Thursday, September 1, 2011
State scientists ignored in pesticide's approval.
State scientists ignored in pesticide's approval
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/state-scientists-ignored-pesticides-approval-12357
California’s former top pesticide regulatory official dismissed safety guidelines suggested by her own staff scientists on the grounds that they were "excessive" and too onerous for the pesticide manufacturer, recently released internal documents show.
In response, the scientists lodged a formal protest, calling the official’s actions “not scientifically credible,” according to the documents released by court order last week.
The documents amount to a “smoking gun,” says Paul Blanc, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at UC San Francisco. Last year, Blanc helped advise the staff scientists on their evaluation of the pesticide, methyl iodide.
“The decision by the regulatory superiors was not science-based," Blanc said.
In one of the documents, Mary-Ann Warmerdam, who led the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation until this year, weighs a recommendation from her staff that farm workers be exposed to no more than a trace amount of methyl iodide per day. The recommendation – intended to protect farm workers from cancer and miscarriage – is "excessive and difficult to enforce," Warmerdam wrote in April 2010, about two weeks before the department made its recommendation that California approve methyl iodide. If the restrictions on methyl iodide were approved, she wrote, the pesticide manufacturer might find the recommendations "unacceptable, due to economic viability."
"(Warmerdam's) method was to consult with the pesticide manufacturer and determine what was acceptable to them, and then decide on what an acceptable level of exposure was," said Susan Kegley, a consulting scientist for the Pesticide Action Network, a group suing the state.
Department spokeswoman Lea Brooks declined to comment on the documents, citing the pending litigation. "It is inappropriate to try this case in the media," Brooks said.
Warmerdam resigned from the department in January. Gov. Jerry Brown has yet to appoint a successor.
Methyl iodide was approved in December 2010, at the tail end of the Schwarzenegger administration. It's a chemical fumigant used primarily by strawberry growers. A coalition of environmental and farm-worker groups has sued the state to try to ban the chemical.
As part of the suit, the groups asked the Department of Pesticide Regulation to release documents explaining how the agency decided to approve the chemical. The plaintiffs wanted to know how the agency had settled on exposure levels more than 100 times higher than what scientists within the agency believed were safe.
When pressed for documents that might reveal the agency's rationale, Warmerdam declined to release them, citing the "deliberative process" exemption, which allows government agencies to keep the thought process behind a decision private. A public records act request filed by California Watch and KQED QUEST elicited the same response.
Earlier this month, a judge disagreed, ordering the department to release the documents, which plaintiffs shared with reporters on Thursday.
"DPR has an obligation to explain to the public the basis for its decision," said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie, who is representing the plaintiffs. "The public has every right to know that DPR approved methyl iodide over the objections of its own staff scientists."
That rift between scientists and regulators first became public last year, in an e-mail exchange unearthed by KQED QUEST and California Watch's Public Records Act request. In the e-mails, two staff toxicologists – Lori Lim and Ruby Reed – said they had not been part of the decision to approve methyl iodide, and they stood by their original work.
"We had to read between the lines to figure out how the target levels were calculated," they wrote. Both Lim and Reed have since resigned from the department.
The new documents show staff scientists sending their complaints up the department’s chain of command.
"I am puzzled by the numbers," staff scientist Jay Schreider wrote in a memo to the state's top toxicologist, Gary Patterson. Approving methyl iodide was "management's prerogative," Schreider wrote. But he said managers should not imply that the scientists' findings "are the basis for that decision, or that the apparent 'mix and match' approach provides a scientifically credible basis for the decision."
In his order, Judge Frank Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court found that the "great majority" of the department’s documents should never have been withheld in the first place. As for the rest, Roesch found "the interest in public disclosure clearly outweighs agency interest in non-disclosure."
The documents reveal a rare point of agreement between the department’s scientists and its managers: that methyl iodide may cause brain damage in developing fetuses.
When California first began evaluating methyl iodide, it took the unusual step of bringing in an outside group of scientists, hired to work alongside department scientists, as an independent peer-review group. The scientists, including UCSF’s Blanc, worried that methyl iodide could drift up from strawberry fields and be inhaled by pregnant farm workers or children playing nearby, causing subtle effects such as IQ loss, which might never be detected or traced back to the chemical.
"Methyl iodide concentrates in the fetal brain to levels well above those in the mother," they wrote in their assessment. "There is a high likelihood that methyl iodide is a developmental neurotoxin."
The new documents show department managers also contending with the lack of data about methyl iodide's potential effects on developing brains. In animal tests, they wrote, "several measures of neurological deficiency were measured. … Overall, there is a need for a more thorough investigation into developmental neurotoxicity in pre- and post-natal exposures to methyl iodide, because the existing data do not address these exposures."
Given the lack of data, the panel scientists recommended that a 10-fold "uncertainty factor" be added into the calculations about how much methyl iodide to which a worker could be safely be exposed. Toxicologists use uncertainty factors to help them quantify the amount of a chemical that might be determined “safe.” In this case, the added uncertainty factor would have left managers with a lower number, which would have put greater restrictions on methyl iodide’s use.
Department managers chose to drop the uncertainty factor. An internal document shows that they debated where, and how, to explain that decision.
"Hello Gary!" reads a memo from Marylou Verder-Carlos to Patterson, the lead toxicologist. "If you could please look over this document and see how and where we could explain dropping the additional 10X for the lack of DNT (developmental neurotoxicity) study."
Ultimately, department managers chose not to mention the uncertainty factor in the approval notice at all.
Ted Slotkin, a pharmacology and cancer biology professor at Duke University who served on the peer-review panel, says the documents show that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has no way of knowing whether methyl iodide is safe.
"DPR has no benchmark with which to establish the limits of exposures that could be deemed as 'safe' for pregnant women and children living in agricultural communities or attending schools adjacent to fields where methyl iodide will be applied," he said.
