Victory! Judge Closes Industry Loophole, Barring Pesticides From Compost Used In Organic Food Production

Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
June 30, 2016

In a victory for organic consumers, a federal judge has tossed out a rule change by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that permitted the use of compost containing synthetic pesticides in growing organic foods.

“The court’s decision upholds the integrity of the organic standard and is an incredible victory for organic consumers, organic farmers and the environment,” said George Kimbrell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “On the flipside, the decision is a resounding defeat of industrial food actors trying to sell out organic integrity to pad their own pocketbooks.”

The nonprofits, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, and Center for Environmental Health, had sued the USDA, claiming that the agency violated the law by implementing the change by means of a “guidance,” and without any public input or participation.

“We applaud the Court’s decision to protect the integrity of the organic program,” said Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health. “We will continue to watchdog the USDA to ensure that the program meets consumers’ expectations for meaningful organic standards.”

Collusion by ‘Big Organics’

Before the USDA’s quiet rule change, the federal organic standard prohibited the use of any compost containing any substance not allowed in organic farming, which included synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. This rule had never been challenged by the composting and waste management industry, until California organic regulators banned several composts from organic use, after finding them to be contaminated with pesticides. The National Organics Program supported this action.

The waste management industry hit back, with the predictable support of the pesticide industry and the more surprising support of the Organic Trade Association, a trade group for large-scale organic producers. The industry asked the USDA to change the rule, and the USDA did so, by issuing a “guidance” on how to interpret the existing organics rules. By doing this, the USDA avoided having to initiate a publicly accountable process on a rule change.

The organic watchdog groups sued, alleging that the “guidance” was actually a rule change and, under federal law, required a public process. The waste management industry and its allies asked the court to dismiss the case, but the court refused.

The industry groups then asked the court to leave the rule in place, even if it was found to have been passed illegally!

The fight is not over!

However, the judge declined to play along. The court ruled that the USDA had in fact violated the law in implementing a rule change via “guidance” without public participation. And it ordered the new rule struck down.

“The court decision upholds an organic industry that has been built on a foundation of consumer and farmer investment in ecologically sound practices, principles and values to protect health and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “USDA has violated a basic requirement of public accountability in the standard setting process, which is fundamental to public trust in the organic label and continued growth in organic production.”

Of course, opponents of the organics movement are not resting. The very day after this victory, the Senate Agriculture Committee introduced its newest version of the anti-GMO-labeling Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. This “compromise” bill would allow the labeling of GMO ingredients, but only in the form of “smart labels” and QR codes only accessible to those with smartphones or via a 1-800 number or website.

“This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “This kind of labeling system is inadequate and inherently discriminatory against one third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even moreso [sic] against rural, low income, and elderly populations or those without access to the internet.

“We are appalled that our elected officials would support keeping Americans in the dark about what is in our food and even more appalled that they would do it on behalf Big Chemical and food corporations. We will work to defeat this DARK Act just as we have before.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Judge Says EPA Not Require To Disclose Extremely Dangerous ‘Inert’ Ingredients In Pesticides

Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
June 29, 2016

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not required to force pesticide companies to disclose “inert” ingredients in their products, even when those products are known to be toxic, carcinogenic or otherwise dangerous, a federal judge recently – and reluctantly – ruled.

The Center for Environmental Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Beyond Pesticides had sued the EPA, claiming that it was violating its responsibilities as mandated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The EPA requires pesticide labels to state the names and percentages of “active ingredients,” the ingredients believed to be responsible for pesticides’ toxic effects. But the agency does not require companies to disclose “inactive” or “inert” ingredients, except to avoid “unreasonable risk to humans or the environment.”

Not actually ‘inert’

The plaintiffs submitted a list of 370 separate “inert” pesticide ingredients that are classified by pesticide manufacturers or the EPA itself as known or suspected of causing cancer, reproductive harm or neurological disorders. They also submitted another 96 ingredients that the EPA has classified as “high priority for testing.”

“What we’re challenging is EPA’s inaction despite a body of evidence,” plaintiffs’ attorney Yana Garcia told Courthouse News when the lawsuit was filed. “Chemicals listed as inert are not inert. Consumers think the inert ingredients are water or other benign substances used to mix the chemicals, but many are carcinogenic and others have acute impacts and still others have impacts that are currently unknown.”

Many of the ingredients on the plaintiffs’ list have been shown to enhance the absorption or inhalation rates of active ingredients, make pesticides more difficult to remove from clothing, and even make active ingredients more likely to pass through protective clothing, such as gloves.

Concealing the presence of chemicals known to be hazardous denies pesticide users the ability to make informed choices, the plaintiffs argued. It also makes it harder for doctors to effectively treat people who have been exposed to pesticides.

The presence of these chemicals doesn’t just affect those who use pesticides, either.

“We are also concerned about pesticide drift, and the effects on bees and other pollinators,” Garcia said.

Flawed law forces judge’s hand

The issue dates back to 1984, when the EPA first began drafting a rule about labeling hazardous ingredients in pesticides. But in 1987, the agency tossed that draft rule out and replaced it with a three tiered list. Only ingredients on the first, most hazardous list, were required to be listed. Notably, none of the ingredients on that list are used in pesticides anymore.

But the list has seen no additions since 1989. So in 2006, the plaintiffs, along with the attorneys general of 14 states, asked the EPA to start drafting a new disclosure rule. The agency took no action, and was later sued over the issue.

“[The EPA] reinitiated rulemaking in 2009 but didn’t complete it, so we filed another lawsuit,” Garcia said. “At that time the EPA reversed course and claimed that people don’t read the labels and don’t care what is in pesticides, so why bother labeling?”

