The use of herbicides and pesticides on crops has become the default method for conventional agriculture. Despite growing public concerns over the use of chemicals on our food supply, these products continue to saturate the market and are utilized at a steady rate. While researchers continue to evaluate the long term effects these potent chemicals have on humans and the environment, another chemical has been added to farmers’ ever-growing arsenal. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to expand the use of Enlist Duo, an effective weed killer, from 15 to 34 states. But should we be worried about the toxicity of this popular herbicide?

Enlist Duo

Originally, in 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of a brand new herbicide, Enlist Duo, for genetically modified corn and soybean crops. Enlist Duo is a chemical manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, which is a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company–one of the largest chemical companies in the world.

After the initial approval of Enlist Duo, the EPA asked a court to give it another opportunity to re-review the approval of the chemical. In a highly unusual move, the agency asked for a withdrawal of its own approval of the product. According to the EPA, it had reviewed the patent submitted by Dow to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and discovered a significant discrepancy. Particularly, the company claimed the product’s combination of two chemicals, 2,4-D and glyphosate, amplified each other and created a far more potent herbicide.

The EPA was concerned that Dow had not disclosed this synergy during the agency’s initial review of the product’s environmental and health risks. The agency scientists wanted to decide if there needed to be a larger no-spray zone at the edge of farm fields. Studies where rats, rabbits, birds, and fish were given one large dose of Enlist Duo showed no increased toxicity in the animals after two weeks. However, the agency never requested that Dow chronically dose rats with a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate. Therefore, long-term health effects of the chemical mixture are unclear.

“Pesticide spraying” Image Courtesy of Jetsandzeppelins : License (CC BY 2.0)

Lawsuit

Several environmental groups, led by the National Resources Defense Council, brought a lawsuit against the EPA over Enlist Duo in 2014. The plaintiffs stated that the EPA had violated the law because it had not adequately considered the effect that Enlist Duo would have on public health and the environment, particularly the monarch butterfly population.

Dow, of course, opposed the allegations as well as the EPA’s request to vacate the original approval, suggesting instead that the court remand the registration back to the EPA for further evaluation. The company voluntarily agreed to stop sales of the product while the EPA reevaluated it. Additionally, Dow stated that it had abandoned the synergy patent in question when a thorough review revealed that the particular synergies were not in the final formulation of Enlist Duo. However, advocacy groups noted in a legal filing that Dow abandoned the patent a year after the EPA approved Enlist Duo, and only after the EPA requested synergy data from Dow.

Eventually, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA’s original approval. The three-sentence judicial order did not elaborate on any reasoning for the decision. This meant that Dow could continue to market the chemical to farmers for sale, even while the EPA was re-reviewing its initial approval. The company reneged its voluntary offer to cease sales, claiming the offer was never agreed to; thus, the chemical remained on the market.

2,4-D and Human Health Effects

Last year, the Chicago Tribune released an investigative article that revealed that the EPA had changed its interpretation of a key study of 2,4-D. Essentially, the EPA changed the no-adverse-effect level of 2,4-D from 7mg/kg to 21mg/kg in rats, paving the way for the agency to reduce consumer protections. EPA scientists dropped a tenfold child-safety factor after conducting a study that concluded there was no longer evidence of a special susceptibility of children to the chemical compound. Regulators set the allowable daily intake of 2,4-D for people at 0.21mg/kg. Thus, the significant change allowed for 41 times more 2,4-D to enter the American diet than previously allowed, an astounding change.

2,4-D has been around since the 1940’s and was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, a highly toxic and controversial herbicide used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War. The EPA has discounted safety data showing that 2,4-D has been linked to cancer and other health problems, such as hypothyroidism and Parkinson’s disease. In order to make the change in allowable daily intake, the EPA has tossed aside research produced by Dow’s own scientists regarding kidney problems and kidney lesions caused by 2,4-D.

The overuse of chemicals, like Roundup, year after year has resulted in an increase in weed resistance, or “superweeds,” leaving companies scrambling to find more effective products to market to farmers. As a result, agriculture is now turning back toward older, more toxic products, like 2,4-D. But if you’re concerned about exposure to more toxic weedkillers, disclosures in Dow’s patent applications are very telling. The company’s application for genetically modified corn and soybeans foreshadows a day when weeds develop a resistance to both glyphosate and 2,4-D. The records show that Dow eventually envisions a day when the company must add even more traits to corn and soybeans so that the crops can survive being sprayed with up to 17 different chemicals.

