iStock
By Davis Harper
Since the early 1970s, Starbucks has held a special place in cupholders. Widespread infatuation with the company's caffeinated beverages has earned the coffee giant a storefront on almost every corner. With outposts in 75 countries and a whopping 13.3 million people enrolled in its loyalty rewards program, Starbucks has scorched nearly all of its closest competitors among major U.S. food brands (most of which aren't even coffee chains) in total market value.
With such reach and power comes tremendous responsibility. Starbucks touts its own corporate responsibility—claiming to be climate-change-aware and cognizant of its environmental cup-print—but how many latte-sippers know that their paper cup actually isn't recyclable and that it'll likely end up in a landfill? Might the knowledge that Starbucks's meat supply is pumped with antibiotics alter the market's appetite for the popular chicken and double-smoked bacon sandwich? Although the company prides itself on environmental awareness and progress toward sustainable products, multiple reports point to the mega-corporation's failure to live up to its own purported standards.
<p style="">A recent <a href="https://www.asyousow.org/resolution-starbucks-corporation-request-sustainable-packaging/" target="_blank">resolution</a> from the nonprofit corporate watchdog <a href="https://www.asyousow.org/" target="_blank">As You Sow</a> slammed Starbucks for continuing to provide most customers with single-use plastic cups despite the company's Greener Cup initiative and criticized the coffee giant's role in promoting the global to-go coffee culture. As You Sow's objective is to bring to shareholders' attention Starbucks's negligence to fulfill its environmental promises. According to the resolution, Starbucks has fallen dramatically short on meeting an ambitious <a href="https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/global-report/environmental-stewardship/reusable-cups" target="_blank">2008 commitment</a> to make 25 percent of its cups reusable by 2015. What happened? By 2011, the company had only increased its percentage of reusable cups to 1.9 percent and, as a result, reduced its 2015 goal to 5 percent reusables. Even this, apparently, proved unrealistic—Starbucks recently <a href="https://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/9265e80751db48398b88bdf09821cc56.pdf" target="_blank">promised</a> to double its current usage of reusable cups by 2022, which requires but a jump from 1.4 to 2.8 percent of all its cups.</p><p style="">"Starbucks has said they've been trying to promote reusable cups for years, but there's clearly been little effort made toward what should be an easy policy to meet," said Conrad MacKerron, As You Sow's senior vice president. "If getting customers to care was a high priority, they'd be doing more onsite to offer incentives," he added. "There are other creative ways to get people to bring back reusable cups, such as offering a ceramic mug for those people ordering in." MacKerron encourages consumers to keep the pressure on Starbucks by voicing their concerns at individual stores.</p><p style="">As You Sow's resolution also addresses the company's failure to establish a comprehensive policy to phase out its signature jumbo green plastic straws, despite the existence of the <a href="https://www.aardvarkstraws.com/" target="_blank">credible alternative</a> that is paper straws. <a href="https://oceanconservancy.org/" target="_blank">The Ocean Conservancy</a> picked up just under half a million straws along coastlines all over the world <a href="https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/International-Coastal-Cleanup_2017-Report.pdf" target="_blank">this past year</a>—a fraction of the total global plastic waste collected. Starbucks—which hands out more than 2 billion plastic straws a year—could be a key player in reducing that count.</p><p style="">For many businesses, the pressure is on to reduce plastic straw pollution. <a href="https://www.lonelywhale.org/" target="_blank">The Lonely Whale Foundation</a>, an NGO that engages people in marine degradation issues and solutions, has already pushed the native Seattle company to participate in its Strawless in Seattle initiative, through which Seattle plans to enforce a <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-last-straw-seattle-will-say-goodbye-to-plastic-straws-utensils-with-upcoming-ban/" target="_blank">ban</a> on sales of all plastic straws and utensils by July 2018. This means all 300 Starbucks storefronts in the city will have to adopt alternative straws within the year. Hopefully, that momentum won't stop at Seattle city limits. "I think we're going to see increasing amounts of this break-free-from-plastic campaign to get plastic reduced globally," MacKerron said.</p><p style="">Cup and straw pollution, however, isn't the only snafu in Starbucks's environmental portfolio. Six food-safety and animal-rights nonprofits—Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Food Animals Concerns Trust, Friends of the Earth, the NRDC and U.S. PIRG Education Fund—have come out with an extensive <a href="https://uspirgedfund.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/ChainReaction3_Report_final.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> card grading companies according to the antibiotics present in their meat supplies. Starbucks earned a D+, which ranks the beloved chain behind the likes of McDonalds, KFC and Taco Bell. Earlier this year, Starbucks <a href="https://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/starbucks-commits-antibiotics-policy-2020" target="_blank">committed</a> to sourcing antibiotics-free poultry by 2020. However, it has yet to devise a policy for its beef and pork.</p><p style="">Asked to comment on these two reports, a spokesperson for Starbucks responded, "Starbucks cups are some of the most recyclable in the industry, and we are proud of what we've done to make them greener. Since 2006, our hot cups have contained 10 percent post-consumer fiber—it's the first of its kind approved by the U.S. FDA. We also have offered a cup discount since 1985 and spent millions to encourage reusable mugs and tumblers since 1985." The corporation also restated its commitment to reducing antibiotics in poultry by 2020.</p><p style="">As a company with the influence and reach to effect real progress through its environmental commitments, Starbucks arguably has a responsibility to develop and maintain the most sustainable practices it can afford. Still, at least part of the burden falls on consumers to keep the corporation honest. So next time you need a Starbucks fix, be sure to put in a plug for more reusable, and healthy, options. </p><p style=""> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/starbucks-falls-short-environmental-commitments" target="_blank">SIERRA Magazine</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Impossible Foods
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told the manufacturer of the meat-like Impossible Burger that the company hadn't demonstrated the safety of the product's key genetically engineered ingredient, according to internal FDA documents. Despite FDA's concerns, Impossible Foods put its GMO-derived burger on the market for public consumption.
