SAVE THE DATE! February 26-28, 2009 in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The Organic Farming Conference is organized by the Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service.
Celebrate 20 years of sharing knowledge, finding solutions, and moving the organic movement forward together. Learn from a community of over 2,000 farmers, educators, and advocates. Share best practices, enjoy incredible food, choose from over 60 informative and dynamic workshops and experience 130+ booths in our exhibit hall!
Help make our 20th Anniversary the best yet! Register online at www.mosesorganic.org or call 715-772-3153 for more information. -www.mosesorganic.org
The Center for Food Safety cited results of an important study released in November by the Austrian government as cause for great concern over the long-term consumption of genetically engineered crops. The study found that mice fed a type of genetically engineered corn developed by the Monsanto Company produced fewer offspring than those fed conventional corn.
“This meticulous study suggests that a popular type of genetically engineered corn may harbor fertility-reducing substances,” said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author of a peer-reviewed study on GE crop regulation. “It’s no surprise to us that U.S. regulators did not catch this. None of our regulatory agencies require any long-term animal feeding trials before allowing genetically engineered crops on the market.”
The study was sponsored by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Families, and Youth, and led by Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna. For 20 weeks, Zentek and his team fed mice diets consisting of either 33% genetically engineered (GE) corn, or 33% of a closely related non-GE variety. The diets were otherwise nutritionally equivalent.
Mice fed the GE corn diet had fewer litters, fewer total offspring, and more females with no offspring, than mice feed the conventional corn. The effects were particularly pronounced in the third and fourth litters, after the mice had consumed the GE corn for a longer period of time. The authors attributed the reduced fertility to the GE corn feed, and said it might be related to unintended effects of the genetic modification process. Dr. Zentek said that further studies are “urgently needed” to corroborate his team’s findings.
“This study should serve as a wake-up call to governments around the world that genetically engineered foods could cause long-term health damage,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “The Center calls upon national and international authorities to place a moratorium on the distribution of GE products for human consumption unless or until their safety can be undeniably established.”
“We hope this study will finally persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to completely overhaul its ‘rubber-stamp’ regulatory process,” added Freese. “The FDA must stop letting biotech companies self-certify their GE crops as safe, and instead establish strict, mandatory testing requirements, including long-term animal feeding trials, for every GE crop,” he added.
The Center notes that the GE corn used in the study (NK603 x MON810) was developed by the Monsanto Company, and is sold under the brand names YieldGard (Plus)/Roundup Ready. Monsanto’s figures show that U.S. plantings of this GE corn have exploded in recent years, from just 2.2 million acres in 2002 to 38.2 million acres in 2008. The corn is a so-called “stacked” variety with two traits: the Roundup Ready trait allows the corn to survive direct spraying with Roundup herbicide, while a built-in insecticide kills certain above-ground insect pests.
The Center further notes that U.S. regulators allow biotech companies to cross GE crops at will to develop “stacked” crops with virtually any combination of traits without any regulatory oversight, despite expert warnings that stacked crops may pose special risks. -Center for Food Safety
Current government regulatory agencies typically require that industrial chemicals, including food additives and environmental pollutants, be administered to lab rodents beginning shortly after birth and ending after two years to test whether those substances might cause cancer in humans. But a new peer-reviewed paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives argues that those tests sometimes understate human risks and should start in utero and continue as long as three years, the approximate life spans of rats and mice. The longer, more sensitive tests would provide a more reliable picture of the risk that various chemicals pose to humans throughout their lifespan, the authors say. The authors charged that practically all rodent tests submitted to regulatory agencies are insufficiently sensitive.
“We must test animals to determine whether a substance causes cancer,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and co-author of the paper. “Given the prevalence of so many chemicals in our cupboards, our workplaces, and in the environment at large, government regulatory agencies must change the way they do business and require companies to conduct animal tests from before birth to near the end of their natural lifetimes. Needless to say, chemical manufacturers prefer tests that are less expensive and less likely to find problems,” said Jacobson.
“Waiting for proof of human harm before acting to prevent risk is unethical and treats people like animals in an uncontrolled experiment,” added co-author Devra Davis of Pittsburgh’s Center for Environmental Oncology.
All known human carcinogens also cause cancer in animals. About a third of known human carcinogens were first uncovered in animal testing. The paper highlights rodent tests on several chemicals that did not appear to be carcinogenic after two years, but did so in longer studies.
For instance, two-year rat tests on the artificial sweetener aspartame did not detect any tumors, but two tests, one of which began in utero, that monitored rats until they died showed increased lymphomas, leukemias, and kidney and other tumors. Two-year rat tests of the metal cadmium, which is used in batteries and other products, did not find the substance to be a carcinogen, but a two-and-a-half-year study found lung tumors. Similarly, two-year testing in rats of the solvent toluene did not detect cancer. But significant numbers of cancers did appear in animals exposed to toluene for two years and then allowed to live an additional six months.
“Since exposure to many chemicals occurs before birth, tests on rodents should begin in utero, particularly for chemicals that may interfere with the endocrine and reproductive systems,” Jacobson said. (The Food and Drug Administration normally requires such tests on potential food additives.)
The paper cited bisphenol A, or BPA, as an example of a chemical that should be tested on animals before and after birth. BPA is widely used in plastic bottles and in the lining of metal cans, and has been increasing in the diets of infants and children. Fetuses are particularly sensitive to chemicals like BPA, which is an endocrine disruptor. Several governments have recently acted to restrict its use.