Concerns Regarding Enlist Duo Use

One of the largest concerns surrounding Enlist Duo use is that Dow may have lied on its patent application. A Dow spokesperson adamantly denies that contention, stating that the EPA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have “different standards of data requirements” and the company’s claims that the two chemicals amplified each other were “based on a limited dataset.”

After the re-review and approval of Enlist Duo this year, the EPA has also announced a proposal to expand where the new herbicide can be used. Currently it is used to suppress weeds on corn and soybean crops. Now, the EPA is considering whether to allow its use on cotton crops. This expansion means that the new herbicide may be approved for use in 34 states, as opposed to the original 15 states. Moreover, the World Health Organization has issued findings that glyphosate and 2,4-D are probable and possible carcinogens, respectively, in addition to the other health concerns related to 2,4-D.

Monarch Butterfly Populations

In addition to human health hazards, environmentalist groups are concerned about Enlist Duo’s effect on the monarch butterfly population. Monarch butterflies have struggled in recent years, with populations in a steep decline due to the overuse of glyphosate products, like Roundup. Enlist Duo’s chemicals specifically obliterate milkweed, the plant that monarchs need to survive. A 1999 survey found that milkweed was in at least 50 percent of Iowa corn and soybean crops; by 2009, milkweed was only found in 8 percent of those same fields.

Additionally, estimations of the monarch butterfly populations have remained low, despite an initial bump in numbers, after a winter storm killed millions before they ever left the Mexican monarch reserve. Storms devastated 133 acres of trees west of Mexico City and affected over 7 percent of monarchs, with about 6.2 million butterflies frozen or killed.

“Monarch caterpillar on common milkweed in Minnesota” Image Courtesy of USFWSmidwest : License (CC BY 2.0)

The EPA’s failure to consider the effects of Enlist Duo on monarch butterflies has environmentalists extremely concerned for the ailing population, teetering on the brink of extinction.

Conclusion

The market for Enlist Duo is potentially massive, with 94 percent of soybeans and 89 percent of corn planted in the U.S. genetically modified to survive herbicides, primarily the glyphosate in Roundup. However, the EPA’s suggestion to more than double the number of states permitted to use Enlist Duo has outraged environmentalists and advocates across the country. Many people believe that reviving a World War II-era chemical to combat superweeds isn’t the best solution for the sustainability of industrial agriculture–especially when it could have a negative effect on the monarch butterfly population. The EPA contends that the chemical is “perfectly safe,” and poses no long-term health risks to humans.

The EPA is accepting public comments through December 1, 2016 regarding the agency’s proposal to expand the use and registration for Enlist Duo. 

Resources

Primary

EPA.gov: Registration of Enlist Duo

Additional

Dow: Annual Reports

NRDC: EPA Proposes to Re-Approve Combination Herbicide Enlist Duo

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Chicago Tribune: Weedkiller’s Revival is Cause for Concern

Chicago Tribune: EPA Tosses Aside Safety Data, Says Dow Pesticide for GMOs Won’t Harm People

Chicago Tribune: Court Clears Way for Revival of Worrisome Weedkiller

Chicago Tribune: Congress Questions EPA About Dow’s Enlist Duo Pesticide Risks

CBS DFW: EPA May Increase Use Of Weed Killer Despite Concerns

The Guardian: Storms Devastate Monarch Butterflies’ Forest Habitat in Mexico

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Enlist Duo: Effective New Herbicide or Monarch Butterfly Threat? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a question that lays bare the ambiguity of semantics, a deceivingly tricky question with wide-ranging consequences, a question that has stumped consumers and companies for years: When should packaged food products be labeled “natural”?

In a response to petitions and lawsuits from consumer advocacy groups and consumers themselves, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reached out to the public in 2014 to help them define once and for all what “natural” constitutes when it’s slapped on food products. The public comment period closed on May 10 and it could take months for the FDA to pour over the nearly 7,600 statements, which came from consumers, companies, food experts and health and legal authorities.

Here is a sampling of public comments written between November 2015 (when the comment period opened) to May 10, 2016 (when it closed):

• “I believe natural foods should be defined as a product that has went through little processing as possible. Although it goes through little to no processing, it is still completely healthy to consume or use.”
• “Natural means in it’s original state and how nature intended it to be, not fattened, chemically altered or any other practice that uses synthetic or unnatural anything.”
• “Please stop poisoning us. Ban all chemicals, artificial colors, preservatives from our food. Life is not all about profits and money. Companies add all this unhealthy stuff to our food to maximize profits.”

