California EPA Moves to Label Monsanto's Roundup 'Carcinogenic'

[villager]

The California Environmental Protection Agency announced today that it plans to label glyphosate — the most widely used herbicide and main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup — as a chemical "known to cause cancer." The World Health Organization's research arm also recently found that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans, and research has also linked glyphosate to the steep decline of monarch butterflies. And as we reported this week, scientists have increasingly raised new alarms about potential negative health impacts tied to Roundup, including a recent study suggesting that long-term exposure to tiny amounts of the chemical (thousands of times lower than what is allowed in drinking water in the US) could lead to liver and kidney problems.

Today's announcement from the EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is officially a "notice of intent" to list this pesticide as carcinogenic, giving the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal through October 5. The action falls under Proposition 65, a measure voters approved in 1986 that requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harms. The state regularly updates the list, which now includes hundreds of chemicals. Under Prop 65, businesses must provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before exposing people to a chemical on the list. The warning could be labels on a consumer product, workplace postings, distributed notices at apartment buildings, or a notice published in a newspaper.

Environmental activists celebrated the state EPA's announcement today, noting that it could be a first step in eventually restricting the use of the chemical. (The listing does not lead to a restriction or ban on sales of the product).

“California’s taking an important step toward protecting people and wildlife from this toxic pesticide,” Nathan Donley, staff scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation nonprofit based in San Francisco, said in a statement. Donley noted that more than 250 millions pounds of glyphosate are used annually in the US, adding, “It’s nearly impossible for people to limit exposure to this toxin because it is just so widespread. That’s why we need much tighter controls on its use."

<snip>

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2015/09/05/california-epa-moves-to-label-monsantos-roundup-carcinogenic

[L. Coyote]

1. Great news and past due. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

2. K&R

Although the Monsanto fellators will say this is anti-science.

[villager]

4. Well, when the only permissible "science" is that in the service of the bottom line...

...then they gotta say it!

[Capn Sunshine]

3. I always though Roundup should come in an orange container

Seeing as how it used to go by the name "Agent Orange"

[PufPuf23]

11. Agent Orange is a mixture of 24D and 245T, phenoxy herbicides.

Glyphosate is not a phenoxy-type herbicide.

245T has long been banned but 24D is still marketed, being the herbicide component of weed and feed type lawn chemicals.

Roundup/glyphosate is central to the GMO issue as crop plants are genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate (that is used to "weed" crops)

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Agent Orange was a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Which used to be sold in the UK as, for instance, 'SBK' Shrub and Brushwood Killer - which my family had been using to kill nettles and brambles without killing grasses. And then the news about Agent Orange came out: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1985/jun/24/pesticides

Roundup is glyphosate, a completely different chemical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate ; a particular application for it is to kill grasses (unless they've been genetically modified to resist it).

[PufPuf23]

41. I must have been posting while you were researching.

24D and 245T (now banned) are not very effective against monocots (grasses, conifer trees), markedly so depending on time of application.

Glyphosate targets grasses, herbaceous plants, and seedlings but is not that effective on established woody vegetation.

Montsanto developed Roundup/glyphosate and genetically engineered food crops to be Roundup resistant.

Now that the patent is ending on glyphosate, Monsanto is looking to develop a new herbicide to maintain high profit margin herbicide production.

See "Monsanto to replace Roundup with RNA altering plant spray "

http://www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-to-replace-roundup-with-rna-altering-plant-spray

Other recent articles on Roundup/glyphosate.

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/09/california-moves-protect-citizens-monsanto-s-gmo-weed-killer

