Rachel's Precaution Reporter #72
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
From: San Francisco Chronicle ............................[This story printer-friendly]
January 8, 2007
CHANGES SOUGHT IN SF'S PROPOSED 'TOXIC TOY' LAW
[Rachel's introduction: In response to two lawsuits by chemical manufacturers, San Francisco will modify its precautionary law that aimed to reduce children's exposure to certain toxic chemicals.]
By Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
San Francisco health officials said Monday they are asking the city's supervisors to make significant changes in a pioneering "toxic toy" ordinance aimed at eliminating children's exposure to two widely used chemicals with suspected links to cancer and developmental problems.
Department of Public Health director Dr. Mitchell Katz and Jared Blumenfeld, director of the city's Environment Department, are proposing amendments that would scale down the number of regulated products but would expand enforcement and penalty provisions in the law.
The amendments will be presented at the Jan. 23 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Chemical and toy manufacturers and retailers sued the city last year, alleging that the chemicals are used safely in the products and that San Francisco doesn't have the authority to pass such a law. After the proposed amendments were released Monday, the plaintiffs agreed to put the suit on hold until after the supervisors vote on the matter.
The plaintiffs include Citikids Baby News, California Retailers Association, California Grocers Association, Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council, which represents Dow Chemical, General Electric Plastics and other makers of bisphenol A.
City officials agreed to hold off enforcement of the law until the supervisors vote. Superior Court Judge Peter Busch on Monday signed the agreement among the parties.
Under the amendments:
-- The ban on bisphenol A in toys and child care products would be delayed for a year to see whether the state Legislature passes a similar measure.
-- The prohibition against certain concentrations of six forms of phthalates would apply only to a list of children's products prepared by the two city departments over the next 18 months. Products would be added to the list.
-- Manufacturers, distributors or retailers violating the law within six months of when a product is placed on the list would be subject to fines up to $500. Twelve months after a product goes on the list, businesses would be subject to fines up to $1,000 and six months in the county jail.
-- The law would apply to all children, not just those 3 years old and under. "Toy" would be defined as a product "designed and made for the amusement of a child or for his or her use in play and likely to be placed in a child's mouth."
Chemical manufacturers say that low levels of the chemicals pose no health problems for children, and that federal agencies are doing a good job of keeping unsafe chemicals out of toys.
But many scientists say that emerging studies show that bisphenol A, which is used to make polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and many other products, can alter the function of the brain, the pancreas as well as mammary, thyroid and prostate glands in animals.
Phthalates, which are used to soften plastic such as polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, have been shown in animal studies to interfere with hormonal systems, disrupt testosterone production and cause malformed sex organs.
Former San Francisco Supervisor and state Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, who brought the ordinance before the supervisors last year, has pledged to introduce the measure in the Legislature this year. A similar bill failed in the Legislature last year.
E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Tex.) ...................[This story printer-friendly]
December 3, 2006
THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL ON CHEMICAL BODY BURDEN
[Rachel's introduction: Many studies now confirm that the average human has been invaded by hundreds of industrial poisons, without anyone's informed consent. This is a major human rights violation, but the chemical industry tries to frame it as a health issue, then declare it insignificant.]
By Scott Streater, Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Below are excerpts from interviews with two senior directors of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group: Sarah Brozena and Steve Russell.
Studies have found traces of man-made toxic chemicals in the bodies of pretty much everyone tested. So what?
Sarah Brozena: As you pointed out, these are trace levels. These are tiny levels of compounds which now suddenly we can detect. Until the last five or so years, we were only able to detect a few chemicals. Now we can measure more. Does that mean these chemicals were never there before? No. That's not what it means at all. It means our ability to detect has frankly now exceeded our ability to understand what it means.... And the CDC reports every two years have been very careful to point out that just because you have a chemical in your body doesn't mean it's causing disease. It all relates to the dose or concentration of the chemical.... We think that these levels, for the most part, are very small and not of concern. But we certainly support the science needed to interpret it in a risk context.
Some say we lack good health data on many toxic chemicals used today. Does the Environmental Protection Agency need more money for research?
Brozena: Well, EPA is already... looking at the risk assessment on PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid]. They're trying to figure out what the levels are that might cause a problem. The EPA has already been working with some of the manufacturers of that compound to make sure that the compound is controlled more, because it was showing up in more places than they thought it ought to. So EPA has the tools they need if they determine that some compounds are at levels that are worrisome. And those tools in the U.S. are all found in the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Chemicals such as flame retardants have improved our quality of life. Is that worth the risk of having low doses of those chemicals in our bodies?