Certain things are more obviously unnatural than others. There are some products labeled “all natural” that contain artificial preservatives, coloring, and other chemical additives. But then there is the slippery world of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. According to the Non GMO Project, GMOs are “living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering.”

But humans have been modifying crops and animals for millennia to select for advantageous features–pest resistance, size, nutritional value, yield–so the question of whether GMOs are natural or unnatural is murky. A study published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on Tuesday found GMOs to be no less healthy than untouched varieties, though they do produce pesticide resistant pests, which could lead to a cycle of increased spraying and even more resistance.

An example of how the line between “natural” and GMO isn’t quite clear cut:

In January 2014, a consumer by the name of Elizabeth Cox brought a deceptive marketing lawsuit against Gruma Corp, the maker of Mission tortilla chips–whose packaging contained in big white font: “All Natural!” Cox was angered over the label because the corn used in the chips came from the GMO variety. Gruma deferred to the FDA, arguing that as it pertained to their definition of “natural,” GMOs fit the bill. There have been more than 50 similar cases brought against producers by consumers.

It will likely take months before the FDA lands on a definition for what “natural” means, so for now it’s up to you to decide what’s best for your body.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Are “Natural Foods”? FDA Turns to the Public to Find Out appeared first on Law Street.

Burrito or bowl? White or brown? Black or pinto?

These are just some of the daily decisions customers make at hundreds of Chipotle Mexican Grill locations around the world. But for some, just walking through the restaurant door means that they’ve already decided something about their food–they’d like it GMO-free. However, contrary to current advertisements, a lawsuit alleges that GMO-free may not be what is actually being served.

A California woman has accused Chipotle of false advertising in a lawsuit, after the company touted its Mexican-styled casual dining as the first national chain to go completely GMO-free in April. According to Reuters, plaintiff Colleen Gallagher alleges in her lawsuit that “Chipotle violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because its food labeling is false and misleading, and deceived diners into paying more for their food.”

Gallagher says,

As Chipotle told consumers it was ‘G-M-Over it,’ the opposite was true. In fact, Chipotle’s menu as never been at any time free of GMOs.

Chipotle has already admitted that before the April announcement, the corn and soy in its corn and flour tortillas and cooking oil had previously been genetically modified. It has also clearly noted on its website that its GMO-free menu comes with a disclaimer.

The site reads,

The meat and dairy products we buy come from animals that are not genetically modified. But it is important to note that most animal feed in the U.S. is genetically modified, which means that the meat and dairy served at Chipotle are likely to come from animals given at least some GMO feed.

It also warns that many of the beverages it sells, e.g. Coke products, also contain genetically modified ingredients  like high fructose corn syrup, which is almost always made from GMO corn. Despite this admission, Gallagher’s lawsuit currently seeks class-action status and unspecified damages, but Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold told Reuters the company plans to contest the charges.

The debate over the potential harms of genetically altered foods is an interesting one. While there has technically been no scientific evidence that supports the theory that GMOs are actually bad for you, 52 percent of Americans still say they’d be more likely to buy food that’s labeled as having been raised organically. Ninety three percent also think that the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it’s been genetically modified. These statistics are a bit of a catch-22 for companies debating the merits of disclosing to the public their products’ GMO statuses.

When Chipotle publicly dropped the bio-engineered corn and soy from its products it was making a statement, calming many of its customers fears about enhanced products. But even if genetically altered foods aren’t actually bad for you, these allegations should still be taken seriously. Capitalizing on Americans’ willingness to pay a premium for better quality ingredients for monetary gain, and then not providing said ingredients would be a gross manipulation of public trust, and isn’t exactly “food with integrity.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chipotle Sued Over GMO-Free Menu Claims appeared first on Law Street.

Our adventures in genetics began with a monk named Gregor Mendel.  Mendel systematically bred pea plants to demonstrate the concepts behind genetic transmission before “gene” was even a word. He brandished a paint brush to cross breed plants that exhibited inheritance of exciting traits like wrinkly peas and inflated pods. Mendel was confined to pea plants in his search for potential traits. Today, we aren’t bound to the same species in our search for traits. We can bend the rules of nature as we know them using recombinant DNA technology. Welcome to the world of genetically modified organisms.

OMG…what are GMOs, anyway?

GMO is more than just a backwards OMG. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Other terms used to describe them include bioengineered, transgenic, genetically engineered (GE), or just genetically modified (GM). All of these terms describe an organism created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering allows us to transfer genes that yield desirable traits from one organism to another. Technology has granted us power to cross species barriers, so unlike Mendel, we don’t have to choose traits from just one species.