<p><strong>GMO Ingredient Gives Product Meat-Like Taste and Red Blood-Like Color</strong></p><p>The Impossible Burger is made using a genetically engineered form of a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH) or "heme" that is found in the root nodules of soybean plants. Impossible Foods adds a SLH gene to a yeast strain, which is then grown in vats using a fermentation process. The SLH or heme is then isolated from the yeast and added to the Impossible Burger. Heme gives the Impossible Burger its meat-like taste and red blood-like color.</p><p>Impossible Foods claims its product "uses about 75 percent less water, generates about 87 percent fewer greenhouse gases and requires around 95 percent less land than conventional ground beef from cows. It's produced without hormones, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/antibiotics">antibiotics</a>, cholesterol or artificial flavors."</p><p>The GMO-derived Impossible Burger is sold in 43 restaurants nationwide, including several burger chains, and Impossible Foods has attracted significant funding from investors such as Bill Gates.</p><p><strong>FDA: Arguments "Do Not Establish Safety of SLH for Consumption"</strong></p><p>According to <a href="http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/877/4f/d/10646/072717_Impossible_Burger_FOIA_documents.pdf" target="_blank">documents</a> obtained by <a href="http://www.etcgroup.org/" target="_blank">ETC Group</a> and <a href="http://www.foe.org/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth U.S.</a> through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Impossible Foods submitted an application to seek GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status for SLH from the FDA in 2014. The FDA's 1997 GRAS notification policy allows a manufacturer, like Impossible Foods, to decide for itself, without FDA input, whether or not a product is safe.</p><p>But the FDA warned Impossible Foods that SLH would not meet the basic GRAS status. The FOIA-produced documents state that the "FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively do not establish the safety of SLH for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety." </p><p>According to Michael Hansen, senior scientist at <a href="http://consumersunion.org/" target="_blank">Consumers Union</a>, Impossible Foods claimed that the engineered SLH/heme was identical to the SLH that has been in the food supply but the company had no safety testing data to back that claim.</p><p>"You are taking something that has never been in the food supply before and you come to the FDA, say it is GRAS, and you have no safety data, particularly from feeding studies," Hansen said. "Their argument has literally come down to saying this is exactly identical to the heme we've always been eating, but it's not true."</p><p>In discussion with FDA, Impossible Foods also admitted that up to a quarter of its heme ingredient was composed of 46 "unexpected" additional proteins, some of which are unidentified and none of which were assessed for safety in the dossier.</p><p>"It's only 73 percent pure, the other 27 percent is from proteins from the genetically engineered yeast that produces it, and these have an unknown function," Hansen said.</p><p>According to the FOIA documents, Impossible Foods withdrew its GRAS application in November of 2015. </p><p>Despite the FDA's warnings, Impossible Foods went ahead and started selling the Impossible Burger in 2016. </p><p>"The FDA told Impossible Foods that its burger was not going to meet government safety standards, and the company admitted it didn't know all of its constituents. Yet it sold it anyway to thousands of unwitting consumers. Responsible food companies don't treat customers this way," said Jim Thomas of ETC Group. "Impossible Foods should pull the burgers from the market unless and until safety can be established by the FDA and apologize to those whose safety it may have risked."</p><p><strong>David Bronner: "Totally Unethical to Market and Feed an Untested Protein"</strong></p><p>A recent <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/business/impossible-burger-food-meat.html" target="_blank">New York Times article</a> by Stephanie Strom brought the controversy over the Impossible Burger to light. </p><p>In response to the article, Impossible Foods issued a <a href="https://impossiblefoods.app.box.com/s/d5ss2z0bbd05rwgngkqswxtquim9wuhq" target="_blank">press release</a> attesting to the safety of its product. The company said that "a panel of food safety and allergy experts at three universities unanimously reaffirmed last week that soy leghemoglobin is generally recognized as safe."</p><p>Impossible Foods also said it will voluntarily provide the results of a study feeding rats SLH and "additional data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."</p><p>Yet, Impossible Foods is submitting feeding study results to the FDA after the product has been on the market for a year. </p><p>"It's very troubling that Impossible Foods has put this product on the market and, more than one year later, still has not submitted requested safety data, including a rat feeding study, to FDA," Hansen said.</p><p>David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and plant-based foods advocate, had earlier expressed support for the Impossible Burger as a solution to environmental problems caused by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming">industrial meat production</a>. But the recent revelations have changed Bronner's opinion.</p><p>"While there is great potential good that the Impossible Burger could do, it's totally unethical to market and feed an untested protein to people and claim that it is identical to what we already eat," he said.</p><p><strong>Major Loopholes in FDA Food Safety Regulations</strong></p><p>The fact that companies like Impossible Foods can request GRAS status, then withdraw the application when the FDA raises concerns, and yet still put a product on the market shows major loopholes in FDA food safety regulations, according to Hansen. </p><p>"The GRAS process is so broken. It's perfectly legal for a company to say whatever compound they want to use is determined to be safe, and then put it in the food supply, and not even tell the FDA."</p><p>Another major loophole is that, while FDA conducts reviews of genetically engineered plants and animals, the agency doesn't review products made using genetically engineered microorganisms like the Impossible Burger's heme.</p><p>"The FDA doesn't even request safety data," Hansen said. </p><p>Hansen believes the GMO heme should be regulated as a color additive because Impossible Foods promotes heme's ability to give the burger a blood-red color like meat. The FDA requires safety assessments of color additives. </p><p>"If it affects color and marketability, it meets the definition of a color additive and should be regulated as such," he said. </p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Mike Mozart / Flickr
By Carey Gillam
As agrochemical giant Monsanto Co. faces a growing wave of U.S. lawsuits over its top-selling Roundup herbicide line, among its key defense arguments is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long backed the safety of the weed-killing products.
