California EPA moves to label Monsanto's Roundup “carcinogenic”
Today's announcement is a "notice of intent" to list this pesticide as carcinogenic, giving the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal through October 5
—California EPA moves to label Monsanto's Roundup ‘carcinogenic'
By Sam Levin
East Bay Express, 5 Sept 2015
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2015/09/05/ california-epa-moves-to-label- monsantos-roundup-carcinogenic
[links to sources at URL above]
The California Environmental Protection Agency announced today that it plans to label glyphosate — the most widely used herbicide and main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup — as a chemical "known to cause cancer." The World Health Organization's research arm also recently found that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans, and research has also linked glyphosate to the steep decline of monarch butterflies. And as we reported this week, scientists have increasingly raised new alarms about potential negative health impacts tied to Roundup, including a recent study suggesting that long-term exposure to tiny amounts of the chemical (thousands of times lower than what is allowed in drinking water in the US) could lead to liver and kidney problems.
Today's announcement from the EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is officially a "notice of intent" to list this pesticide as carcinogenic, giving the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal through October 5. The action falls under Proposition 65, a measure voters approved in 1986 that requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harms. The state regularly updates the list, which now includes hundreds of chemicals. Under Prop 65, businesses must provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before exposing people to a chemical on the list. The warning could be labels on a consumer product, workplace postings, distributed notices at apartment buildings, or a notice published in a newspaper.
Environmental activists celebrated the state EPA's announcement today, noting that it could be a first step in eventually restricting the use of the chemical. (The listing does not lead to a restriction or ban on sales of the product).
“California’s taking an important step toward protecting people and wildlife from this toxic pesticide,” Nathan Donley, staff scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation nonprofit based in San Francisco, said in a statement. Donley noted that more than 250 millions pounds of glyphosate are used annually in the US, adding, “It’s nearly impossible for people to limit exposure to this toxin because it is just so widespread. That’s why we need much tighter controls on its use."
Donley said this kind of action can help advocates pressure the federal government to acknowledge that glyphosate is a potential carcinogen, which could eventually pave the way for meaningful federal regulations. The proposed carcinogen label in California is likely to spark intense backlash from Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, which has continued to argue that the chemical is safe — and recently argued that the recent World Health Organization research was deeply flawed.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, world usage of glyphosate is at an all-time high tied to the proliferation of genetically engineered crops, such as soy and corn. The center says glyphosate residues are now on 90 percent of soybean crops, for example. Studies have further found that glyphosate destroys milkweed, which is the monarch caterpillar's only source of food. As glyphosate use has skyrocketed and eliminated milkweed from agricultural fields, monarch butterflies have declined by more than 80 percent in twenty years, according to the center.
The US Environmental Protection Agency recently agreed to analyze the effects of glyphosate on endangered species as part of a settlement agreement in a lawsuit that the center filed.
For more on glyphosate, read our print story, "Evidence Mounts that Roundup Is Toxic."______________________________Website: http://www.gmwatch.____________________________ org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_ Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/ 276951472985?ref=nf
Sunday, September 6, 2015
GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP) TO BE ADDED TO CALIFORNIA EPA TOXICS LIST
Thursday, September 3, 2015
VT AMICUS BRIEF FROM GROUPS: GIVE CONSUMERS GMO LABELS 92% OF U.S. WANTS!
CONSUMERS UNION NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Contact: Michael McCauley, mmccauley@consumer.
Consumers Union, Ben & Jerry’s &
Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility
Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility
Join Together to Support Vermont’s GMO Labeling Law
Food Industry Challenges Vermont Law In Court
While it Pushes
While it Pushes
Congress to Block all GMO Labeling Requirements
New York, NY -- Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, joined Ben and Jerry’s and Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility in submitting an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief today in federal court in support of the Vermont GMO labeling law.
The Vermont law, scheduled to go into effect in July, 2016, requires the labeling of genetically engineered food sold in the state. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which includes large national companies like Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola that have long opposed GMO labeling, is seeking an injunction to stop the Vermont law from going into effect. The U.S. District Court previously rejected GMA’s request for an injunction, and now the trade association is appealing that decision.
But some companies support the law, as do a broad range of consumer and environmental groups including Consumers Union.
“Vermont’s law will help consumers make more informed decisions about the food they eat and can be implemented at little cost to manufacturers,” said Jean Halloran, Director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union. “The food industry should stop fighting the public’s right to know in court and start listening to what their customers want.”
Consumers Union and the other parties submitting the amicus brief argue that Vermont’s law serves a number of legitimate state interests, including advancing public health and safety, informing consumers concerned about potential environmental effects, avoiding consumer confusion, and protecting religious practices. In addition, the brief notes that the labeling requirement does not impose significant – let alone irreparable – harm on the affected companies, as the GMA claims.
