Category: Politics

USDA Drops Plan to Test for Monsanto Weed Killer in Food

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has quietly dropped a plan to start testing food for residues of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weed killer and the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s branded Roundup herbicides.

(U.S. Right To Know – By Carey Gillam)

The agency spent the last year coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in preparation to start testing samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residues on April 1, according to internal agency documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. Documents show that at least since January 2016 into January of this year, the glyphosate testing plan was moving forward. But when asked about the plan this week, a USDA spokesman said no glyphosate residue testing would be done at all by USDA this year.

The USDA’s plan called for the collection and testing of 315 samples of corn syrup from around the United States from April through August, according to the documents. Researchers were also supposed to test for the AMPA metabolite, the documents state. AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) is created as glyphosate breaks down. Measuring residues that include those from AMPA is important because AMPA is not a benign byproduct but carries its own set of safety concerns, scientists believe.

On Jan. 11, USDA’s Diana Haynes wrote to colleagues within USDA: “Based on recent conversations with EPA, we will begin testing corn syrup for glyphosate and its AMPA metabolite April 1, 2017 with collection ending August 31, 2017. This program change will need to be announced at the February PDP Conference Call.” Haynes is director of a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service division that annually conducts the Pesticide Data Program (PDP), which tests thousands of foods for hundreds of different pesticide residues.

The USDA spokesman, who did not want to be named, acknowledged there had been a glyphosate test plan but said that had recently changed: “The final decision for this year’s program plan, as a more efficient use of resources, is to sample and test honey which covers over 100 different pesticides.” Glyphosate residue testing requires a different methodology and will not be part of that screening in honey, he said.

The USDA does not routinely test for glyphosate as it does for other pesticides used in food production. But that stance has made the USDA the subject of criticism as controversy over glyphosate safety has mounted in recent years. The discussions of testing this year come as U.S. and European regulators are wrestling with cancer concerns about the chemical, and as Monsanto, which has made billions of dollars from its glyphosate-based herbicides, is being sued by hundreds of people who claim exposures to Roundup caused them or their loved ones to suffer from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Internal Monsanto documents obtained by plaintiffs’ attorneys in those cases indicate that Monsanto may have manipulated research regulators relied on to garner favorable safety assessments, and last week, Congressman Ted Lieu called for a probe by the Department of Justice into Monsanto’s actions.

Along with the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration also annually tests thousands of food samples for pesticide residues. Both agencies have done so for decades as a means to ensure that traces of weed killers, insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals used in farming do not persist at unsafe levels in food products commonly eaten by American families. If they find residues above the “maximum residue level” (MRL) allowed for that pesticide and that food, the agencies are supposed to inform the EPA, and actions can be taken against the supplier. The EPA is the regulator charged with establishing MRLs, also called “tolerances,” for different types of pesticides in foods, and the agency coordinates with USDA and FDA on the pesticide testing programs.

But despite the fact that glyphosate use has surged in the last 20 years alongside the marketing of glyphosate-tolerant crops, both USDA and FDA have declined to test for glyphosate residues aside from one time in 2011 when the USDA tested 300 soybean samples for glyphosate and AMPA residues. At that time the agency found 271 samples contained glyphosate, but said the levels were under the MRL – low enough not to be worrisome. The Government Accountability Office took both agencies to task in 2014 for the failure to test regularly for glyphosate.

Europe and Canada are well ahead of the United States when it comes to glyphosate testing in food. In fact, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is preparing to release its own findings from recent glyphosate testing. The CFIA also routinely skipped glyphosate in annual pesticide residue screening for years. But it began collecting data in 2015, moving to address concerns about the chemical that were highlighted when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in March 2015.

Canadian food activist and researcher Tony Mitra obtained more than 7,000 records from CFIA about its glyphosate testing last year, and claims that results are alarming, showing glyphosate pervasive in many foods. CFIA would not respond to requests for comment about its glyphosate testing.

