Environment

Food Safety Modernization Act Far More Costly Than Supporters Claimed

by Hans Bader on April 16, 2013

in Agriculture, Environment, Health and Illness, Regulation

“Proposed FDA safety rules frustrate tree fruit farmers,” reported The Washington Post. As the FDA puts “in place a massive overhaul of the nation’s food safety system,” due to the Food Safety Modernization Act, “Few groups have expressed more frustration than tree fruit farmers, who grow apples, pears and a variety of other produce. They complain that the FDA’s approach, in some ways, defies common sense.” The 2010 law is proving far more costly than its supporters promised it would be in order to get enacted. The “Food Safety Modernization Act would impose only modest costs on farmers, or so we kept being assured when it passed in 2010.” But many orchard growers now face tens of thousands of dollars in costs, notes the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson. As he notes, the law’s unexpected costs have caused a furor in some farming communities, and the Town of Brooksville recently became the “ninth in Maine to pass symbolic ‘food sovereignty’ resolution [See Jordan Bloom, The American Conservative; Food Renegade (Dan Brown of Blue Hill)].”

“The FDA has issued two proposed rules to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act enacted in 2011.” [Brian Wolfman, Public Citizen, including details and links; The Packer] “The costs to fruit and vegetable growers for complying with the newly proposed produce safety regulation have been estimated at more than $30,000 annually for large farms and about $13,000 per year for smaller farms.” [The Grower] As Olson observes, this could be an enormous burden for some farmers: “How much do typical US farm households make in a year, you may wonder? According to U.S. government figures (here and here, for example) a large proportion of smaller family farms make little or no profit, and are instead supported by the off-farm earnings of family members.”

Liberal newspapers trumpeted the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, while ignoring its potential harms to innovation, small business, and the availability of unconventional foods. CEI’s  Greg Conko, who studies biotech and food safety regulation, earlier explained how the bill’s expensive and cumbersome red tape might thwart “firms from developing innovative new processes and practices that could deliver real food safety improvements.” Earlier versions of the bill backed by left-leaning interest groups were even worse, and would have driven “out of business” many more “local farmers and artisanal, small-scale producers of berries, herbs, cheese, and countless other wares, even when there is in fact nothing unsafe in their methods of production.” The version of the bill ultimately enacted was less extreme, but even it could “leave tens of thousands of small and mid-sized farms and food stands to be crushed under the weight of rules designed for some of the world’s largest food processors,” Conko observed.

NOAA Proposes Tuna-Dolphin Regulations To Comply With WTO Ruling

by Fran Smith on April 10, 2013

in Environment, International, Legal, Trade

dolphin-safe-labelTo comply with a World Trade Organization ruling in a tuna-dolphin complaint brought by Mexico, the U.S. proposed new regulations that would tighten the requirements for allowing tuna to be labeled “dolphin safe.”

The proposal was issued for comments by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on April 5. It would revise the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) of 1990, which established a dolphin-safe labeling standard for certain tuna products.

Under the original rule, a “dolphin-safe” label could be used only for tuna that was caught without using purse-seine, encircling methods.  But for tuna caught in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Region (ETPR), additional certification was required that “no dolphins were killed or seriously injured” while catching the tuna.

In the U.S. regulations, NOAA also established a domestic tracking and verification program that provides for the tracking of tuna labeled dolphin-safe.

In a case brought by Mexico in 2008, Mexico challenged in the WTO the U.S. dolphin-safe labeling system as violating provisions of the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and its Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement).

Mexico’s tuna fishermen catch their fish in the ETPR using purse-seine vessels and complained to the WTO that the U.S. rules unfairly discriminated against Mexico. In the case, US-Tuna II, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on June 13, 2012, adopted earlier WTO reports finding that the U.S. labeling system did indeed discriminate against Mexican tuna and violated the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

In its proposed rule, NOAA would expand its current requirements  so all tuna products labeled dolphin-safe — not just tuna harvested by large purse seines in the ETP — would be required to have verification statements from captains, and in some cases observers, that “no dolphins were killed or seriously injured” while harvesting the tuna. In addition, there are new storage requirements so tuna caught using gear designated as dolphin-safe has to be stored separately from tuna caught in non-dolphin-safe gear from the time of capture through unloading.

This case is an important one as some countries use non-tariff barriers to protect their domestic industries or to advance environmental goals. (See a 1996 CEI article about the Basel Convention’s impact on international trade.)

