(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2013) Industry giant, Syngenta, has filed a legal challenge to the European Union’s suspension of one of its insecticides, thiamethoxam, linked to the decline in bee populations that has been observed in Europe and the rest of the world. Thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid and active ingredient in Syngenta’s Cruiser seed treatments, is widely used to treat seed and degrades into another neonicotinoid, clothianidin, also subject to a moratorium in the  European Union. Both chemicals are cited in a lawsuit seeking their suspension, which was brought by beekeepers and environmental groups in the U.S. Earlier this year, the European Commission made a landmark decision announcing a two-year continent-wide ban on the neonicotinoid pesticides: clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. The decision came in response to a scientific report by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that identified “high acute risk” to honey bees from uses of the neonicotinoid chemicals. Thiamethoxam, as well as clothianidin, are routinely used to treat seeds, especially for major crops like corn. A  15 member states majority  supported the ban, with eight against, and four abstaining. However, in its press release, Syngenta claims that the European Commission made its  decision on the basis of a flawed […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2013) In a victory for consumers and Willamette Valley’s $50 million vegetable seed industry, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber signed HB 2427 last week, banning the commercial production of canola in the region until at least 2019. Supporters of the law assert that the moratorium is necessary to maintain the integrity of the region’s internationally recognized organic vegetable seed industry. Farmers in Oregon’s specialty seed and organic vegetable industries, valued at well over $50 million in annual sales, have been fighting the planting of  canola, an oilseed plant in the brassica family, in the Willamette Valley because it readily cross-pollinates with specialty crops grown there, the brassica specialty seed crops like broccoli, kale, and cabbage. Canola can  spread plant diseases and pests to brassica vegetable and seed crops; and can contaminate pure lots of vegetable and clover seed, rendering them unsalable in international and local markets. Additionally, genetically engineered (GE)  herbicide resistant varieties of canola can further cross-pollinate with weeds, creating new invasive species problems as herbicide resistant traits spread to native weed populations. The canola controversy emerged after  a decision by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) last year to temporarily allow the planting of GE […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2013) When shopping for sportswear nowadays, you might notice the stickers or tags on some clothing items touting the apparel as “antimicrobial.” What’s not mentioned on those tags, however, is the point that these antimicrobials, often titanium dioxide or silver nanoparticles (nanosilver), are largely untested, and recent studies are revealing that these substances could seep into a person’s sweat and end up being absorbed through one’s skin. Lead researcher of the study published in Environmental Science and Technology, Natalie von Gotz, Ph.D,, found that some pieces of clothing released significant amounts of nanosilver. Manufacturers are adding nanoparticles to clothing in order to tout their ability to block UV rays (titanium dioxide) or prevent mold and smells (nanosilver) on clothing. However, the long-term impacts of this new technology to human health and the environment are still unknown. There are concerns about the ability of nanomaterial to travel through the human body and damage brain, liver, stomach, testes and other organs, as well as pass from mother to fetus, according to a recent Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report. Laundering these products ultimately washes them into our environment because sewage treatment plants are not set up to filter […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2013) Several beekeeping organizations have filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) to reverse a recent decision to register a new  pesticide, sulfoxaflor, which is highly toxic to bees. The beekeepers are not satisfied that their submitted concerns were properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted. Sulfoxaflor is a sub-class of the neonicotinoid pesticides that have been linked to global bee declines. The suit is filed as the beekeeping industry across the country struggles for survival, and faces the costly effects of pesticides upon their businesses. The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith submitted the case in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting changes in the sulfoxaflor product label, the Biological Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) assessment of the value of pollinators and their established habits, and the EPA’s Risk Assessment Process. The requested changes would acknowledge pollinator’s critical role in the U.S. food supply, and ensure that decisions regarding new pesticides comply with applicable laws. Another legal challenge submitted in March 2013 by beekeepers, environmental and consumer groups, including Beyond […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2013) A scathing new investigative report shows that atrazine manufacturer, Syngenta Crop Protection, launched an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign in response to a class action lawsuit that threatened to remove the controversial herbicide atrazine  from the market. The report reveals that the pesticide giant routinely paid “third-party allies” to appear to be independent supporters, keeping a list of 130 people and groups it could recruit as experts without disclosing ties to the company. The company, the report finds,  also purportedly hired