Thursday, September 14, 2017

USDA SUED BY MILLIONS TO KEEP HIGHEST ORGANIC STANDARD

NEWS RELEASE                                                                 
Contact: Maggie McNeil  (mmcneil@ota.com)                                                                                                          
                (202-403-8514; 202-615-7997)

Farmers, businesses, certifiers and consumers lock arms in lawsuit to defend organicOrganic Trade Association sues USDA over failure to advance organic livestock standards


WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 13, 2017) – Taking action to defend the organic seal and organic standards, the Organic Trade Association on Wednesday is filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its failure to put into effect new organic livestock standards.

“We are standing up on behalf of the entire organic sector to protect organic integrity, advance animal welfare, and demand the government keep up with the industry and the consumer in setting organic standards,” said Laura Batcha, Executive Director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association.

The suit alleges the U.S. Department of Agriculture violated the Organic Foods Production Act, and unlawfully delayed the effective date of the final livestock standards that were developed by industry and in accordance with the processes established by Congress, and with abusing the agency’s discretion by ignoring the overwhelming public record established in support of these organic standards. The trade association further contends that the Trump Administration’s Regulatory freeze order issued to federal agencies on Jan. 20, 2017, should not apply to organic standards because they are voluntary and are required only of those farms and businesses that opt in to be certified organic.

Supporting the Organic Trade Association in the suit, as groups harmed by this protracted government inaction, are organizations representing organic livestock farmers, organic certification agencies, and organic retailers and consumers.

Batcha said the Organic Trade Association’s duty to protect the U.S. organic sector and enable it to advance, to uphold the integrity of the organic seal and to honor the consumer trust in that seal compelled the association – on behalf of the organic industry -- to take the legal action against the Administration.

“The organic industry takes very seriously its contract with the consumer and will not stand aside while the government holds back the meaningful and transparent choice of organic foods that deliver what the consumer wants,” said Batcha. “The government’s failure to move ahead with this fully-vetted regulation calls into question the entire process by which organic regulations are set – a process that Congress created, the industry has worked within, and consumers trust.”

“The viability of the organic market rests on consumer trust in the USDA Organic seal, and trust that the organic seal represents a meaningful differentiation from other agricultural practices,” said Batcha, who noted that the Board of the Organic Trade Association voted unanimously to initiate the lawsuit.

What the organic livestock standard says
The Organic Livestock and Poultry Production rule, commonly referred to as the Organic Animal Welfare Rule, is the result of 14 years of public and transparent work within the process established by Congress, and reflects deep engagement and input by organic stakeholders during multiple administrations, both Republican and Democrat.

It addresses four broad areas of organic livestock and poultry practices, including living conditions, animal healthcare, transport, and slaughter. The OLPP represents a refinement and clarification of a series of organic animal welfare recommendations incorporated into the Organic Foods Production Act of 2002, which established the federal regulations overseeing the U.S. organic sector.

The rule:
·      Establishes minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements for poultry,
  • Clarifies how producers and handlers must treat livestock and chickens to ensure their health and well-being throughout life, including transport and slaughter,
  • Specifies which physical alterations are allowed and prohibited in organic livestock and poultry production,
  • Provides more than ample timelines for producers to come into compliance including:
    • five years to establish outdoor access requirements for egg operations
    • three years for broiler operations to establish indoor space requirements
    • one year for all other adjustments.
  • Levels the playing field by clarifying the existing organic standards.
Fourteen years of engagement culminate in over 47,000 comments in 30 days against second delay
 
After extensive public input and a thorough vetting process that included the transparent review and recommendation process of the National Organic Standards Board, an audit by the Agriculture Department’s Office of Inspector General and solid economic analysis by the National Organic Program,  the National Organic Program released the final rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices on January 19, 2017, and published it in theFederal Register on that day. Due to a White House Memorandum to federal agencies released on January 20, 2017, requesting a regulatory freeze on rules recently published or pending, the effective date of the rule was delayed to May 19,2017.

