Rachel's Precaution Reporter #118
Wednesday, November 28, 2007

From: International Herald Tribune ........................[This story printer-friendly]
November 21, 2007

EU OFFICIALS PROPOSE BAN ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN SEEDS

[Rachel's introduction: "The EU is within its rights to make decisions based on the 'precautionary principle' even when scientists have found no definitive evidence proving products can cause harm. The commission has the authority to be a risk manager when it comes to the safety and science of genetically modified crops."]

By James Kanter

PARIS: European Union environment officials have determined that two kinds of genetically modified corn could harm butterflies, modify food chains and disturb life in rivers and streams, and they have proposed a ban on the sale of the seeds, which are made by DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences and Syngenta.

The preliminary decisions, seen by the International Herald Tribune, are circulating within the European Commission, the EU executive, which has the final say. Some officials there are skeptical about a ban that would upset the powerful biotechnology industry and could exacerbate tensions with important EU trading partners like the United States.

In the decisions, the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, says that the genetically modified corn, or maize, seeds -- which are not now available on the European market for cultivation -- could affect certain butterfly species, specifically the monarch, and other beneficial insects. For instance, research from 2007 indicates that larvae of the monarch butterfly exposed to the genetically modified corn "behave differently than other larvae."

In the decision concerning corn seeds produced by Dow and Pioneer, Dimas calls "potential damage on the environment irreversible." In the decision on Syngenta's corn, Dimas says that "the level of risk generated by the cultivation of this product for the environment is unacceptable."

A decision by the EU to disallow cultivation of the genetically modified crops would be the first of its kind in the trade bloc, making the current battle over genetically modified corn ferocious.

Since 1998, the commission has not approved any applications for the cultivation of genetically modified crops -- but neither has the commission actively rejected any applications, as would be the case with the genetically modified corn products.

Banning the applications for corn crops also would mark a bold new step for EU environmental authorities, who already are aggressively pursuing regulations on emissions from cars and aircraft that have set it at odds with the United States and angered industries.

"These products have been grown in the U.S. and other countries for years," said Stephen Norton, a spokesman for the United States Trade Representative. "We are not aware of any other case when a product has been rejected after having been reviewed and determined safe by" European food safety authorities, Norton said.

In 2005, the European Food Safety Authority, a European agency based in Parma, Italy, that operates independently of the EU, ruled that the products -- 1507, produced by Dow and Pioneer, and Bt11, produced by Syngenta -- were unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment. In the draft decision, Dimas said other studies had since come to light on the potential effects of the seeds, and that further investigation was needed.

Environmentalists are seizing on the issue, too.

On Wednesday they called on Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, to resist delaying the date for a meeting where the bans could be decided on, and they told him that a ban would have the support of many members of the European public.

"We believe that all commissioners should be given the right to express their views on this matter, which is of great concern to European citizens in all member states," Jorgo Riss, director of the European unit of Greenpeace, wrote in a letter to Barroso co-signed by Friends of the Earth and a number of other groups dedicated to farmers and consumers. "The vast majority of European citizens and consumers are opposed to genetically engineered plants in agriculture and for food," Riss wrote.

Barbara Helfferich, a spokeswoman for Dimas, declined to comment on the specifics of the procedure because commissioners had not yet taken a final decision. But she said that the EU was within its rights to make decisions based on the "precautionary principle" even when scientists have found no definitive evidence proving products can cause harm.

"The commission has the authority to be a risk manager when it comes to the safety and science of genetically modified crops," said Helfferich.

She said that the decisions by Dimas could go before the commission within the next few weeks, but she, as well as a spokesman for Barroso, said that no date had yet been set.

In the decisions, Dimas cited research from 2007 showing that consumption of genetically modified "corn byproducts reduced growth and increased mortality of non-target stream insects" and that these insects "are important prey for aquatic and riparian predators" and that this could have "unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences."

Although still preliminary, Dimas's decisions could dramatically tilt the EU policy against future approvals of genetically modified crops, said Nathalie Moll, a spokeswoman for Europabio, an industry group with 80 members including Syngenta, Pioneer and Dow.

The decisions "would be setting a precedent for EU officials to reject products based on nonverified scientific data," said Moll.

Europabio says that the crops grown using the genetically modified corn already are imported into several EU countries, including France and Germany, where they are used to feed animals like cows and chickens.

Rob Gianfranceschi, spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the EU in Brussels, said it was too early to comment on a decision that had not yet been formalized. But he made clear that the United States remained frustrated with EU policies on genetically modified crops.

"The United States has consistently stated that the EU continues to lack a predictable, workable process for approving these products in a way that reflects scientific rather than political factors," Gianfranceschi said.

Last year, in a victory for the United States, Canada and Argentina, the World Trade Organization ruled that the EU was wrongly delaying approvals of genetically modified products and that some countries, like Austria and Hungary, were wrongly banning the import and cultivation of crops.

Moll said the industry still was waiting to see whether the United States and Canada to decide whether to retaliate against the EU for its policies on genetically modified crops.

Only one genetically modified crop is currently grown in Europe, a form of corn produced by Monsanto and nine other companies. Spain began growing that crop 10 years ago, followed by France, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Portugal and Germany. But in a major blow to the biotechnology industry in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy last month vowed to suspend the cultivation of genetically modified crops.

Austria, Hungary and Poland also have banned the Monsanto corn, according to Greenpeace.

