FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
These drinks, all with illegal claims on the labels, were found in the FDA cafeteria.
July 7, 2010

Food Frauds on Sale at FDA Headquarters!
CSPI Says Federal Labeling Cops Should Raid Their Own Cafeteria
WASHINGTON - July 7 - On a recent visit to the sprawling new Food and Drug Administration headquarters in the White Oak area of Silver Spring, Md., a lawyer from the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest stopped for a quick, healthy lunch. Hiding in plain sight in the FDA cafeteria—quite literally under the noses of the officials tasked with policing misleading labels—were at least three beverages with illegal claims on their labels. The contraband drinks included:

* Purity.Organic Functional Drinks Pomegranate Blueberry. Its label claims it has “Ginkgo Biloba to enhance your memory and keep you thinking straight,” but government-funded studies show ginkgo has no effect on memory and does not lower incidence of Alzheimer’s or dementia, either. Ginkgo may have been “grown by monks for millennia” as the web site claims, but it isn’t Generally Recognized as Safe (or GRAS) as a food additive, according to FDA. (Plus, this product has more added sugar than it has pomegranate or blueberry juice.)

* Crystal Light Immunity Berry Pomegranate. This bright purple beverage’s label pictures blueberries and a pomegranate, yet the drink has no juice of any kind. Natural flavoring accounts for less than 2 percent of the product, and only an unknown fraction of that comes from the named fruits. The color comes from Red 40 and Blue 1 and the artificial sweetness comes from sucralose and acesulfame potassium. Vitamins A, B, C and E are listed on the ingredients list, but there is no evidence to support the implication that this drink will ward off colds or diseases, which is what is implied by the use of the word “immunity.” CSPI urged the FDA to take enforcement action against this product in 2008. (Plus, the bottle CSPI found in the FDA cafeteria was long past its “Best before 26 December 2007” expiration date.)
* SoBe Lifewater B-Energy Black Cherry Dragonfruit. Again, this drink has no black cherry or dragonfruit juice, but it does have guarana and ginseng (neither considered GRAS by FDA although the food industry considers them safe) and added vitamins. Using the word “energy” in the name and claiming that its B vitamins “help your body unlock the energy in foods,” implies that the drink will make one feel more energetic. But while B vitamins do help to convert protein, fat, and carbohydrates into energy, they don’t provide an energy boost that can be felt by the body. The “all natural” claim is unjustified because Lifewater contains added citric acid. And those without magnifying glasses might miss the fact that the bottle (described improbably as 2.5 servings) will supply 62.5 milligrams of caffeine, more than what you’d find in a 12-ounce can of Coke.

“To be fair, the FDA under the Obama Administration has done more to crack down on deceptive food labeling in the last 12 months than the Bush FDA did in eight years,” said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. “But the fact that we were able to find so many labeling problems in the FDA’s own cafeteria neatly illustrates why the agency needs to issue industry-wide rules, not just send warning letters to individual companies.”

Last December, CSPI sent the FDA a 158-page report documenting more than 50 false or misleading claims, ingredient obfuscations, and other labeling shenanigans that it found in supermarkets. CSPI recommended that FDA establish a systematic regulatory framework to prohibit misleading health-related claims, and require that nutrition information be based on realistic serving sizes—something that the drinks CSPI found in the FDA cafeteria fail to do.

“Consumers who want to ensure that they’re getting enough vitamins and minerals should focus on eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables first,” Silverglade said. “No one should believe that the added vitamins, herbs or other ingredients in these flavored waters are going to ward off disease, improve memory, or make one more energetic. The FDA should frog-march these products into the food label penitentiary.”
###
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
CONTACT: CSPI
Phone: 202-332-9110

15 Million Pounds of Food Dyes Yearly - Can you say CANCER, ALLERGIES, ADD, ADHD.....TAKE ACTION!

Death by M&M: The Problem with Food Dyes
by Sarah Parsons June 30, 2010
Photo Credit: Elyse Dewey via flickr

Step away from the M&Ms. And the Froot Loops, Kraft salad dressings, and Manischewitz Matzo Balls. And, well, basically every other processed product containing artificial food dyes, too. A new report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) highlights how synthetic food dyes contribute to medical conditions like cancers, allergic reactions, and hyperactivity. Bet those Fruit Roll-Ups don't seem so appetizing now, eh?