Some farmers in California already are starting to use the chemical, and they are expected to ramp up its use sharply in the fall, during strawberry planting season.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Monsanto Corn Plant Losing Bug Resistance...........
Monsanto Corn Plant Losing Bug Resistance By SCOTT KILMAN
Widely grown corn plants that Monsanto Co. genetically modified to thwart a voracious bug are falling prey to that very pest in a few Iowa fields, the first time a major Midwest scourge has developed resistance to a genetically modified crop.
The discovery raises concerns that the way some farmers are using biotech crops could spawn superbugs.
Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann's discovery that western corn rootworms in four northeast Iowa fields have evolved to resist the natural pesticide made by Monsanto's corn plant could encourage some farmers to switch to insect-proof seeds sold by competitors of the St. Louis crop biotechnology giant, and to return to spraying harsher synthetic insecticides on their fields.
"These are isolated cases, and it isn't clear how widespread the problem will become," said Dr. Gassmann in an interview. "But it is an early warning that management practices need to change."
The finding adds fuel to the race among crop biotechnology rivals to locate the next generation of genes that can protect plants from insects. Scientists at Monsanto and Syngenta AG of Basel, Switzerland, are already researching how to use a medical breakthrough called RNA interference to, among other things, make crops deadly for insects to eat. If this works, a bug munching on such a plant could ingest genetic code that turns off one of its essential genes.
Monsanto said its rootworm-resistant corn seed lines are working as it expected "on more than 99% of the acres planted with this technology" and that it is too early to know what the Iowa State University study means for farmers.
The discovery comes amid a debate about whether the genetically modified crops that now saturate the Farm Belt are changing how some farmers operate in undesirable ways.
These insect-proof and herbicide-resistant crops make farming so much easier that many growers rely heavily on the technology, violating a basic tenet of pest management, which warns that using one method year after year gives more opportunity for pests to adapt.
Monsanto is already at the center of this issue because of its success since the 1990s marketing seeds that grow into crops that can survive exposure to its Roundup herbicide, a glyphosate-based chemical known for its ability to kill almost anything green.
These seeds made it so convenient for farmers to spray Roundup that many farmers stopped using other weedkillers. As a result, say many scientists, superweeds immune to Roundup have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states in the South and Midwest.
Story continues at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576532742267732046.html
Widely grown corn plants that Monsanto Co. genetically modified to thwart a voracious bug are falling prey to that very pest in a few Iowa fields, the first time a major Midwest scourge has developed resistance to a genetically modified crop.
The discovery raises concerns that the way some farmers are using biotech crops could spawn superbugs.
Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann's discovery that western corn rootworms in four northeast Iowa fields have evolved to resist the natural pesticide made by Monsanto's corn plant could encourage some farmers to switch to insect-proof seeds sold by competitors of the St. Louis crop biotechnology giant, and to return to spraying harsher synthetic insecticides on their fields.
"These are isolated cases, and it isn't clear how widespread the problem will become," said Dr. Gassmann in an interview. "But it is an early warning that management practices need to change."
The finding adds fuel to the race among crop biotechnology rivals to locate the next generation of genes that can protect plants from insects. Scientists at Monsanto and Syngenta AG of Basel, Switzerland, are already researching how to use a medical breakthrough called RNA interference to, among other things, make crops deadly for insects to eat. If this works, a bug munching on such a plant could ingest genetic code that turns off one of its essential genes.
Monsanto said its rootworm-resistant corn seed lines are working as it expected "on more than 99% of the acres planted with this technology" and that it is too early to know what the Iowa State University study means for farmers.
The discovery comes amid a debate about whether the genetically modified crops that now saturate the Farm Belt are changing how some farmers operate in undesirable ways.
These insect-proof and herbicide-resistant crops make farming so much easier that many growers rely heavily on the technology, violating a basic tenet of pest management, which warns that using one method year after year gives more opportunity for pests to adapt.
Monsanto is already at the center of this issue because of its success since the 1990s marketing seeds that grow into crops that can survive exposure to its Roundup herbicide, a glyphosate-based chemical known for its ability to kill almost anything green.
These seeds made it so convenient for farmers to spray Roundup that many farmers stopped using other weedkillers. As a result, say many scientists, superweeds immune to Roundup have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states in the South and Midwest.
Story continues at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576532742267732046.html
Monday, August 29, 2011
Is the Soap Lobby Right That Antibacterials Are Safe?
Is the Soap Lobby Right That Antibacterials Are Safe? By Kiera Butler - Mon Aug. 29, 2011 2:30 AM PDT
By now, you've probably heard of triclosan, an antimicrobial agent present in all kinds of personal hygiene products, from soap to deodorant to toothpaste. The New York Times recently reported on the raging debate between public health advocates and the soap industry over the product's safety.
If you're waiting for the FDA to weigh in with a final verdict on triclosan, don't hold your breath: The agency has been dragging its feet on the subject for 37 years. In 2010, it finally promised to release the results of its scientific review of triclosan by spring 2011. But spring came and went with no word, and as NRDC attorney Mae Wu noted on her blog, the agency quietly extended its own deadline to winter 2012 on its website, without publicly announcing the delay. When I asked FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess about the silence on the delay, she told me, simply, "FDA doesn't normally make public announcements on the status of its rulemakings." So why'd you promise spring 2011 in the first place?
But far be it from the soap industry to sit idly by while the FDA deliberates. In April, the trade group American Cleaning Institute launched Fight Germs Now, a site that claims to be "the official source on antibacterial hygiene products." Fight Germs Now's FAQ assures consumers that despite the rumors they may have heard, triclosan and other antibacterial agents are safe, effective, and completely necessary in the fight against germs.