The Cancer Clusters That Weren’t

by Angela Logomasini on March 25, 2013 · 4 comments

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

e_brockovichA recent post in ACSH Dispatch examines an interesting question: How likely is it that some U.S. communities have elevated cancer rates, a.k.a, “cancer clusters,” because of chemical pollution? The answer: not very.

ACSH points to an enlightening article published in Slate by George Johnson, who notes:

Time after time, the clusters have turned out to be statistical illusions—artifacts of chance. … The Erin Brockovich incident, one of the most famous, is among the many that have been debunked. Hexavalent chromium in the water supply of a small California town was blamed for causing cancer, resulting in a $333 million legal settlement and a movie starring Julia Roberts. But an epidemiological study ultimately showed that the cancer rate was no greater than that of the general population. The rate was actually slightly less.

Johnson also discusses the alleged cancer cluster in Toms River, N.J., which is the subject of a new book: Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation, by Dan Fagin. But contrary to Fagin’s book, Johnson concludes: “… no matter how hard I squinted at the numbers, I found it hard to be convinced that there had been a cancer problem in Toms River.”

It is true that chemicals cause cancers where people are exposed for long periods of time to very high levels. For example, populations in Taiwan whose drinking water was contaminated with extremely high levels of arsenic for many decades experienced elevated rates of skin cancer. Is that a cluster? Surely it is. Does it convey information about the risks to populations exposed to much lower concentrations? Not particularly.

[click to continue…]

Response To Drescher On Cancer And Chemicals

by Angela Logomasini on March 21, 2013 · 2 comments

in Environment, Features, Regulation

fran_drescherLast week, Fran Drescher responded to my Huffington Post article on cancer trends, and today I posted a reply on the Independent Women’s Forum Inkwell blog. In a nutshell, I praise Drescher for her work promoting early detection and a healthy lifestyle that includes both a good diet and exercise, but her focus on chemicals as a significant cancer cause is problematic.

Her basic argument on the Huffington Post was as follows: Most cancers are caused by “environmental factors” and since trace chemicals are present in the human body we should take action to eliminate or reduce them if for no other reason than to simply err on the safe side.

It’s true that “environmental factors” are the cause of most cancers, but researchers define these factors as anything but genetics. As I noted in my article and elsewhere, environmental factors include tobacco, dietary choices, infections, natural radiation, and reproductive behavior among other things. Trace chemicals in consumer products are not a demonstrated cancer source.

What about the fact that chemicals are found in the human body? In its Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains: “The presence of an environmental chemical in people’s blood or urine does not mean that it will cause effects or disease.” The real question is: Is exposure from consumer products ever really high enough to raise concerns about cancer?

“These everyday exposures are usually too small to cause health problems,” says the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in its booklet titled “Chemicals, Cancer and You.” In fact, as humans increased our use of manmade chemicals, cancer rates have declined—the reverse of what you’d expect if they posed significant risks.

Finally, the idea that we should eliminate certain products “to be on the safe side” ignores the fact that these chemicals have benefits. When we arbitrarily eliminate them — either by regulation or simply bad publicity — we lose those benefits and potentially create more risks. For example, bans on the pesticide DDT — rather than policies to manage risks — have contributed to millions of deaths every year. Similar policies to ban chemicals used to make plastics and resins — including medical devices, blood bags, water bottles, and sanitary food packaging – may create additional risks for society, including some that are deadly.

So to erring on the “safe” side, I’d rather we focused on science, risk assessment, and ultimately consumer choice. Read my full response on the Inkwell.

CEI Podcast For March 12, 2013: Sunshine Week

by Ryan Young on March 12, 2013

in Energy, Environment, Legal, Podcast

Have a listen here.

This week is Sunshine Week. According to its official website, Sunshine Week is “a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information.” Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, is here to talk about CEI’s efforts to increase government transparency.

Capitalists Do It With The Lights On: Human Achievement Hour 2013

by Michelle Minton on March 6, 2013 · 2 comments

in CEI Projects, Energy, Environment, Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Post image for Capitalists Do It With The Lights On: Human Achievement Hour 2013

It’s that time of year again when we at the Competitive Enterprise Institute celebrate the innovative power of humanity and demonstrate our commitment to protecting the rights of individuals against government action that would limit our ability to use earth’s resources and thus hinder human progress. We call this celebration Human Achievement Hour (HAH).

On Saturday, March 23 at 8:30pm (local time), some people, businesses and governments around the world will choose to sit in the dark for one hour as a symbolic gesture to take action against climate change. The organizers of Earth Hour say that they longer expect energy use to actually drop during the hour, but instead see it as a way for people to show their commitment to reducing energy use and taking action beyond the hour.

