Chemicals in Textiles: Risks to Human Health and the Environment

/by

Published: 2004

The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemikalieinspektionen) was assigned by the Swedish government to compile available and relevant information about the risks to human health and the environment from hazardous substances in textile articles. The intention of this report is to serve as a base for further work on developing risk reduction measures for hazardous substances in textiles at the EU level. The study includes three main parts: a. An overview of textile consumption in the EU and Sweden. b. A screening study with the aim to identify hazardous substances/groups of substances posing a potential risk to human health and the environment. c. A literature study of data on exposures and effects related to hazardous substances in textiles.

Increasing consumption of textile articles and use of chemicals The consumption of textile articles has increased rapidly in the EU during the last decades. Textile materials are produced in large quantities and are included in a broad variety of widely used consumer articles. Chapter 3 presents an overview of consumption of textile materials and articles in the EU and Sweden.

Increasing production and consumption of textile articles also mean an increased use of chemicals and raw materials. Large quantities of chemical substances are used in the production of textiles, from processing of fibres and raw materials to the final touch of the finished article.

Substances used in the production of textiles can remain in the final article as minor contaminant amounts, and articles may also contain substances formed by degradation. Other substances are intentionally added to textile articles in order to provide a specified function, such as colour or easy-care. Substances in textile materials may be released from articles and expose humans and the environment. Textile articles are used in a way that both consumers the environment can be exposed to chemicals released from the articles. An overview is presented in Chapter 4.

Information is needed in the production- and supply chains

Although large quantities of substances are included in textile production, there is no comprehensive overview of hazardous substances that may be present in textile articles placed on the market.

To assess the chemical risks related to the use of textile articles it is necessary to have information about the identity of the substances and their hazardous properties. Access to information on the contents of hazardous substances in textile materials and articles is important for the manufacturers, importers and suppliers along the production and supply chains.

The requirement in the REACH Regulation, Article 33 (Section 2.1.1) concerning the duty on suppliers to provide information on hazardous substances in articles is limited to Substances of Very High Concern that are listed on the Candidate list. Thus, this duty to provide information does not included e.g. dermal allergens. 7

The majority, approximately 80%, of the textile articles consumed in the EU are imported from a non-EU country, and it is also common to import semi-finished textile materials while the article is finally manufactured and labelled in the EU. The textile supply chains are often long and complex with a global span and important information is drastically decreasing in the many steps from producer to consumer. The flow of chemical information in the supply chains is generally not adequate. The knowledge about chemical contents in textile articles should be made more readily available by increasing and improving the information exchange along the supply chain.

One step towards improved information exchange along the supply chain is the international initiatives in the SAICM programme Chemicals in Products (Section 2.3). The legal information requirement on suppliers of substances in articles needs to be further developed.

Identifying chemical substances related to textile articles

The study presented in Chapter 6 was performed to identify substances with a reported use in textile production. The REACH registration (Section 2.1.1) is one source of knowledge since data for hazardous properties and recommended use for substances should be included in the registration. Further data was also collected from several databases.

The focus of the screening study was to identify substances of potential risk to human health and the environment. Approximately 3 500 substances were identified as relevant for use in textile. However, the actual use and the presence in the final textile articles have not been verified for all these substances. It should be noted that this identification approach managed to cover only a part of all the substances that may be found in textile articles.

Of the identified substances about 2 000 substances are not yet registered under REACH. Due to the volume limit for registration and the limited obligations to register substances present in imported articles, the REACH registration data is insufficient for risk assessment of many substances used in textiles. In some cases REACH registration data for risk assessments was not easily accessible for evaluations of specific uses, and for about one third of the identified substances the REACH registrations was the only source indicating textile use.

Improved quality of data and increased availability in the REACH registration would facilitate and improve the decision-making regarding risk reduction measures for hazardous substances in textiles.

The focus of this study is functional chemicals as they are expected to be present in textiles at relatively high concentrations. However, auxiliary chemicals and unintended degradation products may also be present in the textiles and cause harmful effects on human health and the environment, but these types of substances are not covered by screening study due to the limitations.

