. Bernhardt, Emma J. Rosi and Mark O. Gessner, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, January 24, 2017. DOI: 10.1002/fee.1450

"Slipping through the Cracks: Why is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Not Funding Extramural Research on Chemicals in Our Environment?" G. Allen Burton Jr., Richard Di Giulio, David Costello and Jason R. Rohr, Environmental Science & Technology, January 17, 2017. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05877

Duke University

Related Pesticides Articles:

Pesticides increase the risk of schistosomiasis, a tropical disease
Schistosomiasis is a severe infectious disease caused by parasitic worms.
Wasps' gut microbes help them -- and their offspring -- survive pesticides
Exposure to the widely used pesticide atrazine leads to heritable changes in the gut microbiome of wasps, finds a study publishing Feb.
A proposal to change environmental risk assessment for pesticides
Despite regulatory frameworks designed to prevent environmental damage, pesticide use is still linked to declines in insects, birds and aquatic species, an outcome that raises questions about the efficacy of current regulatory procedures.
SDHI pesticides are toxic for human cells
French scientists led by a CNRS researcher have just revealed that eight succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor pesticide molecules do not just inhibit the SDH activity of fungi, but can also block that of earthworms, bees, and human cells in varying proportions.
Pesticides deliver a one-two punch to honey bees
A new paper in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry reveals that adjuvants, chemicals commonly added to pesticides, amplify toxicity affecting mortality rates, flight intensity, colony intensity, and pupae development in honey bees.
Hypertension found in children exposed to flower pesticides
Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine found higher blood pressure and pesticide exposures in children associated with a heightened pesticide spraying period around the Mother's Day flower harvest.
Banned pesticides in Europe's rivers
Tests of Europe's rivers and canals have revealed more than 100 pesticides -- including 24 that are not licensed for use in the EU.
The persistence of pesticides threatens European soils
A study developed by researchers from the Diverfarming project finds pesticide residues in the soils of eleven European countries in six different cropping systems
Honeybees at risk from Zika pesticides
Up to 13 percent of US beekeepers are in danger of losing their colonies due to pesticides sprayed to contain the Zika virus, new research suggests.
Alternatives to pesticides -- Researchers suggest popular weeds
Research proves that extracts from S. nigrum and D. stramonium, globally existing weed species, may help to protect crop systems against agricultural pests.
More Pesticides News and Pesticides Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Our Relationship With Water
We need water to live. But with rising seas and so many lacking clean water – water is in crisis and so are we. This hour, TED speakers explore ideas around restoring our relationship with water. Guests on the show include legal scholar Kelsey Leonard, artist LaToya Ruby Frazier, and community organizer Colette Pichon Battle.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#569 Facing Fear
What do you fear? I mean really fear? Well, ok, maybe right now that's tough. We're living in a new age and definition of fear. But what do we do about it? Eva Holland has faced her fears, including trauma and phobia. She lived to tell the tale and write a book: "Nerve: Adventures in the Science of Fear".
Now Playing: Radiolab

Uncounted
First things first: our very own Latif Nasser has an exciting new show on Netflix. He talks to Jad about the hidden forces of the world that connect us all. Then, with an eye on the upcoming election, we take a look back: at two pieces from More Perfect Season 3 about Constitutional amendments that determine who gets to vote. Former Radiolab producer Julia Longoria takes us to Washington, D.C. The capital is at the heart of our democracy, but it's not a state, and it wasn't until the 23rd Amendment that its people got the right to vote for president. But that still left DC without full representation in Congress; D.C. sends a "non-voting delegate" to the House. Julia profiles that delegate, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and her unique approach to fighting for power in a virtually powerless role. Second, Radiolab producer Sarah Qari looks at a current fight to lower the US voting age to 16 that harkens back to the fight for the 26th Amendment in the 1960s. Eighteen-year-olds at the time argued that if they were old enough to be drafted to fight in the War, they were old enough to have a voice in our democracy. But what about today, when even younger Americans are finding themselves at the center of national political debates? Does it mean we should lower the voting age even further? This episode was reported and produced by Julia Longoria and Sarah Qari. Check out Latif Nasser's new Netflix show Connected here. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.