Rachel's Precaution Reporter #21

"Foresight and Precaution, in the News and in the World"

Wednesday, January 18, 2006..........Printer-friendly version
www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation, click here.

Table of Contents...

Proposals in 18 States Would Outlaw the Precautionary Principle
  The genetically-engineered-food industry has introduced legislation
  in 18 states to prohibit towns and counties from enacting local laws
  to regulate genetically engineered seeds. The legislation would
  prevent local adoption of the precautionary principle.
Woodbury County, Iowa Takes Economic Precautionary Action
  Woodbury County, Iowa, is taking precautionary action to strengthen
  the local farm economy and reduce the use of toxic chemicals.
British Columbia Will Probably Ban Cosmetic Uses of Pesticides
  In British Columbia, citizens gear up to ban cosmetic uses of
  pesticides on lawns. "We're not asking for the sale of pesticides to
  be banned. We're asking for the restrictions on use, just like
  tobacco." -- Maria Raynolds
A Search for Least-Toxic Alternatives in New Mexico Forests
  In New Mexico, citizens are telling the U.S. Forest Service to
  examine the alternatives for controlling invasive species on 7,300
  acres of national forest land.
N.J. Government Agencies Are Directed to Clean with 'Green'
  Outgoing N.J. Governor Richard Codey has directed all New Jersey
  state agencies to use least-harmful cleaning products -- a big boost
  for small firms making 'green' alternative products.


From: Detroit Free Press, Jan. 18, 2006
[Printer-friendly version]


Don't prohibit local standards on genetically engineered crops

By Catherine Badgley and Ivette Perfecto

A national food controversy is now simmering in Michigan, as the state
Senate considers a bill that would bar towns and counties from
enacting local legislation to regulate genetically engineered seed.
This bill poses a threat to our democracy and could prove especially
harmful given the serious concerns raised by genetically engineered

Genetically engineered organisms are created by inserting pieces of
DNA from a distantly related organism into the DNA of a host plant or
animal. For example, in one common GE crop, bacterial genes are
genetically engineered into corn to create corn plants that produce
their own pesticide.

GE crops, especially corn and soybeans, are widely grown in Michigan
and across the United States. They are found in many processed foods
in U.S. supermarkets.

Yet controversy swirls around GE foods, and they have been banned or
require labels in some countries. At issue are concerns about
inadequate evaluation of the health risks and environmental
consequences of GE crops currently in use, genetic contamination of
organic and conventional crops, and the ability to regulate GE foods
within the food system.

A related looming issue is the production of biopharmaceutical crops
-- food crops engineered to produce prescription drugs or industrial
chemicals. Currently, outdoor experimental plots of biopharmaceutical
crops -- such as corn engineered to produce blood clotters and
contraceptives -- present significant contamination risks to the food

In response to these uncertainties, citizens in three counties in
California passed ordinances in 2004 to ban the raising of GE crops
and livestock, and local action has been taken in nearly 100 New
England towns.

Agribusiness reacted swiftly to these local initiatives. Its
legislative supporters have introduced preemptive bills in 18 states
to prevent local governments from enacting legislation about seeds and
plants. Fourteen states already have passed these bills into law;
Michigan's version, SB 777, is scheduled to get another committee
hearing Thursday.

The public should be concerned about this bill for four reasons.

GE foods pose genuine health and environmental concerns. Scientific
experiments where laboratory mammals were fed GE food resulted in
allergic reactions in one instance and toxic effects in another.
Threat of allergic reaction led to the recall of hundreds of products
containing genetically engineered corn in 2000.

The Food and Drug Administration still does not require premarket
safety testing for GE foods.

The legislation prevents local enactment of the precautionary
principle. The precautionary principle advocates thorough
investigation of the risks posed by a new technology before it's

Following the precautionary principle, GE organisms would be required
to demonstrate they do no harm before they are grown and consumed,
based on rigorous testing of health and environmental impacts.

Preemptive legislation of this sort violates democratic principles and
citizen involvement in issues of public well-being. It takes away
local control, the authority of local governments, and the ability of
voters to pass local ballot initiatives -- important tenets of our

Pre-emptive legislation, when it is justified in the public interest,
should establish minimums for general health and safety, not set the
upper limit on what is permitted. SB 777 would legally prohibit local
regulation of GE seeds, thereby creating a ceiling for all
Michiganders to live under, regardless of the risk factors.

SB 777 does not deserve the support of legislators or the public,
whether the reason is GE plants specifically or the right to
precaution and self-governance in general.

Catherine Badgley and Ivette Perfecto are on the faculty at the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Museum of Paleontology and
the School of Natural Resources & Environment, respectively. Write
them in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St.,
Detroit MI 48226.