<p>And indeed, the EPA has been a stalwart supporter of Monsanto Co.'s claims of safety, assuring the public that there is nothing to fear from the company's cocktail of chemicals. But <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-2468647604.html">internal agency documents</a>, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/u-s-right-to-know-sues-epa-for-release-of-glyphosate-documents/" target="_blank">lawsuit,</a> indicate that as recently as last year, the agency had holes in its data files when it comes to the actual Roundup formulations used by consumers, farmers and others around the world. The documents also raise questions about how and why regulators for years have failed to require robust testing on what is the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-glyphosate-most-heavily-used-weed-killer-in-history-1882164311.html">world's most widely used weed killer</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="467e2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="E1Q9VM1553274951"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="893131868308213760" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">'Secret Docs' Show Monsanto's Attempt to Influence Writers, Bribe Scientists https://t.co/0AqIfexG1R</div> — Mark Ruffalo (@Mark Ruffalo)<a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/statuses/893131868308213760">1501774205.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p>The EPA <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/" target="_blank">documents</a> show that only a little more than a year ago, in March and April of 2016, EPA officials were scrambling to gather data on ingredients Monsanto has commonly used to formulate its herbicide products. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">Glyphosate</a> is the active ingredient in Roundup brands as well as hundreds of other herbicides, and the agency has a deep database of studies submitted by Monsanto regarding that specific chemical. But in the EPA records from 2016, the agency is seen urgently asking Monsanto for any studies it could provide analyzing the safety of its fully formulated products and seeking to understand the make-up of formulations used for decades. Even though Monsanto has been selling Roundup herbicides for more than 40 years, the internal agency documents indicate the agency had only sparse information about those formulations.</p><p>The EPA's interest in scrutinizing formulations came after the agency was poised to issue an updated favorable risk assessment of glyphosate in 2015. The agency only delayed finalizing that assessment after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">reported in 2015</a> that there was enough peer-reviewed, published research to classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. IARC also noted in its report that there was research showing risks with formulations.</p><p>The EPA appeared to be playing catch-up in March of last year when agency officials requested information from Monsanto on the inert ingredients in popular U.S. and European formulations of glyphosate used in "<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-FOIA-discussions-of-glyphosate-formulations-april-2016.pdf" target="_blank">the present day and also dating back to the 80s</a>." EPA was particularly interested in "information on how glyphosate formulations have changed over time in the last 20-30 years."<br></p><p>The EPA records also show a certain level of double-talk about that lack of data. Even as the agency was working to gather details on the Roundup formulations, the agency was at the same time assuring the public that there was no reason for concern because the EPA had the information needed to gauge the safety of those formulations.</p><p>Consider <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-note-to-Dan-Silver-re-glyphosate-and-Roundup.pdf" target="_blank">this statement</a> from the agency: </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Often, glyphosate products contain water, dyes, and/or surfactants that help facilitate movement of glyphosate into the plant…" EPA Chemical Review Manager Khue Nguyen wrote in January 2016 to an 83-year-old homeowner who had read about Roundup concerns and written to the agency seeking answers. "While manufacturers of pesticide products do not always disclose all 'other ingredients' on their labels ... they are required to disclose those ingredients to EPA. Inert ingredients in a product such as Roundup are not of concern for the consumer when pesticide products are used according to the label." </p><p>Contrast those public assurances about the EPA's knowledge of Roundup ingredients with an internal discussion documented by Nguyen three months later. In an <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-time-sensitive-on-formulations-email-April-2016.pdf" target="_blank">email dated April 6, 2016</a>, Nguyen reminded five Monsanto executives that the EPA had a "time sensitive" information request—it needed data, and <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-notes-from-April-2016-meeting-with-Monsanto.pdf" target="_blank">the notes attached to the email</a> show a particular need for data on glyphosate formulations: </p><p>"In an effort to resolve questions about the potential toxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and any co-formulants (inert ingredients and surfactants), EPA was interested in any data or information Monsanto may have on how the formulations may differ from data on the active ingredient and surfactants independently of one another," the notes attached to Nguyen's email state. The notes go on to ask for information about changes in Monsanto's Roundup formulation "over the years." </p><p>The notes state "Monsanto indicated that up until 2000, nearly all glyphosate products on the market were its Roundup formulation which used some form of tallow amine as a surfactant. Afterwards, the properties of surfactants used and the ratio of surfactant to active ingredient were changed in most formulations… EPA suggested that Monsanto provide in writing any information that documents the changes of glyphosate formulations over time and across the globe."</p><p>Subsequent to that meeting, Monsanto did send over some data, and in a follow-up <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-email-April-2016-re-Monsanto-glyphosate-studies.pdf" target="_blank">email</a> dated April 18, 2016, an EPA scientist sought clarification about what to look for. "Just to be clear on our strategy here, we want to see which of these we have or don't have, and we also want to see if there are any formulation studies that will help our analysis. Does that sound right?" </p><p>It is heartening that EPA is starting to pay attention to questions about the safety of Roundup formulations, but such evaluations are long overdue and the agency's public assurances of safety despite the lack of data is "such hypocrisy," said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with the <a href="http://consumersunion.org/" target="_blank">Consumers Union</a>. "And it's an admission that this is a big problem."