It’s absolutely every person’s right to decide if they want to conserve energy for whatever reason; they are free to sit in the dark as long as they want. However, it should not be their right to impose their beliefs or opinions on others. And that is what is at the heart of the environmentalist movement. While many participants in Earth Hour sincerely want a cleaner environment — a desire most of us share — the environmentalist movement whether implicitly or explicitly seeks to clamp down on human progress by reducing energy consumption whether through regulation and taxation. They want to make fossil fuels, which they see as dirty, more expensive to encourage the use of renewable “greener” energies.

Despite any good intentions, the ultimate result of environmentalist policies is not a healthier, cleaner environment. Instead we will see a population that is sicker and poorer. The only way we achieve technology that is “greener” is by building on older “dirtier” technology. As we make it harder and more expensive for those in the business of creating new technologies, all we do is slow progress and make it that much longer to reach more environmentally friendly solutions.

[click to continue…]

The Dangers Of Crying Wolf On BPA

by Angela Logomasini on February 28, 2013

in Environment, Precaution & Risk

Anyone with an interest in the science of bisphenol A (BPA)–a chemical used to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line food containers — should read Trevor Butterworth’s recent Q&A with researcher Richard M. Sharpe, who specializes in male reproductive health issues at the University of Edinburgh.

I’ve commented many times on significant problems surrounding many of the recent studies on BPA and how hype about its risks can harm human health. Sharpe has been critical as well, and in December 2009, he lamented:

“research on Bisphenol A has … become literally bogged down in the mire of controversy, much of which stems from the earliest findings and seems to have little to do with the current state of the science … Fundamental, repetitive work on bisphenol A has sucked in tens, probably hundreds, of millions of dollars from government bodies and industry which, at a time when research money is thin on the ground, looks increasingly like an investment with a nil return.”

Judging from the Butterworth’s interview things have not changed much. Sharpe notes some additional dangers that arise from alarmist journalism and bad science:

My concern is that by feeding the public a continual stream of alarm stories that are poorly based, as with many of the stories about bisphenol A, people will become desensitized; the public is not stupid, people know it cannot all be true, especially when they see that everyone is living longer. But what happens if we discover an environmental chemical (or mixture) that we really do think poses a threat to human health, how are we going to get them to take serious notice of it, rather than filing it away with all the other alarmist stuff?

Read the full interview on Forbes.com.

Breast Cancer Victims Suffer From Foolish Priorities

by Angela Logomasini on February 12, 2013 · 2 comments

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

In government, political priorities often supersede science and good health policy. In fact, a recent government report may shift funding away from useful research to study the most unlikely causes of breast cancer. More women will suffer in the future than necessary as money for useful research shrinks.

Released by the Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee, which an act of Congress created in 2008, this report says more funding should go to “breast cancer prevention.” But rather than identify known causes women can address (such as poor diets), it suggests government agencies “intensify the study of chemical and physical factors.”

This approach flies in the face of the best research on  cancer, such as  the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer.

At the end of the 20th century, breast cancer among women had risen, particularly in developed nations, and activists like to say chemicals play a big role. Yet NCI pointed out breast cancer rates appeared higher in part because better screening and increased detection found more cancers. The percentage of women age 40 to 49 who obtained mammograms doubled between 1987 and 1998 from 32 percent to 63 percent. The percentage of women age 50 to 64 who received a mammogram increased from 31 percent to 73 percent in the same period. In addition, hormone replacement therapy appears to have increased breast cancer risks, an unfortunate situation that was unknown at the time.

In its most recent report, the NCI said breast cancer has stabilized after “sharply decreasing” following the reduction of hormone replacement therapy. NCI does not identify chemicals as a significant cause of breast cancer.  Likewise, the American Cancer Society notes on its website: “At this time research does not show a clear link between breast cancer risk and exposure to things like plastics, certain cosmetics and personal care products, and pesticides.”

In addition, the most scientifically robust studies on the topic have failed to find a convincing link between breast cancer and chemicals. For example, U.S. researchers produced one of the largest such studies, which was conducted among women in Long Island, N.Y.  It was unable to establish a link between the chemicals most often cited as a potential cause of breast cancer—DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane) and other pesticides as well as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)—and an elevated level of cancers in that area.

