Must-read recap: The New Lede's top stories

EPA not protecting public from neonic exposure, analysis suggests; reflections from researcher who coined "microplastics;" revealing the toxic lobbying power of Bayer

EPA not protecting public from neonic exposure, analysis suggests

Rodent studies given to US regulators by insecticide makers close to 20 years ago revealed the chemicals could be harmful to the animals’ brain development – data worrisome for humans exposed to the popular pesticides but not properly accounted for by regulators, according to a new research report published last week.

The analysis examined five studies that exposed pregnant rats’ to various types of insecticides known as neonicotinoids (commonly called neonics). The studies found that the offspring born to the exposed rats suffered shrunken brains and other problems.

Statistically significant shrinkage of brain tissue was seen in the offspring of rats exposed to high doses of five types of neonics – acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam, the paper states. The authors said the impacts on the brain appeared similar to the effects of nicotine, which they said is known to disrupt mammalian neurological development.

The animal studies also support the possibility of a link between neonic exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the authors said. (Read the rest of the story.)

Q&A: 20 years after coining “microplastics,” a researcher reflects on what needs to change

We now know that microplastics and nano-plastics are everywhere. They are found in the most remote parts of the deep ocean, on Mount Everest, in rainwater, in the food we eat and air we breathe. They’re showing up in animals and human organs, including the brain.

Just 20 years ago, though, almost nobody knew anything about these now-ubiquitous contaminants. That began to change with a seminal 2004 paper published in the journal Science which found tiny particles of plastic on beaches and in offshore sediments throughout Great Britain. 

The study’s lead author, Richard Thompson, a marine scientist at the University of Plymouth in the UK, described these microscopic bits for the first time in this study as “microplastics.”

That paper helped launch a whole field of research. Now, Thompson and colleagues have published a perspective in the same journal, Science, examining what we’ve learned over the past 20 years, and making a call for action. We now know enough about the problem to shift our focus toward researching how to solve it, rather than exclusively continuing to document its extent and harms, the paper concludes. (Read the rest of the Q&A.)

Opinion: Revealing the toxic lobbying power of Bayer

Hans van Sharen is a researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory specializing in agribusiness & food, pesticides, GMOs, and lobbying the European Union.

(Opinion columns published in The New Lede represent the views of the individual(s) authoring the columns and not necessarily the perspectives of TNL editors.)

Big fossil-fuel companies like Shell, Exxon, BP or Total are not your trusted source to go to for solid advice on how to urgently prevent the climate from changing ever faster. But for halting the spread of cancer and all kinds of degenerative diseases, helping farmers out of their collective socioeconomic nightmares, combating hunger or how to avoid a further collapse of biodiversity, policymakers find it completely normal to engage with powerful agrochemical companies like Bayer and BASF. 

Yet these companies produce many chemical products that are bad for our health, for the environment and increasingly for democracy itself, as shown by Corporate Europe Observatory’s new report Bayer’s Toxic Trails.

Whether it’s over glyphosate, GMOs, or global warming, we show how the company attempts to capture public policy to pursue its private interests. (Read the rest of the opinion column.)