EU to vote on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

February 22, 2017

EU to vote on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 

Alfred E. Baldacchino

Wednesday, 22nd February, 2017

The European Commission’s legal act (fourth update) on the draft EDC (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals) criteria proposal is to be discussed on the 28th of February by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF), section phytopharmaceuticals.

Human exposure to EDCs occurs via ingestion of food, dust and water, via inhalation of gases and particles in the air, and through the skin. EDCs can also be transferred from the pregnant woman to the developing fetus or child through the placenta and breast milk. Pregnant mothers and children are the most vulnerable populations to be affected by developmental exposures, and the effect of exposures to EDCs may not become evident until later in life. Research also shows that it may increase the susceptibility to non-communicable diseases.

maxresdefaultEndocrinologists are at the core of solving the most pressing health problems of our time, from diabetes and obesity to infertility, bone health, and hormone-related cancers. The Endocrine Society is the world’s oldest and largest organization of scientists devoted to hormone research and physicians who care for people with hormone-related conditions.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that, can interfere with endocrine (or hormone) systems. These disruptions can cause cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental disorders. Any system in the body controlled by hormones can be derailed by hormone disruptors.

The Endocrine Society has issued a press release dated 14th February, 2017, expressing disappointment in the European Commission’s revised proposal on defining and identifying endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), citing unnecessarily narrow criteria for identifying EDCs that will make it nearly impossible for regulatory agencies to meet the unrealistically high burden of proof and protect the public from dangerous chemicals.

The Society opposes this European Commission’s proposal because it includes broad exemptions that ignore the ability of a chemical to interfere with the endocrine system. The Commission has only presented the criteria amendment for discussion. Since the “negligible risk” derogation amendment will have significant impact on how many endocrine disrupting pesticides will be banned, the two proposals should be discussed together.

More than 1,300 studies have found connections between endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) exposure and serious health conditions such as infertility, diabetes, obesity, hormone-related cancers and neurological disorders, according to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 Scientific Statement.

Enforcement of these regulations requires the European Commission to propose criteria to identify EDCs. The latest proposal from the European Commission does not include categories for identifying EDCs.

facebook_edcsFailure to effectively regulate EDCs comes with a high price tag. Recent studies have found that adverse health effects from EDC exposure cost the European Union more than €163 billion each year in healthcare expenses and lost productivity.

It’s in your hands to select a set of criteria that will provide a high level of protection for humans, animals and the environment, from the harmful effects that pesticides can cause.

The next Standing Committee has this proposal on its desk so that Member States can vote on on the 28th of February.

Please make your voice heard and show that you want Malta to vote NO at this meeting (Malta will be represented by MCCAA), and should ask for more improvements in the C omission’s proposal. Please find useful contact details below.

The responsible Ministers are:  

Hon. Christopher Fearne, Minister for Health (responsible for Environmental Healthchris@chrisfearne.com

Hon. Helena Dalli – Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties – (responsible for MCCAA)  helena.dalli@gov.mt

Hon. José Herrera – Minister for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate Change (responsible for Environment and Resources Authorityjose.herrera@gov.mt

The Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA) (The statutory Authority to promote, maintain and encourage competition, to safeguard the interests of consumers.info@mccaa.org.mt

 

related readings:

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/herr-era-and-glyphosate/


Herr-ERA and glyphosate

February 17, 2017

times of malta

Friday, February 17, 2017

Herr-ERA and glyphosate

Alfred E. Baldacchino

glyphosate-monographGlyphosate’s main aim is to kill. A Glyphosate monograph published by Pesticide Action Network (PAN) highlights its negative impacts.

Its residues are so widespread in foods, particularly those containing cereals or GM corn or soy-derived products. Detected in drinking water, wine and beer, and even in non-food products derived from GM cotton, it was also found in human urine in Europe (and Malta), and in the USA, where it was also found in breast milk.

Acute symptoms include abdominal pain, gastrointestinal infections, itchy or burning skin, skin infections, blisters, burning or weeping eyes, blurred vision, conjunctivitis, headaches, fever, rapid heartbeat, palpitations, raised blood pressure, dizziness, chest pains, numbness, insomnia, depression, debilitation, difficulty in breathing, respiratory infections, dry cough, sore throat, and unpleasant taste in the mouth. Doctors in Argentina reported vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory problems and skin rashes in association with aerial spraying of glyphosate.

glyphosate-health-impactsOther effects include balance disorder, reduced cognitive capacity, seizures, impaired vision, smell, hearing and taste, drop in blood pressure, twitches and tics, muscle paralysis, peripheral neuropathy, loss of gross and fine motor skills, excessive sweating, and severe fatigue.

Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, even at very low doses, may result in reproductive problems including miscarriages, pre-term deliveries, low birth weights, and birth defects.

Other adverse effects are in sexual and other cell differentiation, bone metabolism, liver metabolism, reproduction, development and behaviour, and hormone-dependent diseases such as breast and prostate cancer (Gasnier et al. 2009).

monsanto-eat-with-mask-on1Laboratory studies show that very low levels of glyphosate, Roundup, POEA, and the metabolite AMPA all kill human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells. Roundup can kill testicular cells, reduce sperm numbers, increase abnormal sperm, and retard skeletal development.

Kidney and liver are the main target organs for glyphosate, as reported from laboratory studies, including cell damage and death, DNA damage and tumours. It is regarded as a Highly Hazardous Pesticide as defined by PAN (PAN International 2016b) and by FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management as implemented by FAO in Mozambique (Come et al. 2013).

Emerging evidence shows that glyphosate can affect brain areas associated with Parkinson’s disease. Its exposure is also related with parkinsonian, Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and autism.

The placing on the market of glyphosate is the role of the minister responsible for the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority

Several studies indicate that glyphosate formulations may interfere with the immune system resulting in adverse respiratory effects including asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, and autoimmune skin and mucous membrane effects.

Glyphosate has direct and indirect eco-toxicological effects especially the bexx-f'mater-deiunprecedented elimination of flora termed weeds, which are essential to most beneficial species. Direct and indirect effects have cascading impacts on the food chain and on biodiversity.

Earthworms and a number of beneficial insects useful in biological control, particularly predatory mites, carabid beetles, ladybirds, and green lacewings all dead bee 13are negatively effected by lady-birdglyphosate. At levels commonly found in agricultural settings, it impairs honeybees’ cognitive capacities affecting their navigation with potential long-term negative consequences for colony foraging success.

Its subtle effects cause disruption of the ecosystem that are of greatest concern, particularly effects on the agroecosystem.

lacewingThe Minister for the Environment was quoted (January 2017) saying that “the government would continue to oppose glyphosate in EU discussions, but could not implement a unilateral ban due to European single market rules.” Malta’s voting on related matters at EU discussions are all abstentions.

An EU Commission Fact sheet on glyphosate, dated 29 June 2016, says the authorisation of placing pesticides on the market is the role of the Member States. “Once an active substance has been approved or renewed at EU level, the safety evaluation of every pesticides formulation is done at a later stage by individual Members States before they grant, refuse or restrict its use at national level.”

The placing on the market of glyphosate is role of the minister responsible for the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA) – the regulator. The environmental health impacts of glyphosate is the responsibility of the Minister for Health.

Herrera is only the operator. His main responsibility is the protection of biodiversity, as explained above. Herrera’s ERA should be in the front line on preventing glyphosate impacts on biodiversity to prevent biodiversity loss. ERA is also the Competent Authority for the EU Water Framework Directive, thus responsible for the vulnerable areas of Malta’s groundwater.

herr-era-cartoon

ERA should advice the Minster on Malta’s international responsibilities. It is not right that Herrera is left alone without any help from other authorities involved. Unless of course he has direction to walk it alone.

Malta Taghna lkoll is also clear on this. “The Environment and Resource Authority will be more proactive and strategic and will focus in a more specific way, on the conservation, protection and the amelioration of the environment and resources…” (p. 94);

“We will strengthen the monitoring of the market to see that products which will be on the market will not be of any health detriment, especially for children.” (p. 133); malta-taghna-lkolland

“We believe that Malta should be in the front line on environmental standards. Not because of obligation of any EU Directive, but because this is what our children deserve” (p 92).

Unless of course Herr-ERA and co believe that these are now past their best by date.

What a high price we are paying for such ‘cheap food’.