On May 10, 2017, the USDA delayed the effective date again by an additional six months to November 14, 2017, and opened a 30-day comment period asking for responses to four possible options for the Final Rule:
(1) let the rule become effective, which would mean the rule would become effective on Nov. 14, 2017;
(2) suspend the rule indefinitely, during which time the Agriculture Department would consider whether to implement, modify or withdraw the Final Rule, (3) delay the effective date of the rule further, beyond Nov. 14, (4) withdraw the rule.

More than 47,000 comments were received during the 30-day comment period, with 99 percent of those comments in support of the rule becoming effective as written without further delays, on Nov. 14, 2017.

“Producers are organic because they choose to be. It’s a voluntary system, and the organic sector welcomes clear and fair standards under which to operate,” said Batcha. “Organic regulations apply only to certified organic producers, and those organic producers are overwhelmingly in favor of this new regulation. Most of the criticism of the new organic animal welfare rule has come from outside the sector, and by special interest groups not impacted by the regulation, but which would like to override the will of our members.”

“It is important to note this issue did not just arise in 2017, rather it is the result of many years of failure of good government,” Batcha added.

“The organic industry has been fighting for this rule for years,” said Jesse Laflamme, owner and CEO of organic egg producer Pete and Gerry’s Organics. “Certified organic egg, dairy and animal producers hold their operations to a higher standard of animal welfare than is required, because it is the right thing to do and it is what our customers expect. The organic industry works hard to live up to the expectation of its consumers, and we expect the USDA to live up to its mandate to oversee the industry in a way that is fair and will enable us to continue to prosper.”

Organic farmer cooperative Organic Valley CEO George Siemon said that the government’s failure to allow this regulation to be implemented could jeopardize consumer trust in organic.

“The  organic consumer and  community have worked closely with USDA to help craft this sound regulation, and have followed the established rulemaking process. For the Administration to now let political pressure derail that progress is an assault on the trust in the organic process that the organic industry works so hard every day to earn,” said Siemon. “Organic Valley works with thousands of organic dairy, laying hen, beef,  hog and poultry producers, and has long advocated for action to clarify the living conditions and expectations for animal care in organic. Animal living conditions and welfare are a critical part of an organic livestock system. We in organic need to lead on this front, and the consumer’s trust in organic needs to be respected.”

What the lawsuit alleges

  • That USDA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the repeated delays were issued without any public process.
  • That USDA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and abused its discretion by proposing action to indefinitely delay or kill the rule, in stark contrast to the established public process.
  • That USDA has violated the Organic Foods Production Act and its consultation provisions enacted to apply in just these circumstances for industry and public stakeholders to revise, refine, and advance organic standards via a well defined process.
  • That the Trump Administration Executive Order freezing regulations should not apply to the voluntary industry-driven organic standards that allow for businesses to opt in or out.
The lawsuit also describes the extensive public process and overwhelming record used to develop the standards, and details the faulty appeals decision from USDA on the use of “porches” to comply with the existing outdoor access requirements of the standard that have resulted in an uneven playing field.

The Organic Trade Association asks the court to reverse the agency’s decisions to delay and eliminate options proposed by USDA to further delay, rewrite, or permanently shelve the rule -- thereby making the final livestock rule effective immediately, as written.

Supporting the Organic Trade Association are groups harmed by USDA action including:
  • Organic Valley/CROPP Cooperative owned by more than 2,000 organic farm families;
  • Jesse Laflamme of Pete & Gerry’s Eggs partnering with  over 100 independent, family-owned and operated farms across 14 states;
  • National Co+op Grocers and its 200 retailer food co-ops owned by over 1.3 million consumers;
  • The Accredited Certifiers Association non-profit educational organization whose members include 53 accredited certification agencies working to ensure the integrity of organic certification in the United States.
Consumers buying organic because they know it makes a difference

American consumers are eating more organic food than ever before, show the findings of the Organic Trade Association’s 2017 Organic Industry Survey. Organic food sales in the U.S. totaled $43.1  billion in 2016, marking the first time organic food sales in this country have broken through the $40 billion mark. Organic food now accounts for more than five percent of total food sales in this country, another significant first for organic.