</p><p>These mixtures, or formulations, have raised concerns with certain independent scientists who say laboratory studies show the combinations of glyphosate with other substances used in Roundup are <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/" target="_blank">more toxic that glyphosate alone</a>, and can possibly cause cancer or other health problems. Some research has indicated the formulations can be <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Seralinia-2016-Glyphosate-Formulations-STudy.pdf" target="_blank">endocrine disruptors</a>, meaning they have the potential to trigger serious diseases such as cancers, reproductive and developmental problems, and birth defects.</p><p>The EPA's knowledge—or lack thereof—about formulated Roundup products is also potentially important to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/judge-threatens-to-sanction-monsanto-for-secrecy-in_us_58c2de66e4b0c3276fb78433" target="_blank">litigation pending against Monsanto</a>. Thousands of people around the United States are suing the chemical company, alleging that not only did Roundup exposure cause them or their loved ones to get cancer, but that Monsanto knew the Roundup formulations could be harmful but covered up the evidence. They also allege that certain EPA officials colluded with Monsanto in the handling of safety assessments, and the EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-inspector-general-probing-collusion-with-monsanto_us_59372108e4b0aba888b99dca" target="_blank">has confirmed it is probing those concerns.</a></p><p>One ingredient traditionally used in Roundup has been the focus of particular scrutiny as some research has shown that this added ingredient, polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), can be extremely damaging to human cells. POEA is a surfactant that helps glyphosate adhere to the leaves of plants. European regulators became so concerned with POEA that in 2016 they <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-agrees-ban-on-glyphosate-co-formulant/" target="_blank">agreed to ban it</a> from use as a co-formulant in glyphosate-based herbicides after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4303/epdf" target="_blank">in a 2015 report,</a> said there was insufficient data available to perform a risk assessment on POEA. EFSA stated: "Its genotoxicity, long term toxicity/carcinogenicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity and endocrine disrupting potential should be further clarified." </p><p>In part of the April 18, 2016 email string with the EPA, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Monsanto-email-to-EPA-re-surfactants.pdf" target="_blank">a Monsanto executive confirmed</a> the widespread use of POEA in its products, telling the EPA "the surfactant system used almost exclusively in Roundup agricultural herbicide formulations globally throughout these two decades (the 1980s and 1990s) contained a polyethoxylated tallow amine surfactant…" </p><p>Monsanto <a href="https://monsantoblog.eu/monsanto-transitions-away-from-tallowamine-in-products-enfr/" target="_blank">says on its website</a> that tallowamine-based products "do not pose an imminent risk for human health when used according to instructions" and points out that in 2009 <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/06/17/E9-14113/alkyl-amine-polyalkoxylates-exemption-from-the-requirement-of-a-tolerance" target="_blank">the EPA exempted</a> the surfactant from legal limitations on residues in food, because there "is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population…" </p><p>Still, the company itself has admitted a lack of extensive safety tests on its formulated products. In an <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/28-Internal-Email-Monsanto-Regarding-Lack-of-Testing-of-Carcinogenicity-of-Roundup-Formulation-1.pdf" target="_blank">internal Monsanto email</a> from December 2010, a Monsanto chemistry regulatory affairs manager noted that "with regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don't have such testing on them directly…" The manager went on to explain that the company has "extensive testing" on glyphosate and "some extensive tox testing" on the surfactant and should be able to address questions about the safety of its formulations "in a confident manner." That email and hundreds of others were obtained by plaintiffs as part of discovery in the lawsuits against Monsanto.</p><p>In a <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/37-Monsanto-Executive-Writes-Vulnerable-on-Surfactants-Formulated-Product-Does-the-Damage.pdf" target="_blank">2002 email</a> also obtained as part of discovery in the court case, a Monsanto scientist writes to a colleague, "we are in pretty good shape with glyphosate but vulnerable with surfactants. What I've been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies - Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage." In <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/37-Monsanto-Executive-Writes-Vulnerable-on-Surfactants-Formulated-Product-Does-the-Damage.pdf" target="_blank">another 2002 email</a> between the same Monsanto colleagues, the scientist writes, "Even though no testing requirements have been implemented for several years now, this damn endocrine crap just doesn't go away, does it." </p><p>And <a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/27-Internal-Monsanto-Email-You-Cannot-Say-That-Roundup-is-not-a-Carcinogen.pdf" target="_blank">in a 2003 email</a>, a Monsanto toxicologist writes, "you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer."</p><p>An EPA spokesman confirmed that the agency does not "routinely require long-term toxicity studies for pesticide product formulations" as it does for active ingredients like glyphosate. He added, however, that all inert ingredients in pesticide products, must be approved for use by EPA and "each component of an inert mixture must be supported by a battery of toxicity data and must be approved for use by EPA." </p><p>Further, the EPA spokesman said, "If there are data to indicate risk for a formulated mixture, EPA evaluates the potential effects in our risk assessments. The human health risk assessment process is conservative… thus ensuring that when a pesticide is used according to the label, people are well protected."</p><p>The EPA's recent interest in pursuing questions about formulated glyphosate products was also seen <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/glyphosate_issue_paper_evaluation_of_carcincogenic_potential.pdf" target="_blank">in September 2016, </a> when the agency stated that it was collaborating with the <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/" target="_blank">National Toxicology Program</a> (NTP) Division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to develop a research plan that would evaluate "the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity." The agency acknowledged that "currently, the publicly available information regarding non-cancer endpoints for glyphosate and glyphosate formulations is limited."</p><p>The status of EPA's involvement in that collaboration is unknown but the <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/glyphosate/index.html" target="_blank">NTP confirms</a> on its website that it is "undertaking additional research to investigate the potential genetic and mechanistic toxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate formulations." </p><p>Still, CropLife America, the lobbying group for Monsanto and other agrochemical industry players, have made it clear such an inquiry is not welcomed. In a letter <a href="http://191hmt1pr08amfq62276etw2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CLA-Comments-FIFRA-SAP-Glyphosate-section-7-10-04-16.pdf" target="_blank">dated October 2016</a>, CropLife questioned "why EPA would collaborate and develop a research program with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) without input from the registrant." That registrant, Monsanto, "would be the appropriate source" for data EPA might need, CropLife wrote.</p>
