Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - [Market-farming] Fw: UPDATE: Toxic Substances May be Allowed Into Organic Foods

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Liz Pike" <liz AT laughingbrookfarm.com>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Market-farming] Fw: UPDATE: Toxic Substances May be Allowed Into Organic Foods
  • Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 06:34:52 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: <chrys AT THEFUTUREISORGANIC.NET>
To: <SANET-MG AT LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:27 AM
Subject: UPDATE: Toxic Substances May be Allowed Into Organic Foods


> Folks,
>
> This is an update on the issue of whether the National Organic Program
> will allow List 3 "inert" ingredients into organic food and farming.
>
> First let me say that it was pointed out to me that in my introduction to
> my previous post on this subject I mistakenly left the impression that the
> proposal to allow List 3 "inerts" onto the national list of approved
> materials for organic production was made by an NOSB Board Member. Truth
> is the proposal came from Richard Mathews who is the program manager of
> the USDA National Organic Program (NOP). NOSB Board Members are by and
> large opposed to the proposal and the issue has raised once again the
> tension between the NOSB's strong statutory authority and NOP.
>
> A just-published policy adresses List 3 "inerts" used in food processing
> known as "Food Contact Substances" (as opposed to "ingredients" or
> "additives"; list 1 & 2 being the known or suspected toxic ones; list 4
> being the "generally regarded as safe" ones). Now, Matthews' proposal
> elicited a recent letter (below) to NOSB members from Dave Carter
> (consumer and public interest representative on the NOSB) that raises the
> alarm that the allowance of List 3 "inerts" will extend into pesticide
> formulations as well. Pesticide inerts, a different list than Food Contact
> Substances, include some very dangerous chemicals.
>
> A list of "Food Contact Substances" can be found at:
> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-fcn.html
>
> This list of 268 unpronounceble excretia of the global chemical industry
> includes such substances as silver sodium hydrogen zirconium phosphate, an
> antimicrobial additive for polymeric food-contact materials (breeds
> anibiotic resistance the way dirty wash towels used to breed Bolshevics);
> completely hydrolyzed copolymer of acrylonitrile and trivinylcyclohexane
> ion-exchange resin used to treat ["]potable["] water (thirsty yet?);
> 4,5-dichloro- 2-n-octyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone, a preservative and slimicide
> in the manufacture of paper and paperboard intended to contact aqueous and
> fatty food (Webster has no definition for slimicide. It's either a
> slime-mold killer or the real culprit behind the obesity epidemic, kills
> slimness) and Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2'- (1,2-ethenediyl)bis
> (5-((4-(bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amino)-
> 6-((4-sulfophyenyl)amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)-, tetrasodium salt, an
> optical brightener in paper and paperboard for contact with your food (you
> don't want your organic muffin wrapped in dreary paper now, do you? Hey,
> this one comes to us from our friends at Bayer Corp. Always looking for
> ways to brighten our shortened lives).
>
> But seriously, what I believe we are facing here is a chemical industry
> that feels threatened by the prospects of a successful organic food
> processing community that will prove that good food can be manufactured
> without dependence on billions of dollars worth of poorly tested strange
> molecules. These things will rub off on our food and cause who knows what
> kind of havoc with our bodies and those of our children. Could I just have
> that organic muffin wrapped in good ol' 100% cellulose, preferably not
> from a tree that had to give up its life to wrap my muffin?
>
> Both of these developments deserve your attention and action in order to
> preserve organics' integrity.
>
> Contact the NOP: Richard Mathews, Program Mgr.
> <mailto:Richard.Mathews AT usda.gov>
>
> More Update:
> Letter from Dave Carter, NOSB Chair:
> November 27, 2002
> comments in brackets [] are mine (Chrys)
>
> During the [NOSB] Executive Committee Conference Call last week, Richard
> Mathews informed us that he felt there was a crisis brewing over the issue
> of List 3 inerts [too many manufacturers and producers complaining that
> their favorite concoction fails the organic test due to List 3
> ingredients.]. Consequently, he announced that the NOP has decided that
> when the crop and livestock materials docket is posted in the Federal
> Register as an interim final rule, all list 3 inerts, when used in
> conjunction with approved substances, will be allowed unless specifically
> prohibited. Richard also announced that this may be posted by the end of
> the month [See below for what that might mean for organics].
>
> That announcement generated considerable discussion, concern and
> opposition. I, among others, visited with Richard about that issue earlier
> this week.