Moll of Europabio said the two genetically modified corn varieties Dimas proposed to ban are engineered to produce a toxin, commonly called Bt, that is poisonous to certain insect pests that lodge inside cobs and stalks and eat the plant from the inside. Protecting plants from these insects was important, she said, because the damage left the plants open to attack by fungi that produce a different toxin, fumonisin, which can enter the food chain and make products like milk unusable.

"Farmers in Europe must see a benefit in Bt corn because it protects against attacks by one of the major maize pests in Europe," said Moll, adding that 77 percent increase in cultivation over the past year. Even so, corn represents only 14 percent of European agriculture, with the genetically modified product representing just 1 percent of that amount.

Across the rest of the world, said Moll, more than 200 genetically modified crops are being grown in countries from the United States to the Philippines.

Copyright 2007 The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Council on Foreign Relations ........................[This story printer-friendly]
November 20, 2007

SPROUTING EU FOOD WARS

[Rachel's introduction: French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently suspended cultivation of genetically modified crops until their safety is evaluated, saying he didn't want to contradict EU law but made the choice in line with the "precautionary principle." One environmental advocate called the pro-business president's shift "seismic."]

By Toni Johnson

This fall the European Union allowed imports of four new genetically modified crops (Reuters) -- three types of corn and one sugar beet. The approval came through a default legal process that kicks in when EU environmental ministers cannot agree. Since 2004, a number of modified foods have been allowed into the EU market this way. But individual countries, including Austria, Hungary, and Italy have established national bans in defiance of EU rulings, and at least thus far EU ministers have not stopped them. Now a bigger battle is looming, including possible WTO sanctions if EU countries continue to block imports.

Just days after the EU's latest crop approval, its environment officials failed -- for the third time -- to agree to end Austria's import ban (EUObserver) on genetically modified corn. The ban dates to the 1990s, and was deemed a trade violation in 2006 by the World Trade Organization. The European Commission, which already twice found the corn to be safe, had until November 21 to bring Austria in line, or risks facing WTO sanctions, but has been given an extension (AP) until January 11, 2008. A Wall Street Journal editorial noted that both the WTO and the EU allow countries to ban unsafe foods, but added that in Austria's case "the facts don't line up with their fears."

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are designed to improve crop yields, withstand herbicide treatment, resist insects, and even in some cases deliver vaccines (Scientific American) or extra vitamins (BBC). But some environmental and consumer activists believe genetically modified crops -- sometimes dubbed "frankenfoods" by critics -- could harm biodiversity and potentially be toxic (Deutsche- Welle). The European Commission's eight-year "de facto moratorium" (Euractiv.com) on GM foods ended with the establishment of a tough labeling law, but did not resolve a trade fight with the United States. Nor did it placate European fears over genetically modified foods.

Earlier this year, EU regulators failed to reach agreement on Hungary's two-year-old ban on GM corn. Meanwhile, Italy's state-run science agency finds itself besieged by accusations that it suppressed findings (Foodnavigator.com) from a field trial on corn produced by Monsanto, the world's leading producer of GM seeds. Three million Italians have signed a petition for an "unlimited moratorium" (AFP) on modified produce. Germany is moving on a plan to approve GM crops, but only if they are accompanied by strict environmental monitoring. And French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently suspended cultivation of modified crops until their safety is evaluated, saying he didn't want to contradict EU law but made the choice in line with the "precautionary principle" (Reuters). One environmental advocate called the pro-business president's shift "seismic."

This resistance to GM crops could be a setback for an industry struggling to get off the ground in Europe. European GM growers reported 77 percent growth (CORDIS) last year, in terms of total area planted. Yet even with these gains, only about one percent of the world's genetically modified corn is grown in Europe, and sixty varieties of crops remain backlogged for approval. EuropaBio, a European biotech lobby group, called for automatic approval of GM foods that pass their risk assessments. The United States, Argentina, Canada, and Brazil pick up the slack, accounting for 94 percent (PDF) of global GMO plantings, according to a 2006 paper published by Harvard's Belfer Center. The paper notes that the environmental effects from GM crops planted in these countries have been "strongly positive to date."

Copyright 2007 by the Council on Foreign Relations

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Scopical (North Ryde, NSW, Australia) ...............[This story printer-friendly]
November 28, 2007

GM FOOD APPROVAL CAUSES WIDESPREAD ANGER

[Rachel's introduction: "The lift of this moratorium completely disregards the 'precautionary principle' and the Department of Primary Industries has their heads in the sand if they think there won't be consequences of this decision, to both local farmers and to NSW's natural ecological systems."]

The NSW [New South Wales] Primary Industries Minister Ian McDonald has announced that he will lift the moratorium on genetically engineered crops in NSW and this spells disaster for the state's farmers and environment, Total Environment Centre (TEC) said today.

Previously, federally approved crops were blocked at the state level but a new law to be introduced into State Parliament allows genetically modified (GM) crops to be cultivated in NSW.

"The lift of this moratorium completely disregards the "precautionary principle" and the Department of Primary Industries has their heads in the sand if they think there won't be consequences of this decision, to both local farmers and to NSW's natural ecological systems," TEC Director, Jeff Angel said.

There has been previous evidence of trial GM canola crops contaminating non-GM crops in NSW in 2005. Despite the federal Office of the Gene Technology Regulator approving and regulating field trials and commercial releases of GM crops, it has conducted no independent testing, and relies on information from private biotechnology companies.