Steve Russell: Unfortunately, folks with an interest in this debate tend to make it black or white or all or nothing. Individuals have different risk tolerances and different abilities to see both sides of the story. Many people are fiercely anti-chemical and therefore view any presence of a chemical negatively and would prefer to not have chemicals there. Others take a more pragmatic approach.... Society is all about making risk trade-offs in every aspect of our lives. Hopefully, this debate can begin to move to a place where risks and the benefits are both portrayed honestly and dispassionately, so that we can make good public policy decisions.
Brozena: Right now we're sort of at a period in time in this "chemicals in our body" issue where it's new information to a lot of people. It's not new to scientists. It's not new, I don't think, to the EPA.... But I think why this issue is getting attention now is that it's a surprise to some people and it's personal. For the first time they're thinking, "I have these in me?" And some people have a very low tolerance for that. We want to find out and make sure that the levels that are in our air, in our water, in our environment, in us, are safe levels. I think we and others are doing what we can to make sure that that's right. We want to make sure that our environment and humans are protected. That's what we're all about.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Mondaq.com .........................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 8, 2007
EUROPEAN COMMISSION RESTRICTS IMPORT OF CONTAMINATED U.S. RICE
Non-Authorised GMOs: Operation of the Precautionary Principle European Commission Decision on emergency measures regarding the non- authorised genetically modified organism LL RICE 601 in rice products
[Rachel's introduction: Here is an analysis of the European Commission's decision to ban the import of U.S. rice contaminated with a genetically modified strain.]
By Rob Greenhalf, Lovells
INTRODUCTION
In August 2006, the European Commission issued a provisional Decision significantly restricting the importation of rice from the US, under fears that it may be contaminated with a strain of genetically modified rice. This issue highlights the precautionary approach currently taken by the EU authorities to issues relating to new technologies that have the potential to affect consumer health and safety in the EU.
BACKGROUND
The EU imports approximately 240,000 tons of long grain rice per year from the US. On 18 August 2006, the European Commission was notified by US authorities that contamination of some US-grown rice products by a genetically modified ("GM") rice strain (LL RICE 601) had been detected. The Commission acted promptly. On 23 August the Commission issued a provisional Decision requiring that all consignments of long grain rice products originating in the US be accompanied by an analytical report demonstrating them as being free from LL RICE 601 (2006/578/EC). Without such a report, 13 different US long grain rice products can no longer be placed on the market in the EU. The Decision also required that member states take appropriate measures to verify the absence of LL RICE 601 in products already on the market. An updated Decision issued on 5 September 2006 confirmed the earlier provisional Decision (2006/601/EC).
The emergency measures were taken by the Commission under the authority of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) 178/2002, which lays down the principles and requirements of food law.
Farmers in the US are reported to have filed lawsuits against Bayer CropScience2 for failing to prevent the unapproved GM rice from contaminating crops, leading to the EU and Japan imposing strict limits on imports and forcing down prices. Investigations are also under way in the US to determine whether any violations of US Department of Agriculture ("USDA") regulations occurred.
LL RICE 601 is not authorised to be placed on the market in the EU, and an application has only now been made in the US to "deregulate" the strain.3 The consignments in which trace amounts of LL RICE 601 were found are reported to have been grown in 2005. According to the Commission Decision, the contamination was reported to the US authorities on 31 July 2006 by Bayer CropScience.
As part of their obligations under EU general food law, the Federation of European Rice Millers trade group have reported detecting the GM rice in 33 of 162 samples tested up to 11 September. Preliminary tests by two member state authorities have also suggested that contaminated shipments have reached Europe.4 A further Decision has since been drafted by the Commission which will implement additional strict counter-testing measures. This step has been taken because Dutch authorities detected LL RICE 601 contamination in a batch that carried the newly required US certification stating it to be GM-free. A press release from Brussels stated
"US long grain rice imports will continue to be subject to the certification requirements when LL601 was first reported to be present in US rice in August. Under the draft Decision agreed by the Standing Committee today, in addition to this certification requirement, all consignments of US long-grain rice will also be sampled and tested at the point of entry to the EU by member state authorities."5
Responsibility for obtaining certification and the associated costs rest with the operators responsible for first placing food and feed on the market. They also will be liable for the costs of counter-testing that will be required under the additional Decision announced in October. Contaminated shipments must be returned to the US or destroyed. In line with EU general food law, business operators also are responsible for ensuring that the products they import or sell are certified as free from unauthorised GM products.
