Guest guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Share Posted December 6, 2002 forgive me if i err in posting mail from another list. I don't type well.. but this is so relevant ... "Liz Pike" <liz | This is Spam | Add to Address Book To: "Market Farming" <market-farming Subject: [Market-farming] Fw: UPDATE: Toxic Substances May be Allowed Into Organic Foods Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 06:34:52 -0500 - <chrys <SANET-MG Monday, December 02, 2002 4:27 AM 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. > <Richard.Mathews > > 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 > > ================ > > 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: <chrys > 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. > _____________ Market-farming mailing list Market-farming http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming Get the list FAQ at: http://www.marketfarming.net/mflistfaq.htm Ostrowski <Odesign1 wrote: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/89895_biolables05.shtml http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=organic20 & date=20021020 & query=organic+labeling+standards http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=organic02 & date=20021002 & query=organic+labeling+standards - Hey Ian..sent you links here to the FDA article and a couple of articles about the USDA organic standards. The new standards sound great but I don't trust the USDA some how and since the FDA and the USDA are different Departments altogether I am left wondering whats going on. I sent you the link to the site where you can look at the USDA Standards Documents ( some 500 pages!!) if you care to read them. I am going to , little by little. One thing I notice about the whole thing is the suppresion of the term "GMO". There seems to be some "sanitizing" goin on. The key here is possibly in the USDA's definition of "bioengineering" What do you all think?...Mary OFederal Law requires that we warn you of the following: 1. Natural methods can sometimes backfire. 2. If you are pregnant, consult your physician before using any natural remedy. 3. The Constitution guarantees you the right to be your own physician and toprescribe for your own health. We are not medical doctors although MDs are welcome to post here as long as they behave themselves. Any opinions put forth by the list members are exactly that, and any person following the advice of anyone posting here does so at their own risk. It is up to you to educate yourself. By accepting advice or products from list members, you are agreeing to be fully responsible for your own health, and hold the List Owner and members free of any liability. Dr. Ian ShillingtonDoctor of NaturopathyDr.IanShillington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 Paul, next time take out the URL to the other group before posting, like I did in this reply. Janet - paul id herbal remedies Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:02 PM Re: [herbal remedies] GMO and check this out.. forgive me if i err in posting mail from another list. I don't type well.. but this is so relevant ... - <chrys <SANET-MG Monday, December 02, 2002 4:27 AM 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. > <Richard.Mathews > > 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 > > ================ > > 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: <chrys > 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. > _____________ Market-farming mailing list Market-farming http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming Get the list FAQ at: http://www.marketfarming.net/mflistfaq.htm Ostrowski <Odesign1 wrote: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/89895_biolables05.shtml http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/displ ay?slug=organic20 & date=20021020 & query=organic+labeling+standards http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/displ ay?slug=organic02 & date=20021002 & query=organic+labeling+standards - Hey Ian..sent you links here to the FDA article and a couple of articles about the USDA organic standards. The new standards sound great but I don't trust the USDA some how and since the FDA and the USDA are different Departments altogether I am left wondering whats going on. I sent you the link to the site where you can look at the USDA Standards Documents ( some 500 pages!!) if you care to read them. I am going to , little by little. One thing I notice about the whole thing is the suppresion of the term " GMO " . There seems to be some " sanitizing " goin on. The key here is possibly in the USDA's definition of " bioengineering " What do you all think?...Mary O Federal Law requires that we warn you of the following: 1. Natural methods can sometimes backfire. 2. If you are pregnant, consult your physician before using any natural remedy. 3. The Constitution guarantees you the right to be your own physician and to prescribe for your own health. We are not medical doctors although MDs are welcome to post here as long as they behave themselves. Any opinions put forth by the list members are exactly that, and any person following the advice of anyone posting here does so at their own risk. It is up to you to educate yourself. By accepting advice or products from list members, you are agreeing to be fully responsible for your own health, and hold the List Owner and members free of any liability. Dr. Ian Shillington Doctor of Naturopathy Dr.IanShillington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.