|
SAFER WORLD a private independent international internet information network www.safer-world.org/ 26-03/11/2004 |
|
contact: info@safer-world.org
|
Beyond Pesticides' Daily News Headlines (week of February 2-6, 2004) Full stories available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/main.html * Children of Orchard Thinners At Greater Risk for Home Pesticide Exposure * Science Panel Slams Bush Proposal, Says Children Need More Limits on Mercury * Santa Barbara City Adopts Pesticide Reduction Policy * U.S. Looking for Exemption from International Pesticide Ban * EPA to Stop Consulting With Agencies Regarding Effects of New Pesticide Use on Wildlife The purpose of this update is to let you know about pesticide news stories posted at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/main.html from the past week that you might have missed. These updates will be short and sent only once a week. If you know of a story that should be covered in the Daily News, please let us know by sending an email to mailto:info@beyondpesticides.org --- How Pesticides Affect Learning and Behavior -- An Important Presentation Open to the Public On Wednesday, February 4, at 7:30pm in Morton Grove, just outside Chicago, world-renowned toxicology researcher, Warren Porter, Ph.D., will address the topic, "DO PESTICIDES AFFECT LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR?" For information about this and other upcoming programs, please consult NOHA's website, or call (847)60HEALTH (that's 847-604-3258). Do Pesticides Affect Learning and Behavior? Date: Wednesday, Feb. 4 2004 http://mercola.com/forms/seminars/2004/feb/pesticides.htm --- From P A N U P S . Pesticide Action Network Updates Service March 8, 2004 Unite for Change Join us April 2-4, 2004, for the 22nd National Pesticide Forum; Unite for Change: New Approaches to Pesticides and Environmental Health, at the Clark Kerr Conference Center, University of California, (UC) Berkeley. This year's program highlights the emerging coalitions of parents, pesticide activists, farmworkers, cancer survivors and many others working to reverse the widespread chemical contamination in our bodies, our food, our air and our planet. Conference sponsors are PANNA, Beyond Pesticides, Californians for Pesticide Reform and the Society and Environment Division of the Environmental Science, Policy and Management Department, UC Berkeley. This year the conference has been expanded to include activists from Canada and Mexico, where work is underway for local pesticide bans and around trade issues important for the entire region. With more than 20 workshops and three plenaries, the gathering is an opportunity to gather the latest information on current campaigns and emerging science, and to share ideas with a wide range of people knowledgeable on environmental health issues. Sandra Steingraber, author of well-researched and poetic books on the science and the experience of living with chemical pollution (Living Downstream, Post-Diagnosis, and Having Faith: an Ecologist's Journey to Motherhood) will give the keynote address. Also featured will be Howard Lyman, author of Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won't Eat Meat. A plenary on Freedom of Speech for Scientific Research features three outstanding researchers that reported on the risks of pesticides and genetically engineered crops, and were highly criticized for their findings. A second panel, The Power of Local Action, features activists from Canada, where more than 50 local pesticide bans are changing gardening practices in homes and public parks, officials in San Francisco applying the Precautionary Principle to environmental policymaking, and others working on toxics-reduction strategies. A third panel, From Seed to Table and Beyond: Thinking systemically about social change and the food system, will look at the food system as a whole as well as the broad institutional basis of corporate power. The panel will focus on the implications of the "big picture" for pesticide and food systems activists in developing successful strategies for change. Unite for Change will offer 20 workshops on pesticide related health and environmental issues. Subjects range from asthma to West Nile virus, and skills training sessions include, Selling Your Message to the Mainstream, and Catching the (Pesticide) Drift. Below is a sampling of workshops organized by PANNA, representing only a portion of the full schedule: Body Burden, Drift and Household Dust: Making Strategic Pesticide Monitoring Choices: Panelists will present current projects and technologies for monitoring for pesticides and for analyzing existing data. Discussion will focus on how data from each type of monitoring can promote policy change and the potential for using the various approaches in a complementary way. International / Global Pesticide Trade: New Tools, Partners & Campaigns: Presenters will look at the changing global pesticide trade and the impact of trade agreements such as those in Central America on pesticide regulation. Strategy Session on Systemic Change: This session will discuss ways to address the root causes of pesticide use, agricultural biotechnology and other social and environmental harms without abandoning current work on symptomatic issues. Communities United Against Pesticide Drift: Presents activists from California and North Carolina with success stories in the fight against airborne pesticide drift in the regulatory arena and in enforcement against violators. The workshop will focus on successful strategies and encourage discussion on ways to organize for successful actions against drift. Home and Garden Pesticides: A Wedge Issue?: A majority of urban residents (and voters) have personal concerns about pesticides and health, particularly for children. Information on the health and environmental justice issues of