I was curious as to whether the ACI's claims could withstand scientific scrutiny, so I checked in with Wu and her colleague Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC. They handily debunked a few of the major points that Fight Germs Now tries to make:
1. "Sometimes plain soap and water is not good enough."
Actually, says Jannsen, there's plenty of evidence that triclosan is no more effective than soap and water: See this study and this review of several studies for starters. (The one exception is toothpaste; there's some evidence that triclosan helps fight gingivitis.) Fight Germs Now likes to tout a study from 2007 that found that people who washed their hands with triclosan carried less bacteria onto their food than those who used soap and water, but Jannsen points out that before you buy this line, you might want to consider the fact that the study was performed by Henkel, makers of Dial antimicrobial soap.
2. "Triclosan does not accumulate in food-chains because it is excreted by animals and man by their metabolism."
While it's true that we do excrete triclosan, that doesn't mean it disappears from the environment. A 2008 study found that earthworms take up triclosan from the soil, showing that organisms "can be contaminated with these chemicals and raising concerns that this will make its way up the food chain," says Jannsen. More worrisome, a 2010 study found that soy beans grown in greenhouses also absorb triclosan from the soil, which, considering the vast amounts of soy that we feed livestock, has major implications for our food supply.
3. "Credible scientific data indicates that triclosan does not disrupt hormonal activity."
Au contraire, say Jannsen and Wu. There's mounting evidence that triclosan and its close relative triclocarban do interfere with our thyroid hormone and sex hormones in both females and males. This 2008 study showed that triclosan disrupted puberty in rats, and this one found that male rats' sex organs got bigger when triclocarban was added to their food. Industry likes to claim that rats and people aren't comparable, but " the hormone systems in lab animals are actually extremely similar to our hormone systems," says Jannsen.
4. "Insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the use of antiseptic drug products harms human health."
A number of recent studies have shown that antibacterial products might be contributing to antibiotic resistance (here are a few to start with). Then there's the fact that triclosan is known to be completely ineffective against "gram negative" bacteria like Pseudomonas and Serratia, both of which cause major infections in hospitals. In fact, notes Jannsen, a hospital outbreak of Serratia was traced back to antibacterial soap dispensers.
For a good list of which products contain triclosan, check out this fact sheet from Beyond Pesticides.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/antibacterial/products.htm
By now, you've probably heard of triclosan, an antimicrobial agent present in all kinds of personal hygiene products, from soap to deodorant to toothpaste. The New York Times recently reported on the raging debate between public health advocates and the soap industry over the product's safety.
If you're waiting for the FDA to weigh in with a final verdict on triclosan, don't hold your breath: The agency has been dragging its feet on the subject for 37 years. In 2010, it finally promised to release the results of its scientific review of triclosan by spring 2011. But spring came and went with no word, and as NRDC attorney Mae Wu noted on her blog, the agency quietly extended its own deadline to winter 2012 on its website, without publicly announcing the delay. When I asked FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess about the silence on the delay, she told me, simply, "FDA doesn't normally make public announcements on the status of its rulemakings." So why'd you promise spring 2011 in the first place?
But far be it from the soap industry to sit idly by while the FDA deliberates. In April, the trade group American Cleaning Institute launched Fight Germs Now, a site that claims to be "the official source on antibacterial hygiene products." Fight Germs Now's FAQ assures consumers that despite the rumors they may have heard, triclosan and other antibacterial agents are safe, effective, and completely necessary in the fight against germs.
I was curious as to whether the ACI's claims could withstand scientific scrutiny, so I checked in with Wu and her colleague Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC. They handily debunked a few of the major points that Fight Germs Now tries to make:
1. "Sometimes plain soap and water is not good enough."
Actually, says Jannsen, there's plenty of evidence that triclosan is no more effective than soap and water: See this study and this review of several studies for starters. (The one exception is toothpaste; there's some evidence that triclosan helps fight gingivitis.) Fight Germs Now likes to tout a study from 2007 that found that people who washed their hands with triclosan carried less bacteria onto their food than those who used soap and water, but Jannsen points out that before you buy this line, you might want to consider the fact that the study was performed by Henkel, makers of Dial antimicrobial soap.
2. "Triclosan does not accumulate in food-chains because it is excreted by animals and man by their metabolism."
While it's true that we do excrete triclosan, that doesn't mean it disappears from the environment. A 2008 study found that earthworms take up triclosan from the soil, showing that organisms "can be contaminated with these chemicals and raising concerns that this will make its way up the food chain," says Jannsen. More worrisome, a 2010 study found that soy beans grown in greenhouses also absorb triclosan from the soil, which, considering the vast amounts of soy that we feed livestock, has major implications for our food supply.
3. "Credible scientific data indicates that triclosan does not disrupt hormonal activity."
Au contraire, say Jannsen and Wu. There's mounting evidence that triclosan and its close relative triclocarban do interfere with our thyroid hormone and sex hormones in both females and males. This 2008 study showed that triclosan disrupted puberty in rats, and this one found that male rats' sex organs got bigger when triclocarban was added to their food. Industry likes to claim that rats and people aren't comparable, but " the hormone systems in lab animals are actually extremely similar to our hormone systems," says Jannsen.
4. "Insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the use of antiseptic drug products harms human health."
A number of recent studies have shown that antibacterial products might be contributing to antibiotic resistance (here are a few to start with). Then there's the fact that triclosan is known to be completely ineffective against "gram negative" bacteria like Pseudomonas and Serratia, both of which cause major infections in hospitals. In fact, notes Jannsen, a hospital outbreak of Serratia was traced back to antibacterial soap dispensers.
For a good list of which products contain triclosan, check out this fact sheet from Beyond Pesticides.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/antibacterial/products.htm
Friday, August 26, 2011
'Smoking Gun' Documents Show Science Ignored in Approval of Cancer-Causing Strawberry Pesticide.