While opponents of the law claim it would raise food prices, Consumers Union and the other parties note in their brief that the costs for food companies to comply with the law would be negligible. “It costs next to nothing to change the wording on a package,” said Halloran. “Companies do it all the time and they have until January 2017 before Vermont starts enforcing its law.” A report commissioned by Consumers Union and prepared by an economic consulting firm, EcoNorthwest, found that based on existing analyses, requiring GMO labels on products would cost individual consumers less than a penny a day.
“The easiest, cheapest way for companies to comply with the Vermont law would be simply to label all products nationally if they contain GMOs,” said Halloran. “This is what consumers want. A Consumer Reports poll in 2014 found that 92 percent of consumers support mandatory labeling of GMOs.”
In addition to challenging the Vermont law in court, GMA is supporting a bill in Congress that would nullify the measure and prohibit any other state law or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from mandating GMO labeling. Misleadingly named the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, consumer groups are calling it the Deny Americans the Right to Know or DARK Act. The bill passed the House in July but is expected to have a more difficult time in the Senate.
“Vermont’s ability to decide for itself what kind of food labels it wants for its citizens is fundamental,” said Halloran. “We believe the courts will uphold that right, and strongly urge Congress not to interfere with states’ rights to label GMO foods.”
###
Consumers Union is the public policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports. Consumers Union works for health reform, food and product safety, financial reform, and other consumer issues in Washington, D.C., the states, and in the marketplace. Consumer Reports is the world’s largest independent product-testing organization. Using its more than 50 labs, auto test center, and survey research center, the nonprofit rates thousands of products and services annually. Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has over 8 million subscribers to its magazine, website, and other publications.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
GMO ROUNDUP for September 2,2015
And yet, this is an industry that tried to rubbish the now republished the Seraliniteam's study into GMOs and glyphosate (with unscientific polemics masquerading as scientific critique).
|
More evidence of Roundup's link to kidney, liver damage
| Environmental Health News | - |
In the 2012 study, different groups of rats were fed mixtures of genetically modified corn and Roundup. Researchers, led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, reported cancers and other health ...
Researchers, led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, reported cancers and other health impacts from both the corn itself and the herbicide.
|
In addition to the recent IARC findings, the timing of Drs. Landrigan and Benbrook's positions is critical as both the U.S. and Europe examine GE labelinglaws. In the U.S., Congress is considering H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of ...
|
The USDA is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) for its alleged failure to provide records on GMO crops as requested by the group. ... A recent study showed that a GMO label would not necessarily scare off consumers.
|
So much for Europe's efforts to put the junk science surrounding genetically modified (GMO) food to rest. Berlin last week signaled it will prohibit cultivation of GMO crops in Germany, even if the crops have been approved by EU scientific bodies and ...
|
Some products contain a voluntary label indicating they were produced withoutGMOs. Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger. Eight states and several organizations have filed briefs in federal appeals court supporting Vermont's food labeling law from 2014 ...
|
LATVIA AND GREECE BAN GMO FOOD CROPS
Two More European Countries Ban Monsanto’s GMO Crops
According to Reuters, in many European countries, there is
widespread criticism against the agribusiness giant’s pest-
resistant crops, claiming that GM-cultivation threatens biodiversity.
widespread criticism against the agribusiness giant’s pest-
resistant crops, claiming that GM-cultivation threatens biodiversity.
Monsanto said it would abide by Latvia’s and Greece’s request to not grow the crops. The company, however, accused the two countries of ignoring science and refusing GMOs out of “arbitrary political grounds.”
In a statement, Monsanto said that the move from the two countries “contradicts and undermines the scientific consensus on the safety of MON810.”
Monsanto also told Reuters that since the growth of GM-crops in Europe is so small, the opt-outs will not affect their business.
“Nevertheless,” the company continued, “we regret that some countries are deviating from a science-based approach to innovation in agriculture and have elected to prohibit the cultivation of a successful GM product on arbitrary political grounds.”
According to NewsWire, the EU’s opt-out clause “directly confronts U.S. free trade deal supported by EU, under which the Union should open its doors widely for the US GM industry.”
In a statement on Thursday, the European Commission confirmed its zero-tolerance policy against non-authorized GM products. The commission said that it’s also consulting with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in order to answer “a scientific question” on GMO crops that’s unrelated to trade negotiations with the U.S. The EFSA announced that it would release a scientific opinion on the question by the end of 2017.
The environmental group, Friends of the Earth Europe, however, has accused the European Commission of “bowing to pressure from large biotech companies to minimize the level of health and safety checks on imports” of GM crops.
“The Commission is working behind closed doors to undermine rules that guarantee Europe’s food is GM-free,” said Mute Schimpf, a Friends of the Earth Europe food campaigner, said in a statement. “They’re bowing to pressure from big biotech companies who want to bring GM-crops through the backdoor as part of the EU-U.S. trade deal.”
The group cites a leaked letter suggesting that the European Commission has asked the EFSA to explore bypassing food safety checks in the case of GM-imports.
“Undermining current food safety laws would mean the food on our plates could be contaminated with GMOs and we’d never know,” Schimpf continued. “It would have severe consequences for the food sector—low-level contamination could not be traced and products could never be guaranteed GM-free.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)