Menu

FDA

chlorpyrifos

EPA takes partial step to ban chlorpyrifos in a move called “unconscionable”

0

By Carey Gillam

The long and winding regulatory road for a pesticide known to be harmful to developing babies took another turn on Monday as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was planning to only partially ban the insecticide chlorpyrifos in farming.

Under pressure from powerful agricultural industry interests and ordered by a federal court to consider the factors raised by the farming groups in a legal petition, the EPA said it would continue to allow chlorpyrifos to be used by farmers growing 11 crops, including apples, asparagus, citrus, peaches, strawberries, wheat, soybeans and others, despite evidence that the pesticide is associated with “neurodevelopmental effects” that can impair the normal development of children. Other uses in farming would be banned, the agency said.

In the most recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pesticide residue monitoring report, chlorpyrifos was the 11th most frequently found pesticide in human food samples out of 209 different pesticides detected by FDA testing.

“EPA continues to prioritize the health of children,” Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement. “This proposed rule is a critical step forward as we work to reduce chlorpyrifos in or on food and to better protect people, including infants and children, from exposure to chemicals that are harmful to human health.”

Public and environmental health advocates saw it differently, saying chlorpyrifos should not be allowed at all, given scientific research showing it has neurotoxic and endocrine disrupting effects, particularly on the developing children of pregnant women.

More
Microplastic-Brain-1

“It’s scary”- Scientists finding mounting evidence of plastic pollution in human organs

By Douglas Main

A growing body of scientific evidence shows that microplastics are accumulating in critical human organs, including the brain, alarming findings that highlight a need for more urgent actions to rein in plastic pollution, researchers say.

Different studies have detected tiny shards and specks of plastics in human lungs, placentas, reproductive organs, livers, kidneys, knee and elbow joints, blood vessels, and bone marrow.

Given the research findings, “it is now imperative to declare a global emergency” to deal with plastic pollution, said Sedat Gündoğdu, who studies microplastics at Cukurova University in Turkey.

Humans are exposed to microplastics – defined as fragments smaller than five millimeters in length – and the chemicals used to make plastics from widespread plastic pollution in air, water, and even food.

The health hazards of microplastics within the human body are not yet well-known. Recent studies are just beginning to suggest these particles could increase the risk of various conditions such as oxidative stress, which can lead to cell damage and inflammation, as well as cardiovascular disease.

Animal studies have also linked microplastics to fertility issues, various cancers, a disrupted endocrine and immune system, and impaired learning and memory.

There are currently no governmental standards for plastic particles in food or water in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency is working on crafting guidelines for measuring them, and has been giving out grants since 2018 to develop new ways to quickly detect and quantify them.

Finding microplastics in more and more human organs “raises a lot of concerns,” given what we know about health effects in animals, studies of human cells in the lab, and emerging epidemiological studies, said Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. “It’s scary, I’d say.”

More
apples

Peel those apples: New study confirms washing doesn’t remove pesticide residues

By Carey Gillam

A new scientific report lends weight to consumer concerns about pesticide residues on food, presenting fresh evidence that washing fruits before eating them does not remove various toxic chemicals commonly used in agriculture.

The paper, authored by Chinese researchers and published Wednesday in the American Chemical Society’s journal Nano Letters, comes amid ongoing debate over the extent of pesticide contamination of food, and the potential health risks associated with a steady diet that includes residues of weed killing chemicals, insecticides and other farm chemicals.

In May, Consumer Reports said it had determined that 20% of 59 different fruit and vegetable categories carried pesticide residues at levels that posed “significant risks” to consumers, based on an analysis of data gathered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The central point of the new paper is primarily to share the technical details of a process the authors developed allowing for enhanced trace detection of pesticides in foods. But the underlying finding about the ineffectiveness of washing fruit is important for consumers who may be relying on food safety practices that are insufficient, the authors said.

Traditional “fruit-cleaning operations cannot wholly remove pesticides,” the paper states.

When using the technique to examine an apple, for instance, the researchers said the “imaging results prove that the pesticides penetrate the peel layer into the pulp layer.”

Using the technology they developed, the authors said they found the pesticide contamination diminished when the apple peel was removed along with some of the pulp layer.

“This study, situated within the expansive realm of food safety, endeavors to furnish health guidance to consumers,” said Dongdong Ye, a professor with the School of Materials and Chemistry at Anhui Agricultural University and an author of the paper. “Rather than fostering undue apprehension, the research posits that peeling can effectively eliminate nearly all pesticide residues, contrasted with the frequently recommended practice of washing.”