Every year, food manufacturers pump about 15 million pounds of synthetic food dyes into processed foods and beverages. CSPI's report, "Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks" (pdf), examined the potential health effects from consuming these artificial colors. Results of the study were truly frightening. Researchers found that the three most heavily used artificial food dyes — Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 — contain cancer-causing compounds. Dyes like Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 can cause serious allergic reactions in people, while other synthetic dyes are linked to hyperactivity in children.

What's worse is that use of synthetic food dyes is hardly on the decline. According to the CSPI report, since 1955, the country's seen a five-fold increase in the per capita consumption of food dyes. Which I guess makes sense, considering the bevvy of brightly colored sugary drinks, snacks, and processed foods that crop up on grocery store shelves every week. Take Action: http://food.change.org/blog/view/death_by_mm_the_problem_with_food_dyes#

Perhaps the most concerning portion of the report involves the food industry's use of the dye Red 3. In 1985, the FDA's acting commissioner said that Red 3 can induce cancer. And despite the fact that the FDA knew about this risk for, um, a quarter of a century, it's still perfectly legal for food manufacturers to use this dye in products. Every year, manufacturers put 200,000 pounds of the dye in treats like Betty Crocker's Fruit Roll-Ups and ConAgra's Kid Cuisine meals. Companies knowingly spend their marketing dollars hawking cancer-causing junk food to kids while the FDA stays mum. So much for living up to the agency's mission of watching out for consumer's safety.

Dyes aren't a vital ingredient in food products, either. They simply make goods more colorful. Skittles would still taste the same without their dyes, but then how could Mars, Inc. tempt consumers to "taste the rainbow"?

But even considering Americans' preoccupation with food's appearance, there still isn't a need to rely on artificial dyes. Manufacturers can easily use healthy, all-natural ingredients like pumpkin and carrot extract, strawberries, beet juice, paprika, red cabbage, and a grocery list of other items to color foods.

It's time that the FDA take consumers' health seriously and start regulating these harmful petrochemicals. Sign Change.org's petition that the FDA ban the use of Blue 1, Blue 2, Citrus Red 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6.
TAKE ACTION: http://food.change.org/blog/view/death_by_mm_the_problem_with_food_dyes#

CORN, ETHANOL KILLING OUR WATERWAYS RIGHT ALONG WITH BP!

Published on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Dead Zone in Gulf Linked to Ethanol Production

by Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a biofuel is contributing to a Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the gulf.

[The Gulf of Mexico dead zone threatens valuable commercial and recreational Gulf fisheries that generate about $2.8 billion annually. (Credit: NOAA) ]The Gulf of Mexico dead zone threatens valuable commercial and recreational Gulf fisheries that generate about $2.8 billion annually. (Credit: NOAA)
Each year, nitrogen used to fertilize corn, about a third of which is made into ethanol, leaches from Midwest croplands into the Mississippi River and out into the gulf, where the fertilizer feeds giant algae blooms. As the algae dies, it settles to the ocean floor and decays, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life.

Known as hypoxia, the oxygen depletion kills shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that cannot escape. The dead zone has doubled since the 1980s and is expected this year to grow as large as 8,500 square miles and hug the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.

As to which is worse, the oil spill or the hypoxia, "it's a really tough call," said Nathaniel Ostrom, a zoologist at Michigan State University. "There's no real answer to that question."

Some scientists fear the oil spill will worsen the dead zone, because when oil decomposes, it also consumes oxygen. New government estimates on Thursday indicated that the BP oil spill had gushed as much as 141 million gallons since an oil-rig explosion and well blowout on April 20 that killed 11 workers.
Corn is biggest culprit

The gulf dead zone is the second-largest in the world, after one in the Baltic Sea. Scientists say the biggest culprit is industrial-scale corn production. Corn growers are heavy users of both nitrogen and pesticides. Vast monocultures of corn and soybeans, both subsidized by the federal government, have displaced diversified farms and grasslands throughout the Mississippi Basin.

"The subsidies are driving farmers toward more corn," said Gene Turner, a zoologist at Louisiana State University. "More nitrate comes off corn fields than it does off of any other crop by far. And nitrogen is driving the formation of the dead zone."