 

aebaldacchino@gmail.com

further reading:

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/glyphosate-il-prezz-gholi-li-qed-inhallsu/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/glyphosate-you-with-addenda/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/glyphosate/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/sena-dizastru-ghan-nahal/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/glyphosate-debate-goes-on/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/il-bexx-kimiku-is-sahha-tal-bniedem-u-tal-ambjent-1/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/il-bexx-kimiku-is-sahha-tal-bniedem-u-tal-ambjent-2/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/bees-alert-its-goodbye-honey/https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/use-and-overuse-of-pesticides-2/

 


Glyphosate & you

January 16, 2017

times of malta

‘EU’s permission to ban glyphosate is not needed’

Monday, January 16, 2017

 Sarah Carabott

 

photo-pesticides

Placing peticides on the market is the role of the member states. Photo: Shutterstock

Malta can still decide to ban products containing the weedkiller glyphosate and does not need any EU permission, environmentalist Alfred Baldacchino insists.

Mr Baldacchino, a former assistant director of the environment directorate at the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, was contacted after this newspaper was informed the government would only ban the use of glyphosate when such a move was ordered by the EU.

Only last summer, the Environment Ministry said the government had started the process to ban glyphosate. However, only products containing both the active substance glyphosate and the co-formulant POE-tallowamine are being banned. This, according to the ministry, includes Hopper Blu, Roundup, Roundup Max and Seccherba Respect.

stephanie-seneff-glyphosate

The price society pays to have ‘cheap’ food. Is it worth it?

A study has just been released showing that Roundup caused liver disease in rats. The World Health Organisation’s cancer agency says glyphosate itself is a “probable carcinogen”. Mr Baldacchino said the government was right to vote last June against the use of glyphosate in line with the precautionary principle cited by environmental groups, which stated that potentially hazardous substances should not be used unless they were proven to be safe.

What more proof does the minister need? The minister should seek the advice of all stakeholders, not just commercial ones

“But it seems the Environment Minister’s spokeswoman wants the minister to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.” “The EU does not authorise the placing on the market of pesticides. It is the role and responsibility of the member states to do so and the regulator in this area is the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority.”

“Malta can still decide to ban products containing glyphosate if it is not sure that the chemicals can have negative health and ecological impacts,” he insisted. Mr Baldacchino noted that it had already been proven that glyphosate killed bees, directly when they came in contact with the product and also by killing the flowers they fed on. Traces of the chemical had also been found in honey.

dead bee 16“What more proof does the minister need? The minister should seek the advice of all stakeholders, not just commercial ones, and this includes NGOs, technical experts, health experts, environmentalists and beekeepers,” he said.

The ministry, Mr Baldacchino continued, should also make clear what its intentions were and how it would enforce the ban. He wondered who would monitor what chemicals were used in herbicides and pesticides.

In a letter sent to the Environment Minister, the Clean Food Movement expressed dismay at the ministry’s watered-down position, saying the ban had turned out to be “no more than window dressing”.

“We are now more concerned than ever about the possible continued use of glyphosate on these islands,” the letter to the minister read.

Contacted in his capacity as chemical expert, Alfred Vella, the University rector, said herbicides containing more than one active ingredient did exist. POE-tallowamine was frequently present in herbicide compositions to serve as a “surfactant”, which was not designed to kill weeds but to make the delivery of the actual toxic chemical, such as glyphosate, more effective in its action. Still, at high enough concentration, POE tallowamine itself did have toxic properties in the case of certain organisms, he said.

Concern usually revolved around the stability and durability of herbicides and pesticides after being dispersed in the environment. If their stability was high and they remained on edible produce for far too long, it meant they could be consumed together with the vegetables containing them. There were also concerns about their solubility in water, as rainwater would be able to take chemicals down to the water table or nearby seawater.

On the other hand, chemicals that were not easily soluble in water were normally quite soluble in fatty matter, meaning they could be absorbed through the skin if contaminated harvested produce came in contact with animals or people.

killed by public funds

The price the ecosystem pays to have ‘cheap food. Is it worth it?

Prof. Vella acknowledged there was concern about pesticides and herbicides in general, however, he advised on looking at both sides of the coin. The use of pesticides allowed agriculture to produce food in much larger volumes and cheaper prices than without the chemicals.

While it was possible to live in a pesticide-free environment, society would likely have to pay a price. Apart from increased cost of foods, the decline in production could cut off some people’s access to meat, fruit and vegetables and that would also have health consequences, Prof. Vella pointed out.