home pesticide use can be a critical step for achieving overall pesticide use reduction and bans. This interactive workshop explores home hazards, neighbor notification, the recent experience with prohibiting cosmetic use of pesticides in Canada, a new campaign at NCAP, and a public housing campaign in Los Angeles. Lessons from Pesticide-Specific Campaigns: Methyl Bromide, Lindane and Arsenic: This workshop will explore the benefits and pitfalls of pesticide-specific campaigns by looking at ongoing work on three chemicals. With updates on national and regional organizing efforts for each campaign and discussion on avoiding a "chemical-by-chemical" approach, in which banned pesticides are replaced with equally (or more) damaging products. Pesticide Activism in Canada and Mexico: Voices from the North and South: Activists will discuss opportunities for strengthening regional coordination. Canadian organizing for local bans of "cosmetic" pesticide use will be highlighted, as well as work underway in Mexico with women and indigenous groups on the dangers of pesticide use and promoting local organic markets. See conference information on the PANNA website (http://www.panna.org/), which will be updated as the schedule develops, or call PANNA at (415) 981-1771. --- Resource Pointer #358 (Corporate Power: New Threats to the Environment and Human Rights) March 10, 2004 Resource Pointer #356 (Globalization: Critiques and Alternatives) February 26, 2004 Resource Pointer #355 (GM Crops) February 11, 2004 Resource Pointer #354 (North American Trade and Globalization) February 5, 2004 Sweeping Ruling Protects Salmon from Pesticides February 02, 2004 Resource Pointer #353 (Resources for Non-profits) January 28, 2004 Resource Pointer #352 (Public Health Throughout the World) January 22, 2004 Pesticide Drift Sickens Residents. January 16, 2004 Resource Pointer #351 (The Health of Mother's Milk) January 14, 2004 POPs Treaty Achieves 50th Ratification - Environmental Health Advocates Worldwide Applaud Sweeping Accord Today, environmental health advocates worldwide celebrate the 50th ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Treaty). This benchmark, reached at surprising speed for such a sweeping accord, brings the global agreement into international law. “The ratification of this treaty is a true landmark for environmental health," says Monica Moore of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). "By targeting an entire class of chemicals for global phase out, it moves us a giant step forward in protecting people and the planet." The POPs Treaty targets an initial 12 chemicals for elimination, all of which are members of a dangerous class of chemicals that does not respect national borders–persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs can travel great distances, are often toxic at very low levels, and last for many years in the environment and in our bodies. Nine of the initial 12 chemicals are pesticides, the others are products of industrial manufacturing processes (see below for link to June 8, 2001 PANUPs). The treaty was signed on May 23, 2001 by more than 100 nations. France was the 50th nation to ratify the Stockholm Convention. The treaty will officially "come into force" on May 17, 2004, 90 days following the 50th ratification. The first meeting of the parties to the Convention will be held within a year of that date. Countries that ratify the treaty before this first meeting in early 2005 will be eligible to participate in crucial implementation discussions as well as the scientific review committee that considers the addition of new POPs chemicals to the elimination list. Ironically the U.S., which was one of the first countries to press for the treaty, has not yet ratified the accord. Implementing legislation has been stalled in Congress for nearly a year, with the major sticking point the question of what to do when new POPs chemicals are targeted for global elimination under the treaty. One proposal under consideration by Congress gives U.S. EPA complete discretion in taking any action on a domestic ban when a new chemical is listed under the Stockholm Convention. This approach, which is being promoted by the Bush Administration, effectively de-links the U.S. from any international decisions taken on new chemicals and directly undermines the spirit of the Convention. The question of how to target new chemicals is particularly important because there are many POPs still in use in the United States that are likely to face elimination under the Stockholm Convention. Three of those on the short list of candidates are pesticides still in use in the U.S.: pentachlorophenol (PCP), lindane and endosulfan. A powerful force behind the swift ratification of the POPs Treaty has been a global network of non governmental organizations, the International POPS Elimination Network (IPEN). “IPEN played a key role in building the international resolve to get rid of these dangerous chemicals," says PANNA's Kristin Schafer. "This unprecedented mobilization of NGOs from affected communities around the world made this a better treaty and led directly to its rapid ratification." PANNA was a founding member of IPEN in the mid-1990s. Resources: PANUPS June 8, 2001, POPs Treaty Signed, NGOs Call for Early Ratification, http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20010608.dv.html; Current information on the status of Stockholm Convention signatures and ratification can be found at UNEP's Stockholm Convention Web site: http://www.pops.int; The International Pops Elimination Network web site http://www.ipen.org; Additional information on POPs chemicals: http://www.panna.org, http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org . Contact: PANNA.´Back issues of PANUPS are available online at: http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), Email: panna@panna.org Web: http://www.panna.org ================================================= FOOD - GERMANY – BfR (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) 02/2004:
Do genetically modified foods involve risks for the health of consumers? On 14 January 2004 the Federal German Cabinet adopted a bill for the enforcement of the European regulations on genetically modified food and feed. The public debate about the bill caused unease amongst consumers. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment is receiving more and more inquiries about the safety of genetically modified food and the possible effects on health after consuming products of this kind. This prompted the Federal Institute to sum up the current state of scientific knowledge for consumers. Professor Andreas Hensel, President of BfR, commented, “The bill does not in any way change the safety of genetically modified food. In future, too, it will only be granted authorisation if it has successfully completed comprehensive safety tests“. Thanks to improving labelling provisions, it will in future be easier for the consumer to make an informed decision for or against genetic engineering. What is changing? The European regulations on genetically modified food and feed replace the provisions of the Novel Foods Regulation on genetically modified food and feed which have been in force since May 1997. The goal of the new legal provisions is to make authorisation procedures for novel food and food additives simpler and more transparent, to harmonise safety tests and to lay down more comprehensive labelling provisions. In the “Bill for the enforcement of the regulations of the European Community in the field of genetic engineering and to amend the Novel Food and Food Additives Regulation“, German responsibilities are being reassigned and sanctions laid down in the case of violations of the provisions in the EU regulation. The extended provisions concerning the labelling of food are likely to be of special interest to consumers. A new element is the labelling obligation for genetically modified feed. Food produced from animals not reared on genetically modified feed is exempt from the labelling obligation. Is consumer safety guaranteed? As in the past, authorisation is only granted for genetically modified food and feed if it has no detrimental effects on human and animal health or on the environment and does not mislead the consumer or user. The new products may not differ from comparable products they are to replace to such an extent that normal consumption of them could lead to nutritional deficiencies in humans or animals. Feed may not impair the specific characteristics of animal products in such a way that it damages or misleads the consumer. The safety assessment of food and feed on the national level is the responsibility of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). This is where the genetically modified product is compared with the conventional starting product on the basis of the documents submitted by the manufacturer and its nutritional-physiological characteristics as well as any possible toxic or allergenic ingredients are examined. If differences to conventional foods are observed, a decision will be taken depending on type and scale about which more extensive studies are necessary in order to prove the health safety of the product. Authorisation can only be granted once any health concerns have been overcome. Which products mut be labelled and how can this be monitored? The rules for the labelling of food and food additives containing genetically modified ingredients have been tightened even further by the uniform Europe-wide legislation. The new laws stipulate that all genetically modified foods must be labelled irrespective of whether the "use of genetic engineering" can be proven or not. Furthermore, feed must now also be labelled if it was produced from genetically modified organisms. Only products with technically unavoidable traces of genetically modified organisms, which reached the product during cultivation, transport or processing, are exempt from the labelling obligation. Any provision is only ever as good as monitoring of compliance. That's why methods are needed to reliably prove genetic modifications. In the past BfR has already taken the lead in developing methods of this kind in Germany and also in Europe and made them available as official methods. It will continue this work. Consumers can rest assured that the food control authorities in Germany now have suitable control procedures for monitoring the labelling of genetically modified food and feeds. More
information on our work can be accessed on our homepage on
www.bfr.bund.de EU-wide application to grow GMO oilseed rape rejected on environmental grounds Brussels, Monday, 2 February 2004: Environmental groups today welcomed the decision of the Belgian Government to reject an application to grow genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape. The EU-wide application from Bayer CropScience was rejected after research showed that it would damage the environment. Belgian experts concluded that growing this GM oilseed rape would have negative impacts on biodiversity that could not be brought under control, and that guidelines for farmers to prevent contamination of non-GM crops are unworkable and difficult to monitor. Their advice followed the largest GM field scale trials to date (in the UK), which concluded that growing GM oilseed rape would be worse for wildlife than growing the conventional crop (1). Other UK studies have also shown that insects can carry the pollen of oilseed rape over many kilometres (2). Such research underlines how immensely difficult, if not impossible, it would be to contain the cultivation of GM oilseed rape and protect non-genetically engineered farming. German-based Bayer CropScience had