LL RICE 601
LL [LibertyLink] RICE 601 was grown in field trials between 1998 and 2001 in the US, but was not developed commercially thereafter. The strain is the result of a genetic modification to render it tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium which is sold as Liberty herbicide. Tolerance is achieved by introducing into the rice plant genome a gene (bar) derived from the bacteria Streptomyces hygroscopicus. The bar gene6 codes for the manufacture of a protein (phosphinothricin acetyltransferase ("PAT")) that confers tolerance to the herbicide. The bar gene was introduced into the plant genome along with some widely used genetic control elements that regulate expression of the novel gene. Another LibertyLink strain, LL RICE 62, has already been deregulated in the US, and is currently being assessed by the European Food Safety Authority ("EFSA") for authorisation in Europe.
Each of the introduced genetic components in LL RICE 601 and the resulting PAT protein are used in other GM food and feed crops that have already been granted marketing authorisations in the US and some other countries. Glufosinate-ammonium tolerant crops using the LibertyLink system have long been approved for canola, soybean and maize crops in Canada and the US.
Following the reported contamination, two methods for the detection of LL RICE 601 were provided to analytical laboratories by Bayer CropScience. However, accurate quantification of the level of contamination is very difficult, and the EFSA has concluded that exposure levels in EU member states cannot accurately be estimated from the data available.7
RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE EU
The precautionary principle
The precautionary principle, which in general terms can be summarised by the maxim "better safe than sorry", is incorporated into EU food law in Article 7 of Regulation 178/2002. Article 7(1) states
"...where, following an assessment of available information, the possibility of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists, provisional risk management measures necessary to ensure the high level of health protection chosen in the Community may be adopted, pending further scientific information for a more comprehensive risk assessment."
Article 7(2) adds that measures taken "shall be proportionate and no more restrictive to trade than is required to achieve the high level of health protection chosen in the community". These principles translate as a presumption of risk for GM products that have not been authorised under EC Regulation 1829/2003.
Safety concerns
Many of the safety concerns associated with GM crops are similar to those which may arise in relation to a traditionally developed strain. These include changes in nutritional quality or composition and the development of allergenic or toxic substances in the crop. Traditionally developed strains, however, are rarely subjected to scrutiny comparable to that of GM plants. When a plant is genetically modified, toxicity or allergenicity may arise if the product of the novel gene is itself harmful or if the inserted genes interfere with a native gene leading to the creation of a harmful gene product. Therefore at the molecular level, whilst a novel gene and its products may previously have been well characterised and their safety assessed in other crops or strains, for any particular GM strain the transformation event (namely how and where the genetic material inserts into the host genome), and therefore the risk profile, is unique. It is perhaps for this reason that Regulation 1829/2003 abandons the concept of "substantial equivalence" in food safety when considering the risks of GM products.8
The other major consideration in assessing the safety of a GM plant is its potential for wider environmental impact.9 The risk of adventitious (unplanned and uncontrolled) growth of LL RICE 601 in Europe is thought to be extremely low. Whilst some European countries grow rice commercially, the plants' growing conditions are specialised and they cannot survive the low temperatures that much of Europe experiences. The strain does not contain an antibiotic resistance marker, the presence of which has given rise to theoretical concerns of gene transfer to other strains and other species. The PAT protein is already present in the environment without known adverse consequences.
The PAT protein has been evaluated by the EFSA in previous unrelated applications, and is "considered not to pose any health concern". Safety approval has been granted for a strain of maize (1507 Maize) which contains the PAT protein, and applications are currently being reviewed for an oilseed rape plant containing the bar gene. Bayer CropScience has submitted applications to the EFSA requesting marketing approval for LibertyLink cotton (LL Cotton 25) and, as mentioned above, LL RICE 62. In 2005, Bayer published the results of extensive scientific studies and a literature review on the safety of the bar gene and PAT protein.10 It concluded that no toxic or allergenic effects would be expected from consumption of the bar DNA sequence or the PAT protein. LL RICE 62 and LL RICE 601 use the same bar gene and share one of the control elements used to produce the PAT protein. Although deregulated by US authorities, LL RICE 62 has not yet been commercialised.