Risk factors associated with breast cancer are related to lifestyle choices available to women in industrial societies—which explains why breast cancer is more common in Western nations. These include dietary choices such as consumption of too much fat, alcohol, or both; obesity among children (which increases risks as it can affect hormone levels and produce early menstruation); weight gain after menopause; and weight gain after 18 years of age. Delaying or refraining from childbearing also can affect hormone levels, thereby increasing breast cancer risks.

Not emphasized by anti-chemical activists or this recent government report is the fact modern medicine—and its many chemicals—are saving women from breast cancer. A woman with breast cancer in the late 1970s had a 75 percent chance of surviving five or more years, while today she has a 90 percent chance, according to data on NCI’s website.

For more details about cancer and chemicals, see SafeChemicalPolicy.org.

Herbicide Poses No Cancer Risk In Drinking Water

by Angela Logomasini on February 4, 2013

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

Over the years, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have repeatedly issued bogus reports claiming that Americans face serious cancer risks from trace chemicals found in drinking water. A new study challenges their claims regarding one of these activists’ key targets: the herbicide atrazine, which farmers use to control weeds rather than tilling the soil.

This study, published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, underscores why we need not fear atrazine or listen the green hype. It employed a “weight-of-the-evidence” test for assessing safety of this chemical, which examines the full body of research on a topic and then emphasizes the best quality research to draw conclusions. Such weigh-of-the-evidence tests provide much better information than cherry-picking studies — as the NRDC and EWG usually do — to support predetermined, politically driven positions.

The study authors report:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the conflicting reports from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Scientific Advisory Panel (Panel) on the carcinogenicity of atrazine in order to determine whether the results from epidemiologic studies support a causal relationship between atrazine and any specific cancer. We reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency and Panel reports in the context of all the epidemiologic studies on the specific cancers of interest. A weight-of-evidence approach leads to the conclusion that there is no causal association between atrazine and cancer and that occasional positive results can be attributed to bias or chance. Atrazine appears to be a good candidate for a category of herbicides with a probable absence of cancer risk. Atrazine should be treated for regulatory and public health purposes as an agent unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.

These findings are not surprising since America’s drinking water is not a likely source of cancer risks from atrazine or any other trace chemical. In their landmark study on the causes of cancer, scientists Richard Doll and Richard Peto noted that “with the possible exception of asbestos in a few water supplies, we know of no established human carcinogen that is ever present in sufficient quantities in large U.S. water supplies to account for any material percentage of the total risk of cancer.”

[click to continue…]

Cancer Risks Unlikely From Foam Cups

by Angela Logomasini on January 31, 2013

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

Whatever happened to plastic foam coffee cups? Visit any to-go coffee shop and you will most likely only find paper cups that burn your hands and let your coffee go cold.

Cups made with polystyrene foam are disappearing from the marketplace because a bevy of misinformation about their environmental effects, including claims styrene — the chemical used to make them — is a carcinogen.

But a new study issued by the consulting group Gradient Corp. questions claims this chemical poses cancer risks. Specifically, it undermines the National Toxicology Program’s classification of styrene in 2011 as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” The Gradient researchers find:

The epidemiology studies show no consistent increased incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer. In animal studies, increased incidence rates of mostly benign tumors have been observed only in certain strains of one species (mice) and at one tissue site (lung). The lack of concordance of tumor incidence and tumor type among animals (even within the same species) and humans indicates that there has been no particular cancer consistently observed among all available studies. The only plausible mechanism for styrene-induced carcinogenesis — a non-genotoxic mode of action that is specific to the mouse lung — is not relevant to humans. As a whole, the evidence does not support the characterization of styrene as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” and styrene should not be listed in the Report on Carcinogens.

Greens may criticize the Gradient study because it was funded by the styrene industry, but they can’t adequately dispute the data. In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) ranks styrene cancer risks at a lower level than does the NTP. Rather than “reasonably anticipated,” IARC says styrene is “possibly carcinogenic to humans” — the same classification they give to pickles and the coffee I like to enjoy in a foam cup. Like the gradient study, IARC couldn’t even find significant risk among workers exposed to relatively high levels of styrene.

A big part of the problem, as Richard Belzer well documented in a paper for CEI, is that the NTP isn’t particularly scientific. Both its criteria and terminology for classifications are purely subjective, lacking scientific meaning.

Unfortunately, it may take a long time — if ever — for NTP to revise this classification. Consider that it took nearly 30 years for NTP to remove the harmless sugar substitute, i.e., saccharine, from its list of carcinogens. Somehow saccharine survived and remains on the market today. Hopefully, 30 years from now, if I am still alive, I will be able to drink my coffee from a foam cup.

Image credit: HeyRocker on flickr.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →