Complaints About Crop Damage Spur Temporary Ban on Dicamba in 2 States

On July 7, 2017, officials in Arkansas and Missouri enacted a temporary ban on dicamba, the herbicide blamed for vaporizing and damaging crops which have not been genetically engineered to withstand the weedkiller. The Arkansas Plant Board had voted June 23, 2017 to temporarily ban the spraying of dicamba on any crops except pasture land for 120 days. [1]

The newest ban, set to start July 11, 2017, extends the 120-day moratorium.

The bans come as complaints about suspected dicamba drift continue to snowball. More than 130 cases of dicamba drift have already been reported in Missouri this year, eclipsing last year’s totals, which resulted in heavy crop losses for farmers in the Bootheel region of the southeastern part of the state.

Source: Ohio State University

Missouri Director of Agriculture Chris Chinn announced in a July 7 news release that, effective immediately, sales and on-farm use of dicamba products would be suspended. The Missouri Department of Agriculture said the move is being made “with an abundance of caution and is temporary until a more permanent solution is reached.”

Chinn said in the release:

“We want to protect farmers and their livelihoods. At the same time, my commitment to technology and innovation in agriculture is unwavering. That’s why I am asking the makers of these approved post-emergent products, researchers and farmers to work with us to determine how we can allow applications to resume this growing season, under certain agreed upon conditions.”

Read: Monsanto’s Creation of Herbicide-Resistant Superweeds Grows in Several States

In Missouri, dicamba drift damaged nearly 45,000 acres of crops, including soybeans, commercial tomatoes, watermelons, cantaloupes, grapes, pumpkins, and residential trees and gardens. According to the Missouri Soybean Association, that’s too conservative, by far. The group estimates that 200,000 acres of soybean crops have been damaged by dicamba. [1] [2]

In 2016, Missouri’s largest peach grower, Bader Farms, sued Monsanto, one of the manufacturers of dicamba, alleging the herbicide caused extensive damage to the farm’s peach trees over the previous 2 years.

Monsanto released a statement saying the biochemical company is complying with the Missouri order, and encourage “all growers, retailers, and distributors to do the same.” [2]

It goes on to say:

“We spent years developing the XtendMax with VaporGrip Technology to minimize the potential for off-site movement. We want to stress how important it is that growers and applicators who use our product follow the label requirements and any local requirements. Monsanto is committed to remaining actively engaged in this conversation and doing our part to help farmers use the Roundup Ready Xtend Crop System successfully.”

No dicamba products have been approved for use in Arkansas, but some farmers applied the herbicide illegally.

About the Arkansas ban, Monsanto said:

“We sympathize with any farmers experiencing crop injury, but the decision to ban dicamba in Arkansas was premature since the causes of any crop injury have not been fully investigated. While we do not sell dicamba products in Arkansas, we are concerned this abrupt decision in the middle of a growing season will negatively impact many farmers in Arkansas.”

Sources:

[1] St. Louis Post-Dispatch

[2] GMWatch

Ohio State University

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Adverse Effects from Personal Care Products Climb 300% in 2016

Reports of side effects caused by cosmetics and personal care products sold in the U.S. more than doubled in 2016, and that’s partly due to complaints about WEN by Chaz Dean Cleansing conditioners, according to recent study. [1]

Researchers looked at data on side effects reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2004-2016 for products including makeup, sunscreen, tattoos, hair color, perfume, shaving creams, and baby care items. A total of 5,144 adverse events were reported to the agency during that time, with an average of 396 a year, the team writes in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Source: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Side effect reports skyrocketed from 78 to 706 in 2015, and there was a huge 300% spike to 1,591 adverse events in 2016, due in large part to complaints concerning WEN products.

In 2014, the FDA announced it was investigating WEN by Chaz Dean Cleansing Conditioners after receiving reports that the products cause hair loss, hair breakage, balding, itching, and rash. The agency had received 1,386 complaints as of November 2016. [2]

Read: 5 Toxic Ingredients Probably Found in Your Shampoo

Through that investigation, the health regulator discovered that Chaz Dean Inc. and parent company Guthy Renker LLC had been buried in more than 21,000 complaints. It didn’t matter, though; companies are not currently required by law to report complaints.

The FDA doesn’t regulate cosmetic products, and companies can launch products without the agency’s approval.