applied through Belgium for a Europe-wide licence to grow the GM oilseed rape. The Belgian Government could only have forwarded it to other member states for a joint decision if it had met European laws to protect the environment. Two other applications for a similar crop, also by Bayer, are being processed by Germany. Karen Simal, GMO campaigner for Greenpeace Belgium said “This is a slap in the face of the biotech industry and a victory for the environment. The Belgian Government has acknowledged that growing GM oilseed rape is harmful to the environment. Governments should refuse to even examine other applications for GM crop cultivation, because it would harm our environment, make organic and non-GM farming impossible, and because we still lack EU rules making the GMO industry liable for the damages.” While welcoming the Belgian government’s refusal to allow cultivation, both environmental organisations deplore the fact that, at the same time, the Belgian Government approved the crop for import and processing in Europe. This part of the application will now be forwarded to other EU member states. Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: “GM oilseed rape will harm the environment and contaminate non-GM agriculture, whether it is grown in the EU or elsewhere in the world. It is inconsistent to ban the cultivation yet allow it for import. Protecting the environment by rejecting GMOs should be the first responsibility of every Government.” Karen Simal continued: “Consumers are to some extent protected from GMOs as many food manufacturers refuse to allow GMOs in their products, but allowing such ingredients on the market places an extra burden on them. Although most consumers have made it clear they don’t want GMOs in their food, they will need to keep on actively rejecting such products.” The largest trials to date of oilseed rape were recently conducted in the UK and concluded that growing GM oilseed rape would be worse for the environment. Independent scientists found that bees and butterflies were less abundant in the GM crops than in non-GM crops due to a lack of weeds and wild plants. There were also substantially less weed seeds present in the GM crops. Weed seeds are an important source of food for small mammals and birds, particularly during winter. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/index.htm source: Katharine Mill, Greenpeace European Unit Media Officer Coalition against BAYER-dangers, www.CBGnetwork.org CBGnetwork@aol.com ================================================= OPEN LETTER Child labour at suppliers of Bayer-affiliate ProAgro Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Germanwatch and Global March Against Child Labour (Germany) To: Werner Wenning, CEO of Bayer AG Dr. Jochen Wulff, CEO of Bayer CropScience AG Dear Mr. Wenning, dear Dr. Wulff, we, the Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Germanwatch and the Global March against Child Labour, are writing to express our deepest concern at the intense employment of children in the planting of cottonseeds in India. Your Bayer affiliate, ProAgro, is one of the beneficiaries of this process. To prevent ongoing harm to children we urge you to take immediate steps against this practise. The research of the "Glocal Research and Consultancy Services" (GRCS) institute in Hyderabad/India, published under the title "Child Labour and Transnational Seed Companies in Hybrid Cottonseed Production" (translated into German in July 2003), proves the employment of the children at the suppliers of ProAgro, Monsanto, Unilever and other companies. This is a violation of the ILO-basic working conditions conduct, as well as of other international standards such as the OECD-Guidelines on Multinationals. One of the companies benefiting is ProAgro, which has been a Bayer affiliate since 1999. Bayer has committed itself to the abolition of child labour, for example by joining the UN Global Compact. Your company has meanwhile admitted the problems with the Indian seed suppliers. But only in September 2003 a meeting took place between the seed suppliers involved and the Indian initiative on children rights, the Mamidipudi Venkatarangaiya Foundation (MV Foundation) in Hyderabad/ India. At this meeting companies, including ProAgro, took over responsibility on children's working conditions at their suppliers. Since then there has been much delay without putting the commitments into place. On December 13th 2003 another meeting of the MV Foundation and the companies involved took place where a specific plan of action with detailed activities has been created and agreed upon. We expect from Bayer and its affiliate ProAgro to take up all required actions to end the employment of children and to immediately implement the plan of action. In addition we urge you to finance an education programme for the children who have suffered from child labour at your suppliers. This education programme should be developed together with the local authorities. Your commitment to the abolition of child labour at Bayer companies, as well as your contract clauses on preventing your suppliers of using child labour, are not enough in order to fulfil the target. Agreements made with local contractors need to be monitored. In order to prevent your suppliers from using child labour, the prices paid for their products need to be high enough so that employment of adults is profitable to the suppliers. Educational re-integration for children who have been forced to drop school in order to work is seldom successful. After each employment period with an average duration of seven months the children concerned - basically girls - do not get any further formal education. These children are at the age of six to fourteen. Through the work for the suppliers of Bayer/ProAgro, who depend on the contracts, the children have lost their