(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2008) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) announced August 5, 2008 that 15 of the 30 accredited organic certifiers it recently inspected failed the USDA audit and will have 12 months to make corrections or lose their accreditation with NOP. The non-profit Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is calling for an NOP “Peer Review Panel” to evaluate its adherence to its accreditation procedures and its accreditation decisions. Show your support for strong organic certification procedures by signing the OCA petition  below. A number of the violations noted in the several hundred page audit related to Chinese imports certified by the French-based organic certifier ECOCERT and other certifiers. However, OCA points out that Quality Assurance International (QAI), the largest organic certifier in the world, is not cited by the USDA, even though OCA recently reviewed documents that indicate that QAI is indeed under investigation by NOP. QAI has recently been in the news for sourcing ginger, contaminated with the highly toxic and restricted insecticide, aldicarb, from its Chinese certification sub-contractors and then labeling it as “USDA Organic.” QAI is also under public fire, along with other certifiers, for certifying factory farm feedlot dairies supplying […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2008) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a plan to distribute pesticide labels electronically, in lieu of a traditional product labeling with use instructions, raising further safety concerns about consumer product choice and label compliance from public health and environmental advocates. The program, which is currently under development, will be an agenda item at the May 21-22 meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) in Arlington, VA. “Benefits from using this system will include faster access to new pesticide uses, quicker implementation of protective measures for public health and the environment, improved compliance with label directions, and lower costs for industry and EPA,” the agency said May 12 in a statement on its pesticides website. The system will rely on users to contact either the pesticide labeling website or a toll-free telephone number to obtain the detailed-use instructions that previously were attached to pesticide containers, EPA said. The program is being discussed by EPA and “stakeholders, generally those that have approached the Agency.” EPA said it would develop a pilot program for the system in 2009. The PPDC, which will be presenting next week, comprises industrial, regulatory, and consumer members who provide feedback to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2008) The Center for Food Safety (CFS) yesterday sent letters to the Attorneys General of 49 states urging the top state law enforcement officials to take action against the misleading practice of labeling seafood imports as “organic.” The state-based effort to protect the integrity of organic food labels is a follow-up to the complaints filed by the Center last year with the USDA and Federal Trade Commission (see also Daily News of November 5, 2007). To date, these federal agencies have left the complaints unanswered, while U.S. consumers are increasingly confronted with imported seafood misleadingly labeled as “organic,” despite the fact that there are no U.S. organic seafood standards in place. In the action, the CFS calls upon USDA to prevent consumer deception by enforcing existing organic labeling laws and regulations until new standards are finalized. CFS, which is joined in this effort by Food & Water Watch, has identified the practice of allowing seafood to be labeled as “organic” in absence of regulations as unfair, deceptive and misleading – a violation of the states’ consumer deception and misrepresentation laws. With U.S. sales of organic food dramatically increasing, a number of foreign seafood imports labeled as […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2008) The International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) and a coalition of consumer, health, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, yesterday filed a legal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), demanding the agency use its pesticide regulation authority to stop the sale of  250+ consumer products now using nanosized versions of silver. The legal action is the first challenge to EPA’s failure to regulate nanomaterials. Increasingly, manufacturers are infusing a large and diverse number of consumer products with nanoparticle silver (“nanosilver”) for its enhanced “germ killing” abilities. Nanosilver is now the most common commercialized nanomaterial. CTA found over 260 nanosilver products currently on the market, ranging from household appliances and cleaners to clothing, cutlery, and children’s toys to personal care products and coated electronics. Yet as the legal petition addresses, the release of this unique substance may be highly destructive to natural environments and raises serious human health concerns. Last summer, a coalition of 40 organization called for much more comprehensive evaluation and regulation of nanomaterials, citing these concerns. “These nanosilver products now being illegally sold are pesticides,” said George Kimbrell, CTA nanotech staff attorney. “Nanosilver is leaching into the environment, where it will have […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2008) In what it calls the most important article it has ever published, Golf Digest in its May 2008 issue (pp 196-232) publishes an article, How Green is Golf?, which asks the hard questions about the environmental impact of golf in a series of in-depth interviews, including a builder, golf course superintendent, regulator and environmentalist. The article spans a range of opinions on water usage, pesticide contamination, and management practices, with general agreement that golfer expectations and management practices must move and are moving in an environmental direction, citing important ways in which attitudes and understanding