Thursday, 25 August 2011
'Smoking Gun' Documents Show Science Ignored in Approval of Cancer-Causing Strawberry Pesticide
Press Release Science and Environmental
OAKLAND, Calif--(ENEWSPF)--August 25 - Newly released documents show that a Schwarzenegger political appointee within the state agency that approved the cancer-causing strawberry pesticide methyl iodide favored the input of the chemical’s manufacturer, Arysta LifeScience, over the recommendations of its own scientists. The new documents—released in accordance with a court order in the California-based litigation challenging methyl iodide—show that top scientists in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) warned of the dangers of methyl iodide and strongly criticized the methods by which the “acceptable” levels of exposure were set by DPR management.
“These smoking gun memos show that state officials cherry-picked calculations to support their preferred outcome of approving methyl iodide instead of letting science guide their decision-making,” said Susan Kegley, PhD, Consulting Scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America. “Ignoring the science and prioritizing the needs of the manufacturer has put the health and safety of Californians at great risk.”
A team of independent scientists, convened by the state, determined that agricultural uses of methyl iodide would likely result in farmworkers and rural communities facing exposures far above levels of concern, unless the size of the buffer zone, where no pesticides are applied, was “several hundred feet to several miles.” In one memo outlining buffer zone options to protect bystanders and workers, DPR decision makers characterized large buffer zones as “excessive and difficult to enforce” noting that“[t]he registrant [manufacturer Arysta LifeScience] may find these buffer zones unacceptable due to its economic viability.”
The documents show that DPR management selected the desired buffer zones first and then mixed and matched methods of risk assessment to obtain an “acceptable” level of exposure. Current approved buffer zones are 200 feet for a broadcast fumigation of a 10-acre field. Had the scientists’ risk assessment methods been followed, this application would have required a buffer zone of at least a mile.
One document from DPR’s own scientists suggests that DPR management misused data to justify their conclusions, stating that numbers “appear to have been extracted from different MeI [methyl iodide] risk assessment methodologies that are not interchangeable… It is not scientifically credible to select a value or assumption from one and combine it with a value or assumption from another.”
A judge ordered the documents released on August 12, after DPR lost a battle to hide them from the public, ruling that, “…the public’s interest in disclosure under these circumstances clearly outweighs the interest in keeping them confidential. The documents are important to an understanding of the decision to permit the use of the pesticide at issue in this litigation.”
“State officials fought hard in the courts to make sure that these documents would never see the light of day," said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie. "The public has a right to know how officials arrived at their dangerous decision to register methyl iodide and now they do.”
Approval of the pesticide was rushed through in the final days of the Schwarzenegger
Administration. Responding to requests to reverse the decision, Governor Brown said he would “take a fresh look” at the chemical, while his administration said it would consider any “new evidence. ”
“Governor Brown has the opportunity to show that his administration respects science by reversing his predecessor’s indefensible decision on methyl iodide,” said Tracey Brieger, Co-Director at Californians for Pesticide Reform. “Basic public health protection requires that the state not allow broad scale release of ‘one of the most toxic chemicals on earth’ into the state’s fields and water supplies.”
State experts weren’t alone in warning about the dangers of widespread use of this cancer causing poison. Fifty-four eminent scientists, including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, said methyl iodide is “one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing” and questioned the wisdom of U.S. EPA’s initial approval of the chemical.
The state-commissioned independent Scientific Review Committee agreed. Dr. John Froines, chair of the Committee, told press, “I honestly think that this chemical will cause disease and illness. And so does everyone else on the committee.” Theodore Slotkin, another panel member and professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University, wrote, “It is my personal opinion that this decision will result in serious harm to California citizens, and most especially to children.”
The lawsuit challenging approval of methyl iodide was filed in January by Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers of America, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Watch Education Fund, Worksafe, Communities and Children, Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning and farmworkers Jose Hidalgo Ramon and Zeferino Estrada. The suit claims state approval of methyl iodide violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act.
“I’m mad that the Department that is supposed to protect us from pesticides was hijacked by a pesticide company,” said plaintiff Jose Hidalgo. “As a strawberry picker, we frequently see pesticide tarps blowing in the wind and experience the pain of pesticide exposure.”
Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, is a known carcinogen, and puts California’s scarce groundwater supplies at risk of iodide contamination. The pesticide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and neighboring communities because of the volume that would be applied to fields and its tendency to drift off site through the air. Methyl iodide is currently approved to be applied to California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on much of the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling potentially millions of pounds of use. In addition to strawberries, it is also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.
Unlike California and Florida, New York and Washington states have refused to approve methyl iodide as a pesticide.
eNews Park Forest is an independently owned and operated electronic publication and has no affiliation whatsoever with the governing bodies of the Village of Park Forest.
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/26399-smoking-gun-documents-show-science-ignored-in-approval-of-cancer-causing-strawberry-pesticide.html
'Smoking Gun' Documents Show Science Ignored in Approval of Cancer-Causing Strawberry Pesticide
Press Release Science and Environmental
OAKLAND, Calif--(ENEWSPF)--August 25 - Newly released documents show that a Schwarzenegger political appointee within the state agency that approved the cancer-causing strawberry pesticide methyl iodide favored the input of the chemical’s manufacturer, Arysta LifeScience, over the recommendations of its own scientists. The new documents—released in accordance with a court order in the California-based litigation challenging methyl iodide—show that top scientists in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) warned of the dangers of methyl iodide and strongly criticized the methods by which the “acceptable” levels of exposure were set by DPR management.
“These smoking gun memos show that state officials cherry-picked calculations to support their preferred outcome of approving methyl iodide instead of letting science guide their decision-making,” said Susan Kegley, PhD, Consulting Scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America. “Ignoring the science and prioritizing the needs of the manufacturer has put the health and safety of Californians at great risk.”