Substances of potential risk to human health

Approximately ten percent of the identified 2 400 textile-related substances are considered to be of potential risk to human health. These substances are all functional chemicals, which are expected to be present in the final article at relatively high concentrations, and include azo dyes of direct and acid application type and fragrance. There may also be other types of substances, such as auxiliary chemicals and impurities/degradation products, that can be of potential risk to the human health. The concentration of such substances are generally lower 8 in the final textile article than the concentration of functional chemicals and therefore they were excluded from the scope of the screening study.

The identified azo dyes of direct application type have properties that are associated with an increased risk of cancer and developmental effects, whereas the identified azo dyes of acid application type and fragrances have properties that are associated with an increased risk of allergy.

The relevance of azo dyes was also confirmed by studies in the open literature. Azo dyes of direct application type are mainly used in cotton textile while azo dyes of acid application type are mainly used in polyamide. Since both cotton and polyamide are common materials on the EU market there is a potential for large-scale human exposure to azo dyes of direct and acid application type. These dyes are loosely bound to textile fibres and in particular small children sucking or chewing on textiles could be highly exposed. The dyes also have properties indicating that they are persistent in the environment and may accumulate in the aquatic food chain, which could lead to an indirect exposure of humans through dietary intake. For small children, ingestion of indoor dust, which to a large part consists of textile fibres, may also be an important exposure route to textile-related substances for small children, especially since textiles constitute a large part of the surface in the indoor environment.

The presence of hazardous substances in textiles, including azo dyes of direct and acid application type, should be further investigated.

Carcinogenic, reprotoxic and/or sensitising substances (allergens) should be avoided in articles with direct and prolonged skin contact. Although the methods we used to identify substances of potential risk involve many assumptions and limitations, the results are consistent and give reasons for further investigations, especially of azo dyes of direct and acid application type but also fragrances.

Substances that may cause severe health effects should be avoided in articles with direct and prolonged skin contact.

The overall scientific literature points out disperse dyes as the main cause of textile-related allergic skin reactions and disperse dyes were also identified as substances of concern in our screening study. In addition to the disperse dyes, we identified acid dyes as a group of sensitising substances of potential risk to human health that previously have not been associated with textile-allergy to any great extent. It is thus likely that the disperse dyes is not the cause of all reported cases of allergic skin reactions, for example certain acid dyes could also cause cases of allergic skin reactions.

Based on the findings of our screening study more than 200 allergenic textile-related substances, as for example acid-type dyes, could contribute substantially to allergic skin reactions. The testing of dermal allergy to sensitising dye substances used in textiles should be developed. Substances of potential risk to the environment Approximately five percent of the identified 2 400 textile-related substances are considered to be of potential risk to the environment. These chemicals are all functional chemicals which are expected to be present in the final article at relatively high concentrations. The evaluation of the function chemical substances clearly pointed out azo dyes of direct and acid application type as substance groups of potential risk to the environment. The 2 400 substances also include auxiliary chemicals or impurities.

READ THE FULL REPORT  

Death From Above

/by

Author: Christopher Collins | Published: April 17, 2017

It’s December in Quitaque, and from dusk till dawn, convoys of trucks brimming with freshly picked cotton barrel down Highway 86, destined for gins in nearby Silverton and Roaring Springs. There, giant vacuums draw the cotton into the bellies of whirring machines and then, emptied of their cargo, the trucks race back to the fields to be repacked. During harvest season, the roadsides of this part of the Texas Panhandle are lined with little white drifts of cotton.

Cotton farming is big business in this region, where most of the state’s $2.2 billion crop is grown. Quitaque, a community of 387 people about an hour and a half southeast of Amarillo, is surrounded by a phalanx of cotton farmers who each year plant tens of thousands of acres. The town is an island in a vast white sea.

Though the industry is a lifeline for Quitaque’s economy, and the lives of folks in town are tied to the work of neighboring farms, residents say the relationship has a big drawback: the repeated and indiscriminate spraying of pesticides that is killing trees, poisoning livestock and making people sick.

The cotton convoy is rushing up and down the highway as Jerry Beck, a portly, white-bearded man in his 60s, steps into the Caprock Cafe, a country diner run by his wife. Despite below-freezing temperatures, he wears a short-sleeved shirt with a pocket that bears the imprint of a chewing tobacco can. He looks every bit the former sheriff that he is.