Organic meat and poultry sales posted new records in 2016, increasing by more than 17 percent to $991 million, for the category’s biggest-ever yearly gain. Sales are expected to surpass the $1 billion mark for the first time in 2017. Growing awareness of organic’s more encompassing benefits over natural, grass-fed or hormone-free meats and poultry is spurring consumer interest in organic meat and poultry aisles.

In March 2017, Consumer Reports National Research Center conducted a national phone survey on the opinions of Americans regarding the organic label. The survey found that six out of ten Americans said it is highly important that the animals used to produce organic food are raised on farms with high standards for animal welfare. For consumers who always or often buy organic, this number rose to 86 percent. Also, more than half of Americans say it is highly important that eggs labeled organic come from hens able to go outdoors and move freely outside. Among consumers who always or often buy organic, that number rises to 83 percent.

“Consumers rely on organic livestock and poultry being raised according to the highest standards, and they trust that the organic seal is an assurance of those high standards,” said Batcha. “The organic sector does not take for granted the trust of the consumers we serve, and we work hard every single day to maintain it. Organic is an opt-in regulated marketing program that ensures products bearing the USDA Organic seal meet strict consistently applied standards and provide the consumer a meaningful choice. The future of the organic market rests on consumer trust, and the organic sector depends on the USDA to set organic standards fairly and according to the law.”


The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based business association for organic agriculture and products in North America. OTA is the leading voice for the organic trade in the United States, representing over 9,500 organic businesses across 50 states. Its members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers' associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers and others. OTA’s Board of Directors is democratically elected by its members. OTA's mission is to promote and protect ORGANIC with a unifying voice that serves and engages its diverse members from farm to marketplace.

The Organic Trade Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation or marital/family status. Persons with disabilities, who require alternative means for communication of program information, should contact us.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

WANT GLYPHOSATE-FREE FOOD?

Glyphosate Residue Free Food Label Starts Wave of Transparency for US Brands

12th July 2017
Source: http://sustainablepulse.com/2017/07/12/glyphosate-residue-free-food-label-starts-wave-of-transparency-for-us-brands/#.WWY7o4R97IU

Chosen Foods and Heavenly Organics have started a wave of Glyphosate Residue Free certified brands in the U.S., in what is being described as a “consumer-based push for transparency”.

The past week has seen the first wave of Glyphosate Residue Free brands entering the U.S. grocery market and many large brands including USDA organic and non-GMO certified brands have shown deep interest in the new certification.

Why are brands interested in Glyphosate Residue Free certification?

Glyphosate is the most used pesticide in the World and has the highest public profile of any chemical used in food production. It has been found in a range of popular American food products and in the urine of 93% of people tested by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).

The revelation from WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen’ has led to consumers around the World asking for transparency regarding the levels of glyphosate in their food.

Henry Rowlands, Director of The Detox Project (owner of the Glyphosate Residue Free label), stated on Tuesday that “Glyphosate Residue Free certification enables food manufacturers to give consumers what they really want – glyphosate residue free food.

“Currently the toxic chemical testing standards for both non-organic and organic food are very weak but we aim to change this by certifying ingredients and food products – consumers have the right to know what toxic chemicals are in the food they buy at grocery stores across the U.S.”

Information Box
Verified Products
Verification FAQs
The Process
The Standard
Get Verified

Chosen Foods

9 products certified Glyphosate Residue Free, including their famous 100% Pure Avocado Oil.

Chosen Foods was founded by a well-traveled Naturopathic Doctor who discovered the powerful effect traditional foods were having in their native cultures. He was inspired to share these ancient superfoods with the rest of the world - and so their journey began.

In the last 3 years, Chosen Foods has launched 15 cooking oils, condiments, ancient grains and snacks. They have gone from 5 to 30 employees and seen their products reach more then 24,000 grocery store shelves around the United States and Canada.

Heavenly Organics

9 products certified Glyphosate Residue Free, including their Acacia, Neem and White Honey

Heavenly Organics supports nearly 600 family farmers in India and produces 100% Organic Raw Honey, Chocolate Honey Patties and 100% Organic Whole Cane Sugar.