a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel, looking into the personal life of a judge and commissioning a psychological profile of Tyrone Hayes, PhD, one of the leading scientists critical of atrazine, whose research finds that atrazine feminizes male frogs. Recently unsealed court documents reveal a corporate strategy to discredit critics and to strip plaintiffs from the class action case. 100Reporters, a nonprofit investigative journalism group, obtained the documents from the lawsuit in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The campaign is spelled out in hundreds of pages of memos, invoices, and other documents from the  Illinois’ Madison County Circuit Court, which were initially sealed as part of a 2004 […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2013) A three-judge panel  of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Monday that a group of organic and otherwise non-GE farmer and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents after Monsanto made binding assurances that it will not take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently be contaminated with traces of Monsanto biotech genes. Organic farmers and others have worried for years that they will be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement if their crops get contaminated with Monsanto genetically engineered (GE) material from GE crops. Organic and non-GE farms get contaminated when pollen or seed migrate from neighboring GE farms. Even though wind or insect transfer of pollen is a natural process, Monsanto has been suing farmers for infringing on their patents if contamination is found on their farms. Monsanto’s history of aggressive investigations and lawsuits brought against farmers is a major source of concern for organic and non-GE agricultural producers since Monsanto’s first lawsuit brought against a farmer in the mid-”˜90s. As of 2012, Monsanto has filed 142 alleged seed patent infringement lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2013) Several different lawsuits have been filed against the agrichemical giant Monsanto after the recent discovery of illegal Genetically Engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant wheat plants  in an Oregon wheat field. The GE wheat was first found in early May when field workers in eastern Oregon noticed a volunteer patch of wheat that survived a dousing with glyphosate. Ernst Barnes, a Kansas wheat farmer, brought the first lawsuit against Monsanto. Soon after, a separate lawsuit was filed by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Pacific Northwest wheat farmers. The lawsuits allege that the presence of GE wheat crops spurred top wheat importers, such as Japan, South Korea, and the European Union, to enact damaging restrictions on American wheat. These restrictions could lead to lower wheat imports and will cause devastating economic effects to wheat farmers. While the world’s largest wheat importer, Egypt, has not signaled it would stop importing U.S. wheat, Japan has cancelled its order to buy U.S. western white wheat. Meanwhile, the European Union has prepared to begin testing shipments for the Roundup Ready gene. In 2012, U.S. exported wheat was valued at $18.1 billion, with 90% of Oregon’s wheat sent abroad. Since 1994, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2013) U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has announced her intent to oppose an extension of the “Monsanto Protection Act,” or “Biotech Rider.” Senator Stabenow announced her opposition in a conversation (“colloquy”) with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) on the Senate floor. Senator Merkley had been pushing for a vote on an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have repealed the Biotech Rider, which was surreptitiously added to the House’s 6 month continuing resolution (H.R. 933 -Sec. 735) earlier this year. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), who wrote the provision and whose state is home to Monsanto’s headquarters, blocked the Senate’s vote on the measure, and shortly thereafter the Senate moved to end debate on the Farm Bill and move towards final passage. As The Huffington Post reports, all hope is not lost; “While Merkley was unable to get a repeal vote, the colloquy is a significant concession, with Stabenow promising she will oppose any attempt to extend the Monsanto Protection Act in backroom negotiations.” The existence of the provision came as a surprise even to members of Congress, as many were unaware that the rider had been added to H.R. 933. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2013) Last week Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. plead guilty in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the United States, including pouring pesticides down the drain. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company also plead guilty in Kansas City, MO to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at its stores across the country. As a result of the three criminal cases brought by the Justice Department,  and the  related civil case filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wal-Mart will pay approximately $81.6 million for its unlawful conduct. Coupled with previous actions brought by the states of California and Missouri for the same conduct, Wal-Mart will pay a combined total of more than $110 million to resolve cases alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws. According to the Kansas City Star, the company stated that the fines and penalties would “not be material to its financial position.” “By improperly handling hazardous waste, pesticides and other materials in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2013) The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that farmers cannot replant patented genetically engineered (GE) seed as it violates licensing agreements. This means that farmers must pay industry giants like Monsanto for seed each growing season, sealing the agribusiness giant’s quest to  fundamentally  alter  the nature  of farming. This ruling is a blow to farmers who have been persecuted by Monsanto for ”˜trespassing’ on patent rights due to saving seed. The case, Bowman v. Monsanto, is a patent case which argues that Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman infringed on Monsanto’s GE soybean patent rights by purchasing from a third-party seed supplier instead of Monsanto, and benefited from successive harvests of the GE crop. Monsanto said Mr. Bowman’s plantings violated the company’s patent agreement that farmers are required to sign when they purchase GE seed. First, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed and told Mr. Bowman to pay nearly $85,000 in damages. Mr. Bowman appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which handed down its decision on Monday. