 So anyways I'll call the meeting to order and have the committee introduce themselves and We'll get started Yeah, Brian call it more representing the Rutland district Chris Pearson from Chittenden County Bobby Starter Essex Orleans County Roo Party Addison County including all those kids from the Lincoln School. Thank you for waiting for me to do that Our first witness on these three pesticide bills as Sarah boss So my name is Sarah both. I'm the state toxicologist at the health department Our role at the health department is to assess or to to look at the health of the health risk posed by chemicals Pesticides chemicals in our environment We mostly look at the risk of these chemicals when they're in our air water soil and food So when we think about the risk of a chemical we look at information from toxicology studies toxicology studies are those studies that are Conducted in animals and those often give us some really clear conclusions about the the harm that a chemical can pose Most of our safety levels that exist in Vermont and in the country are based on these animal studies We also look at the epidemiology studies Epidemiology studies are those that have been published looking at the health effects in people and These studies looking at people can be a little bit less clear And that's because we as people have lots of different Traits and habits that can make study interpretation a bit more difficult So we always look at both the animal data and look to see if the same health effects are seen in human epidemiology data and When we think about the risk to human health from a chemical we always think about the the toxicity So how potent or how strong of a toxic chemical we're dealing with and then we also have to look at exposure Because if there's an incredibly toxic chemical that is that we're not exposed to then there's really not a lot of risk to public health So those are the pieces that go into an evaluation Some of the things that we think about when we look at the risk to human health from chemicals So I'm going to Just give you a quick summary of two of the pesticides on your list Those are chlorpyrifos and glyphosate and then we can I'm happy to answer questions after So I'll start with glyphosate Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the entire world when it was first developed it It was developed to target a specific Part of a plant cell that mammals don't have and so this was a really good thing because as an herbicide You want the chemical to kill the plants and to not harm humans in 2015 the World Health Organization Which is an authoritative body? looked at glyphosate to see what potential it had to cause cancer and The World Health Organization has a very standard process for looking at chemicals to determine How likely they are to cause cancer and they have four categories that they can include The strongest evidence is that a chemical is carcinogenic to human Going down from that the next level is that a chemical is probably Carcinogenic to humans the next level is possibly Carcinogenic to humans and then the lowest level is not classifiable as to carcinogenic So in 2015 the World Health Organization concluded that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans So that's the second strongest conclusion that they could have made Probably So that's also called group 2a you might have seen category 1 is carcinogenic 2a is probably 2b is possibly and 3 is not classifiable That conclusion that the World Health Organization made in 2015 was based on All of the data all the scientific papers that have been published in the open literature So peer-reviewed literature that anyone from the public can go in and look at The World Health Organization's conclusion differed from most regulatory conclusions, so there are regulatory bodies that Review pesticides including the US EPA and other equivalents in the world those regulatory agencies Use the open literature, but they also use studies that are sent to them directly from the manufacturer of Glyphosate and in that in those situations those studies are often And are not available to the public So the difference in that in the World Health Organization as they used all the studies available for public review the regulatory agencies also include Studies that are not available for public review the World Health Organization's conclusion was based on Evidence in animals so evidence that glyphosate did increase the amount of tumors in animals There was also some evidence in humans that people who were exposed had a higher increased risk of cancer so that's all for glyphosate and Does that show like how who did the Not who did the testing but how severe was the usage of the pesticide for the person to You know they work in the factory where it's manufactured were they applicators Did they go into any detail on their test results? So for the human studies that were reviewed those were farmers people who were working and applying glyphosate. Yes Sir Sir, I'm just trying to understand what you what you presented. So the World Health Organization classified it as 2a What did the EPA say? The EPA says that it is not personogenic to humans. Thank you Yep It's also true that the EPA part makes big bases its findings on corporate corporate studies Studies that were done by the manufacturers of sellers marketers of the glyphosate Yes, that's true. So EPA and the other regulatory Entities in the world do use the studies provided from the manufacturer and so you could argue that the World Health Organization That's less biased It's certainly more transparent Do does anybody have data about what Tental impact would be on Grazers that are eating Plants that have been sprayed Sort of animal grazers. Yeah. Yeah, I mean what do you think you've been talking about humans and and And so I'm just curious about So because there also be effects on animals from exposure to glyphosate There haven't been specific studies looking at that, you know in general Things that cause or things that can contribute to cancer in humans Usually act the same in all mammals. There are some exceptions to that That's usually the default assumption How about for feet, you know a lot of it as I understand Would end up Being applied to crops that turn into feed for animals have they traced that or is it always been sort of more direct? Maybe I'm not articulating it well, but there may be someone else who could answer that But our review is really focused on the human health aspects Yeah, because soybeans and in in Vermont used heavily for soybean and corn a lot for corn Because we grow a cover crop spray it with Modest and so it kills the grass before you plant the corn So the primary way that brahmachers are exposed are through the diet from the uses that you just mentioned No, any other question. No, so you Okay, I see just quick one It's glyphosate banned or restricted in other parts of the world There are some restrictions in other parts of the world You know, they are they analyze or they assess pesticides differently in the EU They have a different approach to the allowable level in drinking water, for example But I don't I don't know specifically which countries or cities have banned glyphosate Are you Is the Department of Health making a recommendation on this at all or are you just providing us information and what What is your recommendation? I'm just giving some science background, but Shayla is here to answer any policy questions Thank you So Brian, I'm sorry just one more other yet. Are there any other states that? For evident I believe that some cities have enacted restrictions across the country, but I don't have a List of those. I think I've read that in different news articles, but I don't have that with me Yeah, I've a question out about like glyphosate, but just about your role Do you feel that the Department of Health has a slot on the I can't remember the committee Pesticide advisory is that do you take that slot or is that somebody else? Yes, as of last summer 2019. I feel that role for the health department Okay, that's not too demanding. I understand You don't have any meetings, right? It's all verb We have had meetings. You have had Thought we were told they don't ever meet Thank you So I'll move on to chlorpyrifos. Yes Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide and organophosphates are a