Posted on 01/08/2018 5:48:27 PM PST by Kaslin
A debate has been raging for years over whether the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, is carcinogenic. Like so many other issues relating to the environment, the discussion has been marked not by sober scientific analysis and debate, but instead by zealotry, frivolous lawsuits, and political pandering to extremists. Meanwhile, mounting evidence against alleged cancer links goes ignored.
For a time it seemed that reason would triumph, but the anti-glyphosate lobby recently struck again, this time targeting tea of all things. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has sued major US tea producer Bigelow Inc. over the presence of trace amounts of glyphosate in one of its green teas. Naturally, the organic food army is wasting no time to exploit this to the fullest. Bigelow, America’s second largest tea brand by sales, provides too good an opportunity to castigate yet another food company as villainous and deceptive.
But amid all the frenzy, let’s take a step back and ask: what glyphosate levels are we actually talking about? According to the lawsuit, independent tests showed that dried tea leaves contain a mere 0.38 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate – far below the federal tolerance level, which the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) has set at 1 ppm for dried tea. When brewed, the glyphosate content is reduced to practically zero.
These are absurdly small values to begin with, but perspective is the last thing one expects to find during a witch-hunt.
The green tea lawsuit is part of a pattern where anti-herbicide fanatics seek to conflate any product on which pesticides have been used at some point during the production process as fundamentally dangerous. And the easiest way to do that is to cry “cancer!” Specifically, they have leaned heavily on a dubious 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that labeled glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”.
In October, Reuters revealed IARC’s glyphosate report to be gut-wrenchingly flawed. Prior to publication, IARC’s lead scientist on the report shamelessly edited out specific findings that contradicted the body’s agenda of painting the herbicide as dangerous. As a consequence, concrete evidence giving glyphosate a clean bill of health didn’t appear in the final report, fundamentally altering the overall tone of the assessment.
So, the desperate stretch that is the Bigelow case is hardly surprising. Glyphosate’s opponents have increasingly been forced into the defensive as of late because the evidence discrediting their claims is piling up.
Most recently, the EPA published a long-awaited draft risk assessment report concluding that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to people – much to the chagrin of some of the most ardent opposition groups such as the Natural Resource Council.
In another blow to glyphosate’s detractors, reason finally stomped out ideological zeal in November when the chemical’s EU license was extended for five years after various European agencies had conclusively disproved a link between glyphosate and cancer. The decision brought an end to two years of relentless fear-mongering campaigns.
While the global consensus on glyphosate as causing no harm is an encouraging sign that logic is still capable of triumphing over emotion, the recently published EPA report stands out as having potentially far-reaching consequences. It could be instrumental in toppling one of the nation’s most audacious attempts at undermining glyphosate’s market position, namely California’s Proposition 65.
The Proposition forces businesses to put a warning label on products containing substances “known to the State of California to cause cancer,” a bureaucrat-maintained list which now includes glyphosate despite contrary scientific evidence.
Compelling businesses, retailers and food companies to attach warning labels to glyphosate-containing products by 2018, especially in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of its safety, raises serious First Amendment questions. The requirement effectively forces the affected parties to commit false speech by calling a chemical dangerous that has been unequivocally shown to be safe.
Keeping glyphosate on the list is a prime example of an ideologically driven agenda outstripping the facts and the interests of consumers. Herbicides such as glyphosate have greatly increased crop yields and lowered costs for farmers and consumers alike. Placing pointless restrictions on it risks farmers’ livelihoods and undermines the agricultural sector—which generates one-fifth of our GDP and provides 28% of jobs in the country, with a total economic impact of $6.7 trillion per year.
Since glyphosate was added to the Prop 65 list, farmers’ associations have drowned the state in lawsuits to prevent negative fallout from the law. One such suit, filed at a California Court of Appeal, argues that the law’s listing mechanism violates the state’s constitution because it “effectively allows […] IARC to make the final listing decision for a carcinogen under California law.” The action received the support of 11 state attorneys general as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, bolstering arguments that IARC’s listing was specious.
Such a flawed legislative process leaves no doubt that California lawmakers given greater weight to the demands of environmental extremists and organic activists than to scientific expertise. But if recent developments are an indication of a changing tide, California may soon have to revise its approach to glyphosate. In that sense, the attack against Bigelow and its tea appears to be little more than a defeated lobby lashing out in desperation.
They cant get their filthy hands on I that’s why
excellent point
The old line from the government and taxation:
“I see you have some money; give it to me.”
The current line from the Left:
“I see you have something you enjoy; let me take it away from you.”
The plaintiffs cannot show any harm, case dismissed.
Actually, that’s not how it works. All they have to show is that the product fails to comply with Prop 65 labeling requirements and does not explicitly warn about the ‘cancer causing ingredient’ that they detected in incredibly minute quantities that no one would ever be able to accurately detect in a brewed cup of tea.
Can’t count the number of companies that dumped out of mugs when they realized that they’d have to test and submit results of every design, or suffer having to label all their products ‘CAUTION: Contains Lead’ — not that said label protected all companies, several still ended up being sued for ‘failure to test.’
There are a great many things officially “known by the state of California” that have no basis in reality, science or common sense.
That might fly in California but few other places. The Tea Company should counter-sue this group for harassment, frivolous law suit, and barratry.
Good thing they filed in California. AG’s from 11 states have also sued to put an end to the unreviewed Prop 65 list stating it impacts their states with the arbitrary and largely unscientifically supported witch hunt.
the thing you are enjoying is bad for the planet. Listen to me, do what I tell you to do, and together we can save the planet.
I could see greenie boycotts of high-glyphosate teas, but not everything has to be illegal to be subject to market choices.
There are things in celery that I would fear more.
Bigelow has it's own line of organic teas, by the way.
I drink diet green tea in place of tap water and have done so for years. It is a great way to stay hydrated plus is loaded with anti-oxidants. Good stuff.
I remember the gas stations in California had so many warning signs displayed the signs became invisible in just a few visits.
There are things in celery that I would fear more.
however, the number of people who could starve to death if you get rid of cheap easily used herbicides and pesticides is huge: the harvest would be smaller, more of it would be destroyed by pests and disease, and although food would be available, it would be too expensive for poor people to eat.
But then, the green movement who stopped DDT use that led to the resurgence of malaria are unlikely to worry about poor people.
Our family grows organic brown rice. Yes, it keeps me healthier, because I tend toward allergies. But it is sold at three times the price of imported/subsidized rice from China and VietNam.
(and the dirty little secret is that China and many other countries will simply deny the pesticides are being used, but that's another story).
The Prop 65 warnings are so common in California now that I suspect people are desensitized to them...kind of like smokers ignoring their warnings...even though smokers do understand that their warnings aren’t fake.
The Environmentalist Lobby.... oh, they mean Tom Steyer.
The focus seems to be on cancer, but what about a host of other potential maladies: birth defects, still births, mental & emotional problems in children, plus the hundreds of other ways chemicals can poison the body. Have they tested for all these? Was it Obama’s EPA who did the testing?
Do I trust ANY of the players in this play? Not as far as I can throw them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.