"The fact of the matter is that the key problems of contamination have still not been properly addressed and this poses a major threat," said Mr Angel.

Detailed studies conducted overseas have pointed to the introduction of GM crops leading to lower yields, continued dependency on chemical sprays, loss of exports and, more importantly, reduced profits for farmers the TEC says.

"With a society that is increasingly demanding healthy, organic, GM- free produce, this amendment threatens local and overseas markets which don't want GM products. Once crops become contaminated, everyone will be eating the same genetically tampered food and they won't have a choice," stated Mr. Angel.

Copyright 2007 Scopical Pty Ltd

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Times Colonist (Victoria, B.C.) .....................[This story printer-friendly]
November 24, 2007

NDP MASTER PLAN FAILS THE SNIFF TEST

[Rachel's introduction: "The principles behind that vision go well beyond environmental concerns. They encompass social-equity stands in favour of equal opportunity for all, 'full cost accounting' to measure the real cost of everything and full support for the precautionary principle: When in doubt -- don't."]

By Les Leyne, Times Colonist

New Democrats are putting a lot of faith in the political impact of a new sustainability doctrine they adopted on the weekend.

It's misplaced.

"Sustainable B.C." is an 11-page outline of how an New Democrat government would operate. The vision is fine and the principles are motherhood. But the "action agenda" is overconfidently based on the idea it's going to win them the next election. The party seems wildly optimistic they'll rocket to the top of the polls now that "Sustainable B.C." is the official lens through which they will view anything and everything.

"It is an inspiring 'brand' by which the NDP can win politically and govern with integrity, based on clearly articulated principles," says the conclusion. "Sustainable B.C. can become a powerful and persuasive central theme of the 2009 campaign."

If they were running against a party that was ignoring climate change, maybe. But the B.C. Liberals have enough on the go that there's just not a big enough difference between the two parties on that front. The Liberals introduced legislation backing up the greenhouse-gas emission reduction targets two days after the NDP adopted Sustainable B.C. And the government has a whole suite of measures in the works leading up to a green budget next February. The sustainability vision may keep the NDP in the race, but it doesn't put them out in front enough to win.

That hasn't stopped them from investing a lot of hope in the document, which was adopted as a new creed at their weekend convention.

The idea is that B.C. would be governed as a place where a diversified economy operates "within the environmental carrying capacity." Where there's equity "in sharing the wealth of the province fairly among all British Columbians."

The principles behind that vision go well beyond environmental concerns. They encompass social-equity stands in favour of equal opportunity for all, "full cost accounting" to measure the real cost of everything and full support for the precautionary principle: When in doubt -- don't.

There are few specifics in the document, and the few there are need fleshing out. One is the promise of a sustainability law in which the province would make a formal and enduring commitment to sustainability. Another is the appointment of a Commissioner for Sustainability. They also promise "genuine" progress indicators, as opposed to the presumably bogus ones the Liberals use. There's also an environmental bill of rights under which anyone anywhere would have the right to object to any perceived degradation of the environment.

Those are outstanding political-science theories of the sort that blow up in your face when you apply them to day-to-day decisions in government. They point in the direction of paralysis on some major issues. They hint at a bureaucratic buildup of the kind the Opposition is starting to sniff about in the Liberal government. And they ignore the fact the Liberals have a reasonably independent Progress Board that has been holding them to consistently rigorous standards on various social fronts.

New Democrats are quick to acknowledge many of them need further study and a greater level of detail. That's exactly the stand Liberals have been taking for months on the implications of their climate change package, and it's the one the New Democrats have been criticizing.

If both sides are still groping to understand the staggering implications of the kind of change they are both committed to, they can't very well criticize each other for not having a finished product on the policy shelf.

Liberals and New Democrats are slowly building two big policy frameworks behind their virtually identical stands in favour of decisive action on climate change.

Liberals have been building a big new secretariat to tackle climate change. They are the first Canadian government with legislated emission targets. They've enrolled B.C. in some ambitious international initiatives. They have a distinguished new team of experts to come up with all the badly needed bright ideas.

The Opposition, on the other hand, is promising a new law that would hold any government to running every single decision of government through a sustainability checklist.

They also promise a commissioner to check on progress toward that goal, and a new bill of rights that "empowers citizens" to go to court over any decision with a perceived impact on the environment.

Here's the difference: Liberals are setting out to fight climate change by concentrating on greenhouse-gas emissions. They'll mount a massive but specific campaign on that one problem, while they govern as usual on other fronts. The Opposition is taking a more holistic approach that would be much more far-reaching and have many more implications.

The big problem for the NDP is that, until they form government, they feel they have to go along with much of the Liberal plan.

Which is why after hours of debate where they pointed out all the shortcomings in the Liberal approach, they voted in favour of it this week.

That doesn't sound very sustainable in the one area they haven't included in their checklist -- the politics of it all.

lleyne@tc.canwest.com

Copyright Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, Wisc.) .................[This story printer-friendly]
November 25, 2007

ARE YOUR PRODUCTS SAFE? YOU CAN'T TELL.

[Rachel's introduction: "The problem with the precautionary principle is that you have a moving target," said Tim Shestek, a chemistry council lobbyist. "You need to prove that something is safe -- safe is never really defined by anybody." Lacking testing or regulation by the U.S. government, it falls to consumers to watch out for themselves.]