class a chemical structure class of pesticides and Organophosphates target a specific neurotransmitter in our brain and that's a specific Messenger chemical that makes our muscles work and it makes our bodies work and unlike glyphosate organophosphates target the same Part of our brain as it does an insect So that means that organophosphates are very toxic to insects, but they're also very toxic to humans organophosphates and chlorpyrifos specifically are also Associated with neuro developmental outcomes. So that means that when a pregnant woman is exposed to chlorpyrifos her child later in life could have a higher risk for Learning and memory problems or decreased IQ so when EPA looked at Chlorpyrifos to determine how much we're exposed to in 2016 They they looked at how much we get from our diet because chlorpyrifos is used on a lot of produce we Often, you know, we eat a lot of chlorpyrifos residue from the food we buy In 2016 the Office of pesticides Decided that the amount of chlorpyrifos that we're exposed to from the diet is Thousands of times higher than it should be to protect from those brain effects in children So in 2016 the Office of pesticides Recommended that for pyrifos not be used for food products anymore the since 2016 that decision has been debated Within EPA, but that recommendation in 2016 was based on the best available science to protect children's brains And I put that's a compound that we don't sell here in Vermont any longer I think Kerry can speak to that, but I believe that's true as well From your point of view is there any danger to us Banning it outright in statute. I can only really comment on the scientific aspect of it I think policy would have to be from Shayla It's been supposed that since we have a de facto ban that there's some wisdom to the Agency having that flexibility Do you see any Where any any scenario to help us understand where we might be glad that we could suddenly release some Can ever say yeah, yeah Could you see a scenario where that would be valuable to the public? To use for pyrifos Where we would you know, if we effectively have a ban because we're not licensing sale of it There's an argument that says well, then it's no big deal if we ban it in statute the counter argument seems to be well keep the agency Have some flexibility In case something happens where we want it, so I'm trying to understand where we would ever see some scenario where You might be glad that we can quickly apply some pyrifos well, I will say that for pyrifos is Only one of the organophosphates. There are other chemicals that work by the same mechanism So with the goal of applying an organophosphate to target a specific Mechanism if that's the goal, then there are other chemicals that could be used Instead of for pyrifos, I mean that's from My perspective I don't know all of the uses of for pyrifos though What I think what we heard was Appalachutes if they have a certain outbreak of a certain past They this product works very well to take care of that issue but haven't We haven't had that problem here in Vermont for a while, so I think it was the apple trees that Wasn't it used on apple trees? Do you know? Yeah, that's and that's what In that case I would I would recommend that the question be asked could another what helps organophosphate or carbamate which is a Different chemical structure that works the same way could a different chemical So my question is Generally do organophosphates all work the same way as chlorpyrifos or that Is the whole class Has felt has the EPA or other agencies Reached the conclusions that you laid out based on the whole class or organophosphates or is it just Before the effects on the children's brain. Yeah, right now. It's just chlorpyrifos So other organophosphates Do not target the same parts of the brain in humans as in insects or so so all organophosphates target that neurotransmitter in the brain and that's why they're very Acutely toxic they can kill us and insects quite quickly the effects on the child brain development Probably do not Happen by the same mechanism So it's not really very well understood how chlorpyrifos can change the brain development And it's not very well understood whether the other organophosphates do that as well Is it because they haven't done the studies on the other organophosphates and the focus has been on chlorpyrifos Or is it because they have done studies and not found to reach the same conclusions The the conclusions from chlorpyrifos are quite strong from the human literature. It's really the the mechanistic studies so those studies that are either in cells or in Animal tissues trying to figure out exactly how the chemical is working where it just hasn't been clear and for the other ones I guess my I'm I'm fairly convinced that this is a Pesticide that we should not be using in Vermont and Just wondering if there's a broader class of them that does the same thing as chlorpyrifos That we should be looking at more broadly and it's just that this one has gotten the attention Or if it's just this one works in a different way Well, EPA does assume that all the organophosphates work the same way for that main mechanism of action, so it You know a lot of scientists do assume that organophosphates all work the same way in harming brain development It is certainly a possibility Other question I guess we can move on to the third. Oh, that's all I have. Oh, yeah, just the two You're not discussing atrazine today, correct Actually, I mean since you're here, I mean like my questions all along been along this line of these are the two I guess we're also we have some build up treated C for the unit, you know, but These two bills are the ones that sort of came to us and I'm wondering if There are others that we should be focusing on instead or in addition to or you know So after zine is what is highly used in Vermont and so do you have conclusions about that that you can share Sure, so after zine is like you said a widely used herbicide Much like glyphosate when it was developed it was developed to target a specific part of a plant cell That humans don't have so it seemed like this was a really a really selective Urbicide that would only target plants But after zine is now recognized as an endocrine disruptor by the Centers for Disease Control As well as by the US EPA Chemicals that interact with the endocrine system have the potential to Change our ability to reproduce to make it harder for women to get pregnant and to also change The quality of the male reproductive system Chemicals that interact with the endocrine system are also worrisome because they can interfere with our Bodies at very very low levels our endocrine system Responds to extremely low levels of hormones inside of our bodies. So that means that very very low levels of Chemicals that are endocrine disruptors could have an effect in our bodies the the conclusions that were made About after zine being an endocrine disruptor and having reproductive effects were based on evidence and animals With supporting evidence in in humans There have been studies that look at the menstrual cycle which is a You know obviously an effect of the reproductive system and there have been studies that look on other birth outcomes So things that are Endpoints that are known to be reproductive effects. So there have been those studies in in humans That that atrazine does interfere with the endocrine system To follow up on how much how might people be most exposed after People are exposed to atrazine primarily from contaminated drinking water When EPA looked at how much was in our diet. They did not find that we're getting very much atrazine from the food Sarah I'd like to go back to the pesticide advisory board a little bit because I'm Start trying to understand that we hear a lot of variation from it never meets to it's had vacancies That haven't gone field now. We understand those have been filled but I'm trying to understand Sort of broadly speaking. I mean as our as the are you the state toxicologist The one and only You know, how do you how would you advise us? I mean it feels to me like we are further and further down this road where we feel trapped with glyphosate as a good example What everybody tells us is the less we use glyphosate the more we're going to use atrazine It'll be replaced by Chemicals that we want even less than