How are traits transferred?

Genetic engineering uses recombinant DNA technology to splice a piece of DNA from one species and insert it into the DNA of another species. Scientists identify the piece of DNA responsible for the desired trait, clone it, modify it to make it more compatible with the destination organism, and then insert it into the new organism. The modification occurs on a cellular level and the borrowed gene transforms to fit the destination organism’s DNA. Other methods involve repressing a gene that causes a certain characteristic, like they did to make a tomato that ripened after harvesting.

The Great Health Debate

Genetic engineering enables us to create crops with ideal characteristics, taking yields far beyond the possibilities of even the most resourceful farmers. Everyone must be thrilled! Not so much. In fact, many people are concerned about what GMOs might be doing to our health. Even with hazy understanding of GMOs, worries run rampant.

Leave it to Jimmy Kimmel to delve deep into society’s perceptions of hot-button issues.

What’s behind all of these worries?

No studies have proven that GMOs pose a significant health threat. There were some false alarms, but the studies were flagged for faulty mechanisms. In the absence of clear-cut science, why are people still worried about GMOs and their health?

Most people fear that a reason to be concerned just hasn’t been found yet, not that it doesn’t exist. Common misgivings are that gene transfer might also transfer antibiotic resistance and allergens, and that GMOs might not be as nutritious as their natural counterparts. While many of these apprehensions remain unsubstantiated, they’re still putting GMOs under scrutiny.

Are we right to worry about GMOs and our health? It turns out we may not know enough. Experts agree that the completed studies fall short in meriting total confidence. GMO testing has no minimal length requirement, even for crops cultivated on a large scale. Many point to a need for more long-term, quality, and transparent studies done on possible health effects of GMOs.

This article from University of California San Francisco quotes Patrice Sutton, a public health expert, to summarize concerns regarding GMOs and public health:

“Many people could rightly look at the existing science and see that it’s extremely weak,” Sutton said. “However, weak science does not prove safety; it just demonstrates that the public health impacts of GMOs are uncertain. It’s an overall public health principle that in the face of scientific uncertainty to expose everybody to something is a legitimate concern that should give us pause.”

Some contend that labeling food containing GMOs could fill in information gaps. After all, 97 percent of edible GMOs are cultivated in the United States and South America where no labeling requirement exists. Without labeling, long term studies and traceability are impossible. Which leads to our next point…

Should we label GMOs?

The FDA says “no” and hasn’t changed its mind since 1992. It adheres to substantial equivalence, the concept that a GMO doesn’t merit concern if it’s substantially equivalent to an existing food. This view was challenged in the court case, Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. The court sided with the FDA, deferring to  its technological expertise in this complicated matter.

These decisions did little to quell budding concerns from the public. Today, 93 percent of Americans desire GMO labels on food, according to an ABC News poll.

The “Yes” People

The “yes” people rally behind the “right to know” battlecry, using it as the basis for GMO labeling initiatives. They believe consumers have a right to know what their products contain and make informed decisions for themselves.

At present, GMO ingredients in food are credence qualities — those that a consumer cannot evaluate let alone leverage in their purchase decisions. Labeling proponents say consumers can’t make informed decisions at the point of purchase without labels.

Doctors have also chimed in on the “right to know,” asserting that GMO labeling could affect how they study and treat their patients. It could be challenging to detect potential health impacts, including food allergies, if consumers don’t know what they’re eating.

Of course the worries mentioned above — allergies, antibiotic resistance, and nutrition — also factor into the “yes” arguments. Without labeling, it will be taxing to discern if these worries ever manifest as realistic concerns.

The “No” People

The “no” people suppose that a consumer’s “right to know” could lead to a consumer’s “right to be confused.” They think labels might give people a false reason to worry since no evidence suggests GMOs are harmful to health. A label doesn’t guarantee an informed consumer, especially when people are already confused. Furthermore, some argue that a GMO label only treats a symptom of consumers’ grander problem with industrial farming techniques.

And there’s more where that came from. The “no” people have a whole laundry list of concerns surrounding GMO labeling. Here’s a preview:

• A GMO label may inspire worry, leading to decreased demand and therefore production. Poor market acceptance could prematurely cripple a promising technology.
• A GMO labeling requirement could cause costs to skyrocket — some estimate by 10 percent of an annual grocery bill.
• A GMO label isn’t necessary. Concerned consumers can just buy certified organic foods that prohibit the use of GMOs.
• The food system infrastructure in the United States would need to be overhauled if a GMO label is required. Producers would need to implement extensive tracking and reporting systems to accommodate the new requirement, possibly with unforeseen costs and consequences.