A team of independent scientists, convened by the state, determined that agricultural uses of methyl iodide would likely result in farmworkers and rural communities facing exposures far above levels of concern, unless the size of the buffer zone, where no pesticides are applied, was “several hundred feet to several miles.” In one memo outlining buffer zone options to protect bystanders and workers, DPR decision makers characterized large buffer zones as “excessive and difficult to enforce” noting that“[t]he registrant [manufacturer Arysta LifeScience] may find these buffer zones unacceptable due to its economic viability.”
The documents show that DPR management selected the desired buffer zones first and then mixed and matched methods of risk assessment to obtain an “acceptable” level of exposure. Current approved buffer zones are 200 feet for a broadcast fumigation of a 10-acre field. Had the scientists’ risk assessment methods been followed, this application would have required a buffer zone of at least a mile.
One document from DPR’s own scientists suggests that DPR management misused data to justify their conclusions, stating that numbers “appear to have been extracted from different MeI [methyl iodide] risk assessment methodologies that are not interchangeable… It is not scientifically credible to select a value or assumption from one and combine it with a value or assumption from another.”
A judge ordered the documents released on August 12, after DPR lost a battle to hide them from the public, ruling that, “…the public’s interest in disclosure under these circumstances clearly outweighs the interest in keeping them confidential. The documents are important to an understanding of the decision to permit the use of the pesticide at issue in this litigation.”
“State officials fought hard in the courts to make sure that these documents would never see the light of day," said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie. "The public has a right to know how officials arrived at their dangerous decision to register methyl iodide and now they do.”
Approval of the pesticide was rushed through in the final days of the Schwarzenegger
Administration. Responding to requests to reverse the decision, Governor Brown said he would “take a fresh look” at the chemical, while his administration said it would consider any “new evidence. ”
“Governor Brown has the opportunity to show that his administration respects science by reversing his predecessor’s indefensible decision on methyl iodide,” said Tracey Brieger, Co-Director at Californians for Pesticide Reform. “Basic public health protection requires that the state not allow broad scale release of ‘one of the most toxic chemicals on earth’ into the state’s fields and water supplies.”
State experts weren’t alone in warning about the dangers of widespread use of this cancer causing poison. Fifty-four eminent scientists, including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, said methyl iodide is “one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing” and questioned the wisdom of U.S. EPA’s initial approval of the chemical.
The state-commissioned independent Scientific Review Committee agreed. Dr. John Froines, chair of the Committee, told press, “I honestly think that this chemical will cause disease and illness. And so does everyone else on the committee.” Theodore Slotkin, another panel member and professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University, wrote, “It is my personal opinion that this decision will result in serious harm to California citizens, and most especially to children.”
The lawsuit challenging approval of methyl iodide was filed in January by Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers of America, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Watch Education Fund, Worksafe, Communities and Children, Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning and farmworkers Jose Hidalgo Ramon and Zeferino Estrada. The suit claims state approval of methyl iodide violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act.
“I’m mad that the Department that is supposed to protect us from pesticides was hijacked by a pesticide company,” said plaintiff Jose Hidalgo. “As a strawberry picker, we frequently see pesticide tarps blowing in the wind and experience the pain of pesticide exposure.”
Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, is a known carcinogen, and puts California’s scarce groundwater supplies at risk of iodide contamination. The pesticide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and neighboring communities because of the volume that would be applied to fields and its tendency to drift off site through the air. Methyl iodide is currently approved to be applied to California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on much of the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling potentially millions of pounds of use. In addition to strawberries, it is also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.
Unlike California and Florida, New York and Washington states have refused to approve methyl iodide as a pesticide.
eNews Park Forest is an independently owned and operated electronic publication and has no affiliation whatsoever with the governing bodies of the Village of Park Forest.
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/26399-smoking-gun-documents-show-science-ignored-in-approval-of-cancer-causing-strawberry-pesticide.html
Airline pays passenger €50,000 because of pesticide on board.
Airline pays passenger €50,000 because of pesticide on board
Life-threatening asthma attack in airplane triggered by Permethrin
An Irish businessman suffered from a severe allergic reaction during an Air France flight because the airline sprayed the pesticide permethrin on board. James Lapham sued Air France and received €50,000 compensation for damages for the first time in history as was stated in the Irish Independent newspaper. Mr. Lapham, an asthmatic, barely survived the incident and is still receiving medical treatment after 8 months.
Pesticides are often part of everyday life on board
The spraying of pesticides on planes is not unusual. For hygiene reasons, and because it is feared that pests could be transported, many countries require the spraying of pesticides. Normally, the passengers are not informed or warned. The estimated number of passengers who suffered health problems during a flight due to pesticide on board is most likely high. Airlines worldwide now fear that this case could constitute a precedent, and that other passengers suffering from ailments may call upon this case.
A German lawyer led a lawsuit against Air France in 2008. He had also suffered health problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on board. The airline denied him the information as to what pesticide had been used. The Frankfurt regional court’s verdict in December 2008 gave the attorney only half right.
An even bigger worry for the airlines than the single passenger cases, is complaints from flight staff who have become ill due to pesticides and may take advantage of the current case.
Asthma attacks caused by pesticides
The Independent writes that James Lapham was on a flight from Rabat to Dublin when the incident occurred. He had only been on board for 10 minutes when he experienced breathing difficulties. The Irish Independent reports that the flight attendants had sprayed permethrin, a neurotoxic pesticide, in the cabin. Permethrin is a Pyrethroide, and is a pesticide which is known for, among other things, triggering allergic and non-allergic asthma. Permethrin is prohibited on flights in the U.S. because the pesticide has been classified by the EPA as carcinogenic since 1997.