glyphosate and so there's this sort of feeling of being trapped and I'm curious And you've only been seated on the board. It sounds like for a little while, but Have you ever do you feel like the board is serving the role that I think it was conceived of which is Somebody that would help us Digest the stuff and in order to do that Say no sometimes. I mean it doesn't seem like You don't hear about that. I hear about some things Kerry does through the regulatory angle But I just would like to understand better the board and how you see it function So VPAC when I've been on VPAC, they haven't we haven't taken up the issue of atrazine or glyphosate But I know that VPAC has discussed some other pesticide uses And I think there have been some favorable outcomes, but they might not have been as high-profile as glyphosate or Changes in those uses Do you think I? also worry that We have a system where Applicators just have to sort of get trained assert that they you know They're following the rules in terms of how how these chemicals are applied and Then we sort of say good you're good your green lit go for it as opposed to having any Standard where people need to assert that this is why I have to use this or if I don't use it This is this is you know what I'm trying to overcome. There's a prophylactic It seems like it's being applied ahead of any Real need necessarily or material need and I'm curious if What if you thought about that or you guys if you're aware of any discussion about that at the board Or just what you think as somebody that's charged with helping the state on this VPAC hasn't discussed that Specific issue it sounds like a lot of what you describe as within the agency of agriculture's Her view regarding how applicators are trained and how they are hired to apply pesticide Do you worry though about this sort of prophylactic use as opposed to Should we be worried about that Well, maybe not worried your point of view, but are you aware of I Know that some people I know black estate is approved for use on residential lawns People may choose to use it to prevent things like weeds. Is that what you mean by prophylactic use? Yeah, just use willy-nilly because I think I need it whether it's improvement or not Like we talked a little bit before about attention that apples. I've been in danger of a certain test that maybe you'd have to use chemical to use But that's different than just saying it while it's it's it's April So I'm going to spread my my glyphosate or my atrophy whether Proven that I needed or not just a habit. I mean it brings up the question of how much we're being exposed to So, you know, the EPA has looked at Exposers based on how glyphosate is used. I focused on the diet exposure. I Didn't review the exposures from turf use from residential one use So anything else on the Thank you My name is Maddie Kempner and I'm policy director for the Northeast Organic Farming Association over month I am going to testify on all four of the bills. So bear with me a lot to share also just so I know how much time Do I have a little bit? Okay No for months mission is to promote organic practices to build an economically viable Ecologically sound and socially adjust Vermont agricultural system that benefits all living things I feel like it's important to start with that because it feels Incredibly pertinent to this topic today And I'll start by saying that while we strongly support efforts to phase out the most harmful agricultural chemicals As some of these proposals would do in the near term Our work and our vision is in service to a long-term transition that changes agriculture's impact on human and ecological health from a negative one to a positive one That's really the work that we are setting up to do And would love to see that transition in the long term with respect to agricultural chemical use We believe this transition is not only possible but necessary antidote to our most pressing ecological and public health challenges Organic production continues to grow year after year as you may know both nationally and here in Vermont Just to share briefly some statistics from 2019 Vermont organic farmers, which is our USDA accredited certification program Certified 150,000 654 acres organically here in Vermont 682 farms and 93 processors and 354 million 456,974 dollars in gross sales organic products These figures represent certified organic production sales But I think it's also important to acknowledge many producers who are using organic practices in Vermont who may be who may not be certified Long-term field trials in the US not to mention the thousands of smallholder farmers feeding the majority of people throughout the world Have shown the potential for organic practices to not only match But in some cases exceed the yield and profitability of conventional agriculture well consistently leading to improve environmental outcomes To share some of you may be familiar with Rodale's now nearly 40-year farming systems trial That's an in-field trial comparing conventional organic systems It has shown that organic yields organic systems are competitive of conventional yields after five-year term mushroom period Prodive Organic systems produce yield up to 40 percent higher in times of drought Which we are protected to see more of the five change are in three to six times greater profits for farmers than conventional Leach no toxic chemicals into waterways use 45 percent less energy and release 40 percent fewer carbon emissions These latter statistics obviously critical when we think about an agricultural solution to find a change All of this is to say that we view organic agriculture as the viable long-term solution to our human health and ecological challenges and To quote from one of the many studies that I review and prepare for this testimony of the deleterious effects of the impacts of neonicotinoids on pollinators specifically As long as field applied acute toxins remain the basis of agricultural pest control practices Society will repeatedly be forced to weigh the benefits of pesticides against their collateral environmental damage And we'll be back here having this conversation over and over again So with respect to s1-a-e the ban on pro piercose We strongly support an immediate ban on this chemical in Vermont based on evidence of human health impacts Which you've heard and lack of proven need It's it's it's wonderful that bloke here first is not widely used and it's not in fact been approved for use in Vermont We would like to see that codified in statute as To repeat what you may have heard in 2006 paper a team of researchers at Columbia University Found that when children were exposed to chlorpyrifos in the womb They tended to be smaller have poor reflexes and show higher risk of having ADHD and other developmental disorders years after being exposed Another team of researchers in Berkeley made similar findings and since then curavut publications have provided strong evidence of the neural developmental Toxicity of pro piercose Also, you may have heard that Cortiva, which is the largest manufacturer of Pro piercose is phasing out of production by the end of this year It's also been banned in Hawaii, California, the European Union and soon to be New York state And I want to share based on some of the questions that have been asked on you today We specifically support a ban on pro piercose enacted by the legislature We don't want to see a situation here in Vermont that mirrors what happened at the federal level where a change in administration Led to the allowance of this pesticide with documented negative health impacts that the previous administration had outlawed probably heard that in 2016 the Obama administration EPA had decided at the recommendation of its own scientists to ban pro piercose reverse that The states that have banned it did they do that by statute or that's California and Hawaii my understanding is both banned it by statute New York state did not The legislature actually did pass a ban with Governor Cuomo vetoed that and passed the decision on to his Agency or the environmental agency That's all I have a pro piercose Is it just one company gonna stop producing this or how many companies produce I don't know how many I know for TV I know science is the largest manufacturer of for fear post and they are the ones who are shopping production this