The authors recommend that government agencies involved in testing, including the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and National Toxicology Program compare the results of two-year and longer-term animal studies and then revise their “best practices.” -Center for Science in the Public Interest
• Note from Willy Street Co-op: Due to some questions from owners, we must clarify that Willy Street Co-op is not pro-animal testing. In fact, we have a standing policy of not contributing to organizations that condone it. We ran this article, like all in this section, as a point of information about food, agriculture, the environment and/or cooperatives, and not as an endorsement of the practice.
In Organic Bytes #134, the Organic Consumers Association launched an alert with its ally takebackthefilter.org to ask America’s #1 water filter company, Brita, to begin a U.S. recycling program for the hundreds of thousands of filters the company sells domestically each year. Although Brita had a recycling system in place for the filters it was selling overseas, apparently the company didn’t feel like there was enough demand for a similar system among U.S. consumers. Thanks to pressure from citizen activists, the company has announced it is launching a U.S. recycling program .
The new year will bring renewed life for used Britapitcher filters, which will be collected and recycled into items such as toothbrushes, cups and cutting boards. Beginning in early January 2009, consumers can recycle Brita water pitcher filters through a program with Preserve, the leading maker of 100 percent recycled household consumer goods. Preserve offers an environmentally friendly recycling infrastructure for No. 5 polypropylene plastic, a primary material in Brita pitcher filters, through its Gimme 5 recycling and reuse program.
Preserve will collect the filters to use in its line of eco-friendly, 100 percent recyclable personal care, tableware and kitchen products. Preserve products made in part from Brita filters will be available at leading retailers, allowing consumers to purchase new sustainable products they helped create.
“By working with Preserve, we are able to strengthen our sustainability commitment and identify a Brita filter recycling solution that is a win for consumers, the environment and our company,” said Don Knauss, chairman and CEO of The Clorox Company, makers of Brita products. “This initiative is one of many ways The Clorox Company is actively making its consumer product offerings more sustainable and creating positive impacts in the area of waste reduction.”
In 2007, Brita launched its FilterForGood campaign to reduce plastic bottled water waste in landfills and made a strong commitment to continue to improve its environmental impact by focusing on a filter recycling solution.
“Sierra Club has been in discussions with Clorox about a recycling program and we are pleased Brita is bringing such a viable solution for filter recycling to consumers,” said Carl Pope, executive director, Sierra Club.
Preserve will recycle 100 percent of each Brita plastic pitcher filter casing collected. The No. 5 polypropylene plastic from the casing will be used by Preserve in their line of products. The filter ingredients - activated carbon for creating great-tasting water and additional ion-exchange resin that reduces lead, mercury, copper, cadmium and zinc that might be found in tap water - will be regenerated for alternative use or converted into energy.
“The Brita filter recycling program gives Brita pitcher filters new life as Preserve products,” stated John Lively, director of environment and material science for Preserve. “We calculated that the benefits of keeping Brita filters out of landfills outweigh the impact of shipping them for recycling through this program.”
Consumers can drop off their used, dry Brita pitcher filters at participating stores or mail them directly to Preserve. Full details and instructions on both options, including a complete list of Gimme 5 stores, will be available at www.brita.com in early January 2009. -Organic Consumers Association
Consumers Union recently derided the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) decision last November to accept the recommendations for “organic” fish production that will allow fish to carry the USDA organic label-despite being raised under conditions that fail to meet fundamental USDA organic principles. The NOSB recommendations allow:
- Fish to be fed food other than 100% organic feed—the gold standard that must be met by other USDA-certified organic livestock;
- Fishmeal used to feed farmed fish from wild fish—which has the potential to carry mercury and PCBs; and
- Open net cages to be used—which flush pollution, disease and parasites from open net fish farms directly into the ocean, adversely impacting wild fish supply, sustainability and the health of the oceans.
The recommendations have been transmitted to USDA, which will issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) immediately.
“To slap a ‘organic’ label on this fish is deceptive and undermines the entire organic program,” said Urvashi Rangan, PhD, Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst at Consumers Union. “If enacted, this gutting of the organic standards will not only allow sub-par organic fish to be sold with a premium, but will undermine consumer confidence in the entire organic marketplace.”
Furthermore, it was clear at the NOSB hearing that USDA advised NOSB to circumvent the regulations to lower the organic standards bar for fish, standards clearly not wanted by the American public. In November 2008, a Consumers Union Poll revealed that 93 percent of Americans think that fish labeled as “organic” should be produced by 100 percent organic feed, like all other organic animals. Nine in 10 consumers also agreed that “organic” fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by “organic” fish farms. Nearly 30,000 signatures have been collected in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.
Some members of the NOSB expressed that they were under pressure from the aquaculture industry to push a substandard through, with the chair of the Livestock Committee, Hue Karreman, claiming that he’s trying to “jumpstart” an industry by finding a middle ground. “The action taken by the NOSB illustrates their misunderstanding of their own mission and underscores their willingness to let down the American consumer in favor of industry,” said Rangan. “The NOSB is not a marketing or promotional agency. It is an agency designed to create and maintain strict standards that meet consumer expectations.”
The push to allow non-organic fishmeal—which can be contaminated with mercury and PCBs and environmentally polluting production systems—organic feed and to ensure that waste from farms does not pollute the surrounding environment. The Board said that some “organic” fish that don’t eat 100 percent organic feed receive a “qualified organic” label—something entirely out of line with the law and the goal of the organic program to provide a consistent standard across products in the marketplace and to prevent any adulteration of the USDA organic claim. -Consumers Union