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), which filed a brief on behalf of Mr. Bowman, put forward a legal framework to the court to safeguard […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2013) After 40 years of delay, the Associated Press reports that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will rule on the safety of the antibacterial chemical triclosan this year. Triclosan is present in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products, appearing in some of these products in a formulation known as Microban. The agency’s review comes amid growing pressure from politicians and consumer advocates concerning the safety of this chemical in terms of both human health and the wider environment. In 1972, Congress required FDA to set guidelines for many common antibacterial chemicals found in over-the-counter soaps and scrubs. FDA published tentative guidelines for chemicals used in liquid hand soaps and washes by 1978, stating triclosan was “not generally recognized as safe and effective.” This was due to a lack of scientific research demonstrating the chemical’s safety and effectiveness. FDA published several draft guidelines over the years but never finalized the results. This has allowed companies to keep the chemical in their products. Last summer, FDA said its triclosan review would be completed by the end of 2012. The agency then pushed […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2013) A committee of the National Academy of Sciences’ Research Council (NRC) issued a new report that outlines steps to improve regulatory problems associated with pesticides that harm endangered and threatened species. The report, Evaluating Risks That Pesticides Pose to Endangered, Threatened Species — New Report  suggests the need to overhaul  EPA’s deeply flawed pesticide approval process. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), before a pesticide can be sold, distributed, or used in the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to determine  that the pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. However,  in the case of species  listed as endangered or threatened under  the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), all federal agencies, including  EPA,  are required to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species by diminishing the species’ numbers and  reproduction. To do this, in its pesticide registration process,  EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when a federal action may adversely  affect a listed species or its habitat. Over the last decade, questions have been raised regarding […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2013) Last week a U.S. Court of Appeals found that pesticide restrictions to protect endangered salmon and steelhead proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in its Biological Opinion (BiOp) were “arbitrary and capricious,” supporting Dow AgroSciences LLC and other pesticide makers’ claims that the restrictions were based on “unsupported assumptions and conclusions.” The BiOp concluded that the pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon, three of the most highly toxic pesticides still in use, pose risks to salmon, steelhead and their habitat. In collaboration with NMFS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with implementation of any recommended pesticide restrictions to satisfy the mandate under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, to date, EPA has not taken any actions to implement any of the proposed measures to protect endangered salmon and steelhead, in part due to challenges from industry. Dow AgroScience LLC, Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., and Cheminova, Inc. USA first filed a suit in 2009 (Dow Agrosciences v. National Marine Fisheries ), challenging the NMFS’ 2008 BiOp to restrict  chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon as being based on numerous unsupported assumptions and conclusions, and faulty analyses. The U.S. District Court […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2012) Yesterday, Beyond Pesticides joined with the Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club, along with beekeepers from around the country, to file a 60-Day Notice letter with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcing the intent to jointly sue the agency for Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations. The potential lawsuit highlights EPA’s continuing failure to ensure, through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that its numerous product approvals for the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam are not likely to jeopardize any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. “EPA has failed to uphold the clear standards of the Endangered Species Act,” said Peter Jenkins, attorney at the Center for Food Safety. “By continuing to ignore the growing number of reports and studies demonstrating the risks of neonicotinoids to honey bees and a large number of already threatened and endangered species, the EPA is exposing these already compromised populations to potentially irreversible harm.” The Notice of Intent to Sue follows a legal petition previously filed by several environmental organizations and more than two