year I don't know how many other companies are making it, but they're the main one essentially With regard to s192 the glyphosate ban well We strongly support transitioning away from glyphosate based on evidence of widespread environmental contamination health impacts As you may have heard glyphosate is consistently found in urine and breast milk samples and many food products We also understand the widespread use of glyphosate in Vermont currently poses challenges to a swift change of practices so What I would like to Share with the committee as you know an approach to consider with respect to glyphosate is a targeted approach that would restrict its use Among most vulnerable populations and for example Massachusetts currently has three bills up for consideration in their legislature Which could serve as a model here in Vermont as well Which would restrict restrict glyphosate for homeowner use similar to what was done with me and I get to noise last year here in Vermont It would ban its use on school grounds and public parks and playgrounds, which would reduce exposure for children who are Disproportionally impacted by these chemicals and Would restrict its use on public land in general. So those are three bills that are Being proposed in Massachusetts, and I know at least some of those already passed out of their agriculture committees I'm not sure where all three of them stand exactly, but As I said, we would love to see a swift transition away from glyphosate We are concerned about the potential for that to mean a transition to more harmful chemicals But in the meantime, it feels like an intermediate step could be to ban these chemicals in these particular instances Where children are particularly in our way we we've got I think had some testimony that the highway agency The trains is a big user of this for guide rails around guide rails signs It was you were talking in regards to that when you said public properties That's a good question. I'm not sure what schools like to understand. Yeah, you know near waterways But yeah, I mean, I would recommend asking that question of Mike Baldwin I think is testifying today in terms of non chemical management of right-of-ways and and road sites But that you know personally roadside application of glyphosate is is equally concerning to me in terms of proximity to people's yarns Where children might be playing I personally live really close to a Fair and busy road and have a small child and not comfortable with that kind of chemical being sprayed on the door No, that's you know in that close proximity to where my kids and pets are playing Any other question? Well, if you move on from by phosphate is that when you say because I wouldn't make sure I heard you right I thought you said something about where we've heard that's concerned about We need ourselves off the glyphosate and they end up with meeting more harmful chemicals I just yeah, I mean that's a concern that I hear raised a lot and I Certainly would not want to see an increase in a cuisine for example where we demand like say it not the other Which is why again our sort of long-term vision Is the transition away from agricultural practices that rely on this sort of chemical treadmill approach of moving from one to the next and while you know over Centuries we've come a long way from using Things like arsenic, you know the pesticides we use have improved They are in also more widespread use and are causing more environmental damage than they than they did in terms of scale At that time and so our long-term approach is to transition away from these chemicals altogether But I do have a concern about transitioning in the short term to a more harmful I'm not sure what the current status is I know that they were considering It and I'm not sure what they decided actually All right next is the s266 which would phase out the use of neonic treated seeds We strongly support this bill we strongly support phasing out the use of neonic treated seeds in Vermont based on substantial body of evidence linking neonic to pollinator declines as well as harm to other non-target species such as birds and aquatic life and Contrary to previous belief that neonix pose limited risk to mammals increasing evidence is now linking neonic it's noise to human health impacts and impacts on wildlife We further support phasing out the use of neonic treated seeds as they're applied Prophylactically and without proven need to nearly all conventional corn seed plants in the United States currently and Finally at research by the Center for Food Safety in 2014 found a lack of effectiveness on the part of neonix in terms of The pest and the the claims that they make around improved yields So you may have heard a lot of evidence Regarding the links between the unit is noise and pollinator declines. I wanted to share a little bit more about the human health impacts That are kind of more recently being discovered So in a recent letter from a group of environmental health scientists and health professionals to be administered Administrator Andrew Wheeler a literature view found a link between unintentional human exposure to neonix and an elevated risk of Developmental neurological damage effects linked neonic exposure include linked to neonic exposure Including malformations of the developing heart and brain autism spectrum disorder and a cluster of symptoms including memory loss and finger trevors While the others note that the studies to date have limitations They warn that given the widespread use of new nutrients in agriculture and household products and its increasing detection in us Food and water more studies on the human health effects of chronic non-acute neonic nicotinoids exposure are needed Are concerned about human health effects there There are also been studies that have found health effects in white-tailed deer populations I'm not sure if anyone's presented those, but I'm happy to share that. That's an interest In terms of lack of proven need and also availability of alternatives, I think I wanted to share For example looking at the organic model and the organic regulations one criteria used in the organic foods production act by which Materials are viewed for approval and organic production is essentiality Material may be added to the national list of a lot of substances in cases where that material is deemed essential for production For example like yeast and bread or bacterial cultures of yogurt Additives that are that are really deemed essential and not just more convenient for For production of a particular product So we support this approach generally with respect to Vermont's approval of various agricultural chemicals and in particular with regard to Neonic continuance as I mentioned neonic seed treatments are applied prophylactically a nearly all-conventional currency across the United States And in conversations I have recently with several seed dealers There are alternative non neonic chemical seed treatments that are increasing in demand by producers based on concerns about pollinator impacts And I think this is potentially positive development But we're still concerned about the overall reliance on these type of chemical treatments and we support a transition toward farming practices such as those used in organic production that avoid pest pressure for example by Implementing diverse crop rotations and other non chemical means They're also wholly non-gmo untreated or organic seed options available And understanding again through these conversations I've been having with seed dealers The one of the concerns about banning neonics Seed as a seed treatment is their ability along with widely applied fungicide applications that just come on all of these seeds Whether there's a proven need or not These seed coatings can allow conventional producers to plant earlier in the spring and can allow them to deal with You know challenging wet and cold soil conditions However, there are breeders currently working on developing more resilient organic varieties that can withstand these pressures without the use of seed treatments Which we really see as a crutch to deal with some of these pressures versus a moralistic system that addresses them There are also biologic treatments Some currently available and some of development that are are approved or will be approved for organic production And would