The dead zone, he said, is "a symptom of the homogenization of the landscape. We just have a few crops on what used to have all kinds of different vegetation."

In 2007, Congress passed a renewable fuels standard that requires ethanol production to triple in the next 12 years. The Department of Agriculture has just rolled out a plan to meet that goal, including building ethanol refineries in every state. The Environmental Protection Agency will decide soon whether to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline blends from 10 percent to 15 percent.

A 2008 National Research Council report warned of a "considerable" increase in damage to the gulf if ethanol production is increased.
Pet cause of Congress

One of the authors of that report, agricultural economist Otto Doering at Purdue University, said that a 50 percent boost in the ethanol blend in gasoline will significantly raise corn prices, driving farmers to pull land out of conservation and pastureland and into corn production. They are also likely to add more nitrogen fertilizers to boost yields.

Corn ethanol has been heavily subsidized since the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. Viewed by the corn industry as a lucrative market, ethanol is a perennial favorite in Congress.

Ethanol consumes two-thirds of all federal subsidies for renewable fuels, said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, leaving solar, wind and the rest to fight over the remaining third. Corn ethanol cost taxpayers $17 billion from 2005 to 2009, his group estimates.

"This is another industry that's entirely a creature of the government, even more so than corn growing per se," Cook said. "The production of ethanol wouldn't happen at all without government subsidies and protection."

The National Corn Growers Association ran a media blitz in Washington last week to press for the renewal of the 51-cents-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol. With pictures of the BP oil spill looming in the background, the Corn Growers' video announces, "Ethanol: Now is the time."
Conservation plan hurt

The ethanol boom over the past decade has lured farmers to withdraw millions of acres from the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farms not to plant fragile land. Much of this land has been returned to native prairie grasses, at taxpayer expense. Millions more acres are up for renewal over the next few years.

"There's been a very large-scale conversion of these CRP lands to biofuel production," Ostrom said. Those soils have accumulated carbon from the atmosphere and stored it, becoming "a pretty significant sink for atmospheric CO2," he said. "If we suddenly start farming those soils, we basically release all of the carbon that's been sequestered for decades, and that may more than offset any carbon benefit of switching to biofuels."

To meet its goal of tripling ethanol production, Congress called for more cellulosic ethanol, which is made from wood, crop waste, perennial grasses such as switchgrass, and even native prairie grasses. Perennial grasses are considered far less damaging to the environment than corn because they require less fertilizer and their roots remain in the ground, helping to stabilize the soil and reduce runoff.

But commercial production of cellulosic ethanol remains a pipe dream. It would require large subsidies to dislodge corn ethanol.

There is no experience with commercial production of switchgrass. Purdue's Doering said it will require fertilizer and is likely to be planted on conservation lands and pasture instead of displacing corn.

Joan Nassauer, a professor at the University of Michigan who has studied how alternative agricultural policies could alleviate the dead zone, said cellulosic ethanol could work.

"It might be one of those win-wins, but it's not in production yet," she said. "What we've got now all over the Corn Belt is corn, and that's definitely not a win-win."
© 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.

MOTOR CITY A-GO-GO FOR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY!

Published on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 by The Huffington Post
Food Sovereignty Chronicles

by Eric Holt Gimenez

Beyond the din of the World Cup in Johannesburg, and just south of the protests of the ill-fated G-20 Summit in Toronto , the U.S. Social Forum was in full swing. So much so, that I didn't get a chance to blog while at the event! Nevertheless, on the 3-day drive back from Detroit to Oakland, CA, I managed to chronicle some of the path-breaking work activists at the forum did on food sovereignty. Here is the first installment:

We are making the road trek back from Detroit to Oakland, pushing steadily through that great green sea called the Midwest. It is staggering to think that Monsanto--who owns the patent on over 90% of the U.S.'s genetically engineered corn seed--has its profit-producing patent locked tightly in to pretty much every single corn plant we will see for the next three days...

I'm coming back from the USSF, the 2nd US Social Forum. Held in Detroit (Atlanta hosted the first), it was quite an experience, not just because it brought 15,000 activists together--but because of Detroit. I'd never spent time here and had only the bombed-out images from Michael Moore's documentaries to rely on for first impressions. The bad news is that Moore's images are real; during the USSF's opening ceremonies, we marched through the city's center, a surreal patchwork of attractive squares and bustling high-rises, checkered with empty buildings, open lots, for-lease signs and homeless people everywhere.

