The Danish Environmental Protection Agency has published a survey and health assessment examining the exposure of 2-year-olds to chemical substances in consumer products. The report apparently focused on endocrine disruptors, including phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), found not only in general consumer products but specifically in food products and food contact materials. The study apparently concluded that (i) “a few exposures to a high content of an endocrine disruptor, such as that of DBP [bibutyl phthalate] in rubber clogs, may result in a critical risk for the 2 year-old”; (ii) “the amounts that 2 year-olds absorb, in particular from the phthalate DBP (mostly from foods) and dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs (mostly from foods, and partly from indoor air and dust), constitute a risk for anti-androgen disruptions to the endocrine system”; and (iii) “the amounts that 2 year-olds absorb from the parabens propylparaben and butylparaben, in particular, can constitute a risk…
Tag Archives hormone
Minnesota and Chicago have reportedly become the first state and municipality to prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic food and beverage containers intended for children ages 3 or younger. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) recently signed legislation (H.F. 326) that would prohibit the sale of these products in the state as of January 2010, although manufacturers can sell existing stock until early 2011. Citing a failure by federal regulators to address this issue, the Chicago City Council has also approved a similar proposal that would take effect in 2010. Some research has purportedly linked BPA to developmental health problems, breast and prostate cancer in laboratory animals, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously ruled that the chemical does not pose any danger to children when consumed in minimal amounts. “The FDA continues to be very slow about taking any action on BPA,” stated Chicago Alderman Manuel…
The Kansas Senate will apparently not try to override former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius’s veto of a bill that would have required a disclaimer on dairy products made without artificial growth hormones. Sebelius, recently confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, vetoed the bill in late April 2009 reportedly because it would have made it more difficult for consumers to get clear information. “Supporters of the bill claim it’s necessary to protect consumers from false or misleading information,” she was quoted as saying. “Yet there has been overwhelming opposition by consumer groups, small dairy producers and retailers to this proposed legislation.” Under the bill, manufacturers that have stated their product is not from cows supplemented with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST) would have had to document the claim and put a disclaimer on the product label. State Senator Marci Francisco, (D-Lawrence) a vocal opponent…
The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has urged Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kansas) to veto a bill passed by the Kansas Legislature on April 3, 2009, that restricts U.S. dairies from labeling their milk products free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Sebelius, who is vying to become the new U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has until April 16 to veto the bill. According to the consumer advocacy group, which claims milk from hormone-treated cows can cause cancer, companies such as Wal-Mart, Starbucks and Dannon, and more than half of the nation’s top 100 dairies have committed to stop using rbGH in some or all of their products. The Kansas legislation would require all manufacturers that sell rbGH-free products in the state, including national brands, to add a large disclaimer on their packages stating that the hormone does not change the quality of the milk. See…
General Mills has announced that as of August 2009, its Yoplait® products will no longer contain milk produced by cows treated with synthetic growth hormone (rBST or rBGH). Although the artificial hormone increases a cow’s milk production by one gallon per day, its use has drawn criticism from environmental and consumer advocates who fear the hormone could adversely affect human health. Its use is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but banned in Canada, Australia, Japan, and other nations in part because of its purported impact on bovine health. “While the safety of milk from cows treated with rBST is not at issue, our consumers were expressing a preference for milk from cows not treated with rBST, and we responded,” a General Mills spokesperson was quoted as saying. See The Star Tribune, February 9, 2009; Food & Water Watch Blog, February 10, 2009.
The European Commission has reportedly indicated that it will file a World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge to the U.S. decision to impose new tariffs on European Union (EU) products involved in sanctions stemming from a dispute over beef hormones. The EU has banned hormone-treated beef since the early 1980s, and the WTO ruled in 1998 that the ban violated trade rules, thus opening the door for U.S. and Canadian trade sanctions. While the EU contends that it has scientific grounds to support the ban, the United States and Canada have maintained their trade sanctions against the European bloc. According to a French Roquefort cheese producer, 100 percent tariffs have been imposed on his products for nine years; a new sanctions update has increased the penalty to 300 percent. “Sales of Roquefort to the United States will be finished,” he reportedly said. At issue is a Bush administration decision to suspend the…
Roll International Corp. Senior Counsel and former Agricultural Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law, Michael Roberts discusses how disputes over the use of synthetic hormones in animal husbandry and food produced from genetically modified organisms are handled from the perspective of international trade law and international agreements addressing health, safety and environmental issues. Thus, he sets the stage to speculate how international disputes over cloned animals and nanotechnologies used in the human food chain may be addressed in the future. Among the legal issues the author sees arising from cloning and nanotechnology are (i) what international institutions and instruments will regulate these emerging technologies; (ii) whether religious, scientific, moral, and ethical concerns implicated in these technologies will change the international regulations pertaining to food safety and labeling, (iii) what role private standard-setting will take in the international regulation of cloning and nanotechnology, and (iv) how private…
The Kansas Department of Agriculture this week held its final hearing on a regulation that would ban labels advertising a dairy product as “rBGH free,” “rBST free” or “artificial growth hormone free.” As of January 2010, the measure would also require products marketed as “derived from cows not supplemented with growth hormones” to carry disclaimer language stating, “the FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-supplemented and non-rBST-supplemented cows.” The department proposed the rules to reduce consumer confusion on the issue, but organic and environmental groups have since formed a coalition to lobby against the regulation. According to the Center for Food Safety, “94 dairy farmers; consumer, farm and agricultural groups; public health, animal protection and environmental organizations; food processors; and retailers” signed a letter to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D), claiming that the “proposed rule puts unnecessary obstacles in the way of…
The WTO has reportedly issued a ruling supporting the United States in its decision to impose duties on European imports in response to a ban on beef from animals treated with growth hormones. According to the U.S. trade representative, “The Appellate Body’s report confirms that WTO members that are subject to additional duties for failing to bring themselves into compliance with the WTO’s rulings and recommendations must do more than simply claim compliance in order to obtain relief from such duties.” The ruling ends an EU appeal from a March 2008 ruling by the trade organization finding that the EU failed to justify its ban on these imports and allowing the United States and Canada to impose duties on Roquefort cheese, truffles and chocolates because the EU’s practice violated international trade rules. The WTO Appellate Body apparently reversed that part of the March ruling which criticized the United States for…
12