provide a better alternative to producers in terms of you know substituting that particular seed treatment for another While longer term breeding projects are in process and and while we're in the process of hopefully transitioning away from chemical treatments altogether And then I wanted to share a brief quote from the Center for Food Safety 2014 report on the ineffectiveness of neonic seed treatments I mentioned They say neonic seed treatments which account for over 90% of neonics in agriculture are largely ineffective and lead to significant pollution Typically about one to ten percent and often no more than two percent of the neonic treatment enters the target plant leaving their remainder to Contaminate soil water near my plants EPA concluded in a 2014 report that these seed treatments provide little or no overall benefits to soybean production in most situations Public published data indicate that in most cases there is no difference in soybean yield when soybean seed was treated with neonicotinoids Versus not receiving any insect control treatment similar reports are emerging on the ineffectiveness of corn seed treatment Yet neonic seed treatments are on almost all corn seeds most soybean seeds and most other grain and oil seed crops in the US I think by passing this ban on neonic seed treatments that would provide an Appropriate timeline for implementation Vermont could do a lot of good in forcing the market to provide non-treated options That you know could grow Over time and availability across the country So I do appreciate that this bill has a slower timeline for implementation to allow the market to survive One question. I think you mentioned soil and water contamination from last week, I believe it was we had minor Institute here and They testified to the fact they had two test sites over at minor that they've been monitoring and They detected no millions in their Pipe water, you know, they're tiled Okay, and and they They couldn't detect any size wondering where did the information come from? You have that showed that it did contaminate same water. Yeah, so there are Several studies that are quoted in this. It's a lit review from the Center for Food Safety And I'm happy to share this with you because I wish it would say the exact studies of that came from where this where units are being found To contaminate water and I don't have the top of my head, but I'm happy to share that I do think it's It's hopeful that these aren't being found potentially and at least these two test sites here in Vermont But that doesn't necessarily indicate that there aren't contaminating soil and water and other parts of the state Also, one of the other concerns about me and the kids noise is that they're systemic meaning that they infiltrate every part of the plant When they're included as a treatment on corn seed They're also taken up by pollen and nectar in all parts of the plant and they can be exuded through Cotation water that that form plants produce that pollinators then can Invide and do damage that way so there are a lot of other concerns beyond just the soil and water contamination There are a lot of ways that these chemicals Stay in the environment and reach non-target species that we're concerned about as well Absolutely and birds, you know could be taking them up directly by ingesting seed that's left or left around or There's a lot of other ways that they're impacting other species beyond just water contamination Some of what you cited said that these things are not even working Why do farmers use them so much they just come on all the seed It's not really a choice currently and that's why I think this bill can do a lot of good by providing an option For producers who currently really don't have an option when they're sourcing conventional corn seed It just comes on the seed that the seed is treated with a whole snow of fundicide and insecticides before they even are You know ordered by the producer and so I think that's why this bill with an appropriate timeline for implementation Could really you know force manufacturers to provide an alternative in cases where there really isn't a proven need for these things and we can Sort of start to shift at least toward a more precautionary approach and only using these chemicals where they're absolutely necessary Right now. It's really when you speak to seed dealers Almost all seed just comes coated with this stuff whether it's needed or not And that's a huge concern because of a courage across the country what's being used great, so you are plucking at themes that I've been trying to explore in terms of The relative ease that we Give farmers and other applicators for using these chemicals I I'm interested in some Standard that that speaks to I have to use this because you know And and I'm curious if you've done any thinking about how we would just do that logistically like Should that be an applicator having to assert that they need it or should there be some standard? Do you see what I'm saying? I've been trying that would be a big change. Yeah and I'd love your thinking on How you could mechanically go there? Well, I think that that's one thing that I see potential for in reforming the VPAC And that's what I was going to say it feels like the VPAC is if it's mandate is to be strengthened And if maybe some of the seats on the board are to be changed to include You know folks with particular knowledge of both the need and the health impacts that could become a step in that process That doesn't currently exist when we're reviewing these things based on actual need I think we also really need buy-in from the ag agency To to include that type of review and those considerations in their process of risk assessment for these chemicals I mean even at the federal level the way that risk assessment is done by the EPA for pesticides doesn't Incorporate things like it doesn't consider things like cumulative effects that are just a couple of different chemicals being used for the same plot And really our process here at the state level mirrors that federal process And is really limited in the actual risk that is taking into account So I think at least the VPAC could be one step in the right direction to start to structurally incorporate those considerations Did did you testify that you're again farmers that grow corn? They do not use me on that trick. No, so have you also Done tests on tonnage per acre Organic farms compared to conventional farms on tonnage per acre Produced I we personally have done studies on that and they exist I'm not feeling that I'm sure them with you if I can find those studies I know One of the challenges for example with life to say is that in conventional no tell there's you know There's a lot of excitement around improving soil health, which we are you know very much on board with we see soil health Us having so many benefits for water quality and climate stability and a lot of positive environmental outcomes But we are really concerned about the uptake in the use of conventional no till because it does rely so heavily on just increasing applications of herbicide And so, you know on the organic side, we are also kind of in this early stage period of Starting to explore and research effective no till methods for organic production that don't rely on herbicide and on the organic side with particular regard to no till That's a challenge, but we're seeing lots of potential for that technology to be adopted That kind of mechanical approach to be adopted, especially in the Midwest or having a lot of success with it And so yeah with regard to seed treatments This is just something that's never been allowed in organic production. And so the What they're at a seed treatment. It's really just an entirely Different system holistically of pest management where we're not necessarily relying on those crutches of seed treatments But we're relying on computations and other you know non chemical methods. The thing that concerns me is that most of our organic firms for the large part are under a hundred In many of our conventional firms are above a hundred lot larger and if they had to do 25 to 50 percent more cropping on these larger firms to Get the same years as they're getting now It would seem like we'd have a lot more Runoff problems and we'd have other problems that would that we'd have to address so, you