by Brandon Turbeville
July 1, 2013
from
BrandonTurbeville Website
In my past few articles, I have
discussed the documented
adverse health effects related to pesticide use,[1]
the
difference between general pesticides and POPs[2]
(Persistent Organic Pollutants), and the
requirements that must be met
[3] in order for the designation of POP to be applied to a
specific pesticide.
With all of this in mind, one may be surprised that
Codex Alimentarius actually allows for the presence of such dangerous
chemicals in food.
Before explaining this position,
however, it is important to note some of the background
regarding POPs, the Stockholm Convention, and, finally, the
Codex Alimentarius POP guidelines themselves.
In 2001, The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants was adopted with the stated goals of eliminating or
reducing the production and use of POPs.
The Stockholm
Convention entered into force in 2004 and is overseen by the
United Nations Environment Program. The Conference of the
Parties of the Stockholm Convention (COP) manages the POPs
Convention with each of the members of the Stockholm Convention
being the members of the COP.
The function of the members of the
Convention is to implement the obligations of the treaty at the
national level.
Although 50 countries have ratified the treaty, the U.S. is not
one of them. However, the U.S. has largely begun to implement
the treaty on the national level. This has been accomplished
through a series of national laws and other international
agreements.
Since 1972, the United States and Canada have signed several
agreements involving the removal of POPs from the Great Lakes
such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Great
Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.
The U.S. is also party to the
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International
Trade with 71 other countries and the European Union.
On a national level, the U.S. has passed four major laws that
involve the ban or restriction of POPs. The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
Below is a brief synopsis of the 12 main POPs and their status
in the United States in terms of how they are regulated by law.[4]
Aldrin and
Dieldrin
Insecticide on corn and cotton; termite control
FIFRA
-
No registrations in U.S.
-
Most uses canceled in 1969.
-
All uses canceled by 1987.
-
All tolerances on food crops
revoked in 1986.
No production, import, or
export allowed.
Chlordane
Insecticide on various crops
including vegetables, small grains, potatoes, sugarcane, sugar
beets, fruits, nuts, citrus, and cotton. Home and garden pests.
Termite control.
FIFRA
-
No registrations in U.S.
-
All tolerances on food crops
revoked in 1986.
CAA
-
Regulated as a hazardous air
pollutant.
No production, import, or export
allowed.
DDT
Insecticide on agricultural crops, especially cotton. Insects
that carry malaria and typhus.
FIFRA
-
No registrations in U.S.
-
Most uses canceled in 1972.
-
All used canceled in 1989.
-
Tolerances on food crops
revoked in 1986.
CAA
-
DDE (a metabolite of DDT)
regulated as a hazardous air pollutant.
CWA
-
Considered a priority toxic
pollutant.
No production, import, or export
allowed.
Endrin
Insecticide on crops such as cotton and grain. Rodent control.
FIFRA
-
No U.S. registrations.
-
Most uses canceled in 1979.
-
All uses canceled by 1984.
CWA
-
Priority toxic pollutant.
No production, import, or export
allowed.
Mirex
Insecticide for fire ants, termites, and mealy bugs. Used as a
fire retardant in plastics, rubber, and electrical products.
FIFRA
-
No U.S. registrations.
-
All uses canceled in 1977.
No production, import, or export
allowed.
Heptachlor
Insecticide for soil insects and termites. Used against some
crop pests and insects that carry malaria.
FIFRA
-
Most used canceled by 1978.
-
All pesticide tolerances on food
crops revoked in 1989.
No production, import, or export
allowed.
Hexachlorobenzene
Fungicide used for seed treatment.
An industrial chemical used
in the production of fireworks, ammunition, synthetic rubber,
and other products. Unintentionally produced during combustion
and the manufacture of certain chemicals. An impurity in certain
other pesticides.
FIFRA
-
No U.S. registrations.
-
All uses canceled by 1985.
CAA
-
Regulated as a hazardous air
pollutant.
CWA
-
Priority toxic pollutant.
No production, import, or export
allowed.
