(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 […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 22, 2011) Several farmworker groups filed a petition last week with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urging the agency to implement stronger protections for farmworkers, with particular regard to health effects of exposure to toxic pesticides on the job. The petition seeks to eliminate the existing dual standard providing fewer workplace protections against pesticide exposures for farmworkers than for workers using hazardous chemicals in non-agricultural sectors. “Most American workers enjoy workplace protections created by the federal Office of Safety and Health Administration, but not farmworkers,” said Eve Gartner, lead attorney for Earthjustice, the public interest law firm representing the groups. “They get second class treatment which exposes them to high levels of very dangerous pesticides which is not only unhealthy but also fundamentally unfair.” According to Earth Justice, the health and safety of industrial workers falls under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Farmworkers must rely on EPA’s Worker Protection Standard of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which is far more lenient than the OSHA rules that protect industrial workers encountering potentially dangerous chemicals. “All we are asking is that the EPA […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 3, 2011) The State of Ohio announced Friday, October 28 it will rescind a regulation that has prohibited organic dairy product labeling from declaring that antibiotics, pesticides or synthetic hormones are not used. In a lawsuit filed by the Organic Trade Association (OTA), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that proposed restrictions violate the First Amendment of the constitution. As a result, Ohio has abandoned the rule, thus allowing labeling to proudly state that organic dairy products are produced in accordance with federal organic standards under the Organic Foods Production Act, and therefore without the use of synthetic growth hormones or antibiotics. “This is significant for all of us who support what the organic foods are about, and for consumers who carefully read food labels to find out what’s in their food and how it’s produced,” said Christine Bushway, Executive Director and CEO for OTA. “The Sixth Circuit opinion made it clear that states cannot unduly restrict organic labels or consumers’ right to know how their food is produced, and the State of Ohio’s actions today make it clear that the fight to keep labels accurate by OTA, its members, farmers, and consumers was worth it.” […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2011) A new report highlights scientific research and empirical experiences around the globe that demonstrate the failure of genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops to deliver on their advertised promises to increase yields, reduce pesticide usage, and tolerate drought with “climate ready” traits. A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs, “The GMO Emperor has no Clothes,” states that the on-the-ground experience in many countries discloses that GM technology has failed on all fronts, contrary to industry claims. The examples from around the globe include the financial burden borne by farmers. The report describes the cultivation of GM cotton in South Africa where the majority of farmers growing GM cotton are now in debt due to the high costs of seed, chemical, and other farm inputs. The Global Citizens Report confirms that such experiences are repeated in many countries and regions. The stories of Indian farmer indebtedness and increased suicides further emphasize the tragic costs of failed GM technology and its promises. The prevalence of Roundup Ready GM crops has led to the increases of Roundup resistant weeds in the environment. Farmers and agronomists throughout the world are alarmed by the growing epidemic of “superweeds” […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 13, 2011) A new report released by The Cornucopia Institute reveals the deceptive marketing practices in the natural foods industry by some of the nation’s largest breakfast cereal manufacturers, demonstrating the importance of the organic label in order to avoid synthetic pesticides and genetically engineered food. In some cases, companies are selling products contaminated with toxic agrichemicals and Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms while promoting them as “natural.” The new report, Cereal Crimes: How “Natural” Claims Deceive Consumers and Undermine the Organic Label””A Look Down the Cereal and Granola Aisle, explores in-depth this growing trend of marketing conventional foods as “natural” to lure health-conscious and eco-conscious consumers and their shopping dollars. As Beyond Pesticides has pointed out in previous Daily News entries and our fact sheet, “Making Sure Green Consumer Claims Are Truthful,” the report also acknowledges that there are no restrictions for foods labeled “natural.” Unlike the organic label, no government agency, certification group, or other independent entity defines the term “natural” on processed food packages or ensures that the claim has merit. Analysis by Cornucopia of wholesale and retail cereal and granola prices reveals that “natural” products often are priced similarly or higher than equivalent organic […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 6, 2011) Representatives of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) presented a special declaration October 1, 2011 to the United Nations (UN), requesting that the international organization commit all of its member nations to a world without genetically