know, there is a balance and and it You know instead of having then you have more equipment running over more ground Using more fuel Including the air more. I mean it's really a Thing that we'd have to weigh. I think very careful Because I I had a neighbor that a farmer neighbor And he went in did some experimenting With you know not using any neo next two fields 500 feet apart same soil types and the one where He tried it without you know, they were small The one where he tried to grow without using any major chemicals You could almost count this you could you could count the stocks of corn in there Where's the other field, I mean it through like we normally see You know, there is an issue there. Yeah, I understand that but I think there's a Like I'm saying the transition away from these sea treatments is one thing but the transition to really an entirely System of cropping is where you start to see potentially better You know yields versus just a one-year change and a small, you know trial like that Which is really just changing one thing about the production type versus a more holistic shift to non chemical practices if you there is a transition period that is You know can be challenging for producers to get through but once they get through that they find all these other benefits like I that I listed from organic production That really address some of those trade-offs that you're you're talking about with regard to you know air pollution So I'll condemnation things like that Also, I think it would be really interesting to explore Especially with regard to you know the implementation timeline of phasing out the use of these sea treatments to explore in the meantime The options that are available that are you know biologically based that are approved for organic production that could still you know In in organic production We don't tend to support an approach that we think of as input substitution where you're just you know supporting a Transition away from one chemical or external input for another but in this case I think it's a stop gap if there are biologic options that are approved for organic use as sea treatments that could be a good way for producers to sort of address that that You know growing pain that you're talking about and transitioning away from these practices all together I think those options are worth exploring. Maybe you already just said this but I thought earlier in your testimony you talked about comparing yields of organic versus chemical agriculture in the yield for As good or better than organic? Yeah, particularly what the Rodale trials have found is in drought years that organic Yields consistently out compete conventional up to 40 percent higher in drought yields And then what they found and this is again almost 40-year trial. It started in 1981 They found that organic systems are competitive with conventional yields at after this transition period Which is what I'm talking about so in that transition there can be challenges because you're changing from a system That's really been reliant on these sort of chemical crutches To one that is a more holistic system that relies on sort of natural processes and biology And so it is a slow transition, but after that period the yields can be competitive I don't want to go down a whole other road, but I presume that there's some opportunity to think about people's systems services and they're connected Yeah, absolutely. I think there is a lot of potential there and I think it's really exciting to consider System that would potentially, you know address all of these What I see is the positive ecological outcomes that we can have from farming that are currently not accounted for in the way that our markets work Producers who are farming in such a way that's building soil health and cleaning water are really providing services that are public good that are currently being recognized or compensated for So I think it's particularly if we can find ways to compensate farmers for, you know, proven outcomes to the extent that that's possible That will sort of naturally allow producers to shift toward practices that have those benefits In ways that also still allow them to innovate and use the practices that are the best fit for their particular land, which farmers really generally know best So I think there is a lot of potential for that as a part of the long-term approach as well Any other questions on this? Do you have another one? I know, I was going to say some words about the V-facts form, but I feel like we sort of covered that Just that we support that and I do think that that's a place where the sort of concern about or the considerations of essentiality improvement need can be incorporated into our current practices And could you send Linda some of your data? Because I mean, I have very strange feelings about using any chemicals to using chemicals and having the same yields You know, I've grown a garden of puton, so it usually doesn't work that way So I'd like to get that study and look at that Are you rotating your crops? Are you rotating your crops? Well, I just like to learn how to do that You know, how to grow crops without any chemicals and get just as good a result because it would save millions of dollars nationwide Absolutely Honestly, I think that that should not be understated That there are real economic benefits to farming in such a way that doesn't rely on outside inputs And that's really one of the things that organic producers do find beneficial that they're spending less money on inputs So that's definitely a part of the consideration for us too And I think that 775 certified operations could talk to you about how they're being successful without the use of these tools Matt, you had a term of our essentiality and the next one, the similar vein of the approach to essentiality Essentiality is what's what it's called within the organic regulations And what was another term that you said Thank you very much Yeah, thank you Good morning Good morning I'll read this, so thank you for the opportunity to testify on S272 I know I spoke last Friday, partially I'll try not to repeat But I know there may have been some questions remaining so I'll try to address Tell us your name I'll try to cover it I'll start, Mike Bald Roy Elton Vermont, founder, owner of the company Got Weeds Which is long-term management of invasive species, non-native species, non-chemical methods Transitioning landscapes to fulfill the owner's vision for the space I do eradicate, I do suppress, I do contain But often times if you cannot eradicate, you just make sure you favor and foster the desired vegetation over the undesired oriental bittersweet Buckthorn, which is what this is Got Weeds is in its 10th year of managing landscapes and I've been managing invasive species since 2004 I have a biology degree, service in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and service in the U.S. Forest Service I think that's the relevant background So thank you again for the opportunity to testify on S272 I appreciate the testimony you've received so far and I shall seek to supplement rather than repeat that I have attended numerous V-Bag meetings since I think the 2013 timeframe solely for the purpose of educating and forming myself at my own expense I'm not here today, I've not gone to meetings looking for business or self-promotion I have listened and I've occasionally submitted comments I covered the second qualification for speaking today that I manage vegetation professionally That's throughout New England and I present from Michigan to Massachusetts and I suppose beyond You've heard a great deal regarding the purpose of the advisory council and its failings I can offer further examples in this arena but do wish to acknowledge that the membership does operate professionally and can be proud of worthy accomplishments There are things not happening here that are good, I acknowledge that here meaning here in Vermont I have said in the past however that the overall performance of the V-Bag is still summarized as a mission fail This leads to my overriding point today which is the failure of the V-Bag does not rest on the shoulders of the council itself but it's rather a reflection of the national fascination with better living through chemistry The V-Bag was created, the stated goals were a fit for that moment in time No