Read More
Show Less
California to Officially List Key Ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup as Cancer-Causing
27 June 2017
Popular
Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's widely used herbicide Roundup, will be added July 7 to California's list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, according to a Reuters report Tuesday. This news comes after the company's unsuccessful attempt to block the listing in trial court and requests for stay were denied by a state appellate court and California's Supreme Court.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced the designation on Monday under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, or Proposition 65.
<p>Citing figures from the state's pesticide regulation department, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-roundup-cancer-20170626-story.html" target="_blank">Los Angeles Times</a> noted that glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in California and is sprayed on more than 200 crops across 4 million acres across the Golden State.</p><p><span></span>The St. Louis-based agrochemical maker adamantly defended its star product, telling Reuters the OEHHA listing was "unwarranted on the basis of science and the law."<br></p><p>The company's appeal of the trial court's ruling is pending. "This is not the final step in the process, and it has no bearing on the merits of the case," Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, said. "We will continue to aggressively challenge this improper decision."</p><p>Under Prop 65, Monsanto and other companies that sell the chemical in the state will be required to add warning labels to packaging within one year from the listing date. Furthermore, warnings would also be required if glyphosate is sprayed at levels deemed unsafe by regulators, Reuters reported.<br><span></span></p><p><span></span>California's decision to add the substance on its cancer list was prompted by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) finding in 2015 that the chemical is a "probable" human carcinogen. </p><p><span></span>Environmental groups welcomed the OEHHA's decision. </p><p>"California's decision makes it the national leader in protecting people from cancer-causing pesticides," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>. "The U.S. EPA now needs to step up and acknowledge that the world's most transparent and science-based assessment has linked glyphosate to cancer."</p><p><span></span>In another blow to Monsanto, Olga V. Naidenko, a senior science advisor for children's environmental health at the <a href="http://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-monsanto-glyphosate-2445606387.html" target="_blank">commented last week</a> that OEHHA is preparing to issue a "No Significant Risk Level" of <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/notice-proposed-rulemaking-amendment-section-25705-specific-regulatory-levels" target="_blank">1,100 micrograms per day</a> for exposure to glyphosate—marking the first time any agency in the world has issued a health guideline for glyphosate based on cancer risk. </p><p>"The state's proposed safe level is more than 100 times lower than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's legal allowance for the average-sized American," Naidenko said. "By itself, that listing would be a big blow to Monsanto, because it would require cancer warning labels on containers of Roundup and on foods that have high residues of glyphosate. Monsanto is appealing the decision in state court, but in the meantime the OEHHA has moved forward in setting a so-called No Significant Risk Level of the amount of glyphosate people could safely consume each day."</p><p>Glyphosate has been at the center of a number of controversies in recent years, including a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-monsanto-cancer-lawsuits-2261203098.html" target="_blank">wave of lawsuits</a> in which plaintiffs across the U.S. claim that they or their loved ones developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma due to exposure to Monsanto's Roundup, pointing in part to the IARC's cancer classification.<br></p><p>A recent <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" target="_blank">Reuters investigation</a>, published earlier this month, raised questions about the IARC's assessment. The piece accused Dr. Aaron Blair, a top epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and a lead researcher on the IARC committee, for failing to share unpublished scientific data from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) suggesting that the weedkiller was not linked to cancer.</p><p>However, scientists have since voiced <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/reuters-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-2442224413.html" target="_blank">concerns</a> with what they are calling a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/reuters-glyphosate-cancer-2444376172.html">"flawed"</a> Reuters story.</p><p>Michael Hansen, senior scientist at <a href="http://consumersunion.org/" target="_blank">Consumers Union</a>, said the Reuters report "omits the fact that the data from the other epidemiology studies (all case control studies), and the meta-analyses, clearly show a statistically significant increase in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with glyphosate exposure." Other concerns of the study include the failure to use an appropriate latency period for cancers, the control group having an elevated risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and exposure misclassification.</p><p><span></span>The IARC also said it is sticking with its classification.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Monsanto Accuses IARC Scientist of Withholding Glyphosate Data in Cancer Risk Assessment
16 June 2017
Popular
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup. Flickr
The controversy over the health risks of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's weedkiller Roundup, has taken a surprising turn.
