No methyl iodide on our food

California is on the verge of approving a potent carcinogenic gas for use on strawberry fields and other food crops. The chemical -- methyl iodide -- is so toxic that scientists in labs use only small amounts with special protective equipment, yet agricultural applications mean it could be released directly into the air and water.

On April 30, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation proposed that the state approve use of methyl iodide for agricultural purposes, despite ongoing outcry from prominent scientists and the general public. Arysta LifeScience, a manufacturer of the chemical and the world's largest privately-held pesticide company, has invested in a substantial lobbying campaign to gain approval in one of the world's most productive agricultural regions.

Methyl iodide has been subject to ongoing controversy in its approval process. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved methyl iodide for agricultural use in 2007, amid criticism from more than 50 prominent scientists that the process was hidden from public view and the research focus was too limited. California followed with its own review. Even though a report from an independent panel of scientists in the California study declared that "methyl iodide is a highly toxic chemical and we expect that any anticipated scenario for the agricultural or structural fumigation use of this agent would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on public health," the Department of Pesticide Regulation nonetheless proposed that the chemical be approved.

There is little to debate about methyl iodide's toxicity. It is a known neurotoxin, disrupts thyroid function, damages developing fetuses, and has caused lung tumors in laboratory animals. California already classifies it as a human carcinogen. Fumigating fields with the gas -- even with the strictest regulations -- would no doubt still result in unacceptable exposures to farmworkers and and surrounding populations.

We have one last chance to stop methyl iodide from being used on our food. The DPR is accepting public comments on it's proposal through June 14. Submit your comment today and send the incontrovertible message that we don't want the public or our food exposed to this poison.

A kiss is just a kiss

Unless it has the flavor of toxic lead...



Amy Goodman of Truthdig: (my bold)

Is your lipstick laden with lead? Is your baby’s bottle toxic? The American Chemistry Council assures us that “we make the products that help keep you safe and healthy.” But U.S. consumers are actually exposed to a vast array of harmful chemicals and additives embedded in toys, cosmetics, plastic water bottles and countless other products. U.S. chemical and manufacturing industries have fought regulation, while Europe moves ahead with strict prohibitions against the most harmful toxins. The European Union says regulation is good for business, inspiring consumer confidence and saving money over the long term.

Most people would be surprised to learn that the cosmetics industry in the United States is largely unregulated. Investigative journalist Mark Schapiro is the author of “Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power.” In the absence of oversight, researchers and journalists like Schapiro and grass-roots organizations have stepped into the breach.

Schapiro told me, “Whether it is your nail polish, eye shadow, shampoo, essentially personal-care products [are] not regulated by the [Food and Drug Administration]. ... Numerous times in the Senate, over the last 50 years, there have been efforts to expand the purview of the FDA, and it’s been repeatedly beaten back by the cosmetics industry.” Details on the toxins are hard to come by. Schapiro continued, “The reason I even know what kind of material is in cosmetics is not because the FDA has told us; it’s actually because the European Union has taken the action to remove that stuff, and they have a list.”

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics lists numerous toxins that appear regularly in cosmetics and personal-care products, among them lead and phthalates. Phthalates are linked to birth defects, including disruption of genital development in boys, decreased sperm counts and infertility. Lead appears in lipstick and hundreds of other products. The CSC reports that “lead ... is a proven neurotoxin—linked to learning, language and behavioral problems ... miscarriage, reduced fertility in both men and women, hormonal changes, menstrual irregularities and delays in puberty onset in girls.” This is the stuff women and girls are putting on their lips all day, licking it off and reapplying.

The European Union, with 27 member nations representing almost half a billion people, is asserting itself on issues of toxins, using serious economic muscle. Stavros Dimas, European Union commissioner for environment, explained the long-term benefits of regulation: “The medical expenses for chemical-related diseases will be less. Medicines will not be needed. We will not lose working hours, and productivity will be better. So the overall benefits will by far outweigh costs to the industry.”

Interestingly, because European countries pay a far larger share of their citizens’ health-care costs than does the U.S., they want to keep costs down and they expect to save upward of $50 billion in coming decades, says Schapiro, as a result of the improved health and environmental conditions brought about by stricter chemical regulations.

In the wake of the 2007 China toy recall in the U.S. (because of lead found in the toys), Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. A key provision, mandating a ban of phthalate- and lead-containing products intended for children 12 years of age and younger, went into effect Feb. 10. If you bought a plastic toy before that date, beware: After the law passed last summer, some stores stuffed their shelves with tainted toys and sold them at fire-sale prices to unload their inventory.

Safe alternatives for toys, cosmetics, shampoos and other products are becoming increasingly available as demand for organic products grows. The difference between market forces limiting toxins and a law doing it, Schapiro says, is “if you have a law, it makes it far more equitable, because everybody gets the same protections, whether you have the resources or the knowledge to pursue the alternatives.”

That is where the EU comes in, with its expansive and world-leading regulatory system in place (called “REACH,” for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of CHemical substances). Schapiro notes, “The European-led revolution in chemical regulation requires that thousands of chemicals finally be assessed for their potentially toxic effects on human beings and signals the end of American industry’s ability to withhold critical data from the public.”

Tough regulations on toxins are not only essential to saving lives; they also make good business sense. The U.S. now has an opportunity to catch up to our European partners—and make changes that are more than just cosmetic.

Americans are fat and overindulged. High fructose corn syrup is in everything. We get (new and improved! more for less!) products thrown at us constantly. We are urged to impulse buy. Spend more, don't think, don't get up, just order online! Yet we've been fed utter crap. The food and toys we buy have toxic chemicals, our beef has mad cow disease, our spinach has e-coli, our rice arsenic. Yet we are told to ignore that, buy more buy more, our country and the world depends on us to buy more...

Do we really need cheap heaps of stuff? Do we really need the latest greatest thing?

Know something corporations do not want you to know. Every time an addict shakes his addiction, someone loses money. So let's start buying less and emphasize quality over quantity.

Once you involve money, then the corporations will listen.


*edited for clarity... and because my grammar is really atrocious...