Their work helps displaced people find markets to sell their goods and ensures them a reliable income.  Without it, their means of livelihood would be very limited.  For the past decade, Heavenly Organics has been leading the authentic fair trade movement and creating big change.  Their goal is to increase the number of farmers they work with to 5,000 in the next five years and to extend this business model into other countries to help create long-lasting sustainable economies in other isolated areas and conflict zones.

HELP BY FOLLOWING US ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER
Media Contact:
Henry Rowlands, Director, The Detox Project – henry@detoxproject.org
About The Detox Project
The Detox Project is a research and certification platform that brings awareness to the public by testing for toxic chemicals.
We believe you have the right to know what toxic chemicals are in your body and in your food!
Useful Links

Monday, July 3, 2017

MARK CALENDARS: JULY 7, 2017 DAY OF ACTION and CELEBRATION


On July 7 2017!! 
Celebrate BOTH the Addition of Glyphosate 
(RoundUp main ingredient)

to the CA Prop 65 Toxic List 

Image result for National return roundup day
                     
AND ~

National Return RoundUp Day!


Use your dollar to send the message: on daily "acceptable levels" of exposure to glyphosate: ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

"LET NOTHING GO" MONSANTO'S RENT-AN-INSIDER-TROLL FRONT GROUP

Monsanto’s war on science – hard-hitting investigation

Monsanto sign
France’s leading daily details Monsanto’s brutal multi-pronged assault on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  Published: 19 June 2017
Last week saw an important debate in the European Parliament on the health risks of glyphosate. One of the triggers for that debate, and for more in-depth Parliamentary inquiries that look set to follow, were revelations about Monsanto’s “war on science” published in the French daily paper Le Monde

In Le Monde’s two-part investigation, the journalists Stéphane Foucart and Stéphane Horel detailed the different attacks that Monsanto has been waging on the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – the body that set the cat among the pigeons by concluding that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. 

The severity, scale and duration of those attacks are unprecedented, according to IARC’s director. And they show no sign of abating any time soon. In fact, no sooner had Members of the European Parliament voiced their unhappiness with the re-approval process for glyphosate, than the news agency Reuters ran an article containing damning accusations against the man who chaired the IARC’s glyphosate review. 

It quickly emerged, however, that Reuters reporter Kate Kelland had been spoon-fed selective and misleading material by Monsanto. It also turned out that a “scientist independent of Monsanto” that Kelland had relied on in the article was actually a paid Monsanto consultant.

In a devastating critique of Kelland’s piece, former Reuters journalist Carey Gillam pointed out that it should be seen as “part of an ongoing and carefully crafted effort by Monsanto and the pesticide industry to discredit IARC’s work.”

And what the Le Monde investigation makes clear is that misleading media attacks are merely one element in the brutal multi-pronged assault Monsanto is waging.

Our summary of the first part of Le Monde’s investigation follows below.

___

Monsanto’s assault on IARC began back in March 2015 when the agency published its report classifying glyphosate – the main component of the company’s best-selling herbicide Roundup – as genotoxic (DNA damaging), carcinogenic to animals, and a “probable carcinogen” for humans. 

That was bad news for a company that has built its fortunes selling Roundup and the genetically engineered Roundup Ready seeds that go with it. Determined to protect its flagship product, the pesticide giant undertook to harm the United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible. 

As a result, even though the agency has come under attack before, they have never, according to the IARC’s Director Christopher Wild, known anything like the brutal offensive conducted against them by Monsanto. 

Wild told Le Monde, “This time we are the target of an orchestrated campaign of unseen scale and duration.” 

“For the past two years,” Foucart and Horel report, “a raging fire has targeted the institution he is running: the credibility and integrity of his work is being challenged, his experts are denigrated and harassed by lawyers and his finances weakened. For nearly half a century IARC has been charged, under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), to draw up an inventory of carcinogens. But now the venerable agency is beginning to waver under the assault.”

Monsanto’s campaign was launched with a statement declaring the IARC’s verdict on glyphosate “junk science”, and the result of selective “cherry-picking” of data, based on an “agenda-driven bias”, leading to a decision made after only “hours of discussion at a one-week meeting.”

This was complete nonsense, as Monsanto knew full well. Their “one-week meeting” was merely the climax of a year’s work on the issue undertaken by a group of leading experts.