Beck periodically spits into a Styrofoam cup as he explains that Quitaque is under siege by crop dusters, pilots hired by farmers to spray pesticides on fields to kill weeds and prepare the cotton plants for harvest. Sometimes the pilots miss their marks and inadvertently deliver a cloud of poison to people, plants and animals.

Beck has firsthand experience with the “chemical drift” problem, as regulators call it. In May 2016, a duster spraying a field near Beck’s house sent an off-target blast of paraquat dichloride, a toxic pesticide, wafting over his home. The next day, he noticed that his vegetable garden and fruit trees were starting to show signs of being poisoned, which he blames on the paraquat, according to his complaint with the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA). His biggest worry is that three of his grandkids were playing outside when the chemical drifted through his property.

“I remember thinking, ‘Boy, that ain’t good,’ because they were all exposed to it,” Beck said. In the following days, Beck’s granddaughters complained of headaches and difficulty breathing, problems that he attributes to the pesticide exposure.

The use of paraquat is tightly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because of the chemical’s extreme toxicity. It can cause death in humans, and even limited exposure can be “corrosive to the skin and eyes,” according to a risk assessment conducted by the agency. A 2009 UCLA study found that people exposed to paraquat are three times more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease. The chemical has been banned by the European Union and China.

The label printed on containers of Gramoxone, a widely used pesticide whose active ingredient is paraquat, warns against breathing the chemical’s mist and says to seek medical attention if the poison comes into contact with skin or clothing.

Based on interviews with 11 people in Quitaque, it appears that the chemical drifted at least 5 miles. Its path started behind Beck’s house on the south side of town, cutting a swath through downtown and moving farther east, where it spread to more rural areas. In its path were trees, gardens, livestock, pets and people.

Kim Reiss, who runs a commercial organic garden in Quitaque, claims the pesticide made her nose bleed. “That was so weird. I never have a bloody nose,” she said. Over the next few days, the fruits and vegetables in her garden began to die. The leaves of the plants were pocked with what she described as “cigarette burns” that kept getting bigger. Reiss said she lost $8,000 worth of produce. That’s in addition to the adverse effects of being exposed to pesticides before the fall harvest each year, when farmers hire crop dusters to spray cotton fields. “Usually, while they’re defoliating [the cotton], I spend a good portion of that time being sick,” she said. “They call it allergies. I call it being defoliated. It’s a strange place to choose to live.”

About a month later, in late June, Quitaque farmer and rancher C.L. Hawkins was repairing a fence in one of his fields when he says the wind carried a wave of pesticide onto him. “I was working on a fence right across the road, and he was sprayin’. Boy, I just went ahead and got out of there,” said Hawkins, who complained to TDA.

Then, in September, Quitaque wheat farmer and cattle rancher Paul Teegardin reported to the agency that the pesticide drifted onto grass he uses to feed his beef cattle. Though it was the first time he had filed a formal complaint, Teegardin said his land has been under assault by crop dusters for at least two years.

KEEP READING ON TEXAS OBSERVER

Back to Grass: The Market Potential for US Grassfed Beef

/by

Authors: Donny Benz, Renee Cheung, Rosalie Kissel, Paul McMahon and Erik Norel | Published: April 2017 

Grassfed beef in the U.S. is a fast-growing consumer phenomenon that is starting to attract the attention of more cattle producers and food companies, but there is a lack of coherent information on how the market works. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) produces a vast body of data on the conventional beef sector, its data collection and reporting efforts on grassfed beef are spotty. Pockets of information are held by different private sector organizations, but they have rarely been brought together.

This report addresses that gap by providing a comprehensive overview of the U.S. grassfed beef sector, with a focus on market and economic dynamics. It brings together available data on the current state of the sector, identifies barriers to growth and highlights actions that will help propel further expansion. It analyzes consumer demand, supply chains and both domestic and imported grassfed beef production models, all the while comparing grassfed beef with conventional beef to highlight their differences.

The report tries to answer some fundamental questions about the future of the sector. How do we define “grassfed beef”? Does it matter how restrictive this definition is? Is grassfed beef destined to remain a niche, expensive product for the affluent consumer? Or can grassfed beef scale to the point where it displaces a significant portion of the conventional, grain-fed beef system in the U.S.?