More
raul-gonzalez-escobar-ZpIskW1Tuvc-unsplash

Healthy or high risk? New analysis warns of pesticide residues on some fruits and veggies

By Carey Gillam

Several types of fruits and vegetables generally considered to be healthy can contain levels of pesticide residues potentially unsafe for consumption, according to an analysis conducted by Consumer Reports (CR) released on Thursday.

The report, which is based on seven years of data gathered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of its annual pesticide residue reporting program, concluded that 20% of 59 different fruit and vegetable categories included in the analysis carried residue levels that posed “significant risks” to consumers of those foods.

Those high-risk foods included bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes and strawberries, according to CR. The group found that some green beans even had residues of an insecticide called acephate, which has been banned for use on green beans by US regulators since 2011. In one sample from 2022, levels of methamidophos (a breakdown product of acephate), were more
than 100 times the level CR scientists consider safe. In another sample, acephate levels were 7 times higher than CR considers safe.

Overall, out of the nearly 30,000 total fruit and vegetable samples for which CR examined data, about 8% percent were deemed to have residues at “high risk or very high risk”. Imported produce was more likely to carry high levels of pesticide residues than domestically supplied foods, the report said, noting that residue levels can vary widely from sample to sample.

The results “raise red flags,” according to CR. The report advises that children and pregnant women should consume less than a serving a day of high-risk fruits and vegetables, and less than half a serving per day of “very high-risk ones.”

“People need to be concerned because we see that the more data we gather on pesticides, the more we realize the levels that we previously thought to be safe turn out not to be,” said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at CR who was recently appointed to a USDA food safety advisory committee.

The organization said the “good news” is that the data showed residues in most of the foods sampled, including 16 of 25 fruit categories and 21 of 34 vegetable types, presented “little to worry about.” Nearly all organic samples showed no concerning levels of pesticide residues.

The report suggests consumers “try snap peas instead of green beans, cantaloupe in place of watermelon, cabbage or dark green lettuces for kale, and the occasional sweet potato instead of a white one.”

More
1 (1)

California’s “Skittles bill” could kick off broader actions against food additives

By Shannon Kelleher

After years of US debate over widely used food additives, California is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban additives found in popular candies and other processed foods.

Assembly Bill 418, which was passed by the California Assembly in May, targets red dye No. 3, titanium dioxide, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, and propyl paraben – additives linked to health problems including cancer and hormone disruption. If successful, the bill would ban these ingredients, which are used in Skittles, Hot Tamales, and Sour Patch Kids, by 2025. The California Senate Committee on Health is expected to vote Wednesday on whether to move the bill forward.

Critics say the additives have not been meaningfully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in decades despite scientific updates on their health risks, and that an FDA loophole has allowed thousands of chemicals to enter the US food system without proper safety reviews. They hope the California bill will help kick off broader nationwide efforts to reevaluate harmful food additives and ban those that jeopardize Americans’ health.

New York lawmakers  proposed a similar bill  in March, and earlier this month, Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky reintroduced the Food Chemical Reassessment Act, which targets food additive reforms at the federal level. The bill seeks to create an Office of Food Safety Assessment within the FDA that would reevaluate chemicals that slipped into Americans’ favorite snacks without proper or recent review by the agency.

“I think [the California bill] demonstrates that FDA is not doing its job,” said Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy at Consumer Reports, which is co-sponsoring the bill with the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “They don’t have the ability to go back and re-review some of these additives that have been approved in the past, so therefore they haven’t looked at these in many years.”

More
Lifestyle Choice Concept. Healthy food on white and junk food on a black background. Top view

In debate over new “healthy” food labeling rules, researchers propose novel metric to guide consumers

By Shannon Kelleher

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should redefine how it measures “healthy” food as it sets new rules governing the claims manufacturers make on product labels, a nonprofit research group asserts.

The Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA), an organization that studies the health effects of food and farming, recently submitted comments to the FDA calling on the agency to adopt a metric HHRA has developed that conveys a food’s healthiness in a single, color-coded number. This metric, called “NuCal,” aims to capture the relationship between a food’s essential nutrients and its caloric content, according to HHRA.

“There are a lot of people whose daily diet is grossly deficient in multiple essential nutrients despite the fact that they think they’re buying perfectly healthy food because a lot of it’s packaged as healthy for you,” said Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist and policy expert who serves as executive director of HHRA. Benbrook said NuCal could help consumers make purchasing choices that lower their risk for obesity, diabetes, and other diseases.

The scoring system focuses on the essential nutrition value found in individual foods rather than food groups.

“What we wanted to do was to try to lay out… a system that has a much greater chance of delivering to consumers [a clear and compelling] message about what’s healthier and what’s not,” he said.

The HHRA proposal comes in response to a plan by the FDA to revise the rules that define food products that can be labeled as “healthy.” Products labeled “healthy” would need to meet certain food group benchmarks recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Food products would also need to follow limits for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.