Dr. Aaron Blair—a lead researcher on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) committee that classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic"—has been accused of "deliberately" withholding unpublished research that he admitted would have altered the cancer agency's widely cited 2015 review.
<p>
The news comes as a surprising development in light of Monsanto's
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-monsanto-cancer-lawsuits-2261203098.html" target="_blank">multi-district cancer lawsuits</a>. Plaintiffs across the U.S. claim that they or their loved ones developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma due to exposure to glyphosate, pointing to the IARC cancer classification.
</p><p>
<span></span>But a new <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" target="_blank">Reuters</a> investigation could rock the ongoing cases. Citing obtained documents, reporter Kate Kelland writes:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
"Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data would have altered IARC's analysis. He said it would have made it less likely that glyphosate would meet the agency's criteria for being classed as 'probably carcinogenic.'"
</p><p>
The IARC never considered the data because the agency has a rule against using unpublished data to asses a substance's carcinogenicity. The data came from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), on which Blair was a senior researcher, and sat unpublished for two years before IARC assessed glyphosate. He told Reuters that the information was not published in time because there was too much to fit into one scientific paper.</p><p>
However, Monsanto told Reuters that Blair deliberately concealed the data. The company did not provide specific evidence of it being hidden. Two other experts, not connected to Monsanto, also did not understand why the data was not published.
</p><p>
Blair called the accusations that he deliberately did not publish the data to avoid consideration by IARC "absolutely incorrect." And Reuters reported the IARC is "sticking with its findings" despite the new data about glyphosate.
</p><p>
The current debate over glyphosate all started in March 2015 when the IARC, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">concluded</a> that the herbicide should be classified as "probably carcinogenic for humans." However, other international bodies have refuted the IARC's conclusion, including the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/does-monsantos-glyphosate-cause-cancer-1882118579.html">European Food Safety Authority</a> as well as the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/un-says-glyphosate-unlikely-to-cause-cancer-industry-ties-to-report-ca-1891132192.html">Food and Agriculture Organization</a> of the United Nations—another body of the WHO. Monsanto has also adamantly contested the IARC's findings.
</p><p>
The IARC's conclusion has stirred an international row, from the European Union's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/eu-bans-glyphosate-co-formulant-monsanto-1917259116.html">decision</a> on whether to renew glyphosate's license over health risks, to California's <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/glyphosate-be-listed-under-proposition-65-known-state-cause-cancer#_ftn5" target="_blank">decision</a> in March to designate the herbicide as a known human carcinogen under the state's Proposition 65.
</p><p>
<span></span>EcoWatch reached out to experts and consumer groups for comment on the Reuters story.</p><p>Michael Hansen, senior scientist at <a href="http://consumersunion.org/" target="_blank">Consumers Union</a>, said the Reuters report was a "grossly misleading story attacking Dr. Aaron Blair" and criticized the way the Agricultural Health Study cited in the story was interpreted. Reuters "omits the fact that the data from the other epidemiology studies (all case control studies), and the meta-analyses, clearly show a statistically significant increase in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with glyphosate exposure."</p><p>"In addition, the animal studies are very clear and show increases in cancer, including lymphomas," he noted. "An <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cancer-expert-glyphosate-monsanto-2430362569.html" target="_self">analysis by Dr. Christopher Portier</a> late last month ... demonstrated that there were eight additional tumor sites with statistically significant increases due to glyphosate exposure, that European Food Safety Agency and European Chemical Agency failed to identify due to their scientifically flawed analysis."<br></p><p>Hansen also said that Reuters discussion of the AHS ignores the unknown latency period for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma exposure—or how long it takes between initial glyphosate exposure and the development of the cancer, and we don't know how many years the AHS considers.</p><p>"Even if the updated AHS study did follow the population for 20 years, I'd argue that it still not would be definitive, since the latency could be a bit longer, say up to 25 years," he said. <br></p><p>"Bottom line, this misleading article strongly supports Monsanto's view that glyphosate is not associated with NHL."</p><p><span></span>Genna Reed, science and policy analyst at the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>' Center for Science and Democracy, defended IARC's assessment.