One of the USDA’s explanation’s for not testing for glyphosate over the years has been cost – the agency has said that it is too expensive and inefficient to look for glyphosate residues in food headed for American dinner tables. And because glyphosate is considered so safe, testing would be a waste of time, the USDA has stated. That argument mimics Monsanto’s own – the company, which patented glyphosate in 1974 and has been a dominant provider of glyphosate ever since, says if the USDA did seek to test for glyphosate residues in food it would be a “misuse of valuable resources.”

FDA TESTS REMAIN IN LIMBO

The FDA began its own limited testing program for glyphosate residues – what it called a “special assignment” – last year. But the effort was fraught with controversy and internal difficulties and the program was suspended last fall. Before the suspension, one agency chemist found alarming levels of glyphosate in many samples of U.S. honey, levels that were technically illegal because there have been no allowable levels established for honey by the EPA. That revelation caused angst in the beekeeping industry and at least one large honey company was sued by consumer organizations over the glyphosate contamination. The same chemist also found glyphosate levels in many samples of oatmeal, including infant oat cereal. The FDA did not publicize those findings, but they were revealed in internal records obtained through a FOIA request.

Officially, the FDA was only looking for glyphosate residues in corn, soy, eggs and milk in last year’s testing assignment, though internal records discussed tests on sugar beets, popcorn, wheat and other foods or grains. Newly obtained FDA documents show the agency is engaged now in a “glyphosate collaboration” designed to validate the testing methodology to be used by multiple FDA laboratories.

“Once the first phase of this collaboration is completed and approved by quality control reviewers, the special assignment can be restarted,” said FDA spokeswoman Megan McSeveney.

CropLife America, an industry organization that represents the interests of Monsanto and other agrichemical companies, keeps a close eye on the government’s pesticide residue testing. Last year the organization sought to diffuse potential legal problems related to glyphosate and other pesticides in honey by asking EPA to set a blanket tolerance that would cover inadvertent contamination of honey by pesticides. Records show regulators have found 26 different pesticides in honey samples in past tests.

CropLife also has complained to USDA that data from its testing program is used by proponents of organic agriculture to promote organics over conventional foods. The group last year sent USDA a series of questions about its testing, and asked USDA: “What can we do to assist you in fighting these scaremongering tactics?”

The USDA’s most recent published report on pesticide residues in food found that for 2015 testing, only 15 percent of the 10,187 samples tested were free from any detectable pesticide residues. That’s a marked difference from 2014, when the USDA found that over 41 percent of samples were “clean” or showed no detectable pesticide residues. But the agency said the important point was that most of the samples, over 99 percent, had residues below the EPA’s established tolerances and are at levels that “do not pose risk to consumers’ health and are safe.”

Many scientists take issue with using MRLs as a standard associated with safety, arguing they are based on pesticide industry data and rely on flawed analyses. Much more research is needed to understand the impact on human health of chronic dietary exposures to pesticides, many say.

(First appeared in The Huffington Post.)

Related Reading:

Why the US does not have universal health care, while many other countries do

(The Conversation) The lead-up to the House passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) on May 4, which passed by a narrow majority after a failed first attempt, provided a glimpse into just how difficult it is to gain consensus on health care coverage.

In the aftermath of the House vote, many people have asked: Why are politicians struggling to find consensus on the AHCA instead of pursuing universal coverage? After all, most advanced industrialized countries have universal health care.

As a health policy and politics scholar, I have some ideas. Research from political science and health services points to three explanations.

No. 1: American culture is unique

One key reason is the unique political culture in America. As a nation that began on the back of immigrants with an entrepreneurial spirit and without a feudal system to ingrain a rigid social structure, Americans are more likely to be individualistic.

In other words, Americans, and conservatives in particular, have a strong belief in classical liberalism and the idea that the government should play a limited role in society. Given that universal coverage inherently clashes with this belief in individualism and limited government, it is perhaps not surprising that it has never been enacted in America even as it has been enacted elsewhere.

Public opinion certainly supports this idea. Survey research conducted by the International Social Survey Program has found that a lower percentage of Americans believe health care for the sick is a government responsibility than individuals in other advanced countries like Canada, the U.K., Germany or Sweden.