options for the future. Their health is also endangered as the labour protection laws, such as when using herbicides, are not applied. We are in close co-operation with our partners in India, the MV Foundation. From Germany we will observe carefully the steps taken of Bayer/ProAgro and the implementation of the plan of action. As Bayer/ProAgro working methods violate the OECD Guidelines for Multinationals, we are presently evaluating the possibility of a complaint to the relevant authorities. What are the steps that you, as well as those responsible at ProAgro, will take in order to immediately stop all use of child labour at your suppliers? We look forward to your answer. Yours sincerely Philipp Mimkes, Coalition against BAYER-dangers m, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germany, CBGnetwork@aol.com Cornelia Heydenreich, Germanwatch e.V., Voßstraße 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany, heydenreich@germanwatch.org Rainer Kruse, Global March against Child Labour/ Germany , Spemannstr. 15, 70186 Stuttgart, Germany kruserainer@surfeu.de ================================================= March 4, 2004 #786 Report from Europe: Precaution Ascending by Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.* January 22, 2004 (Published Feb. 5, 2004) #782 Public Participation -- Part 2 by Maria B. Pellerano* January 8, 2004 (Published Jan. 29, 2004) Public Participation -- Part 1 by Maria B. Pellerano* All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org in text and PDF formats. ================================================= SCIENCE EHP is now available online. You can see it here: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2004/112-2/toc.html ''The acute effects of organic solvent exposure range from an alcohol-like intoxication to narcosis..'' (more at Health effects - Nervous system) http://www.geocities.com/fragranceallergy/NOHSToluene.html Cosmetic chemicals found in breast tumours 12 January 04 NewScientist.com news service Preservative chemicals found in samples of breast tumours probably came from underarm deodorants, UK scientists have claimed. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994555 Perfume and aromatic raw materials Opinion concerning the 1st update of the inventory of ingredients employed in cosmetic products section II : perfume and aromatic raw materials (adopted by the SCCNFP during the plenary session of 24 October 2000)(934KB) PDF file URL http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sccp/outcome_en.html Annotated Bibliography of 2003 Air Pollution Health Studies Now Available The American Lung Association has published the 2003 version of the annotated bibliography of selected studies of the health effects of ozone and particulate air pollution. The bibliography includes summaries of numerous studies of the effects of air pollution on infants and children. A copy of the bibliography is available online at: www.lungusa.org/cleanairstandards 10 February. Parkinson's research focuses on links to genes and toxins. With the discovery that both chemical toxins and genetic mutations can lead to similar disorders, scientists are beginning to unravel the process that leads to the death of brain cells and, ultimately, rigidity, tremors and other symptoms of Parkinson's. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/health/10PARK.html 10 February. EPA raises estimate of babies affected by mercury exposure. More than one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb, according to revised estimates released last week by EPA scientists. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/health/10WORD.html 10 February. Scientists suggest mercury-autism link, recommend action. Vaccines containing mercury may be contributing to the rise in autism even though population studies have not shown a connection between vaccines and the disorder, scientists told the National Academies of Science Monday. Scripps Howard News Service. http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/nw_national/article/0,1891,TRN_5703_2641656,00.html more to come... from www.EnvironmentalHealthNews.org March 2, 2004: Dr. Timothy J. Buckley Due to Indoor Sources, Cancer Health Risk Significantly Underestimated by EPA’s Ambient Model Estimates Baltimore, Md., Study Compares EPA Ambient Estimates to Actual Measured Exposure The cancer risk from exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is vastly underestimated by current models that rely solely on ambient emissions. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health showed that cancer risk figures based on actual measured exposure for communities in Baltimore, Md., were as much as three-fold greater than estimates given by models. Their study is the first of its kind to directly compare the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide (ASPEN) model results to indoor, outdoor, and personal exposure measurements. Scientists use pollutant exposure measurements to estimate public health risk. Such a comparison is important in evaluating the validity of ASPEN, which is being used nationally to assess the public health impact of ambient air toxins. The study, “Personal Exposure Meets Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Measured and Modeled Exposures and Risks in an Urban Community” is published in the April 2004 issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/Buckley_exposurerisk.html DOI's "Traditional Versus 'Green' Cleaning Products" "Must not contain petrochemical-derived fragrances." http://www.doi.gov/greening/sustain/trad.html ================================================= end of newslettter /English/26 If you want
to unsubscribe this newsletter, please send an email to
info@safer-world.org with
"unsubscribe newsletter/English" in the subject-line. |
Copyright© 1998-2008 SAFER WORLD. All rights reserved |