By Susanne Rust, Meg Kissinger and Cary Spivak

Take a look at your shoes, your shampoo, your carpet.

Your baby's bottles, even the dental sealants in your mouth.

These products contain chemicals that disrupt the natural way hormones work inside of you.

The chemicals known as endocrine disruptors are all over your house, your clothing, your car.

The chemicals are even in you.

They promise to make skin softer, clothes smell fresher and food keep longer.

The problem is, neither the companies that make these products nor federal regulators are telling you that some of these substances may be dangerous. Many have been found to cause life-threatening illnesses in laboratory animals.

Chemical makers maintain that their products are safe. They point to government assurances and the millions of dollars they have spent on their own research as proof.

But a growing number of scientists are convinced the chemicals interfere with the body's reproductive, developmental and behavioral systems.

Hundreds of studies have shown that these compounds cause a host of problems in lab animals. They include cancers of the breast, brain and testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty, miscarriages and other defects of the reproductive system; diabetes; attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism -- all of which have spiked in people in recent decades since many of these chemicals saturated the marketplace.

A Journal Sentinel investigation found that the government has failed to regulate these chemicals, despite repeated promises to do so. The regulatory effort has been marked by wasted time, wasted money and influence from chemical manufacturers.

The newspaper reviewed more than 250 scientific studies written over the past 20 years; examined thousands of pages of regulatory documents and industry correspondence; and interviewed more than 100 scientists, physicians, and industry and government officials.

Among the findings: ** U.S. regulators promised a decade ago to screen more than 15,000 chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system. They've spent tens of millions of dollars on the testing program. As yet, not a single screen has been done.

** Dozens of chemicals the government wants to screen first have already been tested over and over, even while thousands of untested chemicals are waiting to be screened.

** By the time the government gets around to doing the testing, chances are the results will be outdated and inconclusive. The government's proposed tests lack new, more sensitive measures that would identify dangerous chemicals that older screens could miss.

** As the U.S. testing process remains grounded, hundreds of products have been banned in countries around the world. Children's products -- including some baby toys and teething rings -- outlawed as dangerous by the European Union, Japan and Canada, are available here without warning.

** Lacking any regulation in the U.S., it's impossible for consumers to know which products are made with the dangerous compounds. Many companies don't list chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system on product labels.

The government's efforts have been "an abject failure, a disaster," said Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and chairman of the department of community and preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

Landrigan was at the White House ceremony in 1996 when President Clinton signed laws requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to screen chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system.

Because the effects of endocrine disruptors may take years to reveal themselves, it is almost impossible to say that a particular chemical caused a certain disease. There also is a lot of uncertainty about how these chemicals work inside your body. So, scientists extrapolate. They can't test their theories on humans. Instead, they have to rely on animal studies and try to figure out the implications for people.

By mimicking or blocking the body's hormones, endocrine disruptors can trigger faulty messages that disrupt development. That makes them particularly dangerous to fetuses and young children, scientists say. These chemicals can be ingested, inhaled and absorbed through the skin.

Michael E. Mitchell, chief of pediatric urology at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, has seen the consequences he attributes to these unregulated chemicals.

He has witnessed a dramatic spike in the number of genital birth defects in the last 30 years. And it breaks his heart, he said, to see the damage done to so many children who must undergo painful surgery to correct birth deformities.

Considering the number of chemicals that developing fetuses are exposed to, "it's amazing that anyone turns out OK," he said.

Anxiety is rising over the growing number of cancer cases and other diseases linked to these chemicals. But few answers are forthcoming.

"People should know what they're being exposed to and be given the option to choose alternatives," said Shanna Swan, director of the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. "And that is not happening very fast."

EPA officials blame their lack of progress on the complexity of the undertaking.

"Clearly, we would have liked to have been a lot further along," said Elaine Francis, national program director of the EPA's endocrine disruptors research program. "But science tends to move at its own pace."

To find how pervasive these compounds are in everyday use, the Journal Sentinel asked Frederick vom Saal, an internationally known expert in endocrine disruption, to perform a chemical audit of the Greendale home of Dean and Ellen Lang Roder and their four children, ages 3 to 10.

As the University of Missouri biologist went through each room in the house, vom Saal found hundreds of reasons for the Roder family to worry -- from the bathtub rubber duck to the plastic pipes that bring water into their home.

"Anything that goes in your child's mouth is a factor for you to be concerned about," vom Saal told Ellen Roder as he held one of her children's dolls. "Particularly, dolls made from a plastic called polyvinyl chloride that 10 years from now just won't exist. It will be looked at like cigarettes. It is that dangerous."

Industry scientists dispute that.

"Science supports our side," said Marty Durbin, federal affairs managing director for the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the plastics industry.

They say there is no reason to fear the toys, baby bottles and other products containing the chemicals because none of their studies has proved that the chemicals cause harm to people. Chemists for the industry say you would have to consume 1,300 pounds of canned and bottled foods each day to notice any effects from the chemicals those products contain.

"I'm very comfortable with my kids and grandkids using these products, and that's really my bottom line," said James Lamb, an industry consultant and former EPA regulator. "And it is because I believe the industry has done the studies that need to be done and that they're interpreting them properly."

Lack of screening There are roughly 100,000 chemicals on the market today. Yet, lacking a coordinated screening program, there is no way to know how many of these chemicals interfere with the human endocrine system.

The chemicals at issue are used as additives in plastics, fragrances, creams and as flame retardants.

Some of the more controversial compounds include bisphenol A and certain phthalates.

Six billion pounds of bisphenol A, the raw material of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, are produced each year in the United States.

Phthalates (pronounced "THAL-ates") are the chemicals that make plastic flexible and allow creams and personal-care products to hold their smell. U.S. chemical companies produce more than 2 billion pounds of these compounds a year. They are commonly found in nail polishes and hair sprays, shower curtains and even Halloween costumes.

For more than a decade, government agencies have said that several of these chemicals are safe at levels that people are exposed to every day.

Chemical makers have relied on these assurances as proof that their products are safe. They bolster these conclusions with millions of dollars of research and testing.

But the newspaper's review of 258 studies of bisphenol A, a common ingredient in baby bottles, reusable water bottles, eyeglass lenses and DVDs, shows otherwise.

More than 80% of studies analyzed by the Journal Sentinel show that the chemical adversely affects animals, causing cancer and other diseases.

Developing embryos exposed to endocrine disruptors through their mothers are most at risk, said Theo Colborn, a scientist trained at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose book on the explosion of dangerous chemicals in the environment, titled "Our Stolen Future," stirred passionate calls for reform and regulation when it was published in 1996.

"You need the right hormones in the right place at the right time sending out the right signals," Colborn said. "If that's fouled up prenatally, you're in trouble."

Colborn, like many of her colleagues, has changed the way she deals with these compounds, refusing to store her food in plastic or use certain creams and lotions that contain chemicals suspected of causing harm.

Wildlife abnormalities Scientists first suspected that endocrine disruptors were wreaking havoc decades ago when they began observing freakish abnormalities in wild animals, particularly along the Great Lakes with its legacy of industrial pollution.

They were seeing female gulls nesting together, birds with twisted bills and frogs with severe deformities, including one with an eye growing inside its mouth. Elsewhere across the country, scientists reported finding male fish with sacks of eggs and alligators with withered penises.

In 1991, Colborn, then a zoologist working for the World Wildlife Fund, convened a conference of some of the country's leading wildlife biologists, toxicologists and endocrinologists at Wingspread Conference Center in Racine to discuss the emerging science.

It was there that the term "endocrine disruptor" was coined. The 21 scientists signed a consensus statement, expressing concern about the dangers that these new chemicals posed and calling for them to be tested immediately.

Five years later, Colborn and two colleagues chronicled the bizarre spectacles of nature and their theories about the causes.

The authors wondered that if the toxins in the environment could cause these effects in animals, what were they doing to people? Just as with lead and tobacco decades before, these chemicals are all around us, ravaging nature's delicate design, the authors said.

Their book stirred controversy in the scientific community, and many dismissed the claims as "junk science" because there was no direct link between specific chemicals and illnesses in people.

Within days of the book's publication, the chemical industry's trade group issued an alert to its members, warning them to expect a swarm of calls about the book's claims. The memo predicted the fallout could be fierce.

It was.

Later that year, Congress unanimously passed two laws ordering the EPA to begin screening and testing chemicals and pesticides for endocrine disrupting effects by 1999.

The EPA convened a committee of scientists from academia, the government and the chemical industry to lay the groundwork for testing these chemicals. They came up with a way to identify and test chemicals for the risks and get the information to the public.

In the beginning, there was a groundswell of enthusiasm. Then-EPA administrator Carol Browner said in 1998 that her agency would begin fast-tracking efforts to screen these compounds by the end of that year.

"Some 15,000 chemicals used in thousands of common products, ranging from pesticides to plastics," would be screened, Browner said.

Officials identified the program as a top priority. Browner appointed the first panel of scientists to build a framework for how to screen the chemicals. She left the agency after the presidential election in 2000.

More than $80 million later, the government program has yet to screen its first chemical.

That has left Browner, and others, concerned about the lack of any results.

"It doesn't take nine years," she said with a sigh. "You adjust as you go. You don't have to build a Cadillac when a Model T will do."

Promise unfulfilled Frustrated at the lack of action, a consortium of environmental, patient advocacy and labor groups filed a federal lawsuit, prompting the EPA to promise that screening would begin by the end of 2003.

But the agency repeatedly has missed its self-imposed deadlines as well as those set by law.

Agency administrators testified twice before Congress, first in August 2000 and again two years later, pledging that the screening would be in place soon. Three separate committees of academic and industry scientists, including the one Browner formed, have been appointed by the EPA to take up the issue.

"A lot of bureaucratic foot-stomping and dust-raising," was the observation of Peter DeFur, a researcher at the Center for Environmental Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University who served on all three of the committees.

"To delay is to win on the part of the industrial community," DeFur said.

Industry, he said, tried mightily to slow the effort. He was particularly critical of one test pushed by chemical makers that involved studying mature male rats to see the chemicals' effects on the development of the reproductive system.

"What does the old white rat have to do with development?" DeFur said. "By the time he gets to be mature, or even nearly mature, all the organs are developed."

Industry and other groups have flooded the EPA and the committees with research, said L. Earl Gray Jr., an EPA research biologist.

The industry's lobbying efforts are led by the American Chemistry Council. The group has a $75 million budget and includes some of the biggest names in commerce -- Dow Chemical Corp., Procter & Gamble Co. and DuPont.

Chemical makers have "in some sense learned that if you play on the uncertainty of danger, you're going to be able to stop regulatory action especially in an anti-regulatory era," said David Rosner, professor of history and public health at Columbia University. That's particularly true "in a time when so many of our regulatory agencies have been neutered politically and socially," he added.

Durbin, of the trade group, denied any stall tactics.

"If it was our interest to delay things around here, we'd just sit on our hands and see whether or not EPA gets any funding," said Durbin, noting that the trade group frequently lobbies for increases in the EPA's budget.

Annual federal funding for the endocrine disruptor screening program peaked at $12.6 million in 2000 and has dropped by about one-third.

Critics have charged that the White House has cut back on efforts to regulate a wide array of industries. DeFur, among others, felt that frustration while serving on the endocrine disruptor committees.

Clifford Gabriel, director of the EPA's Office of Science Coordination and Policy, countered that budgetary constraints have not hurt the progress.

Stephen L. Johnson, Browner's successor as head of the EPA, declined requests to be interviewed.

Whatever the reason, the committees met less frequently as time went by.

By April 2006, 10 years after the congressional order to begin the screening, progress stalled altogether.

Gerald LeBlanc, chairman of the committee charged with developing the screens, got a call from an EPA administrator, assuming that the two would be setting the committee's next meeting. Instead, LeBlanc was told the committee was being terminated.

"They were not going to allow me to take this job to completion," said LeBlanc, toxicology professor at North Carolina State University.

Edward Orlando, a biology professor at Florida Atlantic University and a member of the last committee, said its abrupt dissolution came as a disappointment -- not to mention a waste of public money.

"How long will this take? Another five years? Another 10?" Orlando said.

The EPA's Francis said that LeBlanc's committee had a set term, and the agency felt it was more efficient to turn the work over to an advisory panel, where it remains today. But committee members say the effort was doomed for the past several years.

"Frankly, there was not enough political oomph behind it," said Gina Solomon, a member of the first EPA committee and senior scientist for the National Resources Defense Council.

Those with ties to industry say they, too, wish the process moved faster.

"Everyone is disappointed that you can't make quicker progress, but it does take time," said Thomas Osimitz, an industry consultant who sat on two of the three EPA committees. "It's frustrating, but, on the other hand, I don't know what could be quicker."

Outdated testing By the time the government gets around to the tests, they likely will be of little value. Under the current model, government tests do not screen for the chemicals' effects at low doses.

Instead, government researchers follow standard toxicology testing practices, feeding animals such as rats huge doses of the chemical.

Then they record the damage to the animal, most often cancer, behavioral or reproductive failures. The researchers then test the rats at lower and lower doses until they no longer find those problems.

But bisphenol A and phthalates don't work that way, many scientists say. They can elicit different effects in animals at extremely low doses.

Two groups of scientists, one from the National Academy of Science and the other from the National Toxicology Program, have called for a radical reform in the way that government screens these chemicals. But, so far, the government hasn't budged from its original formula.

"The EPA is lumbering along trying to clumsily incorporate the science of a couple of decades ago," Solomon said.

The list of chemicals scheduled to be screened is also being questioned.

The EPA will first screen 73 chemicals -- all pesticides, none of the chemicals found in household products. The tests aren't set to happen until sometime next year.

EPA officials declined to say exactly when the screening would occur, explaining that the agency must finish its study of the tests before shipping them to another panel for review. But most of the pesticides have already been tested, and many have been established as endocrine disruptors.

Francis, of the EPA, says her agency chose to screen that relatively small batch of chemicals as a way to test the reliability of the process. But even scientists hired by the chemical industry question the value of screening chemicals that have been studied thoroughly.

"Most of those on the list have already been tested, so why are we doing this?" asked Lamb, the toxicologist who works as a consultant to the chemistry council.

The EPA hopes to conclude the first round of tests by 2010, said Enesta Jones, an agency spokeswoman. Only then will the agency have an idea when the next group of chemicals will be screened.

Buyer beware For as slow as the process of screening chemicals has been in the U.S., concern about the safety of endocrine disruptors has caught on in Europe, Japan, South America, the Middle East, Mexico and even Fiji.

Reports of declining sperm counts, birth defects and fertility problems have sparked widespread concern there. The European Union has banned 1,100 chemicals from cosmetics that are thought to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

"When we go to Europe, I breathe a sigh of relief because of all of the things I'm not exposed to over there," said Rochester's Swan, an epidemiologist and biostatistician.

Earlier this year, the European Union passed a law that requires chemical companies to prove their products are safe before they are put on the market.

The U.S. has no such protocol, known as the precautionary principle, and the chemical industry has argued against it.

"The problem with the precautionary principle is that you have a moving target," said Tim Shestek, a chemistry council lobbyist. "You need to prove that something is safe -- safe is never really defined by anybody."

Lacking testing or regulation by the U.S. government, it falls to consumers to watch out for themselves.

Buyers must know the names of specific chemicals -- such as dibutyl phthalate and diethyl phthalate -- if they want to find out if a bottle of nail polish or a jar of hand lotion contains endocrine disruptors.

Even then, if the chemical is not considered a key ingredient, the company is not required to include it on the label.

There is nothing listed on a bottle of Chanel Precision Energising Radiance Lotion, for example, to let you know that it contains at least six chemicals that have been linked in laboratory studies to cancer in animals. Nor can you know by looking at the label for Avon's Anew Ultimate Skin Transforming Cream that it contains chemicals linked to cancer and endocrine disruption, according to a review by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

A spokeswoman for Chanel declined comment, and officials from Avon Products Inc. referred questions to the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, which dismissed the claims as unfounded.

Consumer groups

Consumer interest groups are trying to answer some of the questions that the government is not. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of groups concerned with women's health, labor, consumer rights and the environment, offers a Web site run by the Environmental Working Group that enables shoppers to check the safety of cosmetics and personal-care products. The site identifies more than 450 products that are banned as dangerous in other countries but are widely available here.

As consumers learn more about these chemicals, more firms are taking steps to remove them from product lines.

Cosmetics giant Revlon Inc., for example, stopped using phthalates 15 years ago. A company spokeswoman said its products, including those sold in the U.S., comply with the stricter rules of the European governments.

Other companies following similar policies include the L'Oreal Group, Hasbro Inc. and McDonald's Corp. In 1998, the fast-food giant stopped using phthalates in its Happy Meal toys designed for children age 3 and younger.

Retailers, including Target Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc., have removed items and are looking at ways to eliminate products that contain some endocrine disruptors.

"We are committed to reducing PVC in our products and packaging," said Susan Kahn, a vice president at Target, referring to polyvinyl chloride, the plastic that contains phthalates and is found in shower curtains, children's toys and packaging materials.

Some companies, such as Born Free LLC, a Florida-based baby bottle- maker, are promoting goods that do not contain bisphenol A. Ron Vigdor, Born Free president, said his small company is experiencing rapid sales growth.

Most consumers remain unaware of the potential dangers they are bringing into their homes, said Jane Adams, a neurotoxicologist at the University of Massachusetts.

"Most of the population would not be well-informed and necessarily know what steps to take," Adams said.

Roder, the Greendale mother who volunteered to have her house checked for endocrine disruptors, is grateful for the information she got.

Since the audit, Roder filled a garbage bin full of items that she'll no longer use -- waxed paper, plastic wrap, old plastic cups, toys and containers.

She says her husband teases her for whacking bugs with shoes now, refusing to use bug spray. Instead of giving in to anxiety, Roder says her newfound awareness has brought peace of mind.

"It made me feel safe," she said.

But few people have the luxury of knowing what in their house is safe because few products contain any labeling of these compounds. Even the government scientists charged with alerting the public to the chemicals' dangers say information is sorely lacking.

"The real problem is that we don't know where all the different phthalates are coming from in our environment," said Gray, the EPA biologist whose lab has examined effects of endocrine disruptors for two decades. "I can't tell them what products to specifically avoid. The information isn't there."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: NewsTarget (Taiwan) .................................[This story printer-friendly]
November 22, 2007

AGRICULTURAL ANTIBIOTICS MAY BE THE CAUSE OF SUPER-BUGS

[Rachel's introduction: "The European Union banned the use of antibiotics for growth promotion based on the precautionary principle. In this case, it is more scientific to simply ban the product that might be the cause of the [antibiotic] resistance, than simply do nothing because there are no precise means to measure the complex interaction between organisms and transmission of resistance in bacteria."]

By Celina Cook

Have you been to the grocery store recently and chosen that chicken cut that is not treated with antibiotics? Or did you choose one that was treated with antibiotic, thinking all bacteria in it would be dead?

According to recent research, farms may be more effective sources of transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the community than hospitals. Fresh poultry from animals not treated with antibiotics will probably pose a smaller risk to your health. If you catch any disease from it, antibiotics will really work for you if you need them.

Any bacteria harmful to humans that are left in the antibiotic-treated meat after the antibiotic kills the others will certainly be a significant hazard, if not to you, to the population as a whole. The super-bugs caught from these meats will be hard to kill; for, once they have been exposed to antibiotics, they become resistant to them after some time.

Fighting an infection caused by these bacteria will be much more difficult than fighting bacteria that are not resistant. Like in the recent cases of MRSA, many people either do not get rid of them easily, or continue having the infection for some time in spite of the treatment.

Antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria are in the air and soil around farms, in surface and ground water, among wild animal populations, as well as on retail meat and poultry. They end up in your kitchen, and contaminate other foods by unsafe handling practices; and if they are able to override the gastric barriers your body has against them, they settle in your gut.

They might live there for a long time without any signs of infection, but ready to be transmitted to other carriers. One or two cases of this kind are enough if the transmission rate is high; that is, if the bacteria are highly contagious. Without appropriate control measures, the harm done by these resistant bacteria starts to spread throughout the community, and affect people that are more susceptible than the carriers.

Some variants of antibiotic-resistant bacteria transmitted in this way might evolve then that never were found among humans. If these new variants are harmful to humans and highly and rapidly transmissible within the human population, the agricultural antibiotic impact must be carefully assessed.

The number of people that carry antibiotic resistant bacteria due to contaminated meals is approximately the same as the one generated by a hospital. This happens because, although we have much less chance of getting antibiotic resistant bacteria in each individual meal than in a hospital, a large number of people are exposed to a small risk in contrast with the small number exposed to a high risk (when we go to the hospital). People eat at least three times every day, so we have more than a thousand chances a year to be exposed to a small risk of infection carried by contaminated food. But the average healthy person spends just some days in a year at the hospital, where the risk of getting resistant bacteria is higher.