No. 2: Interest groups don’t want it

Even as American political culture helps to explain the health care debate in America, culture is far from the only reason America lacks universal coverage. Another factor that has limited debate about national health insurance is the role of interest groups in influencing the political process. The legislative battle over the content of the ACA, for example, generated US$1.2 billion in lobbying in 2009 alone.

The insurance industry was a key player in this process, spending over $100 million to help shape the ACA and keep private insurers, as opposed to the government, as the key cog in American health care.

While recent reports suggest strong opposition from interest groups to the AHCA, it is worth noting that even when confronted with a bill that many organized interests view as bad policy, universal health care has not been brought up as an alternative.

No. 3: Entitlement programs are hard in general to enact

A third reason America lacks universal health coverage and that House Republicans struggled to pass their plan even in a very conservative House chamber is that America’s political institutions make it difficult for massive entitlement programs to be enacted. As policy experts have pointed out in studies of the U.S. health system, the country doesn’t “have a comprehensive national health insurance system because American political institutions are structurally biased against this kind of comprehensive reform.”

The political system is prone to inertia, and any attempt at comprehensive reform must pass through the obstacle course of congressional committees, budget estimates, conference committees, amendments and a potential veto while opponents of reform publicly bash the bill.

Bottom line: Universal coverage unlikely to happen

Ultimately, the United States remains one of the only advanced industrialized nations without a comprehensive national health insurance system and with little prospect for one developing under President Trump or even subsequent presidents because of the many ways America is exceptional.

Its culture is unusually individualistic, favoring personal over government responsibility; lobbyists are particularly active, spending billions to ensure that private insurers maintain their status in the health system; and our institutions are designed in a manner that limits major social policy changes from happening.

As long as the reasons above remain, there is little reason to expect universal coverage in America anytime soon.

Recommended Reading:

Feds Deny Final Permits – Big Win for North Dakota Access Pipeline Protestors!

In a huge victory for the North Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters, the Feds denied final permits required for the Dakota Access Pipeline project on Sunday.

The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”  – Jo-Ellen Darcy, Army’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Works

Also check out US Army refuses North Dakota pipeline permit

The Army Corps of Engineers announced it would conduct an environmental impact review of the pipeline project to determine other ways to route the pipeline to avoid a crossing on the Missouri River.

Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do.” – Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said in a statement.

On November 25th, John W. Henderson of the Army Corps of Engineers sent a letter to all of the leaders of the Great Plains tribes with an eviction date of December 5th. In the letter to Chairman Dave Archambault II of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, he stated,

This decision is necessary to protect the general public from the violent confrontations between protestors and law enforcement officials that have occurred in this area, and to prevent death, illness, or serious injury to inhabitants of encampments due to the harsh North Dakota winter conditions. The necessary emergency, medical, and fire response services, law enforcement, or sustainable facilities to protect people from these conditions on this property cannot be provided.”

In the letter, he suggested another location as a “free speech zone” for anyone wanting to continue their protest. He warns that those who do not comply will be subject to prosecution under federal, state, and local laws.

A coalition of groups protesting the Dakota Access pipeline released a statement in response declaring, “We will not be moved.”

Chairman Archambault went on to say,

The best way to protect people during the winter, and reduce the risk of conflict between water protectors and militarized police, is to deny the easement for the Oahe crossing, and deny it now… Again, we ask that the United States stop the pipeline and move it outside our ancestral and treaty lands.”

Aside from the threat to the water, one fundamental issue is appalling. The Army Corps of Engineers says the protesters are on government land. While the protesters state,

The Army Corps has no authority to evict us from these lands. The Oceti Sakowin encampment is located on the ancestral homeland of the Lakota, Mandan, Arikara and Northern Cheyenne—on territory never ceded to the U.S. government, and affirmed in the 1851 Treaty of Ft. Laramie as sovereign land belonging to the Great Sioux Nation.”