Monsanto had even been able to have its own “observer” present at that final meeting, who was able to assure the company that everything had been done properly. Indeed, he told them his input to the meeting had been received in a friendly and interested manner. We know this because his account of the meeting was revealed in the so-called “Monsanto papers” – internal company documents released in early 2017 in the course of ongoing lawsuits brought by cancer victims in the US. 

But for Monsanto, the smearing of the IARC process was merely the start of operations. In the coming months non-US based members of the IARC panel on glyphosate received letters from Monsanto’s law firm. These instructed them to surrender all the files that related to their work on glyphosate. Pathologist Consolato Maria Sergi, a professor at the University of Alberta in Canada, described the letter he received as not just lacking in common courtesy but as deliberately “intimidating and noxious”. He told Monsanto’s lawyers, “I consider your letter pernicious, because it maliciously seeks to instill some anxiety and apprehension in an independent group of experts.”

American members of the IARC group fared no better. Those working for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Texas A & M University, and the Mississippi State University, not only had their institutions targeted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), intended to allow citizens to request access to documents produced by public bodies and their officials, but also found them being cited by Monsanto lawyers as part of ongoing legal proceedings involving glyphosate.

Foucart and Horel ask if it is the aim of these intimidatory manoeuvers to silence criticism. They note that world-renowned scientists who are usually open to media requests did not respond to Le Monde’s inquiries, even requests for informal talks. Some did agree, but only on condition of speaking to the journalists on a private line outside of office hours.

Attacking IARC’s funding

Another line of attack on the IARC has come via Monsanto’s allies in the US Congress. Foucart and Horel report that a member of the House of Representatives who chairs the State Control and Reform Commission, Republican Jason Chaffetz, wrote to NIH director Francis Collins on September 26, 2016. Chaffetz said he wanted all the details and the justification for IARC’s “substantial taxpayer funding” via the NIH. 

Chaffetz’s intervention was cheered on by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a powerful lobbying organization of which Monsanto is a member.

Meanwhile, Croplife International, the equally powerful global lobby for pesticide and seed companies like Monsanto, approached some of the twenty-five member states of the Governing Council of the IARC to complain about the quality of the agency's work. These states contribute about 70% of IARC’s total budget.

The mysterious Mr Watts

But it wasn’t just Monsanto’s lawyers and lobby groups that were springing into action. According to Le Monde: “Throughout 2016, characters almost out of a novel by John Le Carré also made their appearance in the glyphosate saga.”

In June, a “Mr Watts”, who presented himself at times as a journalist, turned up at an IARC conference, trying to extract detailed information about the IARC’s functioning and funding. A few months later this same character, who reminded one conference participant of the kind of shadowy figure that one assumes to be part of the intelligence community, reappeared at the annual conference of the renowned and respected cancer research organization, the Ramazzini Institute, based near Bologna in Italy. The Ramazzini had recently announced it was also going to conduct a carcinogenicity study on glyphosate, and Christopher Watts now wanted to know all about the Institute’s functioning and funding. 

Watts used an email address that ended with "@economist.com," and so people naturally assumed he worked for The Economist. When pressed, Watts said he worked for the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a consulting firm subsidiary of The Economist. Although the EIU subsequently claimed Watts “was working on a story for The Economist” when he attended these conferences, the editorial office of the weekly told Le Monde, “There's no one of that name on our staff.”

Foucart and Horel did manage to connect him to one company though, one that he says he created at the end of 2014: Corporate Intelligence Advisory Company. Mr Watts, whose personal address is in Albania, according to the administrative documents, did not wish to answer questions from Le Monde.

Christopher Watts wasn’t the only one suddenly interested in the procedures and funding of the IARC. Over the next few months, a succession of individuals presenting themselves as journalists, independent researchers or law firm assistants approached scientists and researchers associated with the IARC’s work, looking for similar kinds of specifics.

Identity theft

According to Le Monde, one of these people, Miguel Santos-Neves, who works for Ergo, a New York-based economic intelligence company, has been caught by the US justice system for identity theft. As the New York Times reported in July 2016, Mr Santos-Neves investigated on behalf of Uber a person who was in dispute with the company, and questioned his professional entourage on false pretenses. The company Ergo did not respond to Le Monde’s questions.