The good news is that Detroit still rocks--because of the people. Coming from the cooler-than-thou state of California, Detroiters are disarmingly warm and friendly, even when under siege from thousands of activists from across the U.S. They are also turning many of their empty lots into community gardens to provide fresh, healthy food (and a bit of income) to its beleaguered citizens. Behind Detroit's green islands lay not Monsanto's patents, but a growing people's movement for food justice and economic democracy.

Another Detroit is Happening! On my first morning at the forum, I went to a reception held by D2D--Detroit to Dakar, a coalition looking to link social movements in the US with their African counterparts. Malik Yakini, chairman of the Detroit Black Food Security Network welcomed activists to Detroit by pointing out the historical connections between the city's African-American community and African struggles for national independence and anti-apartheid. Linking the Detroit Black Food Security Network's efforts to build local community food systems in African-American communities to the Social Forum's international struggle to for a better world, he claimed: Another World is Possible; Another U.S. is Necessary; and Another Detroit is Happening!

Actor-activist Danny Glover stopped in between takes to provide encouragement to the gathering. Glover, the head of TransAfrica Forum, reminded participants that social movements in the countries of the Global South are struggling hard against the devastating impacts of U.S. corporations and U.S. foreign policy. There were plenty of international activists at the Forum who'd come to share information about the abuses of U.S. power and to see if their U.S. counterparts could help do something about it.
The U.S. groups have their hands full as well. Our country now has nearly 50 million hungry people. The parallels--and differences--between the work of food justice groups in the U.S. and the demands of Food Sovereignty groups of the Global South are striking, and Detroit is an emblematic venue for their meeting. The recent moves by big developers to develop industrial agriculture in Detroit not only threatens to displace the grassroots efforts of African-American communities, they also reflect the global industrial trends seeking to bring the world's food systems under a single corporate roof. The massive land grabs taking place in Africa, the displacement of local seeds with GMOs, and the violent dislocation of peasant communities to make way for industrial plantations in the Global South are not far removed from the urban realities of Detroit.
Copyright © 2010 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

Eric Holt Gimenez, Ph.D. is a food system researcher and agroecologist. He is the Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. He is the main author of a new book on the world food crisis: "Food Rebellions: Crisis and the Hunger for Justice" from Food First (www.foodfirst.org)

AGROECOLOGY!!! To End Deadly GMO's and Protect FARMERS AND SOILS!

The contribution of agroecological approaches to meet 2050 global food needs
Groundswell International | June 30, 2010 at 9:56 am | Categories: Cooling the Planet (Climate Change), People-Centered Food Systems (Food Security), Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pG1dM-6G

The article below was posted on Food First's website. It covers the recent international seminar “The contribution of agroecological approaches to meet 2050 global food needs”, which brought together agroecology experts, decision makers at national and international levels, and representatives of farmer organizations. The event was held in Brussels on June 21 and 22 under the auspices of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Professor Olivier De Schutter. Mr. De Schutter makes an airtight case for a global policy shift toward agroecological production.

Right to Food: “Agroecology outperforms large-scale industrial farming for global food security,” says UN expert

Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food


BRUSSELS (22 June 2010) – “Governments and international agencies urgently need to boost ecological farming techniques to increase food production and save the climate,” said UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, while presenting the findings at an international meeting on agroecology held in Brussels on 21 and 22 June.

Along with 25 of the world’s most renowned experts on agroecology, the UN expert urged the international community to re-think current agricultural policies and build on the potential of agroecology.

“One year ago, Heads of States at the G20 gathering in Italy committed to mobilizing $22 billion over a period of three years to improve global food security. This was welcome news, but the most pressing issue regarding reinvestment in agriculture is not how much, but how,” Olivier De Schutter said.

“Today, most efforts are made towards large-scale investments in land – including many instances of land grabbing – and towards a ‘Green Revolution’ model to boost food production: improved seeds, chemical fertilisers and machines,” the Special Rapporteur remarked. “But scant attention has been paid to agroecological methods that have been shown to improve food production and farmers’ incomes, while at the same time protecting the soil, water, and climate.”