In an e-mail, the FDA said:

“The law does not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information, including consumer complaints, with the FDA. FDA’s data on cosmetic adverse events are limited because reporting is voluntary. The FDA may take regulatory action against cosmetics on the market that do not comply with the laws we enforce, if we have reliable information indicating that a cosmetic is adulterated or misbranded.”

If you wind up losing clumps of hair after using a particular product, complaining to the manufacturer may or may not get you results.

Read: 4 Solutions for Naturally Healthy Skin from the Inside-Out

Dr. Shuai Xu, a dermatology researcher at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said:

“Adverse events to cosmetics matter to patients mostly because nearly everyone uses a cosmetic or personal care product every single day – this includes newborns, infants and pregnant women. Unlike drugs and medical devices, cosmetics permeate daily life. We’re exposed to hundreds of chemicals a day from these products.”

Source: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

And, he said, there are likely far more adverse events caused by cosmetics and personal care products than is represented by the findings.

“These numbers are likely underreported. We need better reporting, from both consumers and clinicians. Broadly, the hope of our paper was to continue this discussion to modernize and expand the collection of data about personal care products. If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it, was our key point.”

Xu says most cosmetic and personal care products are safe, but it’s hard proving that the “bad” ones are truly unsafe.

“When it comes to cosmetics on the shelves that are dangerous, it’s very hard to prove. In general, cosmetics are a very safe product class.”

The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) said in a statement that it “believes that mandatory adverse event reporting is critically important, which is why we have long advocated for it on Capitol Hill.”

PCPC adds:

“Nevertheless, despite the recent increase in reporting, the fact remains that only a very small percentage of cosmetics products on the market are associated with adverse events. And of those, a fraction are listed as ‘serious.’

“In other words, even with the increase, adverse reactions associated with cosmetics and personal care products are extremely rare.”

But if the numbers are inaccurate, how can we really know?

Sources:

[1] Reuters

[2] CNN

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

---

---

Arkansas Temporarily Bans the Sale and Use of Dicamba Herbicide

After hundreds of Arkansas farmers claimed their crops had been harmed by the weed-killer dicamba, which was sprayed on neighboring fields, the Arkansas Plant Board voted June 23, 2017, to impose an unprecedented ban on the herbicide.

David Hundley, who manages grain production for Ozark Mountain Poultry in the town of Bay, said:

“It’s fracturing the agricultural community. You either have to choose to be on the side of using the product, or on the side of being damaged by the product.”

Monsanto created dicamba-resistant soy beans and cotton plants several years ago, but the chemical itself wasn’t a practical option for farmers prior to that.

Dicamba killed the weeds threatening the crops, all while leaving the soybeans unharmed, and farmers thought they’d finally found the answer to a devastating weed called pigweed (Palmer amaranth). Out of desperation to beat back the weeds, some farmers started spraying dicamba illegally, before it was approved for use.

But dicamba drifts easily in the wind, and it can land on and damage other crops. Non-GMO soybeans are especially susceptible to it. The herbicide can also damage fruit and vegetable farms, and ornamental trees. Dicamba was great news for farmers of GMO crops, but a nightmare for farmers that plant non-GMO seeds. [1] [2]

Read: Study: Dicamba Herbicide Chemicals DO Harm Non-Targeted Plants and Insects

Bob Scott, a specialist on weeds with the University of Arkansas’ agricultural extension service, said:

“Nobody was quite prepared, despite extensive training, for just how sensitive beans were to dicamba.” [1]

Earlier in 2017, a group of farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against the makers of dicamba – Monsanto and German chemical company BASF – over damage to their crops. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for damage to crops, fruits and trees that weren’t dicamba-resistant.

BASF is the only company that makes dicamba approved for use in the United States. [2]

Farmers in Arkansas began registering their displeasure as soon as Spring rolled in. By June 23, some 242 complaints had been sent to state regulators regarding dicamba-damaged crops. [1]

The problem is clearly worsening; in 2016, the state received just over 2 dozen complaints about dicamba-related crop damage. [2]

Plant board member Terry Fuller after the vote:

“We don’t have an emergency. We have a disaster. It’s damage everywhere you look.”

Also in 2016, Missouri’s largest peach grower sued Monsanto alleging that the company was responsible for illegal herbicide use that the group claimed had caused widespread crop damage in the southeast part of Missouri and neighboring states. Other states eventually joined the suit, including Illinois.

Said Scott:

“This has far eclipsed any previous number of complaints that we’ve gotten, and unfortunately, this number seems to just keep growing. Every day we get an update with 8 or 10 more complaints.” [1]

Hundley said that “any soybean that’s not [resistant to dicamba] is exhibiting damage. I can name 15 farmers within 3 or 4 miles who have damage, and I can only name 3-4 farmers who have used the technology.”

So the Arkansas Plant Board gathered on June 20, 2017, to mull over an emergency ban on further spraying of dicamba, and farmers crowded the meeting to make an impassioned plea for their side.

A bit of procedural confusion at the initial meeting prevented the board from holding a vote that day. The meeting reconvened on June 23, however, and voted, 9-5, to ban any spraying of dicamba on any crops except for pasture land for 120 days.

Sources:

[1] NPR

[2] U.S. News & World Report

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

DEA Decides NOT to Ban Kratom … For Now

On October 12, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) said in a notice to be published in the Federal Register that it has formally withdrawn plans to ban kratom, an herb used by many as a natural medicine.

In August, the DEA outlined plans to classify mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, two active compounds in kratom, as Schedule I substances, alongside heroin, LSD, and (inexplicably) marijuana.

The category is reserved for drugs which have no known medicinal value.

The August announcement drew the ire of kratom users, advocates, and stakeholders, many of whom expressed their outrage via the Internet. Citing this backlash, the DEA says it will open an official comment period, set to end on December 1.

The DEA is also asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a formal scientific and medical evaluation of kratom, which it will use to make an updated scheduling recommendation.

What is Kratom?

Kratom is an herb made from the leaves of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, two active compounds in kratom. These alkaloids seem to activate opioid receptors in the brain and reduce pain.

Kratom has been a widely-used traditional medicine in Asia for thousands of years, where people use it as a painkiller, as well as a treatment for depression, anxiety, and opioid addiction.

kratom (mitragyna speciosa) mitragynine

Researchers believe their work on kratom could eventually lead to the development of painkillers that rival opiates, but without being addictive. And unlike opioid medications, kratom isn’t known to cause the same side effects as opioids, including respiratory depression. [2]

While ingesting kratom does lead to feelings of euphoria, David Kroll, a pharmacologist and medical writer, explained that it’s not the same high as the one derived from taking opioids. [3]

Researchers argue that making the herb a Schedule I drug would cripple their ability to study it further. [2]

The Future of Kratom

When December 1 rolls around, a number of things could happen.

Firstly, the DEA could opt to put kratom in a schedule of the Controlled Substances Act permanently. This would allow more time for lawmakers and the public to voice their opinions on the herb’s future.

Secondly, the administration could decide to temporarily schedule kratom, which would not require any additional comment.

Thirdly, it might leave kratom unregulated.

Andrew Kruegel of Columbia University is one of the researchers working on next-generation painkillers based on the compounds found in kratom. He called the DEA’s decision not to ban the herb for now “a positive development.”

Kruegel said the FDA’s evaluation of kratom will hold a lot of weight when it comes time to decide how to handle the medicine, but the type of stringent trials the FDA usually requires in similar situations don’t exist for kratom.

He said:

“Unfortunately, in the United States I don’t think we have a good regulatory framework for handling this situation or taking perhaps more reasonable middle paths” between banning kratom outright and leaving it unregulated.

Marc Swogger, a clinical psychologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center who has published research on kratom use, said that he is “happy to see this.” He went on:

“I’m happy to see this. It is a step in the right direction and a credit to people who have spoken out against scheduling this plant.

Now, the government should take into account, not just the minimal available scientific data on kratom, but the broader impact that criminalizing the use of this plant will have on vulnerable citizens.”

Advocates know exactly where they stand, too.

Susan Ash, founder of the nonprofit organization American Kratom Association, said:

“We believe kratom should not be scheduled in any way, shape or form.

It’s been consumed safely for decades in the U.S. and world-wide for millennium, so there is no impetus to make it a controlled substance. We look forward to working cooperatively with the DEA as they conduct their review.” [1]

Sources:

[1] The Huffington Post

[2] The Washington Post

[3] NPR

Article image source: MintPress News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.