Since 18 April 2004, when GM food and feed applications in the EU became subject to Regulation 1829/2003, five GM plant strains have been approved. One of these, 1507 Maize (mentioned above), expresses the PAT protein to confer tolerability to glufosinate-ammonium, and four have been modified to provide tolerance to a different herbicide and/or pest-resistance. So far there are no GM strains of rice authorised for use in the EU.
Early in the LL RICE 601 contamination story, scientific advisory bodies from both the UK and the Netherlands concluded that the consumption of the rice did not pose a risk to human or animal health. Since then, the EFSA has stated that insufficient safety data are available on LL RICE 601 to allow a full risk assessment "according to EU standards". The EFSA Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms did, however, conclude
"...on the basis of the available molecular and compositional data and on the toxicological profile of PAT proteins, EFSA considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LL RICE 601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals."11
A press release issued by the USDA12 reported that both it and the US Food and Drug Administration had concluded that "there are no human health, food safety, or environmental concerns associated with this [genetically engineered] rice", and the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also concluded that the rice is safe in the environment.
Allowances
Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed contains a provision for the "adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material" on the EU market, and amends 2001/18/EC accordingly. Article 47 allows for the presence of up to 0.5% GMO in a food or feed product without authorisation being required, provided that it can be shown that its presence was adventitious or technically unavoidable and that it had benefited from a favourable opinion from the Community Scientific Committee(s) or Authority before the date of application of the Regulation (18 April 2004). The clause is a transitional one that will expire three years after the Regulation entered into force. Provision is also made for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs in food labelling laws. Article 12 states that where GM material forms 0.9% or less of a product, and this can be shown to be adventitious or technically unavoidable, then subsequent labelling requirements in Section 2 of the Regulation do not apply.
COMMENT
The risk to human or animal health through the contamination of US long grain rice products with traces of an unauthorised GM strain appears to be extremely small. Each component of the introduced genetic material and the resulting PAT protein have been well characterised and have, in various forms, received favourable regulatory safety approvals. Furthermore, millions of people have eaten GM products, including some carrying herbicide resistance, with no proven adverse health effects. The risk, if any, of environmental damage by the GM rice strain in Europe is likely to be negligible.
Despite this, the European Commission has introduced Decisions which in Europe have limited supplies, presumably caused the destruction or repatriation of large quantities of non-GM rice, and have been burdensome to member states and industry stakeholders. In the US, the measures have led or contributed to a fall in the value of crops, additional costs for producers to obtain certification and for counter-testing, and the issuing of damages claims by rice farmers against Bayer CropScience.
Is the Commission's response "proportionate and no more restrictive to trade than is required to achieve the high level of health protection chosen in the Community"?13 Its stance is clearly stated in a press release which followed notification of the contamination
"...the EU practices a very strict policy of only allowing GMOs which have undergone full scientific assessment and authorisation in the EU. Under EU legislation, even traces of unauthorised GMOs are illegal."14
The precautionary approach has been maintained by the Commission despite a substantial body of data supporting the safety of this GM plant, favourable opinions from US regulators, favourable preliminary opinions from some member state authorities and no scientific evidence to suggest that LL RICE 601 may pose a threat to human health.
A resolution to this apparent stalemate may not be easily achieved. Should Bayer CropScience seek to solve the situation by applying for authorisation in Europe for LL RICE 601, costly data probably not yet available may have to be collated for a strain not intended to be commercialised. Regardless, the approval process would take time. Alternative approaches to removing the restrictions will largely depend on the outcome of a USDA investigation into how the contamination occurred and how widespread the adventitious growth is. If it is not feasible to isolate and restrict the contaminated rice at source, the Commission has the choice of upholding the ban, or perhaps reconsidering the safety data already available and taking assurance from the considered opinions of US regulators.
Possibly of greatest concern in relation to this case is the fact that, despite having never been commercially grown, this GM plant has managed widely to contaminate cultivation and to enter the human food chain. Whilst all the available evidence for this particular plant indicates that the transformation event is perfectly safe, not all GM plants will necessarily be as safe for general consumption.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lovells' Science Unit was founded in 1996 to provide expert scientific support to lawyers within the group, particularly in the product liability and regulatory fields, and patent disputes. It is built around post-doctoral/graduate scientists with qualifications in a range of disciplines, including physiology, developmental biology and biotechnology.