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

I was long ago a CA Licensed Pest Control Applicator (IIRC the title correctly) while a US Forest Service employee. When I was a teen in early 1970s, worked as ground crew for helicopter spraying of Army surplus Agent Orange for "conifer release" in clearcut plantations. The USFS had a moratorium on herbicide spraying in mid 1970s then restarted the program using "new" chemicals such as glyphosate and hexazinone. I obtained the License when I was project manager of a controversial glyphosate project in 1983 (my last contact with herbicides as resigned from USFS in 1985). The county had passed a local ordinance against herbicide use in the forest and there was a lawsuit between the county and California Department of Food and Agriculture over jurisdiction; in either case, the USFS was exempt as Federal lands. The USFS initiated an epidemiological study of its employees who had exposure in 1980s and I applied but was not selected as my experience included multiple chemicals. I wonder if some of my current health problems are related but, unlike the VA, there seems to be no programs for non-military government employees that were exposed. When I was a teen involved in phenoxy application, we would bring changes of clothes and wash in the creek. Another chemical used was MSMA, an arsenate used with no protection. Before being banned, applicators had to have regular blood tests while using MSMA. By the time of the glyphosate project there was a tight protocol on applications which were essentially paramilitary operations. There were about 30 federal law enforcement officers providing security. My then wife was a water monitor in 1980(?) on the Ranger District where we had been before and came home after several days for fresh clothes etc accompanied by a Federal Marshall who would not let us be alone together because to the District Ranger I was a security risk (might slip her something to squirrel the samples, which I would never do). Then I transferred and the first thing they do is dump a herbicide project in my lap. Then I quit the USFS after 16 years and going to university for that career. Fuck Reagan.

[Nailzberg]

5. This puts it in the same category as aspirin, oral contraceptives, and alcohol.

[progressoid]

6. And coffee too.

[villager]

7. You are free to swap out your "Morning Joe" with Monsanto's finest....

...any ol' time!

[pnwmom]

9. Which would you rather drink? n/t

[Major Nikon]

22. You ask that question as if the answer is supposed to be somehow signficant

[NuclearDem]

24. If you're not prepared to use a product incorrectly

then clearly the product should not be sold.

That's why I vote we ban all forks. If they were so safe, why don't Big Fork shills stab themselves in the hand?

[Major Nikon]

25. It's kinda like asking someone why they wouldn't want to shove a toothbrush up their ass

And then when they get the inevitable refusal they are befuddled as to why someone wouldn't want to, as if that somehow proves sodomizing yourself with an oral hygiene device is hazardous.

[NuclearDem]

10. And working third shift.

Fortunately for the anti-science crowd, straws aren't carcinogenic.

[villager]

14. You guys really *are* working third shift,

tiresome cliches and all.

[NuclearDem]

15. You know, when it comes to these accusations of being paid posters

you're eventually going to have to prove it.

And no, "understands the subject better than me" doesn't constitute shillery.

[villager]

16. Am waiting for an example of "understanding" rather than snarkery,

name-calling, and the usual tiresome arsenal.

Doubt it's forthcoming, however.

[NuclearDem]

17. From what I've seen of your posts on this matter

you wouldn't know it when you saw it.

[villager]

18. More of your scientific understanding and rational discourse!

You give "enlightenment" a whole new meaning, O Exalted One!

[arikara]

19. I just always wonder

just why you and a couple of others are always so eager to defend roundup and gmo's. If you think they are good and all, then why not just use them. Why do you care so much what the rest of us think?

[NuclearDem]

23. Because it's an issue worth debating.

And I would prefer food prices not skyrocket.

Not to mention the nonsense anti-science talking points I get tired of.

[arikara]

27. Well I guess that cuts both ways

because I get very bored with all the nonsense "science" talking points too. And I doubt GE and roundup is keeping prices down, more likely the contrary.

[Nailzberg]

29. Because 1 in 5 US children live below the poverty line and I want families to afford to eat.

[pnwmom]

8. Thank you for acknowledging. All of those products must be labeled. So should GMO's. n/t

[Nailzberg]

28. Those products will be labeled as carcinogens. GMOs aren't carcinogens.

That is not a compelling argument to label GMOs.

[pnwmom]

30. LOL. Aspirin, alcohol, and birth control aren't labeled because they're carcinogens

Neither are the other ingredients included on food labels.

They're labeled so people can know what is in the product they're consuming.

[Orrex]

32. I think you're thinking of two different things

They carry the label "known to the state of California to cause cancer," which is indepedent of any requirement to disclose ingredients.

LOL. Aspirin, alcohol, and birth control aren't labeled because they're carcinogens

Neither are the other ingredients included on food labels.

They're labeled so people can know what is in the product they're consuming.

I've never seen aspirin, oral contraceptive or any alcoholic product that disclosed GMO content, other than niche-marketed microbrews that might tout themselves as GMO-free. Aspirin and oral contraceptives aren't food; they're medications, so they're appropriately subject to different disclosure requirements than food. Alcohol isn't food either, and in fact it's a controlled substance, so it's obviously subject to different disclosure requirements than food products.