</p><p>
"It is the responsibility of the independent experts composing IARC's working groups to apply rigorous standards and select appropriate evidence to best analyze the risks of possible carcinogens," Reed said.</p><p>"Monsanto's effort to advance unpublished data and imply that a working group member intentionally concealed glyphosate data furthers its concerted campaign to undermine the credibility of IARC and to shift scrutiny away from its flagship herbicide."
</p><p>Wenonah Hauter, executive director of <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>, said, "the latest development in the battle over glyphosate shows once again why we need a different approach to evaluating the safety of the chemicals used in our food system." </p><p>"Rather than pitting individual scientific studies against each other in a courtroom after people are sick, we need a precautionary approach that would require long term safety testing of GMO crops and the herbicides used to grow them before they are allowed on the market," Hauter concluded.</p><p>Ken Roseboro, editor and publisher of <a href="http://non-gmoreport.com/" target="_blank">The Organic & Non-GMO Report</a>, believes "the bigger story is that 300 plus million pounds of glyphosate are used in the U.S. each year and that it is increasingly found in air, rain and streams as well as our foods and bodies."</p><p>"There is also a mounting body of research documenting its negative impacts on soil and beneficial soil organisms, plants, insects such as bees and human beings," Roseboro added. "People who say glyphosate is safe remind me of 'experts' in the 1960s who said tobacco is safe. Some day people will look back and be horrified that pesticide poisons like glyphosate were used to produce our food."</p>
Read More
Show Less
From Dec. 13 - 16, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to evaluate "the carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate," the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup.
For years, Monsanto has claimed that glyphosate is safe. Advertising at one time that Roundup was "safer than table salt" and "practically non-toxic."
However, many studies contradict Monsanto's assertions. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, concluded that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen." Then in July 2016, an IARC scientist, Dr. Kurt Straif, defended the agency's assessment that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. Dr. Straif stated that:
"Our evaluation was a review of all the published scientific literature on glyphosate and this was done by the world's best experts on the topic that in addition don't have any conflicts of interest that could bias their assessment.
"They concluded that, yes, glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans based on three strings of evidence, that is clear evidence of cancer in experimental animals, limited evidence for cancer for humans from real-world exposures, of exposed farmers, and also strong evidence that it can damage the genes from any kind of other toxicological studies."
The SAP meetings now taking place were originally scheduled for mid-October, but the EPA postponed them only a few of days before they were to begin due to "changes in the availability of experts for the peer review panel."
.@EPA Bows to Industry in Delay of #Glyphosate #Cancer Review https://t.co/EIMY6QP5LQ @USRightToKnow @careygillam @nongmoreport @ewg— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1476985743.0
According to Carey Gillam, research director for U.S. Right to Know, the EPA's decision to postpone the meetings came after an intense lobbying campaign led by CropLife America, which represents the interests of Monsanto and other agricultural businesses. CropLife initially fought to keep the SAP meetings from happening at all, then said if the meetings were to be held, "any person who has publicly expressed an opinion regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate" should be excluded from participating.
In a letter to the EPA, CropLife singled out epidemiologist Dr. Peter Infante, who the lobbying firm felt should be "replaced with an epidemiologist without such patent bias." As the only epidemiologist slated to be on the panel, the CropLife felt that Dr. Infante may have had enhanced influence on the epidemiological evaluation on glyphosate.
Dr. Infante has testified on behalf of plaintiffs suing Monsanto over chemical exposure. Nonetheless, Dr. Infante is one of the leading experts in his field, having spent the better part of a storied career protecting the public from harmful chemicals.
Dr. Infante spent 24 years working for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, where he determined cancer risks to those working on developing toxic chemicals, including arsenic, asbestos and formaldehyde. He has also served as an expert epidemiology consultant for a number of world bodies, including the World Trade Organization and the EPA.
CropLife's letter to the EPA was sent two days before the agency announced that the glyphosate meetings would be postponed. Many accused the EPA of kowtowing to lobbyists and the businesses they represent. The accusations only grew louder when Dr. Infante's name was no longer on the list of panelists scheduled for the December meetings.
Dr. Infante told Delta FarmPress that he was "mystified" by the EPA's decision to remove him from the meetings. "I didn't choose to leave the panel," he said. "No … I was removed from the panel. I'm totally mystified by it."
The EPA's move was also surprising to environmental advocacy groups, who say it is highly unusual for the agency to remove a panelist from a Scientific Advisory Panel.
"The industry wants to say that our own government scientists, the top ones in their fields, aren't good enough for these panels," said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at the Consumers Union, after the SAP meetings were postponed in October. "If the EPA wants to add extra epidemiologists that is great but why didn't they do it before? They are doing this because of pressure from industry."
According to Gillam, "the delay and the maneuvering by industry to influence panel participation does little to bolster consumer confidence for the likelihood of an objective outcome."