If the FDA’s proposed definition is adopted, water, avocados, nuts and seeds, certain oils, and fatty fish such as salmon would qualify for labels bearing the “healthy” claim. White bread and highly sweetened yogurts and cereals, which qualify as “healthy” now, no longer would.

The FDA says it will thoroughly review comments before announcing a finalized definition.

More
pexels-chokniti-khongchum-2280571

Updated approach to regulating chemicals is “urgently needed,” say scientists

By Grace van Deelen

The US regulatory system for chemicals is not adequately protecting human health, and an overhaul is urgently needed, according to recommendations made this week by a group of environmental and health scientists.

In a paper published Thursday in Environmental Science and Technology, the group of 12 researchers criticized the nation’s chemical regulatory system for operating in ways that allow farmers, consumers and others to be exposed to unsafe chemicals on a regular basis.

Adoption of a new, “essential-use” approach is required, the researchers said. The framework proposed asks governments and businesses to assess chemicals using one of three possible questions: 1) “Is the function of the chemical necessary for the product?” 2) “Is the use of the chemical the safest feasible option?” and 3) “Is use of the chemical in the product justified because such use is necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society?”

Current laws and practices employed by the US Environmental Protection Agency essentially require that a chemical must be proven unsafe to be barred from the market. The proposed system would flip that on its head, similar to the theory of the “precautionary principle,” which considers that a product should be proven safe to be approved.

“The current system of managing chemicals is broken,” said Carol Kwiatkowski, an author of the paper and a senior scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute, an environmental health advocacy group. “The essential-use approach is the first feasible solution that will actually protect people and the environment before extensive damage is done.”

Co-authors include researchers from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the University of Massachusetts, the University of Toronto, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group.

More than 350 000 chemicals and mixtures of chemicals have been registered for production and use, according to a global review published in 2020. Environmental health advocates say not enough is known about the possible adverse effects these chemicals are having on the environment and human health. Many are clearly dangerous for humans exposed to them, including certain types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Some chemicals on the market in the US have been shown to disrupt hormones and impact reproductive health, cause cancers and other diseases and interfere with neurological development, among other harms.

More
insulin-gaa02ccbcc_1920

Common food additive associated with type 2 diabetes risk

By Grace van Deelen

Chemical compounds commonly used to cure ham, bacon and other meats are associated with type 2 diabetes risk, according to new research.

Nitrites are often used to extend the shelf life of food products. While harmless nitrites also occur naturally in foods, nitrite additives have been linked to certain cancers. A study published this week in PLOS Medicine has determined another health risk from the chemicals: type 2 diabetes. Researchers found people with elevated intake of nitrites, specifically from food additives and drinking water, had a higher risk of eventually developing the disease.

The study authors wrote that their findings show a “direct association” between nitrite additives and type 2 diabetes risk. The study is the first to find an association between the chemicals and type 2 diabetes.

The research team, which included scientists from the World Health Organization, the University of Paris, and Sorbonne University, used data from a nationwide study of over 100,000 French adults that tracked their dietary choices and health status between 2009 and 2021. From that data, the team estimated nitrite exposure. Participants with higher exposure to nitrites from food additives, and specifically those with higher exposure to sodium nitrite, had a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Processed meats were the biggest source of nitrite additives consumed by study participants, at 60%, followed by ready-to-eat meals with processed meats at 16%. Other foods with processed meats made up virtually all of the nitrite consumption.

More
Washington,,D.c.,,Usa-,January,13,,2020:,Fda,Sign,Outside,Their

FDA says 59% of US foods tested contain pesticide residues

Pesticide residues were detected in 59% of US food samples tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its most recently completed annual testing program, the agency revealed in a new report.

Roughly 77% of domestic fruits, 60% of US vegetables and about 53% of US grains sampled showed residues.

The agency said overall it analyzed 2,078 human food samples, finding that 51.6% of imported foods contained pesticide residues compared to 59.2% of domestic US foods.

It is common for conventional farmers to use a range of pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides on their fields, and sometimes apply the chemicals directly onto their crops, as a means to fight weeds, bugs and plant diseases. Residues of these chemicals are found not only in food but often in drinking water as well.

Both the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture have been tracking levels of pesticide residues in foods for decades, reporting their findings annually.

The FDA said its 2020 sampling was reduced by the Covid-19 pandemic. It did not include US milk or dairy products this year in its sampling. The FDA said 84% of the samples for this report were imported from other countries. The new report is for the fiscal year 2020 but was just finalized and released this month.

More

Load More

Back To Top


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

© Environmental Working Group .