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

Hope Below Our Feet: Soil as a Climate Solution

/by

Authors: Anne-Marie Codur, Seth Itzkan, William Moomaw, Karl Thidemann, and Jonathan Harris | Published: April 2017 

Can the world meet the ambitious goals necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change? A major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is clearly needed, but there is increasing scientific consensus that even if achieved, this will not be enough. In addition to a drastic reduction in carbon emissions, carbon must be removed from the atmosphere. An important solution is beneath our feet – the massive capacity of the earth’s soils to remove and store carbon from the atmosphere.

Soils hold about three times more carbon than the atmosphere, and an increase in soil carbon content worldwide could close the “emissions gap” between carbon dioxide reductions pledged at the Paris Agreement of 2015 and those deemed necessary to limit warming to 2 o C or less by 2100. To meet this challenge, several international efforts to build soil carbon have been launched, with similar measures underway in the United States.

Proposed policies include reforestation and innovative farming, ranching, and land management approaches that will enhance degraded soil and restore its carbon stock. The French-initiated effort, 4 per 1000: Soils for Food Security and Climate, introduced to coincide with the Paris Agreement, calls for an annual increase of 0.4% in annual global soil carbon storage which, if achieved, would amount to nearly one third of total anthropogenic emissions. This brief also addresses other international soil carbon enhancement initiatives and legislation considered or enacted in US states.

READ THE FULL POLICY BRIEF HERE 

Want Good Soil? Feed the Microbes

/by

Author: Kathy Voth  | Published on: March 20, 2017

In June of 2014, Grist reporter Nathanael Johnson reported on a battle between two men in New South Wales Australia. Clive Kirkby and John Kirkegaard were having it out over the proper handling of crop residues after harvest. Kirkby was trying to get farmers to stop torching wheat stubble. Rather than letting fire release all that carbon into the atmosphere, he told them that they could increase soil organic matter and build healthier, carbon-rich soils by leaving the stubble in the field.  John Kirkegaard, an agronomist, told Kirkby he was wrong. The practice of burning and cultivating was what was growing the best crops.

As most folks will tell you nowadays, cultivating, or plowing, disrupts soil microbes and releases even more carbon into the air. That’s why no-till is becoming increasingly popular. But the practice that Kirkby was promoting didn’t seem to be making a difference either. After six years of leaving stubble in the field, Kirkegaard’s data showed that soil organic matter and the carbon it holds wasn’t increasing, and in some cases, it was even decreasing.

Farmers have been encouraged to leave stubble in the field for the same reason that management-intensive grazing proponents leave plenty of forage behind in pasture: It’s food for the soil. Put more precisely, it’s fuel for a complex, not entirely understood food web of fungi, insects, and microbes eating the residue and each other and transforming plant remains into stable, carbon-rich soil.

KEEP READING ON ON PASTURE

Protect Small Farms to Meet Growing Global Food Needs

/by

Author: Chris Arsenault | April 5, 2017 

As the world moves towards large-scale plantation agriculture, it’s crucial poor countries protect small farmers to meet the food needs of a growing global population, said a study from Australian researchers published on Wednesday.

More than half of the world’s food is produced by small and medium farmers, particularly in Africa and Asia, said researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia.

While large-scale plantation agriculture is expanding, small farms with less than 20 hectares of land should be protected because they produce more diverse and nutritious food, the study said.

“It is vital that we protect and support small farms and more diverse agriculture so as to ensure sustainable and nutritional food production,” Mario Herrero, the study’s lead author, said in a statement.

“Large farms, in contrast are less diverse.”

Big farms larger than 50 hectares dominate food production in the western hemisphere, Australia and New Zealand, producing more than three quarters of the cereals, livestock and fruit in those regions, the study said.

KEEP READING ON TRUST.ORG 

Gender and Climate Change – Gender, Climate Change and Food Security

/by

Published: April 17, 2017 

The interlinked challenges of climate change and food security are most evident in the agriculture sector, which (combined with land-use change) produces about a quarter of global greenhouse emissions. At the same time, climatic stresses on agriculture and food systems present formidable food security and livelihood challenges to millions.

The climate challenge in agriculture requires integrated approaches that increase productivity, enhance adaptive capacity and cut back net emissions. The agency of rural female farmers is essential for enhancing agricultural productivity and realizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including ensuring food security (SDG 2) and addressing the perils of climate change (SDG 13). Despite significant strides in addressing gender inequalities over the years, rural women are still among the most marginalized groups in society and are particularly vulnerable to current and future climate change and food insecurity. Given these close relationships, the response to climate change vis-à-vis the agricultural sector should therefore take into account gender dynamics and be gender-responsive.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

Cover Crops May Be Used to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change

/by

Published: April 17, 2017 

Climate-change mitigation and adaptation may be additional, important ecosystem services provided by cover crops, said Jason Kaye, professor of soil biogeochemistry in the College of Agricultural Sciences. He suggested that the climate-change mitigation potential of cover crops is significant, comparable to other practices, such as no-till.

“Many people have been promoting no-till as a climate-mitigation tool, so finding that cover crops are comparable to no-till means there is another valuable tool in the toolbox for agricultural climate mitigation,” he said.

In a recent issue of Agronomy for Sustainable Development — the official journal of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, Europe’s top agricultural research institute and the world’s number two center for the agricultural sciences — Kaye contends that cover cropping can be an adaptive management tool to maintain yields and minimize nitrogen losses as the climate warms.

Collaborating with Miguel Quemada in the Department of Agriculture Production at the Technical University of Madrid in Spain, Kaye reviewed cover-cropping initiatives in Pennsylvania and central Spain. He said that lessons learned from cover cropping in those contrasting regions show that the strategy has merit in a warming world.

The researchers concluded that cover-crop effects on greenhouse-gas fluxes typically mitigate warming by 100-150 grams of carbon per square meter per year, which is comparable to, and perhaps higher than, mitigation from transitioning to no-till. The key ways that cover crops mitigate climate change from greenhouse-gas fluxes are by increasing soil carbon sequestration and reducing fertilizer use after legume cover crops.

“Perhaps most significant, the surface albedo change — the proportion of energy from sunlight reflecting off of farm fields due to cover cropping — calculated for the first time in our review using case-study sites in central Spain and Pennsylvania, may mitigate 12 to 46 grams of carbon per square meter per year over a 100-year time horizon,” Kaye wrote.

KEEP READING ON SCIENCE DAILY 

Resumen de la opinión consultiva del Tribunal Internacional a Monsanto

/by

Entregada el 18 de abril del 2017 en La Haya, Países Bajos

El Tribunal Internacional a Monsanto es un “Tribunal de Opinión” único convocado por la sociedad civil para aclarar las obligaciones legales y consecuencias de algunas de las actividades de la compañía Monsanto.

Durante las audiencias que tuvieron lugar el 15 y 16 de octubre en La Haya, jueces escucharon testimonios relacionados con las seis preguntas hechas al Tribunal. La subsiguiente opinión legal entregada por el Tribunal incluye un análisis legal de las preguntas formuladas, respecto tanto a la ley ambiental existente como a una ley prospectiva para mejorar la legislación internacional de derechos humanos y ambiental.

La opinión consultiva está estructurada en tres partes. La sección introductoria detalla las condiciones con las cuales se inició el Tribunal. La sección de en medio examina seis preguntas hechas al Tribunal. Teniendo en cuenta la situación en general, la sección final aborda la creciente asimetría entre los derechos concedidos a corporaciones y las limitaciones impuestas sobre éstas para proteger a las comunidades locales y/o generaciones futuras, donde sea que operen las corporaciones.

Pregunta 1, como fue planteada al Tribunal, relacionada a la supuesta infracción al derecho a un ambiente sano. En otras palabras, ¿la empresa Monsanto, con sus actividades, actúa en conformidad con el derecho a un medioambiente seguro, limpio, sano y sostenible, como se reconoció en la legislación Internacional de Derechos Humanos (Resolución 25/21 del Consejo de Derechos Humanos, el 15 de abril del 2014), considerando las responsabilidades impuestas a las corporaciones con los Principios Guía en Negocios y Derechos Humanos, aprobada por el Consejo de Derechos Humanos en la Resolución 17/4 del 16 de junio del 2011?