dozen beekeepers requesting that EPA immediately suspend use of the chemical clothianidin that poses fatal harm to pollinators. While refusing to issue an […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2012) The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a ruling that gave organic farmers clear redress and decided that pesticide drift from one farm to another is not trespass, but instead must, in litigation, be found to be negligence or a nuisance. The ruling, while still giving farmers a legal channel to sue on pesticide drift, creates a higher standard for organic farmers to seek relief if their crops are damaged by pesticide drift. The ruling overturns a decision last summer by the state Court of Appeals that said pesticide drifting from its intended farm onto an adjacent organic farm could be considered a trespassing violation. In reversing a 2011 appeals court ruling, the Supreme Court said Minnesota does not recognize trespassing by “particulate matter.” The high court said the earlier appeals court ruling that found otherwise went “beyond our precedent.” The case is that of organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson, who sued the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company in 2009. The Johnsons alleged that the co-op repeatedly sprayed pesticides that drifted onto their fields, preventing them from selling their crops as organic. The Johnsons transitioned their farm to organic in the 1990s to take advantage […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2012) Seventy-five family farmers, seed businesses, and agricultural organizations representing over 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms filed a brief on July 5, 2012 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington asking the appellate court to reverse a lower court’s decision from February dismissing their protective legal action against agricultural giant Monsanto’s patents on genetically engineered seed. The plaintiffs brought the preemptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 in the Southern District of New York and specifically seek to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto’s most aggressively asserted patents on GMO seed. They were forced to act preemptively to protect themselves from Monsanto’s abusive lawsuits, fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement. Beyond Pesticides signed on as a plaintiff in the suit in June 2011. “Monsanto is known for bullying farmers by making baseless accusations of patent infringement,” said attorney Dan Ravicher of the not-for-profit legal services organization Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), which represents the plaintiffs in the suit against Monsanto known as Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto. “They’ve […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2012) In a victory for human health and organic farmers, the District Court in Delta, Colorado granted a permanent injunction last week to prohibit a farmer from fogging for moquitoes within 150 feet of his neighbor’s property or allowing the pesticides to drift, considering this to be a form of trespass. The victory is important for organic growers and others who are frequently under threat of pesticide drift from neighboring properties. Judge Charles Greenacre determined that an application of the insecticide, Fyfanon, a form of malathion, had drifted, and thus trespassed, onto the neighboring organic farm of Rosemary Bilchak and her husband, Gordon MacAlpine. In granting the permanent injunction, Judge Greenacre decided that: “Plaintiffs have an interest, shared by the public in general, in not having their property invaded by third persons or things. Plaintiffs also have a specific interest in not having pesticides invade their property because such invasions will delay or negate their efforts to have their property certified for the production of organic crops.” Last year, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that pesticides drifting from one farm to another may constitute trespass, and courts in other states have ruled in favor of […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2012) A settlement between plaintiffs and the manufacturer of the endocrine disrupting herbicide atrazine, Syngenta, will pay $105 million to settle a nearly 8-year-old lawsuit and could help reimburse community water systems (CWS) in 45 states that have had to filter the toxic chemical from its drinking water, according to news reports. It will provide financial recoveries for costs that have been borne for decades by more than 1,887 CWSs that provide drinking water more than one in six Americans across at least 45 states. “The scope of this historic settlement is enormous and its protection of the health of millions of Americans across the country is a huge benefit to the public, the environment, and the taxpayers,” the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer Stephen M. Tillery told the media. The individual amounts that eligible CWSs will recover will be calculated based on the levels of atrazine and frequency of atrazine contamination measured in the water of impacted CWSs and the population served by each CWS. The 300 CWSs with the highest contamination levels will recover 100 percent of their costs. Atrazine Settlement Details ”¢ Under the reported settlement, Syngenta will pay $105 million to pay the claims […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2012) Last Wednesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan, family farmers filed their Notice of Appeal to Judge Naomi Buchwald’s February 24th ruling dismissing Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear the farmers’ appeal, seeking to reinstate the case, which has received worldwide attention. The farmers are determined to move forward with their lawsuit challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically engineered seed technologies in order to continue their pursuit of Declaratory Judgment Act court protection from Monsanto’s claims of patent infringement