[pnwmom]

34. You're right -- and I'm not saying that aspirin, etc., are labeled for GMO content.

I was responding to someone else who mentioned those products, and my point is that those ingredients are labeled when they are used. GMO ingredients could also be labeled.

[Orrex]

35. Sure they could.

It has been determined that a compelling reason exists to require labeling of foods, medications and alcohol products. If a compelling reason is put forth to require labeling of GMO content, then they should be disclosed as well.

So far, no compelling reason has been put forth.

[pnwmom]

36. There is no compelling reason if you are convinced by the GMO producers research.

If you are skeptical, then there is a compelling reason. And given the record of some of these companies I'm a skeptic.


From the American Bar Association;

http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html

The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the “coordinated framework” of federal agencies that also includes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).16 This framework, which has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign,17 is available online18 and contains a searchable database that covers “genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews.”19 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23

The FDA approach can be understood as the result of having a dual mission. In addition to its mission to protect food safety, the FDA was charged with promotion of the biotech industry.24

________________________________

It turns out that people skeptical of the safety of this honeybee-killing Dow AgroScience pesticide were correct -- at least according to the Federal Court ruling. If Dow AgroScience could be wrong about this pesticide, they could be wrong about other pesticides that they produce to be used with their GM's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7159408

________________________________

And here's a story about how Dupont, another GM producer whose research we're supposed to trust, poisoned a town in West Virginia for decades, and covered it up.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

[Orrex]

37. Suspicion isn't a compelling reason.

Neither is a sincere desire to know.

Frankly, I see a more compelling reason to disclose the sugar content of foods, because sugar has a direct and demonstrated impact upon health; I see no reason not to list the amount of sugar per serving right along with sodium content, but here we are.

If a compelling reason to disclose GMOs is demonstrated the, sure, let's require labeling. But suspicion simply isn"t compelling.

[pnwmom]

38. Suspicion based on past history is a compelling enough reason, IMO,

and in the opinion of most people who want labeling.

I see no reason to trust those companies to be the arbiter of whether their own products are safe or not. You are comfortable with the 1992 decision that delegated that determination to the companies themselves. Many of us are not.

I think they set up a conflict of interest when they charged the FDA with the dual mission of both protecting food and drug safety and promoting the industry.

[Orrex]

39. Suspicion is not sufficient because it's not a matter of trust

Advocates for labeling insist that GMOs haven't been proven safe, despite hundreds of studies showing no risk. Instead, let those advocates demonstrate a clear risk in analysis that can be replicated. Claims about Monstanto's past are of limited value because they're hardly the only company producing GMOs, among other reasons.

You are comfortable with the 1992 decision that delegated that determination to the companies themselves. Many of us are not.

See, that's pointlessly snarky and frankly insulting, not to mention incorrect.

I suppose I'm done with this discussion, because we know where it's going to end up. You'll demand labeling based on gut instinct and suspicion, and I will assert once more that gut instinct does not supersede empirical evidence, and we'll have to accept that we disagree.

[pnwmom]

40. If you don't mind, what is your response to the fact that until a few years ago GMO researchers

were required to sign contracts agreeing not to publish results without permission? How do you know that negative studies weren't withheld from publication?

And, as the American Journal of Medicine recently pointed out, how can long-term epidemiological studies be conducted in the absence of labeling?

[Nailzberg]

33. No. They are labeled as required by Prop 65 as carcinogens.

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single082515.pdf

[GreatGazoo]

13. But what about "SCIENCE" ??!!11!!??

[Nye Bevan]

20. Ever since CA made Disneyland put up "substances here may cause cancer" signs all over the place,

I have completely ignored such signs wherever I see them and would assume that any California mandated carcinogenic "warning" would be equally believable.

[villager]

21. Or conversely, the line in the movie "Bliss" is increasingly correct:

"All of Western Civilization is built from things that give you cancer."

[MFM008]

26. my son hides the round up

he works in a store that sells it.

[Orrex]

31. If he objects to doing his job, then he should quit or be fired

His job is not to impose his own morality on the customers.