Emergency landing due to asthmatic’s reaction to pesticide
The Irish businessman reacted so violently to the permethrin that the flight attendants had to give him oxygen. This intervention was not enough and Mr. Lapham’s asthmatic condition worsened and the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Morocco. The businessman was brought by ambulance to a hospital, where he was stabilized with cortisone. The Independent stated that Mr. Lapham might indeed work again, but is still in need of medical treatment.
Sick due to pesticides in airplane – not an isolated case
The Irish businessman James Lapham is not an isolated case. Particularly flight staffs on long-haul flights in hot regions have been complaining for years about the use of pesticides and the damaging health effects caused by the toxic chemicals. Court cases in different countries are pending and flight attendants have organized internationally for years.
James Lapham pled at the Irish High Court at the Montreal Convention. Passengers cannot receive more than € 100,000 damages under this convention, the Irishman won half, €50.000. Whether more cases will be recognized can not be predicted, because airlines still claim that permethrin had been recommended by the WHO, although scientific studies on the health damaging effects of neurotoxic pesticide are increasing.
Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 21. August 2011
Literature: Independent, Airline pays out €50,000 in pest-killer spray case, August 09, 2011
Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome: AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION
http://www.csn-deutschland.de/blog/en/airline-pays-passenger-e50000-because-of-pesticide-on-board/
Life-threatening asthma attack in airplane triggered by Permethrin
An Irish businessman suffered from a severe allergic reaction during an Air France flight because the airline sprayed the pesticide permethrin on board. James Lapham sued Air France and received €50,000 compensation for damages for the first time in history as was stated in the Irish Independent newspaper. Mr. Lapham, an asthmatic, barely survived the incident and is still receiving medical treatment after 8 months.
Pesticides are often part of everyday life on board
The spraying of pesticides on planes is not unusual. For hygiene reasons, and because it is feared that pests could be transported, many countries require the spraying of pesticides. Normally, the passengers are not informed or warned. The estimated number of passengers who suffered health problems during a flight due to pesticide on board is most likely high. Airlines worldwide now fear that this case could constitute a precedent, and that other passengers suffering from ailments may call upon this case.
A German lawyer led a lawsuit against Air France in 2008. He had also suffered health problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on board. The airline denied him the information as to what pesticide had been used. The Frankfurt regional court’s verdict in December 2008 gave the attorney only half right.
An even bigger worry for the airlines than the single passenger cases, is complaints from flight staff who have become ill due to pesticides and may take advantage of the current case.
Asthma attacks caused by pesticides
The Independent writes that James Lapham was on a flight from Rabat to Dublin when the incident occurred. He had only been on board for 10 minutes when he experienced breathing difficulties. The Irish Independent reports that the flight attendants had sprayed permethrin, a neurotoxic pesticide, in the cabin. Permethrin is a Pyrethroide, and is a pesticide which is known for, among other things, triggering allergic and non-allergic asthma. Permethrin is prohibited on flights in the U.S. because the pesticide has been classified by the EPA as carcinogenic since 1997.
Emergency landing due to asthmatic’s reaction to pesticide
The Irish businessman reacted so violently to the permethrin that the flight attendants had to give him oxygen. This intervention was not enough and Mr. Lapham’s asthmatic condition worsened and the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Morocco. The businessman was brought by ambulance to a hospital, where he was stabilized with cortisone. The Independent stated that Mr. Lapham might indeed work again, but is still in need of medical treatment.
Sick due to pesticides in airplane – not an isolated case
The Irish businessman James Lapham is not an isolated case. Particularly flight staffs on long-haul flights in hot regions have been complaining for years about the use of pesticides and the damaging health effects caused by the toxic chemicals. Court cases in different countries are pending and flight attendants have organized internationally for years.
James Lapham pled at the Irish High Court at the Montreal Convention. Passengers cannot receive more than € 100,000 damages under this convention, the Irishman won half, €50.000. Whether more cases will be recognized can not be predicted, because airlines still claim that permethrin had been recommended by the WHO, although scientific studies on the health damaging effects of neurotoxic pesticide are increasing.
Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 21. August 2011
Literature: Independent, Airline pays out €50,000 in pest-killer spray case, August 09, 2011
Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome: AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION
http://www.csn-deutschland.de/blog/en/airline-pays-passenger-e50000-because-of-pesticide-on-board/
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Leaked document: EPA knowingly approved bee-killing pesticide.
Leaked document: EPA knowingly approved bee-killing pesticide
(NaturalNews) A Colorado beekeeper recently obtained a leaked document revealing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows a popular crop pesticide is killing off honey bees, but has allowed its continued approval anyway. Despite opposition from its own scientists, EPA officials first gave the a-okay to Bayer CropScience's toxic pesticide clothianidin in 1993 based on the company's own flawed safety studies. But now it has been revealed that the EPA knew all along about the dangers of clothianidin and decided to just ignore them.
By now, most people know that honeybees are dying off at an incredibly disturbing rate. Colony collapse disorder (CCD), a condition where bees stray from the hive and never find their way back, is nixing millions of nature's pollinators every year. Previous studies have pinpointed various environmental toxins as the primary culprits, including toxic pesticides like clothianidin ( http://www.naturalnews.com/028429_colony_collapse_disorder_chemicals.html ...).
And the leaked document, which was written by the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, explains clearly that "lothianidin's major risk concern is to nontarget insects (honey bees)" and that "cute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis." The letter was in response to a request from Bayer to have clothianidin approval expanded for use on cotton and mustard in addition to its other approved uses.
So if clothianidin poses a significant threat against honey bees, and the EPA has known about this all along, why was it ever approved in the first place? And if Bayer's original safety studies have been shown to be contradictory to actual science, why has the EPA failed to go after Bayer for falsifying safety data? Apparently those who make the final decisions at the EPA have no actual interest in the truth and would rather cater to corporate interests at the expense of public health.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030921_EPA_pesticides.html
(NaturalNews) A Colorado beekeeper recently obtained a leaked document revealing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows a popular crop pesticide is killing off honey bees, but has allowed its continued approval anyway. Despite opposition from its own scientists, EPA officials first gave the a-okay to Bayer CropScience's toxic pesticide clothianidin in 1993 based on the company's own flawed safety studies. But now it has been revealed that the EPA knew all along about the dangers of clothianidin and decided to just ignore them.