Two other organizations with dubious reputations also targeted IARC and the Ramazzini Institute: Energy and Environmental Legal Institute (E & E Legal), which claims to “hold accountable those who seek excessive and destructive government regulation that’s based on agenda-driven policy making, junk science, and hysteria”, and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, which seeks "to provide a counter-weight to the litigious environmental movement that fosters an economically destructive regulatory regime in the United States”.

According to the article in Le Monde, these two outfits have initiated no fewer than 17 requests for access to documents from the NIH and the US Environmental Protection Agency. In what Le Monde terms “legal, bureaucratic, intrusive guerrilla warfare,” they have demanded US officials’ correspondence containing terms like “IARC” and “glyphosate”. They have asked for the smallest details about scholarships, grants and other financial and non-financial relationships between the US agencies, IARC, certain scientists, and the Ramazzini Institute.

Both organisations are headed by the same man, David Schnare – a climate sceptic known for harassing climate scientists. The infamous former Monsanto salesman and tobacco lobbyist, Steve Milloy, is also part of the same set-up, according to Le Monde.

Media onslaught

There has also been a media onslaught against the IARC, notably in The Hill, a news website that Le Monde describes as obligatory reading for every political figure in Washington. The authors of these attack pieces come from “a squadron of propagandists, whose longstanding ties with agrochemical companies or conservative think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute or the George C. Marshall Institute, known for their major role in manufacturing climate skepticism, have been documented by US Right to Know (USRTK).” 

These authors not only deploy the same arguments under their bylines but sometimes they use exactly the same phrases: the “shoddy science” of IARC is criticized; the agency itself, eaten up by conflicts of interest, is “widely criticized” – without it being said who by.”

There’s also, Foucart and Horel note, a Monsanto campaign being waged via social media. This is something the lawyers involved in US court proceedings over glyphosate and cancer discovered.

“Let Nothing Go”

Monsanto’s executives have revealed a confidential programme called ‘Let Nothing Go’, which aims to make sure no criticisms of the company go unanswered. According to memos from the law firms involved, Monsanto uses third-party companies that “employ individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs.”

At the end of January 2017, the American Chemistry Council also opened a front on social media directly targeting the IARC. Its Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR) used Twitter and a dedicated website to ridicule IARC’s findings. 

Le Monde also notes that ominously, Trump has made the chief lobbyist of the American Chemistry Council deputy director of the Chemicals and Pesticides Regulatory Service at the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA oversees the re-examination of the glyphosate file. Andrew Liveris, the head of Dow Chemical and a member of the American Chemistry Council, is also part of the new Trump administration.

Meanwhile in Congress, the Republican chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is demanding an investigation into the financial links between the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Ramazzini Institute, in order to "ensure that grant recipients adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity.”

Propagandists join the attack

The move has won the support of two well known propagandists, Julie Kelly – a pro-GMO blogger whose husband is a lobbyist for agribiz giant ADM, and Jeff Stier, an “expert” at the climate change-denying Heartland Institute. Their article in the National Review personally attacked the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for promoting a “chemophobic agenda”, and the institute’s former assistant director, Professor Christopher Portier, who contributed his expertise to the IARC's work as an invited specialist. This high-level scientist was described in the article as a “well-known anti-glyphosate activist” and both were described as “Ramazzini Fellows”. The infamous extreme right-wing Breitbart News also took up Kelly and Stier’s story.

The Le Monde article concludes by saying that the attacks on the Ramazzini and the IARC are unlikely to stop any time soon. This is because, after glyphosate, the Ramazzini will be investigating other well-known pesticides and strategic chemicals, the latter including bisphenol A (BPA) and aspartame. 

As it happens, the NIEHS is one of the world's leading funders of research on the toxicity of BPA. As for aspartame, the study that first alerted the world to the carcinogenic properties of the sweetener was carried out several years ago – by the Ramazzini Institute.