So that covers “yes” and “no,” but the question of GMO labeling is far too complex for  monosyllabic responses. The decision packs a load of potential economic, legal, and societal implications.

From lawyers to farmers, this NPR spot explores why voters in Colorado and Oregon are answering “yes” or “no” to the deceptively simple question of GMO labeling that they’re facing on upcoming ballots:

There you have the gist of both sides. Now, what decisions have actually been made concerning GMO labeling?

Decisions…decisions…

States are buzzing with proposals to require GMO labeling. The Center for Food Safety keeps track of the status of proposed bills on this page if you’re curious. So far, GMO labeling bills have been rejected in California and Washington. Connecticut and Maine have passed laws, but they lack potency until neighboring states also pass labeling laws. Vermont stands alone as the only state to pass a GMO labeling law, no neighbors required. The labels will start popping up in 2016. Or maybe not. Food manufacturing heavyweights have filed a lawsuit against Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The groups purport that Vermont exceeded its constitutional authority by forcing costs and undermining the authority of federal agencies like the FDA. The results of the lawsuit will determine the temperature of GMO labeling measures in other states. Oregon is up to bat next as it makes a statewide ballot decision about GMO labeling on November 4, 2014.

Umm…what about the rest of the United States?

If you’re thinking state-by-state labeling laws could get complicated, you’re not alone. Two bills from the 113th Congress address GMO labeling on a nationwide scale. They’re on opposite ends of the spectrum:

1. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was introduced by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) in April 2014. The bill would require producers to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the use of a bioengineered organism intended for consumption. It would then be up to the Secretary to determine if a label should be required based on whether or not there is a material difference between the bioengineered product and the traditional food. The bill would nullify any previous state laws passed requiring mandatory labeling. Some critics have called the bill the DARK or Deny Americans the Right to Know  act because many GMOs would likely escape labeling.
2. Conversely the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) would require any food with one or more genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such or be deemed misbranded.

Some companies have decided to take GMO matters into their own hands. After all, the customer is always right!

GMO Labeling Trailblazers

Private companies don’t have to wait for a state or federal government to make company-wide GMO decisions. According to the NPD Group, 11 percent of primary shoppers would pay more for non-GMO products. Some companies commit to serving this hyper-concerned segment.

• General Mills announced its original Cheerios are GMO free.
• Whole Foods plans to move to full GMO transparency by 2018.
• Ben and Jerry’s fully supports mandatory GMO labeling and wants to remove GMOs from its products. The company believes happy ingredients = happy ice cream.

Will labels determine the fate of GMO ingredients?

Consumer concerns will remain regardless of decisions on GMO labeling. With most American consumers saying they deserve the right to know, the search for information will continue whether it’s slapped on the front of a package or not.

But GMO labeling decisions and subsequent market reactions could determine if GMO technology skyrockets or stalls.

Conclusion

What will GMOs mean to future generations? A Pandora’s Box of unnatural selection? A budding innovation that ends world hunger? Right now, we really don’t know. In this circumstance, not knowing simply means we have many more exciting things to learn in the years to come.

Resources

Choices: Genetically Modified Organisms: Why All the Controversy?

UC San Francisco: Genetically Modified Food Labeling Through the Lens of Public Health

National Geographic: The GMO Labeling Battle is Heating Up–Here’s Why

International Journal of Biological Sciences: Debate on GMOs Health Risks After Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests

WebTV: Food Fight: The Debate Over GMOs in Colorado

Slate: The Price of Your Right to Know

World Health Organization: Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods

Denver Post: GMO Labeling Measure in Colorado Triggers Heated Debate

NPR: Voters Will Get Their Say On GMO Labeling In Colorado And Oregon

AgBioForum: Labeling Policy For GMOs: To Each His Own?

Colorado State University: Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Center for Food Safety: Ben & Jerry’s, GE-Labeling Advocates Protest Anti-GE Labeling Bill

Politico: GMO Labeling Bill Would Trump States

Politico: Food Industry to Fire Preemptive GMO Strike

Los Angeles Times: General Mills Drops GMOs from Cheerios

Institute of Food Technologists: Most Consumers Won’t Pay More For Non-GMO Food

National Academies Press: Genetically Modified Organisms: An Ancient Practice on the Cusp

Science Meets Food: What You Need to Know About GMOs, GM Crops, and the Techniques of Modern Biotechnology

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yes or No? GMO Labeling Is Not That Simple appeared first on Law Street.