Archambault also said,

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stands united with more than 300 tribal nations and the water protectors who are here peacefully protesting the Dakota access pipeline to bolster indigenous people’s rights. We continue to fight for these rights, which continue to be eroded. Although we have suffered much, we still have hope that the President will act on his commitment to close the chapter of broken promises to our people and especially our children.”

Apparently, President Obama was listening. Today, Sunday, December 4th, one day before the deadline, The New York Times reports that the Army Corps announced it will not approve construction permits for the pipeline and that it will look for alternate routes.

It is important to note that President Elect Donald Trump formally announced his support for completion of the pipeline on December 1st. He claimed that his own financial investments and campaign support and donations (both significant) did not influence his stance. His claims his decision is based on its benefit for all Americans.

Progress for the greater good, or in this case, “benefit for all Americans” is a continuation of the cultural genocide our government has justified for more than 200 years.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNnKVOQh2Bm/?taken-by=markruffalo&hl=en

Sources:

UN, Amnesty International Coming – The World is Watching the Dakota Access Pipeline – Timeline of Events

On Friday, October 28, 2016, The United Nations and Amnesty International each announced their plans to send delegations of human rights observers to investigate reports of human rights violations of protesters opposing the North Dakota Access pipeline. This action comes one day after heavily armed authorities surrounded protesters and reportedly used pepper spray, tear gas, and a sound cannon before arresting 141 protesters, bringing the total number of arrests to more than 400.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 3.7 billion dollar project, which is currently more than half completed, is being built to transport 470,000 barrels of oil a day across four states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. In southern Illinois, it will link with existing pipelines.

On January 25, 2016, Dakota Access announced it had received permit approval to build their pipeline from the North Dakota Public Service Commission. Seven months later, July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed its first legal action to try and block the pipeline.

…North Dakota’s governor, Jack Dalrymple, activated 100 National Guard Troops…

In September, Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council, calling on the council to help stop construction. He argued that two legally binding treaties, the 1851 Treaty of Traverse de Sioux and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie are being violated. “The oil companies and the government of the United States have failed to respect our sovereign rights,”Archambault said.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe view the pipeline as a threat to their water supply and a threat to sacred lands and burial sites. Thousands have participated in peaceful demonstrations against the pipeline, but many have been met with violence. There have been many reports of beatings, pepper spray, tear gas, mace, attack dogs, rubber bullets, horses injured from shootings, and the use of compression grenades, and a sound cannon along with arrests where protestors are forced to endure strip searches along with cavity searches. Archambault was arrested. Amy Goodman, a journalist, and documentarian Deia Schlosberg were arrested.

Schlosberg filmed activists who manually shut off the safety valves to stop the flow of oil in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Washington state, was charged with three felonies: conspiracy to theft of property, conspiracy to theft of services, and conspiracy to tampering with or damaging a public service. The maximum prison sentence for the three charges would equal 45 years. She was held for 48 hours without access to a lawyer and her film was confiscated. The charges are still standing.

Journalist Amy Goodman was arrested twice. She was first charged with criminal trespass on September 8 after reporting on the September 3rd violence between security guards and protestors. Reports from the sheriff’s office said 3 workers were injured by protesters. Witnesses said the security workers used pepper spray on 30 protesters and 12 were bitten by pit bulls that were released to attack men, women, and children. Goodman’s charges were dropped only to be replaced with a charge of engaging in a riot. The judge rejected the case due to lack of evidence.

On August 31st, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues said the “world is watching” and made the following statement:

For indigenous peoples, the environment is a living entity that contains our life sources as well as our sacred sites and heritage. The environment is an important part of our lives and any threats to it impacts our families, ancestors and future generations. It is therefore imperative that the United States respects and recognizes the intrinsic, inter-related rights of Sioux and their spiritual traditions, history, philosophy, and especially their rights to their lands and territories.” – ABC News

On September 8, the day before the court’s ruling, North Dakota’s governor, Jack Dalrymple, activated 100 National Guard Troops to assist local law enforcement if protests become violent.