A large-scale natural experiment conducted in the US and several European countries showed that resistant bacteria evolved more frequently in the European Union before the use of antibiotics in agriculture was banned.

Many European countries approved avoparcin for animal growth promotion in the 1970s, but the US did not. In the early 1980s, vancomycin started to be used in the U.S. hospitals due to an increase in resistance of Staphylococcus aureus (the famous MRSA, which is attacking our school kids nowadays) to other antibiotics. Vancomycin is still being used in hospitals to fight MRSA.

Some strains of vancomycin-resistant enterococci appeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s, spreading through U.S. health-care systems. In Europe, vancomycin was less used, for most enterococci were sensitive to other antibiotics. The resistant bacteria appeared there too, but in a less severe way than in the U.S. That was the phase in which the antibiotic in the poultry and meats was still effective against the bacteria.

During the late 1990s, though, the resistant enterococci were more frequent in the community, including in people who had not been previously in a hospital. That showed that the bacteria in the food were starting to get resistant to the agricultural antibiotics.

The result was that the European community pool of resistant bacteria, generated by the use of antibiotics in hospitals and agriculture, was apparently much larger than in the U.S., where the resistance was generated only by use of vancomycin in hospitals. After EU banned avoparcin, the resistance to bacteria in the community was reduced. That is, the impact of the agricultural antibiotics in European hospitals was larger than the impact of US hospitals on one another.

The European Union banned the use of antibiotics for growth promotion based on the precautionary principle. In this case, it is more scientific to simply ban the product that might be the cause of the resistance, than simply do nothing because there are no precise means to measure the complex interaction between organisms and transmission of resistance in bacteria.

Therefore, since bacteria like the MSRA spread more rapidly in the population when they are found in contaminated food, precautionary measures such as banning agricultural antibiotics are highly effective in controlling the impact of these bacteria in the population.

References:

1) Based on a study by David L. Smith, Jonathan Dushoff and J. Glenn Morris, Published July 5, 2005 PLOS Medicine

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Guardian Unlimited Blogs ............................[This story printer-friendly]
November 22, 2007

BAN WILD ANIMALS IN TRAVELLING CIRCUSES

[Rachel's introduction: "Surely if the report says there is not sufficient evidence either way, we should apply the precautionary principle and err on the side of caution?"]

By Will Travers

In 2005 during deliberations over the new Animal Welfare Act, the government set up the Circus Working Group (CWG), including a select academic panel, to consider the highly charged issue of wild animals in circuses. The panel's job was to review whether or not the welfare of wild animals was compromised in a travelling circus and they were instructed to base their findings solely on available scientific evidence. It was, however, acknowledged very early on by everyone that little peer-reviewed research exists that directly involved animals in circuses.

The Born Free Foundation's participation in the CWG, along with others, was subject to some bizarre constraints. We were instructed to ignore the training and performance element of circus life, to exclude anecdotal evidence, and to disregard the wider social context of this debate.

Notwithstanding these unjustifiable restrictions, the concerns we put forward included:

The fact that while licensed zoos operate under both legal and industry minimum welfare standards, it is clear that circuses cannot deliver the same minimum standards afforded to zoo animals. It is illogical to propose creating a situation whereby the same species, the same animal, can be kept under two captive regimes but cannot be guaranteed the same bare minimum welfare provisions.

Transport is an acknowledged stressor for animals. Research shows transport stress affects the physiology of some wild animals, and it is entirely possible that repeated transportation may have long-term negative consequences, as has been proven with domesticated animals habituated to transport.

The substantial deliberations, undertaken since early 2006, resulted in submissions to the chair of the Circus Working Group, Professor Mike Radford, in mid-summer 2007. The chair's report, published November 20, concludes that he is unable to determine whether wild animals in circuses suffer or not, or whether the circus lifestyle (even excluding performance and training) is appropriate or inappropriate for the species currently involved. Ultimately, he says, the decision will be purely political.

What is clear is that the situation cannot be left unresolved. The government must decide about whether wild animals can continue to be used in circuses or not.

And surely they must listen to the people.

Overwhelming public opinion is in favour of a ban. A poll by MORI in 2005 found that 80% thought that the use of wild animals was not acceptable. This consistent position was given form by the reaction of the British public to the sight of an elderly circus elephant with arthritis being kept without others of her kind in a tent, and big cats being housed in beastwagons and transported repeatedly from venue to venue.

Two other key factors must be taken into account. The Animal Welfare Act -- the first to comprehensively address animal welfare laws in nearly 100 years -- has raised considerable expectation that animal welfare will be substantially improved because it seeks to prevent cruelty before it happens, as opposed to acting after the event. Surely if the report says there is not sufficient evidence either way, we should apply the precautionary principle and err on the side of caution?

There are just 47 wild animals in circuses in the UK. Ending this practice is possible, practical, relatively painless (compared with the thousands of wild animals used in Continental circuses), and is a proportionate measure to deal with this issue. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, has already acknowledged that there is a strong body of opinion, in favour of a ban.

It is time to bring the curtain down on the use of wild animal in circuses. It is time for the British government to listen to the British people. It is a matter of leadership. Nothing less than a ban will do.

Will Travers, CEO, Born Free Foundation

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
Table of Contents edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::