>
> Today, Richard met with the inerts Task Force (Nancy [Ostiguy], Rose
> [Koenig], Kim [Burton ], Emily Brown-Rosen Policy Director for Organic
> Materials Review Institute] and myself) to review the issue. Following
> extensive discussion, he agreed that, if the Inerts Task Force can come
> forward with a recommendation in the next couple of weeks, he will hold
> off posting the List 3 inerts.
>
> The Inerts Task Force faces a difficult task. Nancy and I will work to
> send you additional details as this process moves forward.
>
> The immediate issue in all of this is the list 3 inerts. the larger issue
> relates to the authority of NOP to make materials decisions contrary to
> NOSB recommendations.
>
> We'll keep pluggin.
>
> Dave
>
> ================
>
> From: JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ SUMMER 1997 • VOL.17, NO. 2
> http://www.pesticide.org/hiddeninerts.pdf
>
> The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
> Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), our national
> pesticide law, defines an inert as any ingredient
> in a pesticide product which is
> not the active ingredient.1 Active ingredients
> are defined as chemicals which
> prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any
> pest. They have lead roles, while inert
> ingredients are cast in supporting ones.
> For instance, inert surfactants break down
> the waxy coating on leaf surfaces and help
> actives penetrate it.
> The seemingly clear-cut nature of these
> roles is undermined by the fact that active
> ingredients can be and are used as
> inert ingredients. "Active inerts" refers to
> this class of chemicals... Active inerts, ones for which health
> and safety data should be fairly complete,
> provide a startling indictment of
> EPA’s inerts strategy. Only one active
> inert must be disclosed on the label because
> it is on List 1. List 2’s cast of
> characters include neurological and reproductive
> toxins, as well as ozone depleting
> chemicals, many of which have
> been on this list since 1987.
> Most active inerts reside on List 3:
> Inerts of Unknown Toxicity. The total:
> 264 out of 382 active inerts or 70 percent
> of the list. Especially egregious examples
> of List 3 active inerts include
> naphthalene (a common component of
> mothballs that can cause brain damage,
> convulsions, and death in children5),
> chlorothalonil (a probable carcinogen, according
> to the Health Effects Division in
> EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs 6), and
> chloropicrin (a respiratory tract irritant
> that can cause asthma, pulmonary edema,
> bronchopneumonia, and death7).
> That active ingredients are used as
> inerts at all calls into question the validity
> of EPA’s inerts strategy. That only
> one active inert must be disclosed on the
> label while the rest retain anonymity undermines
> confidence in EPA’s ability to
> assess the toxicity of inerts in a timely
> fashion... For example, butylated hydroxyanisole
> (BHA) was classified a possible carcinogen
> by the International Agency for Research
> on Cancer (IARC) in 1987.6 According
> to EPA’s own criteria, chemicals
> that have been assessed as known, probable,
> or possible carcinogens by IARC
> qualify for List 1.4 However, BHA hides
> among the 1,981 inerts on List 3: Inerts
> of Unknown Toxicity. This discrepancy
> is particularly troubling because BHA is
> a commonly used antioxidant in butter,
> vegetable oils, cereals, baked goods, potato
> chips, meat products, and many other
> foods. How much longer does EPA need
> to assess BHA as toxic? When will they
> require it to be listed on the label with a
> warning statement and prohibit new products
> from containing it?
>
> Examples of Active "Inerts"
> acetone
> asphalt
> benzaldehyde
> 2-benzyl-4-chlorophenol
> chlorine dioxide
> 5-chloro-2-methyl isothiazolone
> chloropicrin
> chlorothalonil
> coal tar
> copper naphthenate
> cresol
> dazomet
> dichlorobenzene
> dichlorodifluoromethane
> ethoxylated isooctylphenol
> methyl naphthalene
> naphthalene
> polyoxyethylene nonylphenol
> propyl p-hydroxybenzoate
> salicylic acid
> sodium fluoride
> solvent naptha
> sodium salt of phenylphenol
> toluene
> xylenes
>
> [Yum!]
>
> >From or Forwarded by: Chrys Ostrander
> Chrysalis Farm at Tolstoy
> Grower of Organic Produce and Botanicals
> 33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
> Davenport, WA 99122
> Phone: (509) 725-0610
> "The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the
> perfection of human beings" Masanobu Fukuoka - "One Straw Revolution"
>
> Email: <mailto:chrys AT thefutureisorganic.net>
> URL: http://www.thefutureisorganic.net
>
> This message is a service to the sustainable agriculture community of the
> Pacific Northwest. If you did not receive this message directly from me
> and you would like to receive them directly (about 15 - 20 messages per
> week), just visit the website above and sign up. It's easy. Just email me
> if you want to be removed from the list.
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page