El Tribunal recuerda que el concepto “del derecho a un medioambiente sano” se remite a la conferencia de la ONU sobre el Ambiente Humano en Estocolmo, 1972. Con la noción de que el medioambiente es una condición previa para disfrutar derechos humanos, esto marcó el inicio de una nueva era en legislación internacional. Hoy en día, al menos de 140 Estados han incorporado el derecho a un medioambiente sano en sus constituciones, haciéndolo una norma del derecho consuetudinario internacional. El Relator Especial de Derechos Humanos y Medioambiente, John Knox, ha identificado amenazas al derecho a un medioambiente sano, y estableció una serie de requerimientos para protegerlo. El Consejo De Derechos Humanos de la ONU ha concluido que la ley de derechos humanos establece ciertas obligaciones en los Estados para garantizar que el derecho a disfrutar de un medioambiente sano sea respetado. Las audiencias del Tribunal a Monsanto permitieron la recolección de testimonios relacionados a varios impactos en la salud humana (especialmente en agricultores), suelos, plantas, organismos acuáticos, salud animal y biodiversidad. Estos testimonios también incluyeron los impactos de rociar productos de protección a cultivos (herbicidas, pesticidas). Además, la información recolectada también sacó a la luz los impactos en comunidades indígenas y pueblos en muchos países, y a la ausencia de proveer información adecuada a aquellos que concierne.

Con base en los descubrimientos anteriores y para responder la Pregunta 1, el Tribunal concluye que Monsanto se ha involucrado en prácticas que han impactado de forma negativa el derecho a un medioambiente sano.

Pregunta 2 concerniente a la supuesta infracción al derecho a la alimentación como fue reconocido en el Artículo 11 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, en los Artículos 24.2( c ) y (e ) y en el 27.3 de la Convención Sobre los Derechos del Niño; y en los Artículos 25(f) y 28.1 de la Convención Sobre la Eliminación de Todas las Formas de Discriminación Contra la Mujer.

De acuerdo al Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales de la ONU, “El derecho a una alimentación adecuada es realizado cuando cada hombre, mujer e infante, solos o en comunidad con otros, tiene acceso físico y económico en todo momento a una alimentación adecuada o medios para su adquisición”. De acuerdo al Tribunal, las entidades de negocios también son responsables de respetar este derecho al aplicar las Directrices para Empresas Multinacionales de la OCDE y los Principios Rectores de las Naciones Unidas sobre Negocios y Derechos Humanos. Las audiencias explicaron los impactos negativos en sistemas de producción y ecosistemas, la aparición de especies invasivas y la pérdida de eficiencia del Roundup con el paso del tiempo. Algunos agricultores fueron sentenciados a pagar regalías después de que sus campos fueron contaminados con organismos genéticamente modificados (OGMs), mientras que otros aseguraron que la corporación está apoderándose del mercado de semillas, aunque los productos de Monsanto no son tan productivos como se promete.

En respuesta a la Pregunta 2, el Tribunal concluye que Monsanto se ha involucrado en prácticas que tienen un impacto negativo en el derecho a la alimentación. Las actividades de Monsanto afectan la disponibilidad de alimentos para individuos y comunidades, e interfieren con la habilidad de los individuos y comunidades de alimentarse a sí mismos directamente o a elegir semillas no modificadas genéticamente. Además, las semillas genéticamente modificadas no siempre son costeables para los agricultores y amenazan a la biodiversidad. Las actividades y productos de Monsanto causan daño al suelo, agua y al ambiente en general. El Tribunal concluye que la soberanía alimentaria también es afectada y resalta los casos en los cuales la contaminación genética de los campos forzó a agricultores a pagar regalías a Monsanto o hasta abandonar sus cultivos no-OGM debido a esta contaminación. Efectivamente hay una infracción al derecho a la alimentación debido al mercadeo agresivo de los OGMs los cuales pueden forzar a los agricultores a comprar nuevas semillas cada año. El modelo agro-industrial dominante puede ser criticado aún más fuertemente debido a que otros modelos – como la agroecología – existen que respetan el derecho a la alimentación.

La Pregunta 3 concierne a la supuesta infracción al derecho al estándar de salud más alto que cualquiera pueda obtener, como se reconoce en el Artículo 12 Del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, o el derecho de un infante a disfrutar del estándar de salud más alto que se pueda obtener, como se reconoce en el Artículo 24 de la Convención de los Derechos de los Niños.