______________________________________________________

Does the EU authorise the placing on the market of pesticides?

dead bee 8

who is paying for this if we may ask?

No, that’s the role of member states but active substances in the pesticides have to be approved at EU level. Once an active substance is approved at EU level, the safety evaluation of every pesticide formulation is done at a later stage by individual member states before they grant, refuse or restrict the use of pesticides formulations at national level.

In their authorisation decision, member states can therefore define the conditions for use of the product, for instance, restricted to certain crops, for professional use or for use in glass houses only.

*Information taken from the European Commission site.

______________________________________________________

 

further reading:

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/sena-dizastru-ghan-nahal/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/glyphosate-debate-goes-on/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/glyphosate-debate-goes-on-2/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/il-bexx-kimiku-is-sahha-tal-bniedem-u-tal-ambjent-1/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/il-bexx-kimiku-is-sahha-tal-bniedem-u-tal-ambjent-2/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/bees-alert-its-goodbye-honey/


Glyphosate debate goes on

March 29, 2016

‘Malta unclear on carcinogenic pesticide’

In 2013, nine of 10 people tested in Malta had traces of glyphosate in their urine, which was the highest rate in Europe.

In 2013, nine of 10 people tested in Malta had traces of glyphosate in their urine, which was the highest rate in Europe.

Malta’s position on the use of the potentially cancer-causing chemical glyphosate in pesticides is still unclear ahead of a crucial vote in May, as the European Commission seeks to extend its approval for the next 15 years.

Labour MEP Miriam Dalli, however, has voted for a ban on the chemical in the European Parliament, despite the Maltese government so far refusing to state its position.

The government was requested to give the European Commission its suggestions on the proposal by last Friday, but an Environment Ministry spokeswoman told the Times of Malta that it had not done so, as discussions were still ongoing.

Glyphosate, a common ingredient in weed killers, is considered to be a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organisation, and environmental NGOs have long called for its use to be suspended.

Tests carried out by Friends of the Earth Malta in 2013 found that nine of 10 people tested in Malta had traces of glyphosate in their urine, the highest rate in Europe.

The Commission’s European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), however, published a report in November stating that the chemical was “unlikely” to cause cancer, paving the way for re-approval. The report was heavily contested by France, Sweden and the Netherlands, who have all come out strongly against glyphosate use.

National pesticide regulators from all EU countries, as well as the Commission, met on March 8 to decide on the matter but could not reach the majority necessary for a decision, prompting a postponement of the vote.

The Commission proposal includes the authorisation of glyphosate for nearly the maximum period possible (15 years) but also increases the acceptable amounts of glyphosate residues in food by 66 per cent.

When contacted, the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA), the local regulator, refused to state its position and instead directed questions to the Environment Ministry. Informed sources, however, said the regulator had recommended that the government vote to ban glyphosate, although the final decision rests with the government.

A resolution passed on Monday by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, of which Dr Dalli is a member, called for the blocking of the Commission’s proposal. The resolution will now be put before a plenary session in April.

Dr Dalli, who voted for a ban, said the EFSA report was based on unpublished studies which should be disclosed before any decision was made to ensure its conclusions were scientifically sound.

“Ultimately here we are speaking about the health of our citizens and this is another case where I stand firm in my belief that public health is not negotiable and must not be compromised by any commercial interest,” she said.

Asked if she believed the government should vote to ban the chemical, Dr Dalli said: “The government should analyse the proposal in great detail and keep as a priority citizens’ health to make sure that the decision is taken based on proper scientific evidence.”

Former environment directorate head Alfred Baldacchino told this newspaper the EU should apply the precautionary principle enshrined in its treaties, which states that potentially hazardous products should not be used unless they can be proven to be safe.

“This is necessary in the interest of biodiversity and of society,” Mr Baldacchino said. “If a harmful effect were to be proven further down the line, it would be too late to control.”

aebaldacchino@gmail.com

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/departments-passing-buck-over-pesticide-regulations/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/use-and-overuse-of-pesticides-2/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/il-bexx-kimiku-is-sahha-tal-bniedem-u-tal-ambjent-1/

https://alfredbaldacchino.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/il-bexx-kimiku-is-sahha-tal-bniedem-u-tal-ambjent-2/