The particular services provided by the Science Unit include
** interpretation and assessment of scientific documents
** acting as a link between the lawyers and the scientific community
** presentations to clients on science issues affecting their business
** attendance at client meetings and at conferences with counsel to deal with science issues
** literature reviews and assessments of the state of scientific knowledge in particular fields
** answering general scientific queries, using its access to a wide range of online scientific databases.
For further information contact Caroline Moore, caroline.moore@lovells.com or Dr Rachel Gribben, rachel.gribben@lovells.com.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Lovells Atlantic House Holborn Viaduct London EC1A 2FG UNITED KINGDOM Tel: 2072962000 Fax: 2072962001 E-mail: jackie.smith@LOVELLS.com URL: www.lovells.com Click Here for related articles (c) Mondaq Ltd, 2007 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 -- http://www.mondaq.com
Copyright 2007. Mondaq
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Irish Times (Dublin, Ireland) ......................[This story printer-friendly]
January 5, 2007
MEPS TRY TO CURB PLAN TO PROMOTE GM CROPS
[Rachel's introduction: Based on the precautionary principle, Irish members of the European Parliament are working to keep genetically modified crops out of Ireland.]
By Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
Irish MEPs [members of the European Parliament] have joined colleagues in tabling 190 amendments to a draft European Parliament resolution on biotechnology that would, if adopted later this month, promote a positive approach to the use of genetically-modified (GM) crops.
More than 20 of the amendments have been co-signed by Kathy Sinnott MEP (Ind), who is seeking to ensure that GM crops would be banned if there was any risk of contaminating the crops of both organic and conventional farmers.
The amendments also specify that the regulation of biotechnology "must be firmly grounded in the application of both the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, as stated in the EU Sustainable Development Strategy".
Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuinness has also tabled a series of amendments to the draft, although these are "more cosmetic" in nature, according to the GM-free Ireland Network; her position is that GM bans "are too simplistic".
But Fianna Fail MEP Liam Aylward, a former minister of state at the Department of Agriculture, will be voting against the draft because he believes the introduction of GM technology "will damage the reputation of Irish agriculture".
Independent MEP Marian Harkin, who will also be strongly opposing it, said Ireland needed to resist any EU requirement to adopt GM crops. "Just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant, one cannot be a little bit GM-free," she added.
Eight county councils in the Republic have adopted motions declaring their areas as GM-free zones -- Cavan, Clare, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Monaghan, Roscommon and Westmeath -- as well as two councils in the North (Fermanagh and Newry and Mourne).
But Minister for the Environment Dick Roche told the Dail last March that he was "not aware of any basis on which a region might implement a blanket ban" on GM crops or the sale or use of approved GM ingredients in food or animal feeds.
He said the Government favoured a "positive but precautionary approach" to the use of biotechnology, based on a report in 2000 by an interdepartmental group that recognised "potential benefits" subject to scientific risk assessment of its safety.
Although Fianna Fail pledged to keep Ireland GM-free in advance of the 1997 general election, Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan revealed last November that GM products accounted for 95 per cent of maize and soya feed imports.
The Minister, who was criticised by Green Party leader Trevor Sargent TD for her "laissez faire approach", will shortly publish a strategic policy document outlining how GM crops could "co-exist" with conventional and organic farming in Ireland.
The GM-free Ireland Network claims that such a strategy, if implemented, would "irreversibly contaminate the Irish food chain with GM ingredients that are unwanted by the majority of consumers, food brands and food retailers in Europe".
It said the draft European Parliament resolution "focuses solely on the the potential beneficial implications of agricultural biotechnology" and, though it would have no legislative impact, it could create a "pro-GM context" for future EU legislation.
But last month, the EU Council of Environment Ministers vetoed a proposal by the European Commission that would have forced Austria to lift its ban on two types of GM maize, in order to conform to World Trade Organisation rules.
With only Britain, the Czech Republic, Sweden and the Netherlands opposed, Austrian environment minister Josef Proll said the council's majority was sending a "very strong signal" that the commission should reassess its pro-GM policy.
Green Party environment spokesman Ciaran Cuffe said the decision "reopens the debate on the right of countries and regions to declare themselves GM-free" and gave Ireland a "second chance" to ban the use of GM products.
EU Parliament draft resolution: main points
** Efforts to develop biotechnology and genetic engineering should be encouraged in the EU to facilitate more sustainable farming practices, better food, increased yields and more diverse products.