By now, most people know that honeybees are dying off at an incredibly disturbing rate. Colony collapse disorder (CCD), a condition where bees stray from the hive and never find their way back, is nixing millions of nature's pollinators every year. Previous studies have pinpointed various environmental toxins as the primary culprits, including toxic pesticides like clothianidin ( http://www.naturalnews.com/028429_colony_collapse_disorder_chemicals.html ...).
And the leaked document, which was written by the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, explains clearly that "lothianidin's major risk concern is to nontarget insects (honey bees)" and that "cute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis." The letter was in response to a request from Bayer to have clothianidin approval expanded for use on cotton and mustard in addition to its other approved uses.
So if clothianidin poses a significant threat against honey bees, and the EPA has known about this all along, why was it ever approved in the first place? And if Bayer's original safety studies have been shown to be contradictory to actual science, why has the EPA failed to go after Bayer for falsifying safety data? Apparently those who make the final decisions at the EPA have no actual interest in the truth and would rather cater to corporate interests at the expense of public health.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030921_EPA_pesticides.html
Cacao - An ancient medicine validated by modern science
Cacao - An ancient medicine validated by modern science
http://www.naturalnews.com/030603_cacao_medicine.html
by Carolanne Wright, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Legendary cacao has a long history of medicinal use throughout Mesoamerica and South America. Today, science confirms chocolate has many favorable qualities that support health and psychological well-being. This magical bean offers great benefits when the cacao is high-quality, raw and organic.
The native people of the Americas extolled the merits of cacao with oral histories, pottery, stonework, and colored documents that chronicled its use in rituals as well as in everyday life. The Mayan and Mexica religions believed cacao had divine origins. According to Mayan legend, after humans were created by the goddess Xmucane, the God Sovereign Plumed Serpent gave cacao to the Maya.
When Europeans began exploring the New World, Columbus and his crew were the first to encounter cacao when they seized a canoe at Guanaja that was filled with strange 'almonds'. Eventually it was discovered the 'almonds' were actually cacao beans used as a source of currency in Mesoamerica.
Chocolate is not only a food, but also a medicine. Preparations are well documented by the explorers who came in contact with cacao during their travels. Cacao medicinal properties were noted to alleviate fever, anemia, poor appetite, metal fatigue and poor breast milk production, as well as tuberculosis, gout, kidney stones and low virility. This delicious bean was famous for healing the nervous system and improving digestion and elimination.
Jump to the modern day and numerous studies celebrate the many virtues of chocolate. Research confirms that chocolate helps to relieve emotional stress. Stress hormones and stress-related biochemical agents were reduced when volunteers, who rated themselves as highly stressed, consumed 1.4 ounces of dark chocolate per day for a period of two weeks.
Another study found that cacao flavanols (CF) improve cognitive function. In a randomized, double-blind trial, 30 healthy adults consumed either 520 mg or 994 mg of a CF infused beverage. Both groups showed significant improvement in mental acuity, while a reduction in 'mental fatigue' was only found with the lower consumption of 520 mg. The researchers suspect the results may be related to the effects of CF on blood flow.
Cacao mass also contains potassium, phosphorus, copper, iron, zinc, and magnesium which contribute to cardiovascular health. Chocolate has the ability to trigger the release of dopamine and the endorphin phenylethylamine, both of which soothe the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome and depression. Due to its high valeric acid content, cacao has stress relieving properties despite the presence of the stimulants theobromine and caffeine.
Yet not all chocolate is created equal. Organic, raw cacao reigns supreme with maximum nutrient content compared to other forms. Since raw chocolate is processed at low temperatures, it retains much more of its famed nutritional value than if it were roasted. As seen in David Wolfe's, "Naked Chocolate: The Astounding Truth About the World's Greatest Food", raw chocolate has many high-quality nutrients such as manganese, vitamin C, and omega 6 fatty acids. Raw cacao also contains powerful antioxidants along with a significant amount of chromium, which balances blood sugar levels. Additional benefits are found in neurotransmitter modulating agents that act as natural antidepressants. "They allow our neurotransmitters like serotonin to remain in our bloodstream longer that usual. This makes us younger," explains Wolfe. He believes that raw cacao is an excellent way to enhance health while calming the heart, amplifying sensuality and enriching one's love life.
Live your bliss and savor the wisdom of the ancients. Invigorate modern vitality with the many extraordinary traits of raw cacao.
Sources for this article:
Teresa L. Dillinger, Patricia Barriga, Sylvia Escarcega, Martha Jimenez, Diana Salazar Lowe, Louis E. Grivetti, "Food of the Gods: Cure for Humanity? A Cultural History of the Medicinal and Ritual Use of Chocolate", The Journal of Nutrition. Retrived on November 28, 2010, from http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/8/2057S.full.pdf
Francois-Pierre J. Martin, Serge Ressi, Emma Per-Trepat, Beate Kamlage, Sebastiano Collino, Edgar Leibold, Jurgen Kastler, Dietrich Rein, Laurent B. Fay, Sunil Kochhar, "Metabolic Effects of Dark Chocolate Consumption on Energy, Gut Microbiota, and Stress-Related Metabolism in Free-Living Subjects", Journal of Proteome Research, October 7, 2009, 8 (12), pp 5568-5579
Andrew B Scholey, Stephen J French, Penelope J Morris, David O Kennedy, Athea L Milne, Crystal F Haskell, "Consumption of coca flavanols results in acute improvements in mood and cognitive performance during sustained mental effort". Journal of Psychopharmacology, October 2010, 24 (10)
pp 1505-1514
Pamela Moyers Scott, MPAS, PA-C, "Is chocolate really good for me?" JAAPA, January 2007, 20 (1) pp 55-56
Marisa Belger, "The raw, tasty truth about natural chocolate. Skip the average bar and reach for nutrient-packed cacao treats instead". Today GreenDAY, August 2009. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32271092/ns/today-green/
Kevin Gianni, "Nutritional Authority David Wolfe Discusses Metabolism and Chocolate", Natural News, August 22, 2008. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from
http://www.naturalnews.com/023939_food_chocolate_cacao.html
About the author
Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef, and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness, and joyful orientation for over 13 years. Through her website www.Thrive-Living.com she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030603_cacao_medicine.html
by Carolanne Wright, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Legendary cacao has a long history of medicinal use throughout Mesoamerica and South America. Today, science confirms chocolate has many favorable qualities that support health and psychological well-being. This magical bean offers great benefits when the cacao is high-quality, raw and organic.