Copyright 2005 Detroit Free Press Inc.

Return to Table of Contents


From: Des Moines (Iowa) Register, Jan. 11, 2006
[Printer-friendly version]


Vendors will have to buy organically grown foods from nearby areas.

By Juli Probasco-Sowers

Woodbury County supervisors approved a measure Tuesday that they hope
will boost organic farming in western Iowa.

Food vendors working for the county will now have to purchase as many
organic food products as possible within a 100-mile radius of Sioux
City, according to the new policy.

The program breaks ground in this part of the country, said Rich
Perog, marketing and food systems program leader for the Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.

"We've been helping Woodbury County with this initiative and I believe
it's the only one of its kind in the Midwest," he said.

County officials want to stimulate economic development in rural areas
by adding value to agriculture and spending the taxpayers' money in
the county, said Woodbury County Supervisor Mark Monson.

"Organics is a mechanism that would create small businesses," he said.

"Organic farming is something that is booming right now. I'm thinking
if we got 1 percent of the agricultural market to go into organic
foods it would stimulate a new venue for young folks."

The economic benefit for the county could be thousands of dollars,
said Rob Marqusee, rural economic development director for Woodbury
County. He is the person who proposed the measure.

The county spends about $462,000 per year on food vendors, with
$281,000 of that being actual food costs. The organic food policy
would increase those costs by about $9,000, Monson said.

But the local economy would benefit as a result of the dollars spent
and re-spent in the region, said Marqusee, who added the policy could
be abandoned if costs become prohibitive.

Monson said he has heard a few concerns voiced by traditional farmers
worried about chemical use next to organically farmed ground.

Organic farmer Cyril Venner of rural Arcadia said organic farmers
usually plant a buffer crop along their property when it adjoins a
traditionally farmed field.

Copyright 2005, The Des Moines Register.

Return to Table of Contents


From: The News (Maple Ridge, B.C., Canada), Jan. 14, 2006
[Printer-friendly version]


By Phil Melnychuk

Maria Raynolds expects Maple Ridge politicians to keep their promises
-- such as the one made in mid-campaign during last fall's municipal

Asked at an all-candidate's meeting in Whonnock if they'd support a
ban on cosmetic pesticides, all 20 or so would-be politicians stood up
to say they would. Now, seven of those are elected and Raynolds is
expecting to see such a ban within a year.

"I don't see any problem there. I'm pretty sure they will," she said.
The district is already working with her group to that end, she said.
Raynolds, with the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, made her latest
pitch Tuesday to the new council, thanking it for a donation of more
than $3,000 last year used for educational purposes.

She also handed council a petition, signed by 54 doctors, supporting a
ban. "You Mr. Mayor, [Gordy Robson], are working hard to get drugs off
our streets. Let's go one step farther and take our lawns off drugs,
too," Raynolds said.

"Let's make the streets safe for our seniors to walk on and let us
make our lawns safe for our kids to play on." Raynolds said after
three years of education, helped by the district, it's now time to
launch a full-scale education program backed up by a bylaw banning the
use of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides for domestic use.

"Seeing how long it takes to consider this, I think now is the time to
do the next step," she said Wednesday.

Raynolds and her group is asking for $6,700 from the district in 2006
to help with producing pamphlets, website design, staffing a hotline
for two hours a week and for speakers' fees and advertising. Last
year, the district gave more than $3,000 for educational brochures and
to set up a website.

In addition to a ban, the group also wants the district to make it
mandatory for developers to provide up to 20 centimetres of top soil
on the front yards of new homes. That will ensure healthy lawns and
reduce the need for watering.

"This truly is SMART GROWTH on the Ground, Al [Coun. Al Hogarth]!" she
told council.

Raynolds said later that banning cosmetic use of pesticides in the
suburbs wouldn't affect farming or apply to essential measures such as
spraying for West Nile virus.

If council approved such a bylaw, Maple Ridge would follow Port Moody,
Vancouver, New Westminster and North Vancouver. Maple Ridge has
already stopped spraying pesticides on parks, playgrounds and school

Raynolds cited one bylaw from Gibsons in which anyone wishing to use
pesticide must first fill out an application and pay a $50 fee. If
spraying within two metres of a property line, neighbours have to be
notified in writing, signs have to be posted and at the year end a
written report provided explaining the application of the pesticides.

But Raynolds favours just a straightforward ban on their use for
cosmetic purposes.

"We're not asking for the sale of pesticides to be banned. We're
asking for the restrictions on use, just like tobacco."