Approved for manufacture and use for chemical intermediate
(allowed under the Convention).
PCBs
Various industrial functions such as electrical transformers and
capacitors, heat exchange fluids, paint additives, carbonless
copy paper, and plastics. Unintentionally produced during
combustion.
TSCA
-
Manufacture and new use
prohibited in 1978.
CAA
-
Regulated as a hazardous air
pollutant.
CWA
-
Priority toxic pollutant.
Toxaphene
Insecticide used to control pests on crops and livestock. Used
to kill unwanted fish in lakes.
FIFRA
-
No U.S. registrations.
-
Most uses canceled in 1982.
-
All uses canceled by 1990.
-
All tolerances on food crops
revoked in 1993.
CAA
-
Regulated as a hazardous air
pollutant.
No production, import, or export
allowed.
Dioxins and Furans
Unintentionally produced during most forms of combustion
involving the burning of medical and municipal waste, household
waste, and industrial processes. Found as “trace contaminants”
in certain herbicides, wood preservatives, and PCB mixtures.
CAA
-
Regulated as hazardous air
pollutants.
CWA
-
Dioxin in the form of 2, 3, 7,
8-TCDD is a priority toxic pollutant. [5]
While the above summary shows
various levels of restrictions placed on POPs by U.S. regulatory
agencies, the main function of this discussion is on the issue
of POP residues in food and, specifically, the guidelines set by
Codex Alimentarius.
In this regard, we now arrive at one of the more baffling
instances of the Codex Alimentarius global guideline machine.
While it is well known that pesticides are becoming increasingly
permissible and accepted all across the world, it is quite
predictable that Codex would allow a vast majority of them to
exist as residues in food.
Yet POPs, which are banned or
restricted by not only national laws but international
agreements as well, are also allowed to reside in food.
It is not at all surprising that Codex would disregard national
laws. This is common practice.
Yet to fly in the face of
international agreements is quite another matter, especially
agreements formulated by the very organizations that played such
a vital role in the creation of Codex. But this is, in fact, the
case.
We are witnessing an ordinary mode of function in the process of
incrementalism - in this situation, the incremental creation and
establishment of a one world government. Indeed, many instances
of tyranny begin with benefits early on. In this case, the
benefit of signing treaties under the auspices of the United
Nations has produced some relevant and positive results - the
banning and restriction of POPs.
However, as nations move further and further along this road and
the UN begins to show its true colors, the relevance of these
treaties will be diminished and the new global bodies such as
Codex Alimentarius will begin to change the very few agreements
that have done any good in the world and push forward in the
direction of a global structure of corporate dominance.
The
previous benefit of the international agreement(s) are destined
to exist only temporarily.
An example of this can be seen clearly within the Codex
Committee on Pesticide Residues in comparison with U.S. law. As
expressed in the summary provided above, the United States has
eliminated the registration of most POPs for use inside the
country and has revoked tolerances for many of these substances
in food.
Codex, however, has done exactly the opposite. In the face of
both national law and international agreements to the contrary,
the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and
subsequently the Codex Alimentarius Commission permits seven of
the original twelve POPs to exist as residues in food.
Even though these substances have been banned virtually the
world over, the fact that Codex allows them to exist in food
suggests to many that the door is open to reversing this
position once Codex is firmly in place as a regulatory
standard.[6]
Nevertheless, even if these suspicions are proven
to be baseless, the very fact that Codex allows for the
existence of POPs in food should be alarming enough.
In reference to the Codex guidelines, it is important to note
that while the upper limits set on the residues of non-POP
pesticides are labeled as Maximum Residue Limits (MRL), the
labeling is slightly different for POP residues.
For these
chemicals, the designation is Extraneous Maximum Residue Limits.
However, this distinction is merely semantics, as the supposedly
“extraneous” MRLs are not very different from the common MRLs
used for non-POP pesticides. Indeed, the limits imposed upon
POPs in food are barely distinguishable from those set for any
other pesticide residue.