The widest study ever conducted on agroecological approaches (Jules Pretty, Essex University, UK) covered 286 projects in 57 developing countries, representing a total surface of 37 million hectares: the average crop yield gain was 79%. Concrete examples of ‘agroecological success stories’ abound in Africa.

In Tanzania, the Western provinces of Shinyanga and Tabora used to be known as the ‘Desert of Tanzania’. However, the use of agroforestry techniques and participatory processes allowed some 350,000 hectares of land to be rehabilitated in two decades. Profits per household rose by as much as USD 500 a year. Similar techniques are used in Malawi, where some 100,000 smallholders in 2005 benefited to some degree from the use of fertilizer trees.

“With more than a billion hungry people on the planet, and the climate disruptions ahead of us, we must rapidly scale up these sustainable techniques,” De Schutter said. “Even if it makes the task more complex, we have to find a way of addressing global hunger, climate change, and the depletion of natural resources, all at the same time. Anything short of this would be an exercise in futility.”

The experts gathering in Brussels identified the policies that could develop agroecological approaches to the scale needed to feed the world in 2050. They based their work on the experiences of countries that have pro-agroecology policies – such as Cuba or Brazil – as well as on the successful experiences from international research centres such as the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, and on the programmes of La Via Campesina, the transnational peasant movement, which runs agroecology training programmes.

“We can scale up these sustainable models of agriculture, and ensure that they work for the benefit of the poorest farmers. What is needed now is political will to move from successful pilot projects to nation-wide policies,” the UN Special Rapporteur said. In conclusion, he announced that he would ask the Committee on World Food Security – what should become in time the ‘Security Council’ for food security – to work during its October session on the policy levers to scale up agroecology. “This is the best option we have today. We can’t afford not to use it.”

G8: Reform Food Aid System And Generate Resources to Reduce Malnutrition

TORONTO/GENEVA - June 22 - World leaders meeting at the G8 and G20 summits will not succeed in improving mother and child health in the developing world unless they fundamentally change how they address malnutrition and establish new sustainable funding sources to combat this treatable and preventable condition, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said today.

Malnutrition affects 195 million children worldwide and is the underlying cause of at least one-third of the eight million annual deaths of children under five years of age. It can cause stunting, cognitive impairment, and lead to greater susceptibility to disease. The problem is inextricably linked with mother and child health, as malnourished mothers give birth to underweight children, perpetuating a vicious cycle. Many mothers living in areas of high food insecurity do not have access to foods like milk and eggs that contain the high-quality protein and other essential nutrients that their children need. Currently, most international food aid consists of nutritionally inadequate fortified corn-soy flours, which do not provide the nutrients young children need most.

"Foods we would never give our own children to eat are being sent overseas as food aid to the most vulnerable children in malnutrition hotspots in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia," said MSF International President Dr. Christophe Fournier. "This double standard must stop. As the world's leading food aid donors, G8 countries are uniquely positioned to have a major impact on reducing malnutrition. If world leaders in Muskoka and Toronto want to truly roll back mother and child mortality, it is imperative they commit to reforming key parts of the global food aid system. We know what works and what children need - let's simply get it to them."

In addition to improving the quality of food aid provided to young children, an effective overall nutrition response will require substantial financial resources. The World Bank estimates it will cost $12 billion per year to address malnutrition in the most-affected countries. In a time of global economic austerity, current funding from donors is insufficient, volatile, and unpredictable. Sustainable sources of funding through innovative financial mechanisms are required, such as the financial transaction tax currently promoted by the European Union. A share of the funds raised by such means must be earmarked to global health issues such as nutrition, HIV/AIDS treatment, and tuberculosis research.

In 2009, MSF treated 208,000 children affected by severe acute malnutrition in its programs. Although this is barely one percent of the 20 million children estimated to be affected, this represents more than 15 percent of the 1,200,000 children who received treatment.

"Nongovernmental agencies should not be expected to carry such a huge burden in fighting malnutrition," said Dr. Fournier. "Donor governments need to step up to fill the gap and help the most-affected countries follow lifesaving nutrition programs that have been successfully implemented in countries like Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil. We need sustainable sources of funding, like the proposed financial transaction levy, that dedicate a share to global health - not the one-shot pledges that G8 summits are prone to deliver."