must change. Despite the documented problems with pesticides, the head of EPA’s pesticide program, in what is described as a “rebuttal” to criticism of pesticides and the pesticide registration process that are highlighted, responds without addressing key specifics identified in the article and preferring to extol the virtues of the EPA’s pesticide program. The article says in its introduction, “As water becomes scarcer, as organic management practices increase, as environmentalism and environmental legislation start to bite more than they have, as the economy struggles, and as we come to appreciate the aesthetics of golf courses in all their many natural, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2008) A study called “Long-term persistence of GM oilseed rape in the seedbank,” recently published in the journal Biology Letters, has found a genetically modified (GM) crop to persist in spite of a decade of efforts to remove it from a field. Researchers from Sweden’s Lund University and the Danish Technical University found GM oilseed rape (also known as canola) plants still growing ten years after seeds were planted. According to the study, the result contrasts previous trials: “In general, studies suggest that the majority of seeds disappear from the seedbank within two years.” The oilseed rape volunteer (rogue) plants were discovered by their resistance to the herbicide glufosinate. Researchers wrote, “This finding of volunteers, despite labour intensive control for 10 years [including intensive chemical spraying], supports previous suggestions that voulnteer oilseed rape needs to be carefully managed in order for non-GM crops to be planted after GM crops.” They added, “These results are important in relation to debating and regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops.” The study’s findings are consistent with previous research. A larger French study found similar survival of volunteer plants eight years after a GM trial. Swedish researcher Dr. Tina D’Hertefeldt […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2008) Three years ago, Carlos Candelario was born without arms or legs and with spinal and lung deformities, birth defects caused by his mother’s exposure to multiple pesticides while working in Ag-Mart Produce fields during her pregnancy. His parents, Francisca Herrera and Abraham Candelario, sued the company in 2006, and last week’s settlement will provide for Carlos for the rest of his life, pending a judge’s approval. “I am as gratified about this case as any I’ve ever handled,” said attorney Andrew Yaffa. “This child has tremendous needs and needed somebody willing to speak on his behalf. Every medical need will be taken care of as a result of this settlement.” Ag-Mart has a history of state pesticide violations and use of extremely toxic pesticides (although in 2005, the company did agree to discontinue use of chemicals linked to reproductive risks, excepting methyl bromide, which is still in use). The company grows “UglyRipe” heirloom tomatoes and Santa Sweets grape tomatoes in a chemical-intensive operation. Ms. Herrera and Mr. Candelario worked alongside other migrant workers in North Carolina and Florida fields at the time of Ms. Herrera’s exposure. Both Florida and North Carolina have published reports on […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2008) Will this be the pesticide label of the near future? It will be unless you act now to stop cause marketing on toxic pesticide products. Send your comments to EPA by Thursday, March 27, 2008 and oppose cause marketing on toxic pesticide products. See Take Action webpage. On October 31, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a comment period on their Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Label Statements Regarding Third-Party Endorsements and Cause Marketing Claims. After being urged by Beyond Pesticides and other concerned groups, EPA extended the closing date from December 28 to March 27. Your opportunity to provide EPA with critical feedback on its proposal to allow third-party endorsements on pesticide labels ends in less than a week! Cause marketing on pesticide labels would allow manufacturers to place the symbols of well-known organizations to their products, such as in the deal Clorox made with the American Red Cross last year. Attaching an image (like the Red Cross symbol) to a label can imply false safety of a product, which is a direct violation of EPA’s own labeling law. EPA’s proposed law would allow any company to make similar partnerships, putting consumers […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16, 2008) As of January 2008, the UK’s leading campaigning and certification organization for organic food and farming bans man-made nanomaterials from all of its certified organic products. The Soil Association has become the first organization in the world to formally reject having nanomaterials in organic cosmetics, food, and textile products, and prohibits products made with nanoparticles from carrying the pro-organic group’s logo. In their press release, the association states that they are the first to take action against this hazardous, potentially toxic technology that poses a serious new threat to human health. While the group recognizes some potential benefits from nanotechnology, like its use in medicine and in the renewable energy sectors, there is insufficient evidence about the impact of nanotechnology on the environment and human health. The Soil Association Standard’s Board decided to ban manufactured nanoparticles as ingredients, in keeping with their organic standards and principles. The initiative stands at the core of the organic movement’s values of protecting human health. Soil Association policy manager, Gundula Azeez, said, “The Soil Association is the first organization in the world to ban nanoparticles. There should be no place for nanoparticles in health and beauty products or food. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2007) EPA decided at the end of 2007 to extend the deadline for public comments on its controversial proposal to allow pesticide product labels with third-party endorsements and cause-marketing claims. The new due date is March 27, 2008. The agency extended the public comment period for another 90 days in response to requests from Beyond Pesticides and others. In extending the comment, Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, said, “The Agency is particularly interested in assuring that its State partners in pesticide regulations, as well as organizations such as yours, have adequate opportunity for comments.” See letter.The issue of cause-marketing on pesticide labels came up last year when Clorox petitioned EPA to allow it to display the Red Cross logo on some of its products, including pine-sol and bleach products. In letters to all the state pesticide regulatory agencies in March, 2007, Beyond Pesticides urged the states to deny the label changes approved by EPA, saying: The inherent danger is that misleading the public about pesticides can result in harm to consumers who either do not, unfortunately, take the time to read pesticide labels or who cannot read or comprehend labels (e.g. non-English speaking citizens, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2007) EPA is proposing a major overhaul of pesticide labels that will allow cause-related marketing (advertising) directly on products, a reversal of a long-standing policy that prohibited such representations. Beyond Pesticides urges the public to submit comments opposing such labeling and to support a request that EPA extend the deadline for comments (now set at December 31, 2007) to allow between 30 and 60 additional days for public comment on this proposed change. The change in law has serious safety implications, according to Beyond Pesticides, because the use of symbols, such as the Red Cross, implies that poisonous products are safe. On February 7, 2007, numerous groups petitioned EPA to rescind and deny the pesticide product label for the Clorox Company, which allows the display of the Red Cross symbol and language on pesticide products. The groups signing the petition included Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Environmental Health, American Bird Conservancy, Pesticide Education Project, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, Environmental Health Fund, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Natural Resources Defense Council, Maryland Pesticide Network and Washington Toxics Coalition. Current label laws, defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2007) According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, as of January 1, 2008, dairy products with labels such as “growth-hormone free” will be illegal in the state. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff announced the decision last month after convening a 22-member Food Labeling Advisory Committee to look into false or misleading claims in “absence labeling.”The ruling covers all dairy products sold in the state, forcing some out-of-state manufacturers, in effect, to make Pennsylvania-only packaging. So far, the state Department of Agriculture has notified 19 companies that their labels must change. Of the three principal types of labeling affected by the ruling, getting rid of “growth-hormone free” milk labels has proven most controversial.The PA Department of Agriculture explained its decision in a statement on its website, “[S]ome milk labels contain statements such as ”˜hormone-free,’ but all milk contains hormones. Some labels also claim the absence of synthetic hormones, but there is no scientific test that can determine the truth of this claim.” Organic labeling, Mr. Wolff said, involves a certification process that includes surprise audits, so the department does not currently intend to interfere with it. Some food safety advocates believe […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2007) Forty-four organizations signed on to a letter to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) on October 26, asking the board to protect organic aquaculture standards by prohibiting the USDA’s organic label from being placed on fish raised in open net pens or fed wild fish. Six months ago, the NOSB voted overwhelmingly to temporarily ban the labeling of any fish raised under these circumstances as organic until comments from industry and the organic community on the issue could be heard. During this time, the Aquaculture Working Group issued an Interim Report, which proposes conditions under which wild fishmeal and oil could be used as feed ingredients and open net pen fish farming would be allowed in organic aquaculture. In response to the report’s suggestions, the co-signing organizations conclude that while the farming of herbivorous finfish may be conducted within organic regulations, farming carnivorous finfish (including salmon) in open net cage systems is an inherently flawed farming practice, incompatible with organic principles. “Raising fish in this manner directly contradicts USDA Organic regulations; putting a USDA Organic label on these fish is like trying to force a round peg into a square hole,” said Center for Food […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2007) The aerial spraying for eradication of the brown apple moth, which has been disputed by environmentalist and concerned residents, is set to resume this week. This is a result of the lifting of the temporary restraining order against the use of the pesticide, in light of the order given by Governor Schwarzenegger that called on the California Department of Food and Agriculture to release the names of the chemical components of the pesticide and then restart spraying. On Friday a Monterey judge determined that the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, did not contain toxic chemicals and lifted the ban instituted October 10. The restraining order was first granted more than 100 residents complained of health problems after the spraying first took place last month over the Monterey peninsula. Environmental groups sued the state claiming that a health safety assessment was never conducted before spraying. That suit is still pending. The lingering concerns prompted