El derecho a la salud está entrelazado con los derechos a la alimentación, agua e higiene, y a un medioambiente sano. El derecho a la salud también es reconocido en muchos instrumentos de protección de derechos humano regionales. El Tribunal escuchó informes de testigos sobre enfermedades congénitas severas, desarrollo de linfomas de no Hodgkin, enfermedades crónicas, envenenamiento con Lasso o incluso muerte después de exposición ambiental directa o indirecta a productos manufacturados por Monsanto. El Tribunal recuerda que esta compañía ha producido y distribuido muchas sustancias peligrosas. Primero fueron los policlorobifenilos, contaminantes orgánicos persistentes comercializados exclusivamente por Monsanto entre 1935 y 1979 a pesar del hecho de que la compañía sabía sobre sus nocivos impactos a la salud. Los PCBs ahora están prohibidos en el Convenio de Estocolmo sobre los Contaminantes Orgánicos persistentes del 2001. Este producto carcinógeno también causa problemas con la fertilidad y desarrollo infantil, además de que altera al sistema inmune.

En segundo lugar, el glifosato (ingrediente del Roundup) es considerado en algunos estudios como un producto carcinógeno mientras que otros reportes, como el de la Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria (EFSA, por sus siglas en inglés), concluye lo opuesto. En una opinión emitida el 15 de marzo del 2017 y relacionada con la clasificación del glifosato, la Agencia Europea de Sustancias y Mezclas Químicas (ECHA, por sus siglas en inglés) estimó que este producto no puede ser clasificado como un carcinógeno, como un mutágeno o como un tóxico para reproducción. El Tribunal, sin embargo, pone énfasis en que esta clasificación no toma en cuenta los riesgos de la exposición, con residuos encontrados en alimentos, agua potable y hasta en la orina humana. La comercialización de semilla de cultivos resistentes al Roundup OGM ha resultado en una distribución y uso amplio de este producto. Está clasificado como un “carcinógeno probable para humanos” por la Agencia Internacional de Investigación sobre el Cáncer de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Otros reportes afirman la genotoxicidad del glifosato en humanos y animales. Por último, pero no por eso menos importante, documentos internos de Monsanto liberados en marzo del 2017 como resultado de una orden judicial del Tribunal de Distrito de los E.U.A. del Distrito Norte de California (San Francisco) mostró que Monsanto ha manipulado la ciencia. Esto hace que pierda sentido la supuesta controversia científica sobre los riesgos que el glifosato representa para la salud.

En tercer lugar, el uso de semillas OGM suscita bastantes preguntas. Existe una falta de consenso científico sobre los impactos de los OGMs en la salud humana. La controversia está incluida en un contexto de opacidad en los estudios OGM, y hasta en la inhabilidad de los investigadores para realizar una investigación independiente. Los “Documentos de Monsanto” ilustran las prácticas de manipulación sistemática de estudios científicos y en la influencia ejercida por Monsanto sobre los expertos. Tampoco hay consenso político en el cultivo de OGMs. El Relator Especial de la ONU en el Derecho a la Alimentación, un experto independiente, exige la necesidad de seguir un principio precautorio a nivel global. El Tribunal concluye que Monsanto se ha involucrado en prácticas que impactaron de forma negativa el derecho a la salud.

La Pregunta 4 concierne a la supuesta infracción de la libertad indispensable para la investigación científica, como se garantiza en el Artículo 15( 3 ) del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, así como las libertades de pensamiento y expresión garantizadas en el Artículo 19 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos.

La “indispensable libertad para la investigación científica” se relaciona con la libertad de pensamiento y expresión, así como al derecho a la información. Por lo tanto es clave para salvaguardar otros derechos fundamentales, como el derecho a la salud, alimentación, agua y a un ambiente sano. Esta libertad genera el requerimiento de asegurarse de que los investigadores científicos sean capaces de expresarse libremente y que sean protegidos cuando denuncien malas prácticas. Algunas de las prácticas de Monsanto mencionadas en los testimonios de agrónomos y biólogos moleculares resultaron en condenas en una corte para la compañía. Entre esas prácticas están: plantaciones ilegales OGM; recurrir a estudios que tergiversan los impactos negativos del Roundup al limitar el análisis sólo al glifosato mientras el producto es una combinación de sustancias; campañas masivas apuntando a desacreditar los resultados de estudios científicos independientes. Estas estrategias llevaron, por ejemplo, a que se removiera un estudio publicado en un diario internacional y a la pérdida de trabajo para un científico trabajando con una agencia de salud gubernamental.