The final word in Le Monde’s article goes to Fiorella Belpoggi, the Head of the Research Department at the Ramazzini Institute and the director of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre. She told Foucart and Horel, "I hadn’t realized we were so important before this. But if you get rid of IARC, NIEHS and the Ramazzini Institute, you get rid of three symbols of independence in science." 

And that, Le Monde concludes, is a type of science that has become a threat to economic interests worth hundreds of billions of euros.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW!!! HOW MUCH POISON GLYPHOSATE IS OK WITH YOU IN OUR FOOD-WATER-AIR?

    ZERO - ZILCH
          NADA!


Here's what
ONE PART PER 

TRILLION (1ppt)
looks like.................. 

It is ALSO THE CONCENTRATION LEVEL
THAT STIMULATED THE PROLIFERATION OF BREAST CANCER CELLS IN VITRO!!
CalEPA (OEHHA) has Proposed 1100 micrograms allowabledaily exposure to glyphosate  (ingredient in RoundUp), on the State’s PROP 65 Toxics List

WE DEMAND LEVEL: ZERO - ZIP - NADA!


PUBLIC COMMENTS  not limited to Californians must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wed. 6-21-2017  
Our GOAL:  One Million - 1,000,000 - COMMENTS!


LINKS to Choose From:
CA State Website or Email  to Comment
(Please do not comment on both):



2)      Email CA OEHHA:
P65public.comments@OEHHA.ca.gov
Include In Subject Line: “GLYPHOSATE NSRL”

Please consider including the following message:   
I/We demand that the Prop 65 NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for glyphosate must be a validly arrived at NSRL, per CA regulations, substantially lower than the proposed 1100 micrograms per day, in order for this Safe Harbor to actually be safe to Californians. Until a comprehensive independent study is done, showing real life exposure levels, regulatory authorities should use a NSRL of well below, the concentration where it stimulated breast cancer cells in vitro at levels as low as 1 ppt  (Thongprakaisang et al., 2013), in keeping with The Precautionary Principle. There IS NO SAFE LEVEL. Simply: WE DEMAND ZERO ZILCH NADA!

19055080_10155309113384590_1544510998883160619_o.jpg


Sunday, June 4, 2017

HEARING-PRESS CONFERENCE 6-7-17 CA Prop 65 Glyphosate Levels

 
 California Guild  &  Moms Across America
                                                       URGENT ACTION!!! 
CA EPA to determine amount of allowable GLYPHOSATE
exposures on CA PROP 65 Toxics List
    HEARING Wednesday June 7, 2017
    & PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED to JUNE 21, 2017


Sacramento, California
BREAKING: CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), State Agency which administers Proposition 65* (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), announced a PUBLIC HEARING, PRESS CONFERENCE and NEW PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD to DECIDE adoption of No Significant Risk Level (NSRL). Proposed is 1100 micrograms allowable daily exposure to glyphosate  (ingredient in RoundUp), on the State’s Prop 65 toxics list.   LIVE HEARING WEBCAST: https://video.calepa.ca.gov/

California OEHHA, (part of the Cal/EPA, California Environmental Protection Agency), confirmed in 2017, that glyphosate (in RoundUp) will be added to the *CA State Proposition 65 toxics list), to be labeled a carcinogen,
due to the record-breaking 9,100+ Public Comments like ours! It’s time to BREAK THAT RECORD!

Studies globally show 1100 micrograms daily to be far too high an exposure level. Glyphosate, herbicide, endocrine disruptor and antibiotic, one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world, is most closely associated with GMO (genetically modified organism) crops, engineered to resist glyphosate.

COMMENTS not limited to Californians must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wed. June 21, 2017    (See: Pg. 2 for talking points) Please consider including the following message:   I/We request that the Prop 65 NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for glyphosate must be a validly arrived at NSRL, per CA regulations, substantially lower than the proposed 1100 micrograms per day, in order for this Safe Harbor to actually be safe to Californians. Until a comprehensive independent study is done, showing real life exposure levels, regulatory authorities should use a NSRL of well below, the concentration where it stimulated breast cancer cells in vitro at levels as low as 1ppb (Thongprakaisang et al., 2013), in keeping with The Precautionary Principle.   