should their crops become contaminated by Monsanto’s seed. “Farmers have the right to protect themselves from being falsely accused of patent infringement by Monsanto before they are contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed,” said Dan Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a not-for-profit legal services organization based at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law that represents the plaintiffs. “Judge Buchwald erred by denying plaintiffs that right and they have now initiated the process of having her decision reversed.” The original complaint in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto was filed on March 29, 2011. In July, Monsanto filed a motion […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2012) A U.S. District Court Judge on February 24 dismissed the case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto and organic farmers, seed growers, and agricultural organizations vowed to fight on. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to shield farmers from being sued for patent infringement by Monsanto should they become contaminated by drift of the company’s genetically engineered seed, a legal strategy Monsanto has been pursuing for years. The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, challenges Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed. The suit was originally filed on behalf of 60 plaintiffs on March 29, 2011, with 23 new plaintiffs, including Beyond Pesticides joining on June 1. The 83 plaintiffs involved in the suit represent a combined membership in excess of 300,000 people. Daniel Ravicher, lead attorney for the 81 plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit, said, “While I have great respect for Judge [Naomi] Buchwald, her decision to deny farmers the right to seek legal protection from one of the world’s foremost patent bullies is gravely disappointing.” “Her belief,” added Mr. Ravicher, “that farmers are acting unreasonably when they stop growing certain crops to avoid being sued […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 20, 2012) A California Superior Court Judge has questioned whether the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) complied with its legal obligation to consider alternative options before approving use of the toxic fumigant methyl iodide in 2010. Judge Frank Roesch raised the concern in comments from the bench during a January 13 hearing involving a lawsuit filed by farm worker and environmental organizations against CDPR and the Arysta LifeScience Corporation, which manufactures the methyl iodide products used in the state. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that state agencies consider alternative options to a regulatory action that meets the definition of a “project.” Projects include an action undertaken by a public agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. A project may not be approved as submitted if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are able to substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. While CDPR’s pesticide regulations have previously been recognized as “projects” as defined in the CEQA, it is unusual for judicial review to raise concerns about the validity of the alternatives assessments. “Did you consider not approving methyl iodide? […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 13, 2012) A U.S. District Judge in San Francisco has issued a ruling finding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to deregulate genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa was not unlawful, as has been charged by organic and environmental advocates, including Beyond Pesticides. Judge Samuel Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that USDA did not act improperly by deregulating the GE Roundup Ready alfalfa, developed by Monsanto Co., and that the agency’s environmental review of the product was adequate. The plaintiffs in the case, including conventional farmers and seed growers, with Center for Food Safety serving as legal counsel, argued that the environmental impact statement (EIS) the agency prepared failed to take several critical matters into consideration in its evaluation. Among the issues neglected by the EIS are the impacts that the crop would have on endangered species, which advocates hold is required to be considered under the Endangered Species Act, as well as the potential effects that the likely increased pesticide applications would have on the environment. For these reasons, the groups argued that the EIS was woefully incomplete and that the agency’s subsequent deregulation of the GE alfalfa […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2012) A coalition of six consumer safety groups filed suit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 21, 2011, citing the FDA’s chronic failure to regulate materials derived from nanotechnology (nanomaterials) used in sunscreens, cosmetics and drugs. The lawsuit demands that FDA respond to a May 2006 petition the coalition filed calling for regulatory actions, including nano-specific product labeling, health and safety testing, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of nanomaterials in products regulated by FDA. The lawsuit cites numerous studies and reports published since 2006 that establish significant data gaps concerning nanomaterials’ potential effects on human health and the environment. Led by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), the coalition is calling for FDA to take immediate action to assess the actual risks from nanomaterials and implement appropriate protective measures for consumers. While receiving minimal regulatory scrutiny or public attention, nanotechnology is becoming an increasingly prevalent practice for developing the next generation of ingredients in a wide range of consumer products. Generally defined, nanotechnology is the practice of manipulating matter on an atomic or molecular level to produce materials between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm) in size. A nanometer is […]