** Biotechnology presents real opportunities in various fields, leading to the emergence of entirely novel products for agriculture, including pharmaceutical products such as oral vaccines.
** Biotechnology applications could help to reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers in crop cultivation, thus contributing to the protection of the environment and of human health.
** Farmers have the right to choose between traditional, organic and GM production, so there is a need to establish clear, uniform and transparent measures to enable GM farmers to coexist with neighbours.
** The European Commission should establish a high-level group to plan a strategy on biotechnology for agriculture in the EU, in place of the current complexity of the approval process for new products.
** Though protecting human health and the environment must remain decisive, this should be based on objective scientific criteria, and the precautionary principle should not be used as an excuse for delay.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Register-Guard (Eugene, Or.) ...................[This story printer-friendly]
January 4, 2007
EDITORIAL: PROTECT WALDO'S PURITY
[Rachel's introduction: The Register-Guard newspaper in Eugene, Oregon says, "Errors should be on the side of caution; close calls should be decided in the lake's favor. After nearly 10 years of discussion and study, boats with gas-powered engines should be banned from Waldo Lake."]
Unique natural treasures impose upon their custodians unique responsibilities. For that reason, the extreme purity of Waldo Lake requires that the Willamette National Forest take extreme care to protect against degradation.
Errors should be on the side of caution; close calls should be decided in the lake's favor. After nearly 10 years of discussion and study, boats with gas-powered engines should be banned from Waldo Lake.
Waldo Lake, located 20 miles east of Oakridge, is the headwaters of the North Fork of the Willamette River. It is among the clearest lakes in the world -- geologically akin to Lake Tahoe and chemically like Crater Lake, but more pure than either. The Atlas of Oregon Lakes describes Waldo's clarity as "closely similar to that of rainwater in a pristine environment."
The greatest threat to Waldo Lake's purity comes from human intrusion, which accelerated by a factor of 10 with the construction of a paved road in 1969. The road made Waldo Lake readily accessible from Eugene and other Willamette Valley communities. While people create more problems for the lake than the boats they bring with them, the precautionary principle -- do nothing that can't be undone -- argues for a policy recognizing that oil and water don't mix.
A ban on gas-powered boats is contained in the preferred alternative in the Willamette National Forest's Waldo Lake management plan. The motivation for the ban appears as much aesthetic as environmental - lakeside use of gas-powered generators and chain saws also would be banned. The proposal would not end all of the noisy disruptions at Waldo Lake, but the tranquility of the entire area would be greatly enhanced. Waldo Lake, bordered on two sides by wilderness, should offer a quieter experience than nearby Odell and Crescent lakes, where much of the activity centers on motorized recreation.
The preferred alternative focuses on the aesthetic merits of a ban because the environmental gains can't easily be quantified -- there are no studies tracing water-quality problems to the use of gas- powered engines. Yet it's undeniable that fuel and oil are discharged and spilled from gas engines -- quite a lot of it, in the case of two- stroke engines. By the time evidence suggested that the spillages and discharges were harming the lake, the damage would have been done. Better to act now. In the case of Waldo Lake, it's better to be overprotective.
The ban would cause few hardships. Electric motors would still be permitted, allowing older or disabled people to get out on the lake or reach dispersed campsites by boat. Waldo Lake is not a favorite destination for people with gas-powered boats. The speed limit is 10 mph, which means waterskiers and personal watercraft hotdoggers must go elsewhere. The end of an ill-considered stocking program in 1990 has led anglers to try their luck in other waters. About five of six watercraft on Waldo Lake already are powered by sails, paddles or oars, and most visitors say they would favor a ban on gas engines.
Getting gas engines off of Waldo Lake would be only a minor part of a comprehensive effort to protect the lake's purity. The U.S. Forest Service has been warned of threats to the lake's water quality since 1995, when a survey found that the number of microscopic organisms had increased as much as 20-fold over a 30-year period. Signs of degradation led federal land managers to make improvements in campground waste disposal systems, move campsites back from the lakeside and take other steps to protect the water.
Continued monitoring is essential, and further steps to reduce human impacts may be required.
The 10-fold increase in visitors to Waldo Lake means that each one must be 10 times more careful to protect it. Keeping fuel, oil and exhaust away from the lake's waters is an obvious step.
Copyright 2007 -- The Register-Guard
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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.
Editors:
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
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::