modified (GMO) foods and to identify existing GMO foods on product labels. The UN declaration was written in anticipation of the GMO Right2Know March which kicked off at the UN headquarters in New York on October 1 and will end at the White House on October 16. The UN delegation included IFOAM representatives, Joseph Wilhelm, founder of Rapunzel organic products and the force behind “Gene-Free America;” and his employees.” Maria-Luisa Chavez welcomed the delegation and accepted the declaration on behalf of the UN. She will pass it on to the president of the General Assembly, the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations. Mr. Wilhelm believes that consumers have the right to know whether the food they buy is genetically altered. “Twenty percent of all manufactured foods in the U.S. contains genetically modified ingredients (GMO),” he said. “We hope the Right2Know march will raise consumer awareness and influence U.S. legislators to require that labels […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2011) In two weeks, a diverse coalition of organizations, businesses and individuals will begin to march from the Historic Flatbush Food Co-op in Brooklyn, NY to the gates of the White House to ask the Obama Administration to support labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The GMO Right2Know March will feature daily events between New York and Washington, DC October 1-16 as hundreds of marchers are expected to walk part or all of the 313 miles to the White House. The route and details on daily events can be viewed here. “Pesticide companies develop genetically engineered food crops by combining DNA from plants, animals, bacteria and viruses, to contain or resist pesticide, which results in more pesticides sold and sprayed,” says Michael Hansen, Ph.D, chief scientist of Consumers Union. “Genetically engineered foods contain untested novel foreign compounds that can be detrimental to our health, just as they are to the environment and farmers’ livelihoods. American consumers deserve the choice whether they want to eat GMOs, just like their counterparts in Europe and Japan,” says Hansen who will join the Oct 1 NYC Right2Know March kick-off rally at Prospect Park at 11am to 1pm followed by marchers […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 9, 2011) Genetically engineered sweet corn designed to both fight off insects and tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide is set to enter the market this fall, marking a first for engineered produce in the U.S. by the company. This is the first consumer product developed by Monstanto that will go straight from the farm to the consumer’s plate, rather than first being processed into animal feed, sugars, oils, fibers and other ingredients found in a wide variety of conventional food. The new seeds, which will be available to farmers this fall, will target the relatively small market of 250,000 acres of sweet corn grown that is grown for human consumption, however, many environmentalists worry that if this proves profitable for Monsanto we may see more varieties of GE fruits and vegetables at the grocery store. “There’s a concern with these GE crops that we eat with minimal processing [like sweet corn]…we’re exposed to a lot more of whatever is in it versus a processed corn product,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at Center for Food Safety in an interview with Fast Company. A study earlier this year found that pregnant women and their fetuses were […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2011) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued a decision stating that it does not consider a new type of genetically engineered (GE) turf grass to be subject to federal regulations. In the decision announced by the USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the agency stated that it does not have the authority to regulate introduction or transportation of the GE grass seed under the provisions of the Plant Protection Act . The grass, developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, has been engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, commonly sold as Roundup. Kentucky bluegrass is a popular choice for yards and fields as well as pastures and prairies, and the GE seed is expected to be made available for consumers to plant in their home lawns, potentially making it one of the most widely planted GE crops in the country. USDA’s authority to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) stems from provisions of the Plant Protection Act (relevant regulations can be found at 7 CFR 340) that are designed to ensure that GMOs do not present the potential for new “plant pests.” As the New York Times explains, “Since companies have created most […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2011) After nearly two decades of struggling for consensus within the global food safety body, the Codex Alimentarius Commision, the U.S. ended its opposition to the genetically modified (GM) labeling guidance document on Tuesday, July 5, 2011, allowing it to move forward to become official Codex text. Though this new agreement does not require mandatory labeling, it will allow countries wishing to adopt GM food labeling without fear of legal challenges from the World Trade Organization (WTO), because national measures based on Codex guidelines cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade. This will have immediate implications for consumers, according to Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Consumers International’s lead delegate at Codex, and a senior scientist at Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. He stated: “We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognizes that GM labeling is justified as a tool for post market monitoring. This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required to be labeled – so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction.” The Codex Alimentarius Commission is […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2011) The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 was reintroduced last week in the House of Representatives aiming to grant the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate personal care products, including cosmetics, to ensure they are free of harmful ingredients before they hit the shelves. Cosmetics currently go unregulated and can contain harmful ingredients like triclosan, heavy metals, formaldehyde and others which expose consumers to numerous health threats. The cosmetic and personal care product industry is self-regulated. But the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 will, according to U.S. Representative Ed Markey, a lead sponsor on the bill, “close a gaping hole in the federal law that allows potentially toxic chemicals to remain in the cosmetics products consumers use every day. Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin offered the “Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011,” which would require companies to put all of a product’s ingredients on its label. It would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct random annual tests of products for harmful substances and would force FDA to produce a list of ingredients that are prohibited from being used in cosmetics. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2011) A study published in the May 2011 edition of the journal Reproductive Toxicology finds pregnant women and their fetuses contaminated with pesticides and metabolites of the herbicide gluphosinate and the Cry1Ab protein of the insecticide based on the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), both affiliated with genetically engineered (GE) food. The study, “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada,” also identified the same chemicals, as well as glyphosate metabolites in the bodies of non-pregnant women. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada, is intended to pave the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities. Herbicide resistance is the most common genetically modified trait in commercial agriculture. Crops are modified to be able to withstand extremely high doses of glyphosate (Roundup Ready) and gluphosinate (LibertyLink). Current herbicide resistant crops include soy, maize (corn), canola, sugar beet, cotton, with and alfalfa. As of 2005, 87% of U.S. soybean fields were planted with glyphosate resistant varieties. The recently released 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2011) More than 130 groups in 35 states, representing public health, food-security, sustainable-farming, farmworker and conservation interests called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use all the tools at its disposal to protect public health and imperiled wildlife from toxic pesticides. The June 16th letter to EPA, which was signed by Beyond Pesticides, cites significant flaws in the pesticide registration process. To see which conventional crops may be grown with pesticides linked to impacts on wildlife and human health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience food guide. “Pesticides pose a clear and preventable danger to our health and the environment. It’s time for EPA to ensure pesticides no longer jeopardize human health, wildlife, the water we drink or the air we breathe,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Congress must do its part by stopping legislation sponsored by chemical corporations and their allies to strip important laws that safeguard future generations, farmworkers and wildlife from pesticide harms.” The groups cite undue pesticide industry influence over EPA’s pesticide decisions under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)””as well as documented pesticide impacts such as endocrine disruption, cancers and reproductive […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a petition from the Migrant Clinicians Network, Farmworker Justice, and other farmworker interest groups asking the agency to require that manufacturers make their pesticide product labels available in both English and Spanish. EPA is inviting public comment until June 28, 2011 (see Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0014-0001 and submit comments). After the 90-day comment period ends, the agency will use the comments received in developing a decision on this petition. Farmworker groups are asking people to submit comments to EPA supporting the petition. See talking points below. Currently, pesticide labels are only required to be in English. This policy has a disproportionate impact on farmworkers, particularly pesticide applicators, who primarily speak Spanish, with little or no ability to speak or read English. As a consequence, they cannot read the pesticide labels and do not understand the pesticide use directions, the personal protective equipment (PPE) required or the instructions to avoid contamination of water bodies. The current provision, which directs Spanish-speaking workers themselves to get the label translated, is grossly inadequate. In a recent study in Washington State, farmworkers who could not read English exhibited higher rates of pesticide exposure […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2011) Following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) January 10th announcement that it plans to cancel all allowable pesticide residue levels (tolerances) of the toxic fumigant sulfuryl fluoride–effectively banning its use, the chemical’s manufacturer, Dow AgroSciences, is petitioning EPA to launch a formal registration cancellation hearing under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA decided to cancel the tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) after determining that when residues on food products are combined with fluoridated drinking water and toothpaste, public exposure levels are too high. The agency took the action in response to a June 2006 petition submitted by Fluoride Action Network, Beyond Pesticides, and Environmental Working Group. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) amendments to FFDCA require that a pesticide registered for use by EPA cannot exceed acceptable risk thresholds when its dietary and nondietary uses are evaluated in the aggregate. Environmentalists believe that the January 2011 sulfuryl fluoride decision was the first time EPA action has resulted in a comprehensive pesticide cancellation of agricultural uses (as distinct from a voluntary cancellation by the manufacturer) because of unacceptable aggregate exposure. While cancellation hearings are not provided under […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2010) The European Union (EU) standing committee on Tuesday decided to allow a 0.1 percent contamination threshold for unauthorized Genetically Engineered (GE) products in animal feed imports that would change the bloc’s zero-tolerance attitude toward biotech food. The EU Commission and Parliament are expected to accept the rule by this summer. If the vote is allowed through by the European Parliament and Council, those shipments could contain GE seeds that are authorized in their home country but may not even have been tested in Europe. Greenpeace spokesperson Stefanie Hundsdorfer warned that the new rules are possibly the first of many concessions to come. “Setting a tolerance threshold, however low, is a sign that Europe is losing control over its own food production to please American exporters,” said Ms. Hundsdorfer. “The danger now is that EU countries come under pressure from the pro-GE lobby to also allow GE contamination in food products for direct human consumption.” According to industry, exporting states and the European Commission say the new concession is necessary to prevent supply disruptions, because the EU’s feed industry relies on imports for 80% of its needs, and the world’s largest suppliers””Argentina, the United States and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2011) After 15 years of commercialization, accumulated Genetically Engineered (GE) crops in the world exceeded 1 billion hectares in 2010. For comparison, 1 billion hectares is roughly equivalent to the vast land area of China, or of the United States. The figures are in this year’s International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) report, out this week. Of the four most commonly planted GE crops, a rising percentage of the total of all plantings are GE. In 2010, 81% of all soybeans, 64% of cotton, 29% of corn and 23% of canola globally were from biotech seeds, the ISAAA says. “Growth remains strong, with biotech hectare increasing 14 million hectares — or 10 percent — between 2009 and 2010,” said Clive James, chairman and founder of ISAAA. “That’s the second highest annual hectare growth ever — bringing 2010 global plantings to 148 million hectares.” Unfortunately, the situation does not look brighter for this upcoming year due to the recent decision from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow the U.S. sugar beet industry to continue growing Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready,” GE sugar beets and the recent decision to deregulate GE alfalfa seed, despite the risks […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2010) A petition of more than a million signatures was presented to the European Commission last week, demanding a halt to approvals of new genetically modified (GM) crops and the establishment of up a new scientific body to study the impact of the technology and determine regulations. Greenpeace led the effort. The petition is seen as a test case for the “European citizen’s initiative,” introduced under the European Union’s new constitutional treaty, which enables a million or more people to jointly ask the European Commission to change EU legislation. It follows the Commission’s decision in March to grant the first EU GM cultivation approval in 12 years for the “Amflora” potato. “Over a million people across Europe have set the EU a democratic test — will the EU address the real concern people have about GM crops and food, or will it side with the chemical industry lobbyists controlling GM technology?” Greenpeace’s EU Director Jorgo Riss said. “Until safety issues of GMs are examined by independent experts, all GM authorizations should stop.” A spokesman for the EU executive said it would treat the signatures “as a petition in the spirit of the citizen’s initiative,” Despite the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2010) According to a new report by the North American environmental-marketing company TerraChoice, 95% of consumer products examined that claim to be eco-friendly are guilty of greenwashing, including: vague language such as “all-natural,” no proof of environmental claims, and the use of fake labels designed to imply that the product has a third party endorsement. Interestingly, the study found that “big box” retailers tend to stock more “green” products and more products that provide legitimate environmental certifications (like organic) than smaller “green” boutique-style stores. This report comes on the heels of FTC’s announcement to revise its “Green Guides” guidelines. In an effort to reduce confusion among consumers trying to