According to information provided by the group, a McGill university
study showed that pre-natal exposure to home and garden pesticides
increased the incidence of childhood leukemia.

Raynolds said that federal Green party and New Democratic candidates
have said they'll write a letter supporting a ban.

According to CPR, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the
Environment favours a ban on cosmetic pesticides. Studies link
pesticide exposure to the development of Parkinson's disease. CPR also
cites a 2003 Mustel Group poll of 500 people commissioned by the
Society Promoting Environmental Conservation.

That poll said 80 per cent of Greater Vancouver Regional District
residents favoured local bylaws that would restrict cosmetic pesticide

Copyright 2005 Maple Ridge News

Return to Table of Contents


From: Free New Mexican (Santa Fe, N.M.), Jan. 12, 2006
[Printer-friendly version]


ALBUQUERQUE (AP) -- A plan by the U.S. Forest Service to use
herbicides and other methods to kill weeds in the Santa Fe and Carson
national forests has drawn fire from a coalition of environmentalists.

The agency's Invasive Plant Control Project would incorporate
herbicides as well as nontoxic methods to target more than 7,300 acres
of nonnative plant populations over the next decade.

Environmentalists acknowledge the importance of controlling weeds that
push out native plants, increase erosion and degrade wildlife habitat,
but they say herbicides pose health risks.

"We all agree that invasive species are not great for the ecosystem
and may need to be treated," said Joanie Berde, volunteer coordinator
for Carson Forest Watch. "But there's so many alternatives that don't
involve herbicide use."

Berde's group is one of several that filed an administrative appeal
with the Forest Service on Monday. The coalition wants the agency to
focus on alternatives that don't rely on herbicides.

The Forest Service approved its Invasive Plant Control Project in
September after an environmental review and public comment. The agency
plans to treat between 300 and 800 acres each year, beginning as early
as this spring. There will be no aerial spraying.

There are no immediate plans to use herbicides in municipal
watersheds. Project planner Sandy Hurlocker said the plan simply gives
the agency an option to use herbicides with municipal approval when
other methods are deemed ineffective.

Officials say the herbicides are regulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency, would be carefully applied and would pose little
threat to humans and wildlife.

Information from: Albuquerque Journal January 12, 2006

Return to Table of Contents


From: Newark Star-Ledger, Jan. 13, 2006
[Printer-friendly version]


By Alexander Lane

Gov. Richard Codey ordered state agencies yesterday to use less toxic
cleaning products, much to the delight of environmentalists in the

The directive was a marquee endorsement for the plant-based, low-
impact cleaners that have begun elbowing their way onto supermarket
shelves among the big-name ammonia and bleach products.

"Today we can breathe easier knowing our workplaces will be safer and
our environment will be cleaner," Codey said while standing beside
Deirdre Imus, an environmental activist and wife of radio personality
Don Imus.

All state agencies and public authorities will have to use less toxic
cleaning products if they can find ones that still protect public
health and safety, according to the executive order Codey signed in

The Department of the Treasury has to report to the governor and the
legislature within a year on how well the state is doing with the
order, he said.

"If it's implemented it's an important role model," said Rick Hind,
director of the toxics campaign for Greenpeace. "These products are
safer for you and better for the environment."

"Green" household cleaners are a tiny fraction of the market, but
brands like Seventh Generation, Method, Mrs. Meyer's, Earth Friendly
Products and Ecover are getting easier to find.

Many traditional cleaning products contain chemicals that people
should try to avoid coming into contact with, like ammonia, bleach,
phosphates and the catch-all category "fragrance," which can mean just
about anything, said Paul McRandle, senior research editor for The
Green Guide.

McRandle suggested consumers use classic cleaners like vinegar, lemon
juice, hot water, mild soap and baking soda where possible, and try
some of the growing number of green cleaners as well.

"I tried some Seventh Generation dishwasher detergent, and for me it
just didn't work," he said.

Imus, founder and president of the Environmental Center for Pediatric
Oncology at Hackensack Medical Center, said she was delighted with
Codey's action.

"An executive order is the first step that can have far-reaching
consequences for environmental health, and it's an excellent
opportunity for other governors," she said.

Alexander Lane covers the environment. He may be reached at
alane@starledger.com or (973) 392-1790.

Copyright 2006 The Star Ledger

Return to Table of Contents


  Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical
  examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in
  action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making
  decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to
  answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary
  principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

  We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we  
  believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what
  their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed
  to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

  Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to
  provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

  As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary 
  principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- 
  please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.

  Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
  Tim Montague   -   tim@rachel.org

  To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution
  Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:

  Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
  Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org

  In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that
  you want to subscribe.

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903