The values are expressed as mg/kg
(ppm) and reflect the same level of concern as any other
chemical evaluated by Codex.
So the use of the term “extraneous”
is, itself, misleading as it implies that the presence of POPs
in food will be so small as to warrant no concern. Yet the fact
that these EMRLs have to be set in the first place, and set so
high, contradicts this intended assumption.
Nevertheless, EMRLs have been set for seven of the 12 original POPs
banned by the Stockholm Convention and U.S. law.
They include,
-
DDT
-
Endrin
-
Heptachlor
-
Chlordane
-
Aldrin
-
Dieldrin
-
Hexachlorobenzene
Currently, the EMRL for each chemical has not been evaluated for
every food substance that it might contaminate, yet the commodities
that have been examined and the subsequent EMRLs established for
them do not bode well.
For instance, DDT EMRLs are set at,
Similar levels are established for Endrin, which is 2-4 times more toxic than DDT.[8] Indeed, this is
the pattern for six of the seven POPs allowed in food under Codex
guidelines.
Observe the data presented below:
Note:
for the purpose of this discussion, the values
of ppm (parts per million) will be used.
Although Codex uses values
in mg/kg, these values are easily converted to the equivalent of the
mg/kg in terms of ppm.
-
DDT Carrot = 0.2 ppm; Cereal Grains = 0.1 ppm; Eggs = 0.1 ppm; Meat
(mammals other than marine mammals) = 5 ppm; Milk = 0.02 ppm;
Poultry Meat = 0.3 ppm
-
Endrin Fruiting Vegetables/Cucurbits = 0.05 ppm; Poultry Meat = 0.1 ppm
-
Aldrin Bulb Vegetables = 0.05 ppm; Cereal Grains = 0.02 ppm; Citrus Fruits
= 0.05 ppm; Eggs = 0.1 ppm; Fruiting Vegetables/Cucurbits = 0.1 ppm;
Leafy Vegetables = 0.05 ppm; Legume Vegetables = 0.05 ppm; Meat
(mammals other than marine mammals) = 0.2 ppm; Milk = 0.0066 ppm;
Pome Fruits = 0.05 ppm; Poultry Meat 0.2 ppm; Pulses = 0.05 ppm;
Root and Tuber Vegetables 0.1 ppm;
-
Dieldrin Bulb Vegetables = 0.05 ppm; Cereal Grains = 0.02 ppm; Citrus Fruits
= 0.05 ppm; Eggs = 0.1 ppm; Fruiting Vegetables/Cucurbits = 0.1 ppm;
Leafy Vegetables = 0.05 ppm; Legume Vegetables = 0.05 ppm; Meat
(mammals other than marine mammals) = 0.2 ppm; Milk = 0.006 ppm;
Pome Fruits = 0.05 ppm; Poultry Meat = 0.2 ppm; Pulses = 0.05 ppm;
Root and Tuber Vegetables = 0.1 ppm
-
Heptachlor Cereal Grains = 0.02 ppm; Citrus Fruits = 0.01 ppm; Cotton Seed =
0.02 ppm; Eggs = 0.05 ppm; Meat (mammals other than marine mammals)
= 0.2 ppm; Milk = 0.006 ppm; Pineapple = 0.01; Poultry Meat = 0.2
ppm; Soya Bean (immature seeds) = 0.02 ppm; Soya Bean Oil, Crude =
0.5 ppm; Soya Bean Oil, Refined = 0.02 ppm
-
Chlordane Almonds = 0.02 ppm; Cotton Seed Oil, Crude = 0.05 ppm; Eggs = 0.02
ppm; Fruits and Vegetables = 0.02 ppm; Hazelnuts = 0.02 ppm; Linseed
Oil, Crude = 0.05 ppm; Maize = 0.02 ppm; Meat (mammals other than
marine mammals) = 0.05 ppm; Milk = 0.002 ppm; Oats = 0.02 ppm; Pecan
0.02 ppm; Poultry Meat = 0.5 ppm; Rice, polished = 0.02 ppm; Rye =
0.02 ppm; Sorghum = 0.02 ppm; Soya Bean Oil, Crude = 0.05 ppm; Soya
Bean Oil, Refined = 0.02 ppm; Walnuts = 0.02 ppm; Wheat = 0.02 ppm;
While some might argue that the levels permitted for these
substances by the CCPR are so low that they should warrant no
concern, the fact is that there should be no levels of any of these
substances in food at all.