decipher the wide variety of green claims, the commission is revising its guidelines for companies seeking to promote their products as environmentally friendly. The report, The Sins of Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition, examines over 5,000 consumer products in 34 stores in the U.S. and Canada and finds 12,061 “green” claims. Researchers documented product details, claim details, any supporting information on labels or store shelves, and any explanatory details or offers of additional information or support. Those claims were tested against best practice and guidelines provided by […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 6, 2010) Organic and genetically modified organism (GMO)-free conventional farmers and food processors need legal certainty that they can continue to produce food free of GMO contamination. This, according to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)— EU Regional Group, which responded to a presentation by EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection John Dalli on “best practice document” for genetically modified (GM) maize. The best practice document outlines voluntary guidelines for the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, but fails to address the economic and social impacts on contaminated non-GMO farms. Commissioner Dalli presented to the Farm Council proposals on GMO cultivation, as well as a new “best practice document” for maize. “Commissioner Dalli is trying to snake his way through crucial GMO policies by attempting to satisfy all conflicting parties with his proposals to the Farm Council this morning. But his approach still fails to solve the main problems,” comments Christopher Stopes, President of the IFOAM EU Group. “Consumers refuse to eat GMOs which is their democratic right.” The best practice document authored by the European Coexistence Bureau, developed in light of a July 2010 recommendation, reflects the possibility for […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 1, 2010) A new study by University of Notre Dame ecologist Jennifer Tank, PhD and colleagues reveals that streams throughout the Midwest are contaminated with transgenic materials from corn crop byproducts, even six months after harvest. The transgenic corn has been genetically engineered (GE) to produce its own insecticide, a toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). In a 2007 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), Dr. Tank and a group of researchers demonstrated that transgenic materials from corn (pollen, leaves, cobs) do, in fact, enter streams and can be subsequently transported to downstream water bodies. In a paper, “Occurrence of maize detritus and a transgenic insecticidal protein (Cry1Ab) within the stream network of an agricultural landscape,” published in the September 27, 2010 edition of PNAS, the researchers write about their nvestigation of the fate and persistence of the material and its associated Cry1Ab insecticidal protein, using a synoptic field survey of 217 stream sites in northwestern Indiana six months after crop harvest. “We found that corn crop byproducts were common in agricultural streams and that 86 percent of sites contained corn leaves, cobs, husks and/or stalks in the active stream […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2010) Consumer food buying decisions have a direct effect on the health of the environment and those who grow and harvest food. Beyond Pesticides released its expanded Eating with a Conscience guide —now updated to include the 43 of the most commonly eaten fruits and vegetables, which shows consumers why, according to the group, “food labeled organic is the right choice.” Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, said, “In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, protection of farmworkers, and stewardship of the earth.” Eating with a Conscience explains to consumers the effect they are having on health and the environment when they purchase food grown with chemical-intensive methods, even if a large number of residues do not remain on the finished food product. The group points to organic-certified food with the USDA organic seal as “the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight —ensuring consumers that toxic chemicals used to kill insects and unwanted plants (or weeds) in chemical-intensive food production are replaced by management practices focused […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 20, 2010) California-based discount retailer 99 Cents Only Stores Inc. has been fined over $400,000 for selling three household products containing unregistered or mislabeled pesticides. It is the largest contested penalty ever handed down by EPA. According to EPA, the retailer continued to sell the products even after being notified that they were violating regulations. EPA found 99 Cents Only Stores were selling products in violation of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) during a routine inspection in 2004. Subsequent inspections up until 2008 found additional problems resulting in a total of 166 separate violations. Originally. EPA handed down a $1 million fine. 99 Cents Only Stores Inc decided to contest the penalty. These types of fines are rarely contested. In the end, EPA Administrative Law Judge Susan Biro ruled the company would pay a fine of $409,490, declaring the retailer’s management had a “culture of indifference.” Of the 166 violations committed by 99 Cents Only stores Inc., 164 were related to a household cleaner and sanitizer imported from Mexico called Bref Limpieza y Disinfeccion Total con Densicloro which translates into “Bref Complete Cleaning and Disinfection with Densicloro.” The product had pesticidal claims on the […]