The G8 gathering coincides with the onset of a particularly harsh "hunger gap" season in Africa's Sahel region, the period when staple food crops are exhausted before the next harvest. Most countries in the region are already experiencing increasing rates of childhood malnutrition. MSF is operating emergency nutrition programs-and reinforcing existing ones-in Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.

MSF recently launched "Starved for Attention," a global multimedia campaign to highlight the crisis of childhood malnutrition and how increased childhood sickness and death can be prevented with effective nutrition interventions: www.starvedforattention.org
###
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation.
MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.

CONTACT: Doctors Without Borders
Emily Linendoll
Press Officer
Direct: 212-763-5764 Mobile: 646-206-9387
E-mail: emily.linendoll@msf.org

A LITTLE METHYL IODIDE (ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR) ON YOUR STRAWBERRIES?

Dispute Over Pesticide for California Strawberries Has Implications Beyond State
By MALIA WOLLAN
Published: June 18, 2010

SACRAMENTO — Even as the sweet strawberry harvest reaches its peak here, a bitter disagreement has erupted between the State Department of Pesticide Regulation and a scientific review committee over the approval of a new chemical, the outcome of which could affect farmers across the country.

In a report and in public testimony Thursday before the State Senate Food and Agriculture Committee, members of the review committee said the state’s decision to approve the new pesticide, methyl iodide, was made using inadequate, flawed and improperly conducted scientific research.

“I’m not in blanket opposition to the use of pesticides, but methyl iodide alarms me,” said Theodore A. Slotkin, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University Medical Center and a member of the scientific review committee. “When we come across a compound that is known to be neurotoxic, as well as developmentally toxic and an endocrine disruptor, it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution, demanding that the appropriate scientific testing be done on animals instead of going ahead and putting it into use, in which case the test animals will be the children of the state of California.”

But farmers here — who grow nearly 90 percent of the nation’s strawberries, a $2 billion a year industry — say the state’s proposed regulations would far exceed those set by the federal government for the chemical, which they argue would be deployed safely and only when needed.

“The 500-plus growers of strawberries in the state are largely family farmers who live where they grow,” said Carolyn O’Donnell, spokeswoman for the California Strawberry Commission. “When they make decisions about how and where they farm, they make those decisions with the health and safety of workers and the community in mind.”

For decades, farmers injected another chemical, methyl bromide, into the soil before planting strawberries. Then the Montreal Protocol international climate treaty banned methyl bromide, saying it had been found to deplete ozone. That sent regulators, farmers and the chemical industry scrambling for an alternative.

They found methyl iodide, a chemical less harmful to the ozone, but with more potential hazards to human health. In 2007 the chemical was approved by federal environmental regulators to the chagrin of many scientists. More than 50 chemists and physicians, including members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates, had asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency not to approve the chemical.

Despite federal approval, California requires that new pesticides go through a second review, a process that federal regulators have said they are watching closely and that could lead to a re-evaluation by the Obama administration.

California has provisionally approved methyl iodide and will issue a final decision after the public comment period ends June 29.

During Thursday’s hearing, pesticide regulators voiced confidence in the scientific basis for their decision.

“The review associated with this material is the most robust and extensive in the history of the department,” said Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of the state regulatory agency.

Ms. Warmerdam said that based on the available data, the chemical could be used safely with precautions like respirators, impermeable tarps and extra restrictions on use around schools, businesses and homes.

The scientific review committee, which was commissioned by the regulatory agency, vehemently disagreed.

“This is without question one of the most toxic chemicals on earth,” said John Froines, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. “You don’t register a chemical when you don’t have the necessary information you need.”

Once out in the environment, neurotoxic chemicals like methyl iodide contribute to neurodevelopment disorders including learning disabilities, conduct disorders, autism spectrum disorders and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, said Dr. Slotkin, who called such health disorders a “silent pandemic.”

State Senator Dean Florez, a Democrat who leads the Food and Agriculture Committee, said, “If we’re going to have to make the decision about using a toxic chemical like this, I’d like elected officials in the state of California to make this decision, not a non-elected agency and an outgoing Republican administration.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20strawberries.html?emc=eta1