the governor to order the state to release the ingredients on Saturday, despite efforts by the manufacturer to keep the contents secret. California Secretary of Food and Agriculture, A.G. Kawamura, said in a statement on Saturday that the governor supports the public’s right to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October, 10 2007) One of the largest chemical companies in the world, BASF Corporation, announced in a press release October 9, 2007 that it will get serious in its campaign against the use of illegal pesticides. The sale and distribution of unregistered or counterfeit pesticidal products is clearly prohibited under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), resulting in harm to public health and the environment. Several companies have recently been fined by the EPA for selling and distributing unregistered or mislabeled pesticide products (See Daily News Blogs: “EPA Fines Clorox Over Export Labels” and “Target Settles with EPA on Labeling Violations”). BASF sees the problem as adversely affecting its bottom line. BASF Agricultural Products spends over 300 million euros in research and development, especially in the field of crop protection, to develop and launch new products. As a result, the company is on a state of alert to prevent activities which deliberately infringe its existing patents or which are illegal, including product counterfeiting and the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides. The agricultural products division of BASF said that its worldwide fight against illegal pesticides would involve taking legal action for patent infringement, illegal imports of […]

(Beyond Pesticides, 2nd October 2007) Target Corp. has been fined over $40,000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violating pesticide-labeling rules under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As part of the penalty, EPA (Region 5) filed a consent agreement and final order with Target to halt the distribution and sale of the products in violation. According to EPA, Target sold and distributed products from its stores and website that made pesticidal claims on their labels. Some product’s properties also made comparisons to other registered products sold by competitors. An inspector cited the company for violation in April and Target is now removing pesticidal claims from the products.The products identified were: Antimicrobial Toilet Seats, Home Ultimate Mattress Pads, Home Ultimate Pillows- which made “germ-killing” claims and Cleaner With Bleach, which compared its disinfectant properties with a competitor. Under FIFRA (Section 2(u)), any substance or product intended for “preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest,” which includes germs and bacteria, is defined as a pesticide and must be registered with EPA prior to sale and distribution. EPA considers disinfectants, antimicrobial and antibacterial products to be pesticides. This settlement is one of several recent EPA crackdowns concerning the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 31, 2007) According the results of a survey by Mambo Sprouts research services released August 20, 2007, consumers are torn between buying local and buying organic food, but in the end want both. The results show that 36.1% of natural product consumers said they would choose local produce over organic items, while another 33.3% indicated the opposite. The remaining respondents said they were unsure which to choose, but overall, consumers reported a preference for food that was both local and organic. Respondent comments reflected three distinct motivators for purchasing locally grown food: 1) better for the environment and sustainability due to reduced environmental impact of transporting food, 2) a belief that much local produce is fresher and healthier — even if not certified organic, and 3) a general mistrust or confusion regarding organic food labeling. “This survey revealed that consumers are definitely looking for more clarity and definition in organic product classifications,” says Matthew A. Saline, CEO of Mambo Sprouts Marketing, a multi-faceted direct marketing company that operates exclusively in the health, natural and organic products arena. Regarding the USDA Organic seal, 46.7% of respondents thought it indicated 100% organic contents, 24.8% thought it meant at least […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 23, 2007) With the joint release on July 31, 2007 of Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations called for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products, citing risks to the public, workers and the environment. The manufacture of products using nanotechnology—a powerful platform for manipulating matter at the level of atoms and molecules in order to alter properties—has exploded in recent years. Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nanomaterials can pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed. As Yoke Ling of the Third World Network explained, “Materials engineered to the nano-scale can exhibit fundamentally different properties—including toxicity—with unknown effects. Current research raises red flags that demand precautionary action and further study.” She added, “As there are now hundreds of products containing nanomaterials in commerce, the public, workers, and the environment are being exposed to these […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2007) As the face of agriculture in America changes with rising prevalence of herbicide-tolerant crops, farmers in Mississippi and Arkansas are also facing challenges caused by increased herbicide resistance. A recent press release by the Delta Research and Extension Center (DREC) blames glyphosate-resistant weeds for increased costs in Mississippi, while a leading British researcher will work with the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service to determine the impact that the same weeds will have on farming in Arkansas. According to DREC’s release, a “concern for agricultural production in the Mississippi Delta is the increase of weeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate . . . DREC rice weed scientist Jason Bond said that both glyphosate-resistant horseweed and volunteer Roundup Ready soybeans have become problem weeds for Mississippi rice production.” Research associate Tom Eubank also said, “Glyphosate-resistant horseweed, ryegrass and pigweed are concerns in Mississippi Delta soybeans.” Meanwhile, Arkansas farmers are noticing a similar trend: the increased use of glyphosate on Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops is leading them to map the future of herbicide-resistant weeds and consider alternative weed management programs. According to the High Plains/Midwest Agricultural Journal, “researchers believe that if pigweed, or Plamer amaranth, can’t be […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2007) A company with previous pesticide violations will likely face a significant fine after accidentally spraying children at a day care in Virginia last week with herbicides. Several children were directly sprayed and at least three experienced symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning. The company, NaturChem, was hired by Norfolk Southern to spray a section of railroad tracks, which they do every three years to suppress unwanted plants along the tracks. Sixteen children were playing outside at the day care, adjacent to the tracks as the NaturChem tanker went by. Four children, who were playing along the fence, were directly sprayed. While day care staff took them inside, washed them and changed their clothes immediately, at least three children had acute symptoms following their exposure, including a bloody nose, diarrhea, eye irritation, and blistering. The chemicals’ labels prohibit application methods that result in drift to other property or people, according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture, and it is illegal to use pesticides in a manner inconsistent with their labeling. This is NaturChem’s second violation in Virginia, following a $2,000 fine in 2005 for causing property damage in Giles County. The company also reached a $194,200 settlement […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2007) Proposed nonorganic additions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) organic standards have experts raising their eyebrows about the integrity of the “USDA Organic” label. The nonorganic exceptions being considered involve common ingredients, such as hops and food coloring. Under the 1990 Organic Foods Protection Act, USDA is required to identify which nonorganic ingredients are allowed in organic food products. Current organic standards require products labeled “Organic” to be made up of at least 95 percent organic ingredients. The remaining five percent can come from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (NL), a list comprised of substances that are not otherwise commercially available as organic. The 38 new ingredients being proposed for permanent addition to the NL include hops, 19 food colorings, fish oil, and chipotle chili pepper. According to Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, “This proposal is blatant catering to powerful industry players who want the benefits of labeling their products ”˜USDA organic’ without doing the work to source organic materials.” Advocates for organic integrity argue that the majority of the 38 proposed ingredients are available; loopholes in the rule’s intended safeguard stem from USDA’s failure to enforce […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2007) Wisconsin consumer fraud investigators have released the findings of a three month long look into claims that Wal-Mart has been mislabeling conventional products as organic. The state’s numerous findings of improper labeling confirmed a complaint placed by the Cornucopia Institute in January. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, in a letter to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., advised the company that “use of the term ”˜Wal-Mart Organics’ in combination with references to a specific non-organic product may be considered to be a misrepresentation and therefore a violation” of Wisconsin state statutes. While the report did not take action beyond extending a warning to Wal-Mart, the Cornucopia Institute was pleased with the investigation’s outcome. “This finding is a victory for consumers who care about the integrity of organic food and farming,” said Mark Kastel, co-director of the Institute. “Wal-Mart cannot be allowed to sell organic food ”˜on the cheap’ because they lack the commitment to recruit qualified management or are unwilling to properly train their store personnel. Such practices place ethical retailers, their suppliers, and organic farmers at a competitive disadvantage.” While Wisconsin has completed their investigation, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2007) In the April 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 7068-17071), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has once again proposed a rule that would weaken the regulation of pesticide-treated food packaging. The rule seeks to exempt from the definitions of “pesticide chemical” and “pesticide chemical residue” under section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food packaging (e.g., paper and paperboard, coatings, adhesives, and polymers) that is treated with a pesticide. Beyond Pesticides is encouraging the public to oppose the rule. The agency previously proposed the rule as a “Direct Final Rule” on December 6, 2006, circumventing the public comment process. After Beyond Pesticides objected to the use of this process, EPA withdrew the rule in a February 2, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 4963). This time around, it is a “Proposed Rule” that is otherwise identical to the earlier version. Pesticide-treated food packaging is a potential threat to the public’s health. The average consumer is unaware of the potential dangers associated with pesticide food residues from packaging and will not be alerted in the absence of labeling practices that disclose this information. The proposed rule comes at a time when the […]