On September 9, a federal judge denied the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s request for a temporary injunction. On the same day, the Department of Justice, Department of the Interior and Department of the Army released a joint statement saying,

The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws. Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time. The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution. In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.” – ABC News

The tribe appealed the September 9th ruling, but its appeal was denied on October 9th.

On October 25th, tribal leaders called on the U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch to investigate civil rights violations. The Department of Justice released a statement about how they were working with both sides to defuse tensions, support peaceful protests, and maintain public safety. Two days later protesters set up a roadblock that closed down a state highway resulting an escalation in violent intervention and arrests.

The fear of environmental harm from this pipeline is not unfounded. The Center for Effective Government claims ruptures and leaks are a daily occurrence. On their site they state the following:

Since 2010, over 3,300 incidents of crude oil and liquefied natural gas leaks or ruptures have occurred on U.S. pipelines. These incidents have killed 80 people, injured 389 more, and cost $2.8 billion in damages. They also released toxic, polluting chemicals in local soil, waterways, and air.”

“One of the largest spills happened in North Dakota in 2013 when lightning struck a pipeline, which leaked over 840,000 gallons of crude onto a wheat field.”

On October 20th, a Pennsylvania pipeline burst, leaking 55,000 gallons of gasoline into Wallis Run, a tributary of a creek that drains into the Susquehanna River. The spill endangered the drinking water of six million people. The pipeline is owned by Sunoco, the same company behind the Dakota pipeline access.

Does the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have the right to protect their land and their water? Do they have the right to demand that the U.S. government honor their treaties and laws? Or will we continue to allow corporations and corporate greed to rule our country? Will we assist them in stripping citizens, especially native Americans, of their constitutional rights as we plunder the land and its resources? Didn’t we learn not to use the National Guard against our own people after the massacre at Kent State when National Guardsmen shot and killed four unarmed students?

Hopefully, the added publicity from celebrity activists like Shailene Woodley, who was charged with criminal trespassing and engaging in a riot and Mark Ruffalo and the involvement of Jessie Jackson and Jill Stein will continue to sway public opinion. Even Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he supports the protesters.

Now that the UN and Amnesty International are involved, the whole world really is watching.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:

Does Hillary Clinton Oppose Marijuana Legalization?

Leaked emails show that Hillary Clinton spoke out against legalizing marijuana in a paid speech that was given more than two years ago, and in March 2014, in an email to Ursula Burns, Xerox’s chairman and CEO, Clinton used Wall Street terminology to express her opposition to ending cannabis prohibition.

BURNS: So long means thumbs up, short means thumbs down; or long means I support, short means I don’t. I’m going to start with — I’m going to give you about ten long-shorts.

CLINTON: Even if you could make money on a short, you can’t answer short.

BURNS: You can answer short, but you got to be careful about letting anybody else know that. They will bet against you. So legalization of pot?

CLINTON: Short in all senses of the word.

Other excerpts from the 80-page document published by Wikileaks (hacked from Podesta’s email account), show Clinton admitting that she is “far removed” from the typical struggles of the middle class. She says that politicians should have separate positions on issues in public and in private, a stance her critics have long suspected.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who supports legalization and has introduced legislation to end federal marijuana prohibition, seems to have shifted Hillary’s public position. Clinton has pledged to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act if elected, and many doubt this would have happened if it weren’t for Senator Sanders.

While Clinton has made no secret that she’s not ready to endorse full marijuana legalization, she now seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach, watching the results of new legislation in states like Colorado and Washington before she makes up her mind.

These remarks were made two-and-a-half years ago, just two months after legal marijuana sales began in Colorado, so it is not unlikely that Clinton’s personal view of legalization has evolved.

The leaked emails showing such strong opposition, and recent comments from the candidate’s daughter, Chelsea, last month, have cannabis advocates and much of the public concerned.

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Green Party both support ending cannabis prohibition.

To see what else Hillary Clinton has said about cannabis law reform, check out Marijuana.com’s comprehensive guide to the candidates.

Recommended Reading:
Sources: