* The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), is seeking comments on its Draft Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate, “a phosphonoglycine non-selective herbicide, first registered for use by the EPA in 1974.” Roundup is one common product containing glyphosate in concentrations ranging from 0.96% to as much as 71%. In 2007, U.S. agricultural use of glyphosate was approximately 82,800 tons and non-agricultural use was approximately 9,300 tons. In 2014, agricultural use was approximately 124,953 tons and non-agricultural use approximately 13,260 tons. All toxicological profiles issued as ‘‘Drafts for Public Comment’’ represent ATSDR’s best efforts to provide important toxicological information on priority hazardous substances. ATSDR wants comments and additional information about the health effects of glyphosate for review and potential inclusion in a final profile. Comments are due on or before July 8, 2019.
* In a somewhat related development the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART), established within Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), selected three experts to work with a Science Advisory Workgroup to recommend PFAS drinking water standards. PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of industrial compounds used in production and on finished consumer products, e.g, non-stick cookware. The Workgroup is developing health-based recommendations for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to consider as part of a rulemaking process for Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS in drinking water. The new members of the team are specialists in toxicology, epidemiology and risk assessment. The Workgroup’s recommendation is due July 1, 2019.
* Have you ever heard of Nature’s Notebook Plant and Animal Observing Program, run by the Department of Interior? Neither had I. It’s sponsored by the US Geological Survey using standardized forms for tracking plant and animal activity. Nature’s Notebook forms are used to record phenology (e.g., the timing of leafing or flowering of plants and reproduction or migration of animals) as part of a nationwide effort to understand and predict how plants and animals respond to environmental variation and changes in weather and climate. DOI wants to know: Is this worthwhile? Should we keep it going? The bigger question – who knows about this? Last October DOE asked the same questions. They received one comment, from a science educator who wrote: “This program provides critical data on changes in seasonality and plant and animal patterns. Phenology is incredibly important to understand—for people, wildlife, and industry—and the USA–NPN is the best resource for compiling, analyzing, and distributing this information.” A year ago I wrote a report on challenges faced by wild bees and honeybees. One big problem: observational data. Could this Notebook effort teamed with citizen science help establish critical bee data…? Comments are due May 13.