The native people of the Americas extolled the merits of cacao with oral histories, pottery, stonework, and colored documents that chronicled its use in rituals as well as in everyday life. The Mayan and Mexica religions believed cacao had divine origins. According to Mayan legend, after humans were created by the goddess Xmucane, the God Sovereign Plumed Serpent gave cacao to the Maya.
When Europeans began exploring the New World, Columbus and his crew were the first to encounter cacao when they seized a canoe at Guanaja that was filled with strange 'almonds'. Eventually it was discovered the 'almonds' were actually cacao beans used as a source of currency in Mesoamerica.
Chocolate is not only a food, but also a medicine. Preparations are well documented by the explorers who came in contact with cacao during their travels. Cacao medicinal properties were noted to alleviate fever, anemia, poor appetite, metal fatigue and poor breast milk production, as well as tuberculosis, gout, kidney stones and low virility. This delicious bean was famous for healing the nervous system and improving digestion and elimination.
Jump to the modern day and numerous studies celebrate the many virtues of chocolate. Research confirms that chocolate helps to relieve emotional stress. Stress hormones and stress-related biochemical agents were reduced when volunteers, who rated themselves as highly stressed, consumed 1.4 ounces of dark chocolate per day for a period of two weeks.
Another study found that cacao flavanols (CF) improve cognitive function. In a randomized, double-blind trial, 30 healthy adults consumed either 520 mg or 994 mg of a CF infused beverage. Both groups showed significant improvement in mental acuity, while a reduction in 'mental fatigue' was only found with the lower consumption of 520 mg. The researchers suspect the results may be related to the effects of CF on blood flow.
Cacao mass also contains potassium, phosphorus, copper, iron, zinc, and magnesium which contribute to cardiovascular health. Chocolate has the ability to trigger the release of dopamine and the endorphin phenylethylamine, both of which soothe the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome and depression. Due to its high valeric acid content, cacao has stress relieving properties despite the presence of the stimulants theobromine and caffeine.
Yet not all chocolate is created equal. Organic, raw cacao reigns supreme with maximum nutrient content compared to other forms. Since raw chocolate is processed at low temperatures, it retains much more of its famed nutritional value than if it were roasted. As seen in David Wolfe's, "Naked Chocolate: The Astounding Truth About the World's Greatest Food", raw chocolate has many high-quality nutrients such as manganese, vitamin C, and omega 6 fatty acids. Raw cacao also contains powerful antioxidants along with a significant amount of chromium, which balances blood sugar levels. Additional benefits are found in neurotransmitter modulating agents that act as natural antidepressants. "They allow our neurotransmitters like serotonin to remain in our bloodstream longer that usual. This makes us younger," explains Wolfe. He believes that raw cacao is an excellent way to enhance health while calming the heart, amplifying sensuality and enriching one's love life.
Live your bliss and savor the wisdom of the ancients. Invigorate modern vitality with the many extraordinary traits of raw cacao.
Sources for this article:
Teresa L. Dillinger, Patricia Barriga, Sylvia Escarcega, Martha Jimenez, Diana Salazar Lowe, Louis E. Grivetti, "Food of the Gods: Cure for Humanity? A Cultural History of the Medicinal and Ritual Use of Chocolate", The Journal of Nutrition. Retrived on November 28, 2010, from http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/8/2057S.full.pdf
Francois-Pierre J. Martin, Serge Ressi, Emma Per-Trepat, Beate Kamlage, Sebastiano Collino, Edgar Leibold, Jurgen Kastler, Dietrich Rein, Laurent B. Fay, Sunil Kochhar, "Metabolic Effects of Dark Chocolate Consumption on Energy, Gut Microbiota, and Stress-Related Metabolism in Free-Living Subjects", Journal of Proteome Research, October 7, 2009, 8 (12), pp 5568-5579
Andrew B Scholey, Stephen J French, Penelope J Morris, David O Kennedy, Athea L Milne, Crystal F Haskell, "Consumption of coca flavanols results in acute improvements in mood and cognitive performance during sustained mental effort". Journal of Psychopharmacology, October 2010, 24 (10)
pp 1505-1514
Pamela Moyers Scott, MPAS, PA-C, "Is chocolate really good for me?" JAAPA, January 2007, 20 (1) pp 55-56
Marisa Belger, "The raw, tasty truth about natural chocolate. Skip the average bar and reach for nutrient-packed cacao treats instead". Today GreenDAY, August 2009. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32271092/ns/today-green/
Kevin Gianni, "Nutritional Authority David Wolfe Discusses Metabolism and Chocolate", Natural News, August 22, 2008. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from
http://www.naturalnews.com/023939_food_chocolate_cacao.html
About the author
Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef, and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness, and joyful orientation for over 13 years. Through her website www.Thrive-Living.com she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)