member of the public then could have known that herbicides would become such a profit maker with more and more uses identified and recklessly promoted The desire for ever more profit has driven us to this day and age where our usage is exponentially more than was even conceivable in earlier times The global warming scenario offers a parallel example, a media profit ahead of common sense and scientific integrity So we sit here today facing not only a massive increase in annual usage but also an unknown toxic legacy resulting from decades of untracked pesticide usage We may have tracked select quantities over select time spans but we've not tracked or explored cumulative effects or other relevant factors that may contribute to declining soil health So I said this on Friday, the urgency today is real, very real, much more so than previous decades The only remotely good news is that we have sidelined a handful of the most toxic pesticides Although those bans are relative positives, yes, exemptions still exist and a slew of proprietary corporate secrets are still tolerated So there has been some good and there are still exemptions I need to make a point here which I did not make on Friday One of our most glaring issues regarding land management practices and public health is that public participation is low, almost non-existent Yes, public engagement is complicated but in recent years we have allowed a televised real-time participatory public meeting model to fall by the wayside We have made it more difficult for people to participate in what they see as meaningful ways I can't recall the name of the system but I do remember going to Vermont Tech and participating in these televised meetings I thought it was a pretty real tool for engaging people But that is no longer available for I suppose economic reasons People can still comment and vote and speak but they express little confidence that input will be taken seriously or make any difference when they do speak up By the way of example, the process nowadays is so long that it absolutely kills public participation That may be intentional for all I know Sometimes it's the NEPA process, sometimes it's developing statewide policy But process has to accommodate people, not drag on for six years and wear them down That's forest service management plans, wildlife refuge systems, six years of planning to come up with a management plan People just comment and they give up Meetings are often held around midday for any member of the public who has to travel This becomes a full day commitment and costs easily three to four hundred dollars in travel fees and lost wages If we continue to insist on daytime meetings, I've got a daytime meeting on Friday with the invasive exotic plant council I'm glad to be a member of the council but again three, four hundred dollars on the negative side If that's going to continue, please fund and issue headlamps for those of us who work outdoors by the light of day So we can do our work at night if that's the need I have submitted comments to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Watershed Tactical Basin Planning Process The Pollinator Protection Committee, Outdoor Recreation Initiative I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever heard back or seen follow-up to my input And I'll give you a specific example, Dicamba is now unfolding to be a disaster in the Midwest And NPR reported last week that complaints were down in Missouri But the deeper dig revealed that people had simply given up on reporting violations The state can't keep up and investigate and cover the ground And people just hang up the phone because who wants to wait on hold So when people do comment, this has happened to me, input just doesn't make it into the meeting notes And this happened with the Pollinator Protection Committee I asked in a public meeting why the focus solely on neonics We're missing the whole cumulative effects conversation if we don't include glyphosate and atrazine And Dicamba My comment did not make it into the notes, which is really odd So that's why I come here to make sure you hear that point get made I commented at the VPAC last year, last March I offered, I've got the notes right in front of me here and it's in the written testimony that I provided to Linda The notes were copied, what I'm writing here is copied directly from the meeting notes But they failed to capture the point that I made, which is offering to assemble a team of citizens To put together annual pesticide data reports at no charge to the agency I made that offer, it did not make it into the notes This offer would have alleviated staff and cost bottlenecks that have hampered agency leadership But the offer somehow didn't make it into the meeting notes I had a chemist standing by, I'm a biologist, I'm not claiming we would have put together a ready to go report But the government does it all the time, initial housing report, initial jobs report And then they modify it, update it the next month, they finalize it So I would have been happy to put together a draft I'm glad to see that some of the data is actually making it out But it is hard to explain how public input does not make it into the notes I'm personally not a good note taker, so I'm sympathetic to the issue, but it's a problem Public engagement is broken Continuing, VPAC, I made this point Friday and I would like to just elaborate on it slightly To VPAC, the council is not getting the information it needs to empower decision making 2016, the summer drought, no rain to the southern reaches of the state The pioneer valley right across the border saw no rain after May 1 This is per conversation with farmers all over the pioneer valley Drought condition equates to major stress on all types of vegetation as well as on soil microbes There were also at the time of this drought three exotic pest beetles HWA, ALB, and EAB So that Emerald Ash, Asian Longhorn, Hamlock, Woolley Why would any regulatory or advisory body permit use of pesticides or toxins under such high stress conditions? The northern part of the state was in a similar drought So very northern Vermont was also in a severe drought Why would you add more stress to a climate with disturbance events and huge swings in water table and ground conditions? Why would we introduce yet another stress into that landscape? It never comes into the conversation And what brought that to my attention was a power company talking about doing a test run on a new pesticide in southern Vermont Where is academia? Where is the focus on cumulative effects and why does a member of the public have to speak up and say Please talk to your county forester as a minimal because he or she will know Hey, think about this, think about working north slow, south facing slow, consider a time of year Put that into the thinking. Doesn't happen. That's my point I'll move on to saying that pesticide usage is now an environmental constant Like acid rain once was and like the flyover of migrating passenger pigeons once was That was a fertilizer event twice a year passenger pigeons dropping the bird dropping That was an environmental constant before we eradicated the passenger pigeon The application of tons of pesticide annually is an environmental stressor that will kill off some species eventually while forcing others to evolve as survivors Those survivors will require yet stronger chemistries to suppress them And rather than focus on functional soil and healthy plant communities We will pursue those ever more powerful and profitable synthetic toxins Even today and Senator Pearson I can relay this to him People post pesticide formulas online and advise others on how to apply such home brews So if you ban glyphosate or product XYZ This is new. This didn't used to happen ten years ago But people will go online and come up with what they see on social media And they'll use that at whatever their advice to do or as I learned as a combat engineer I didn't learn demolitions or engineering through college but I learned more is better You want to take out the bridge, look at the stress, place your explosives and round up No pun intended. Make sure it comes down You don't want to be the poor schmuck standing on a shattered bridge trying to put it down More equals better. I'm going to read a few questions here And then this comes from my experience at