The EPA said it will issue a risk assessment for glyphosate by spring of 2017.
Antibiotic Resistant Infections Kill 23,000 Americans Each Year, Sicken 2 Million
06 December 2016
Food
There's something the farm lobby doesn't want you to know: how much their use of antibiotics in livestock poses a risk to you and your children.
Drug resistant infections are on the rise, according to the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, "with numbers suggesting that up to 50,000 lives are lost each year to antibiotic-resistant infections in Europe and the U.S. alone. Globally, at least 700,000 die each year of drug resistance in illnesses such as bacterial infections, malaria, HIV/Aids or tuberculosis."
In the U.S., according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 2 million people are sickened by antibiotic-resistant infections every year and at least 23,000 die.
Should You Be Concerned About the Overuse of #Antibiotics in Farm Animals? https://t.co/37ZHaWJWID @saveantibiotics https://t.co/OSM372EQmV— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1462297325.0
"Livestock use of antibiotics is contributing to a public health crisis of antibiotic resistance," said Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior health officer and physician David Wallinga, MD. "It's you, me and the people we love who will suffer the consequences when the medications we rely on to treat common illnesses no longer work."
Sales of antibiotics for use in food animal production account for 70 percent of total medically important antibiotic sales. That's an increase of 23 percent just since 2009. In 2012, more than 32.2 million pounds of antibiotics were given to farm animals. And while a doctor's prescription is needed for you to get an antibiotic, farmers give virtually all antibiotics to live turkeys, chicken, cattle and hogs without a veterinarian's supervision.
Ohio State University researchers conducted a meta-analysis of medical and scientific studies on antibiotic use in food animals and concluded that "in existing studies, neither the risks to human health nor the benefits to animal production have been well studied."
But, Scientific American said, the farm industry itself is stifling needed research in this area.
Researchers are rarely given access to study livestock in farming operations. Farmers are required by contracts that they have to sign with their customers—big food producers such as Tyson Foods or Perdue Farms—to limit "non-essential people" on their farms. And if the farmer violates the contract, they can be punished monetarily or even lose their contract.
Antibiotics have been used in food production since the 1950s. Some are for therapeutic applications, when an animal is truly sick. Often, they are used to prevent or limit transmission of disease among animals which are confined in close quarters. Many are used simply to make animals grow faster.
But these drugs don't stay confined to the animal receiving them.
A recent study found that 70 percent of pigs on Iowa farms tested positive for MRSA—an antibiotic-resistant staph infection. And the same study found 64 percent of the workers on one farm harbored the superbug. When researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine drove behind poultry trucks, antibiotic-resistant enterococci was sucked into their car through open windows.
"If regulators wait for this problem to get any worse, controlling it may no longer be possible," said Jonathan Kaplan, director of the Food and Agriculture Program at NRDC. "Future generations are going to wonder why FDA didn't take real action as these life-saving drugs slipped away from us."
Previous U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations have proven worthless. That's why, in September a coalition of organizations, including the NRDC, petitioned the FDA to withdraw seven medically-important antibiotics from agricultural use.
NRDC Senior Attorney Avinash Kar told EcoWatch, "Experts, the Animal Health Institute and FDA all agree that the FDA's voluntary guidance is likely to have little impact in reducing livestock use of antibiotics—because it addresses only a small portion of use. That's why NRDC is calling on FDA to put an end to the routine use of medically important antibiotics on animals that are not sick, whether it is used for speeding up animal growth or for disease prevention."
But, industry lobbying can hog-tie the FDA's ability to deal with this issue.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, "Major agribusiness and pharmaceutical interests have spent serious money on lobbying." The American Farm Bureau Federation doled out $5,697,492 for lobbying efforts from 2015 to 2016, and five of their 18 lobbyists previously held government jobs.
The lobbying is working. The FDA requested $7.1 million for fiscal year 2016 to study drug resistance in animals, and got nothing from Congress. Not a dime.
"It's time for the FDA to also act in order to keep antibiotics working, and the time is now," said Steve Blackledge, public health program director at U.S. Public Interest Research Group, which joined the petition to the FDA.Looking ahead, things could get much worse for your health. The 2016 Republican Party platform states:
"We oppose the policies pushed by special interest groups seeking to stop or make more expensive our current system of safe, efficient, and humane production of meat."
The party is now led by Donald Trump, who campaigned against the "FDA food police" and opposes GMO food labeling.
#TrumpWatch: Trump's Pick for Attorney General Could Be Big Boost to Monsanto https://t.co/jCYTKybUuQ @food_democracy @gmo917— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1479765908.0
But the problem isn't going away.
Watch here as Dr. Lance Price, director of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, talks about factory farms, antibiotics and superbugs at TEDxManhattan:
"Use of antibiotics on the farm most definitely poses a risk to human health," Consumers Union said. The World Health Organization agrees. It noted that 480,000 people develop multi-drug resistant tuberculosis each year and drug resistance is already complicating treatment for HIV and malaria.
Peter Lehner of Earthjustice, stated, "It seems crazy to risk losing the effectiveness of one of our most important inventions—antibiotics—simply because we don't want to make animal factories clean up."