LINKS to Choose: CA State Website or Email  to Comment (Please do not comment on both):

2)      Email CA OEHHA: Esther Barajas-Ochoa esther.barajas-ochoa@oehha.ca.gov Include In Subject Line: “GLYPHOSATE NSRL”
3)      PUBLIC HEARING: Wed., June 7, 2017 - 1:30pm to 5:00pm LIVE WEBCAST:https://video.calepa.ca.gov/
(Please attend and bring friends/family if you possibly can, to Pack The House!)
PRESS CONFERENCE IMMEDIATELY following HEARING.
Proposed Specific intent to adopt a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 1100 micrograms Regulatory Level Chemical Causing Cancer: Glyphosate
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/events/notice-public-hearing-proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing 
California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building,
Byron Sher Auditorium  -  1001 “I” Street  -  Sacramento, CA 95814 
(916) 322-2068


*What is California Proposition 65?  Proposition 65 requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987. Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment.


Please feel free to consider including some of the following in your Public Comments:


v  A March 20, 2015 finding by the IARC of the WHO (World Health Organization) confirms that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen to humans.
See: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
 
v  Glyphosate is the most pervasive, widely applied herbicide in California and the world’s most widely used herbicide.  More than 10 million pounds of glyphosate are applied each year in California, according to government estimates. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/ca-glyphosate-is-carcinogenic/article_35fe706a-29cf-11e7-87c0-f3f2bc18a860.html
v  There is no safe level because glyphosate bio-accumulates in our bodies, so no matter how small an amount is set by NSRL levels, that amount is certain to increase in our brains, tissues, bodily fluids, as we eat more food and drink water that contain it. "Because it bio-accumulates, there is no safe level of exposure to Glyphosate herbicides." –Prof. Dr. Giles-Eric Seralini
v  A single oatmeal cookie from the CA State Capitol Building’s Café, tested in 2016 for glyphosate, contained 311 micrograms (ppb, or micrograms).  The 1,100 micrograms that OEHHA is proposing is far too high and can be easily consumed daily by the average human, According to a report by Dr. Oz, more than 80 percent of the foods we eat on a daily basis contain one or more types of GMOs https://draxe.com/genetically-modified-foods-get-the-facts/
v  California surface waters containing glyphosate at the lowest level are 0.02micrograms, (which is lower than the 0.1 micrograms fed to the lab rats), so these waters will be unprotected. (USGS Survey)
v  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned in 2016, to begin testing food for residues of glyphosate. As of April 1, 2017, the agency quietly canceled the plan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/usda-drops-plan-to-test-for-monsanto-weed-killer-in_us_58d2db4ee4b062043ad4af84
v  According to “The Detox Project” sponsored by Food Democracy Now, glyphosate has been found at alarming levels in a wide range of best-selling foods across the United States in the first independent glyphosate residue testing study using liquid chromatography.  https://detoxproject.org/food-testing-results/
v  The average level of glyphosate in the U.S. population is 3.3 parts per billion (ppb), significantly higher than the average of 0.2 ppb found in Europeans. UCSF-UC-Berkeley Joint Medical Program, Berkeley, CA scientific poster presentation, April 2016 , BUND, June 2013, Determination of Glyphosate residues in human urine samples from 18 European countries (PDF)
v  Organic Consumers Association tests found 93 percent of Americans have glyphosate in their urine. The Detox Project, May 25, 2016
v  The USGS tests for glyphosate have found it in nearly all rivers, lakes and streams in California.
v  Allowable glyphosate levels: European Union (EU) — 0.3 milligrams per kilo per day (mg/kg/day) compared to 1.75 mg/kg/day for U.S.  (Benbrook 2016).
v  The U.S. allows 700 micrograms of glyphosate in drinking water. EU allows only 0.05 micrograms. http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/research/completed-research/reports/DWI70_2_215_Monitoring_Data.pdf
v  2014: over 1,382,000 people with cancer in California.60,000 Californians die from cancer each year.
www.ccrcal.org/pdf/Reports/ACS_2014.pdf



            California Guild  3810 U Street  Sacramento, CA  916-448-4637
                                       Not Affiliated with the California State Grange