Setting EMRLs for these pesticides only
serve to legitimize their consumption as well as their potential
reintroduction to the food supply and the environment.
However, what may cause more concern than accepting levels of POPs
in food is the lack of an EMRL for certain substances among the
establishment of EMRLs for others.
Indeed, this is the case for many
general pesticides as well as some POPs.[9]
If Codex were to
establish an EMRL for particular hazardous chemical such as
Hexachlorobenzene, the situation would be bad enough. If it were to
simply ignore the question of EMRLs for a whole group of substances
and claim neutrality, one might be alarmed but at least the logic
would be consistent.
However, in a situation in which Codex sets EMRLs for at least one
substance, the lack of an EMRL effectively lifts the ceiling on the
levels that might be present in the food. For this reason, only an
EMRL of 0 is acceptable. Indeed, it is only an EMRL of 0 that
prohibits the contamination of food from pesticide residues.
Of course this concern is not isolated to POPs. As of 2007,
Codex had assessed over 185 different pesticides and established
over 3,275 MRLs [10] and this issue applies to many general
pesticides as well.
Pesticides such as Bromophos, Carbon
Disulphide, and many others have no MRLs set for them, even
though many of their counterparts do.[11]
For those that do have
limits imposed upon them, they are often different from EPA
limits, some being set much higher and some much lower.
Ultimately, however, the MRLs set by the EPA will be irrelevant,
as they are to be harmonized with the Codex limits anyway.
After
all, harmonization of all national laws with the standards set
by Codex Alimentarius are the stated goals of both Codex and
various agencies of the U.S. Federal Government, about which I
will comment on in the next article in this series.
Notes
[1] Turbeville, Brandon. “Multiple Scientific Studies Link
Pesticides To Cancer.” Activist Post. June 5, 2013.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/multiple-scientific-studies-link.html
Accessed on July 1, 2013. [2] Turbeville, Brandon. “Pesticide Content in Food Less
Regulated by Codex Than Vitamins and Minerals.” Activist Post.
May 20, 2013.http://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/pesticide-content-in-food-less.html
Accessed on July 1, 2013. [3] Turbeville, Brandon. “The Global Threat of Persistent
Organic Pollutants.” Activist Post. June 24, 2013.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/the-global-threat-of-persistent-organic.html
Accessed on July 1, 2013. [4] Abelsohn, Alan., Gibson, Brian L., Sanborn, Margaret D.,
Weir, Erica. “Identifying and managing adverse environmental
health effects:5. Persistant Organic Pollutants.” Canadian
Medical Association Journal. June 11, 2002. 166 (12).
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/12/1549 Accessed May 24,
2010. [5] Ibid. [6] Pesticide Residues In Food. Codex Alimentarius.
www.codexalimentarius.net
[7] Pesticide Residues In Food.
www.codexalimentarius.net
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/mrls/servlet/PesticideServlet?Pesticides=21&Items=0&out_style=by+substance&Domain=PesticideMRLs&Language=english&query_form=%2Fmrls%2Fpestdes%2Fpest_q-e.htm
Accessed 4/5/2010. [8] “Codex Allows Deadly Pesticides.” Global Healing Center.
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/phpprint.php [9] Pesticide Residues In Food. Codex Alimentarius.
www.codexalimentarius.net Accessed May 20, 2010. [10] “Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR)” Consumers
International.
http://www.consumerinternational.org/templates/internal.asp?NodeID=94886
October 8, 2007. Accessed April 6, 2010. [11] “Pesticide Residues In Food.” Codexalimentarius.net
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/mrls/pestdes/jsp/pest_q-e.jsp
|