the council meetings Why do recreational world and ornamental world get free passes when it comes to pesticide use? I think golf courses, round up ready grass seed Why would there only be two people from recreation? So the world of recreation. I queried the crowd at my presentation in Saratoga in October National invasive species conference, two people in the room from recreation Two people that made their living off of agriculture It was all agency folks. There's nobody there with work in the ground to make a living There was one person from the tribes and there was one person that was self-employed Recreation and ornamental world would get free passes when it comes to chemistry I include the golf courses in that essentially Although they do attend meetings, so I sit with that When will we take atrazine seriously? This is another question that I posed to you We've already had gender-confused fish in Lake Champlain in 2016 Fish are complex organisms. We should be concerned But where is the health department in this swirl of informational indecisiveness? They should be monitoring the health department They should be monitoring human sperm counts if they need evidence of impacts on human reproduction Human sperm counts are less than half what they used to be Per a study comparing the 1930s to the 1980s That's in this book which was published in the 1990s Our stolen future Sperm counts were down to half in the 1980s And who knows where they are now? I don't personally know But that would be a place to start Impact on reproduction Atrazine It's essentially estrogen Why are we testing soil for lead and PFAS but not agrochemicals? We have no benchmarks, no start points And maybe that's deliberate and that's a problem I submit We get excited about land conservation But what good is conservation when we then use lofty restoration goals To justify addition of toxins to already depleted landscapes Your legislature colleagues viewed landscape resilience testimony last Friday So Friday before last I asked you and I asked the head of that committee Was the reduction of pesticide usage mentioned as a goal? Was it mentioned at all? I have not heard that I'm going to give you some recommendations to achieve future reductions in pesticide usage here People perform and execute their duties With real focus on what they know will be checked and evaluated Improve on the supervision and consider making it consequential across all fronts I learned as a lieutenant that if you check gas masks When your soldiers go to the field they don't have spaghettios and magazines in their gas mask They're ready for chemical warfare if need be They do what they know is what they know is going to be checked Make that the same with regard to pesticides I say introduce a secrets tax For corporations to carry their proprietary secrets into our state They should be allowed to do so only when they pay the appropriate secrets tax We need such a tax to determine effects and impacts of all those secret formula chemicals What the actual tax is or looks like is none of their business If they wish to know the secret tax they can offer up some of their corporate secrets Quit pro quo Create escrow funds for managing issues associated with misuse of pesticides And direct that manufacturers contribute to this fund Create another escrow fund to assess direct and indirect impacts of pesticides on the Vermont specific landscape So we have data that works and applies here Rather than across the river New Hampshire's different soil The Midwest has different soils I would also ask that you pay for soil testing to track agrochemical activity and accumulation Before paying for lead let's include atrazine To close out my testimony I made some bullet points and I'll try to zip through the bullet points because I think they're pretty concise So I'll try to close here and I'll certainly invite welcome your questions on in the open Reduction of pesticide usage belongs squarely in the global warming discussion Since pesticides carry a quadruple CO2 impact I did look at the global warming solutions act I did not see pesticide reduction included Why it's not there I do not understand But that's my contention that's my first bullet point In the global warming discussion reduce pesticide usage Pesticide usage is now a massive environmental constant A stressor If you want to save maple and ash and hemlock trees from hungry beetles Start by reducing other environmental stressors The beetles are looking for stressed out trees So stop stress on our trees with another stressor like herbicides Pesticide usage is currently accepted as normal and necessary Even promoted as the first recourse Integrated pest management is a concept broken beyond repair It is a mere catchphrase devoid of valid meaning Like sustainable and green IPM could be repaired but that's going to take some work If IPM were truly followed in spirit the funding The funding for management practices would be more equitably distributed among various approaches There's a non-profit in a neighboring state that set aside $50,000 to manage 20 acres near a weapon with chemistry 50 grand When the neighbors and the local There was one person with goats who offered to graze it The people, the neighbors and the residents said Why can't we do this? And we can do it for less than 50 grand The organization wouldn't hear it We're going to spend 50 grand on chemistry or we're going to work with volunteers We refuse to work with volunteers because they're ineffective and require too much supervision I said, I went, they asked me to come testify I said, fine 50 grand for chemistry Pay 40 grand to people, I'll train them You'll save 10 grand, you'll get the work done, you won't have any more or you're a bittersweet to worry about And the wetlands won't get contaminated Why does all the money go to the chemistry approach? That's not integrated pest management in spirit I would actually say if you want to actually have a bill or even work without legislation Just put money into South Burlington, Burlington, the intervail That is now doing land management without, they're doing non-chem approaches Should I pause? We good? Sure So, did you go to a meeting last night in your area? I did not attend a meeting last night Because many of us held public meetings all over the state last night So people could come at night rather than during the day Perfect, thank you So, maybe it's not legislators you were talking about No sir Not exclusively So, any questions for Michael? I have a few remaining bullet points which I'm happy to cover Yeah, the crews outside and I don't think you were here yet When I announced we were going to have to change rooms So could you sum them up really quick? Happy to do so, thank you Also, I'm on the bullet points Alternatives to pesticides are routinely ignored and financially discouraged In academia as well as in agencies Soil testing does not monitor for pesticides Cornell, ask Cornell what they do for soil tests They'll test for everything, but I've asked, pesticides are not covered Health considerations regarding exposure to pesticides are nonexistent in Vermont Look at the five-year cancer plan, look at obesity, endocrine issues Let's get the health folks in the conversation Permitting a cover does not account for real-world conditions, drought, etc Academia is not a leader in this field and does not wish to be That's kind of a strong statement But I didn't hear back from UVM, which I salute But I have yet to hear back from some schools when I ask about CO2 impacts and pesticide usage I'll name them, Middlebury, Bennington, Dartmouth, talk to me UVM did respond, I salute that Use of herbicides completely eliminates economic opportunities associated with invasive species This is a lucky state, this does sell in garden centers Made out of buckthorn, rock-resistant invasive species You can use this in your garden, I even leave the twigs on so you can string up your peas That's an economic opportunity, no one wants bucky steaks or Japanese knotweed paper if it's got glyphosate on it I think I've shown you this before, this is paper made from Japanese knotweed We're doing a huge workshop in Springfield, April 28 Should I stop here, sir? Yeah, we, unfortunately I wanted to make the economics point Yeah, I appreciate that We got a gang outside the door waiting Very good, thank you