Other absurd arguments made by the EPA – and its lawyers from the Department of Justice – in defense of its position, are that the EPA needs to take into account other “policy considerations outside” FIFRA, and that FIFRA requires the EPA to protect pesticide makers’ trade secrets.

“It remains clear that FIFRA doesn’t let trade secrets trump health. But the EPA is kind of hiding behind this provision in the statute to shirk its responsibility to protect people and the environment [from pesticides],” Garcia said.

When asked by the judge why the EPA’s policy is better for the environment than simply labeling the hazardous ingredients, Department of Justice attorney Debra Carfora said, “I wouldn’t say it’s better. I would say this is a very complex issue.”

U.S. District Judge William Orrick said that he found the plaintiffs’ arguments very convincing from a policy perspective, but that unfortunately FIFRA gives the EPA very wide discretion. Thus, Orrick found himself with no choice but to uphold the legality of the EPA’s decisions.

“The EPA is given discretion unless I can find that mandatory duty,” Orrick said.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Nine Chronic Diseases Caused By Pesticides

Source: NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z.
June 24, 2016

By now, it is fairly common knowledge that pesticide exposure is associated with a disturbing number of life-changing illnesses. Yet, for some reason, pesticides continue to be used on a widespread basis, with people around the world feeling the effects of these harmful toxins. The wide reach and influence of agricultural firms like Monsanto is responsible for many of the health problems faced by people around the world today.

The advocacy group, Beyond Pesticides, has created a Pesticide-Induced Disease (PID) database that provides vital information about the many dangers of these chemicals. The list is depressingly long, and its warnings are particularly important for children. Here is a look at nine of the diseases with the strongest links to pesticide exposure.

1. Alzheimer’s Disease and dementia

This progressive brain-destroying disease reportedly affects up to 5.3 million Americans. The numbers have been rising recently in keeping with the rise in our nation’s pesticide use, and this appears to be more than a coincidence. Studies have found that people exposed to pesticides have not only a greater incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia, but also increased dysfunction in psychomotor, behavioral and cognitive skills. The link is particularly strong when it comes to insecticides.

2. Cancer

Many cancers have been linked to pesticides, including brain, bone, liver, pancreas, bladder and prostate cancers, as well as leukemia. Cancers of the lymph system, such as Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, are particularly well-documented. These are the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancers in adults, and the third most common in children. In fact, children who live in agricultural areas have higher risks of several of these illnesses.

3. Birth defects

Birth defects in humans and animals alike have been noted with increasing frequency as pesticide use rises, particularly in agricultural areas. For example, gastroschisis, a birth defect in which a baby’s intestines and other organs develop outside the abdomen, occurs much more frequently in babies with mothers who live within 25 kilometers of sites where the pesticide atrazine was used. In fact, atrazine has been linked to nine different birth defects.

4. Endocrine disruption

In this condition, chemicals from pesticides as well as plastics, household cleaners and other chemicals make their way into the body and disrupt its hormonal balance, leading to disease, developmental problems and reproductive issues. The endocrine system, which includes the thyroid, and adrenal and pituitary glands, is vital for growth and development, and anything that disrupts it can have major repercussions on one’s overall health. Pesticides and other chemicals change the concentration of the body’s natural hormones and interfere with metabolism, hormonal synthesis, transport and excretion. Male hormones are particularly vulnerable, reports Scientific American.

5. Reproductive issues

Exposure to pesticides can affect the reproductive systems of men and women alike. In one study, men who had high levels of three different common pesticides in their urine were actually ten times more likely to have low sperm quality. Meanwhile, rats who experienced even very low exposure to pesticides developed reproductive problems. Several pesticides and fungicides are also known to impair the synthesis of testosterone.

6. Asthma and allergies

The rate of asthma has been climbing dramatically in keeping with the rise of pesticide use. It is estimated that around 16 million Americans suffer from asthma, which is not only chronic but can also be life-threatening. Pesticide use has also been linked to food allergies. An Agricultural Health Study of more than 25,000 farm women found a link between seven different insecticides and atopic asthma.

7. Diabetes

While an unhealthy lifestyle certainly plays a role in type 2 diabetes, the widespread exposure to pesticides containing organophosphate can induce obesity and spur diabetic reactions. In one of several studies into the connection, a North Carolina State University study found elevated levels of diabetes among women who were exposed to five different classes of pesticides.

8. Parkinson’s Disease

This common neurodegenerative disease affects more than a million Americans, whose brain nerve cells become so damaged that they are unable to control the movement of their muscles. Pesticide exposure has been identified as a leading cause of this, with one study finding that the frequent use of household pesticides boosted a person’s odds of Parkinson’s by 47 percent. Even more alarmingly, those who frequently used organophosphate pesticides had a 71 percent higher likelihood of developing the neurodegenerative disease.

9. Developmental and learning disorders

Because organs continue to develop throughout childhood, children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of pesticides, and one place this can be quite evident is in the brain. Even low levels of pesticide exposure have been found to affect intelligence and behavior. Children who live in areas subjected to aerial spraying of pesticides for mosquitoes are 25 percent more likely to experience developmental disorders and autism.

The problems caused by pesticides are so bad that the French town of Saint-Jean has banned their use within 160 feet (50 meters) of homes. The town’s deputy mayor, who also happens to be a doctor, summed it up: “Research shows that people living near areas where pesticides are used are more affected by some diseases: endocrinal hormone disruption, diabetes and obesity, hormone-dependent cancers, cancer of the blood, male and female fertility problems and birth defects.”

If only every town – especially those with or close to farming communities – could get on board and protect the health of its citizens in such a strong and fearless way.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com