En respuesta a la Pregunta i4, el Tribunal concluye que la conducta de Monsanto afecta de forma negativa el derecho a la libertad indispensable para la investigación científica. Conductas como intimidación, desacreditación de investigación científica cuando se formulan preguntas serias sobre la protección del ambiente y salud pública, soborno de reportes de investigación falsos y presión sobre gobiernos están transgrediendo la libertad indispensable para la investigación científica. Este abuso es exacerbado por la exposición a riesgos de salud y ambientales, lo cual deprava a la sociedad de la posibilidad de salvaguardar derechos fundamentales. Tomando medidas directas para silenciar científicos o intentando desacreditar su trabajo constituyen conductas que abusan del derecho a la libertad indispensable para la investigación científica y el derecho a la libertad de expresión. Esto afecta de forma negativa el derecho a la información.

La Pregunta 5 está relacionada con la supuesta complicidad en crímenes de guerra como son definidos en el Artículo 8( 2 ) del Estatuto de la Corte Penal Internacional (ICC, por sus siglas en inglés), al proveer Agente Naranja.

 Entre 1962 y 1973, más de 70 millones de litros de Agente Naranja (conteniendo dioxina) fueron rociados aproximadamente sobre 2.6 millones de hectáreas de tierra. Este químico defoliador ha causado un daño severo a la salud de la población civil vietnamita. El daño causado a los veteranos estadounidenses, neozelandeses, australianos y coreanos ha llevado a casos en cortes y al reconocimiento de la responsabilidad de Monsanto, entre otros. Debido al estado actual de la legislación internacional y la ausencia de evidencia específica, el Tribunal no puede dar una respuesta definitiva a la pregunta formulada. Sin embargo, parece que Monsanto sabía cómo iban a ser usados sus productos y tenía información de las consecuencias para la salud humana y el ambiente. El Tribunal tiene la visión de que, si el crimen de Ecocidio fuera añadido a la Ley internacional, los hechos reportados podrían caer dentro de la jurisdicción de la Corte Penal internacional (ICC, por sus siglas en inglés).

La Pregunta 6 cuestiona al Tribunal si las actividades de Monsanto constituirían un crimen de ecocidio, entendido como causar daño severo o destruir el medioambiente, para alterar de forma significativa y duradera los bienes comunes o servicios del ecosistema de los cuales ciertos grupos humanos dependen.  

Los desarrollos en la ley ambiental internacional confirman la creciente consciencia sobre cómo el daño ambiental afecta negativamente los valores fundamentales de la sociedad. Preservar la dignidad para las generaciones presentes y futuras y la integridad de los ecosistemas es una idea que ha ganado momento en la comunidad internacional. Como una evidencia de estos desarrollos, y de acuerdo al Documento de Políticas en Selección de Casos y Priorización de septiembre del 2016, el Fiscal de la ICC quiere darle una consideración particular a los crímenes del Estatuto de Roma relacionados con la desposesión ilegal de tierra o la destrucción del medioambiente. Sin embargo, a pesar del desarrollo de muchos instrumentos para proteger al medioambiente, permanece una brecha entre los compromisos legales y la realidad de la protección ambiental. El Tribunal juzga que la legislación internacional debería determinar ahora de forma precisa y clara la protección del medioambiente y el crimen de ecocidio. El Tribunal concluye que si tal crimen de ecocidio fuera reconocido en la legislación penal internacional, las actividades de Monsanto posiblemente podrían constituir un crimen de ecocidio. Varias de las actividades de la compañía podrían caer en esta infracción, como la producción y suministro de herbicidas con base de glifosato a Colombia en el contexto de su plan para aplicación aérea en cultivos de coca, lo cual impactó negativamente al medioambiente y salud de poblaciones locales; el uso a gran escala de agroquímicos peligrosos en la agricultura industrial; y el diseño, producción, introducción y liberación de cultivos genéticamente modificados. La contaminación severa de la diversidad de plantas, suelos y aguas también caería dentro de la clasificación de ecocidio. Finalmente, la introducción de contaminantes orgánicos persistentes como el PCB en el ambiente causando daño ambiental expandido, de larga duración y severo; y afectando el derecho de generaciones futuras también podría caer en la clasificación de ecocidio.

En la tercera parte de la opinión consultiva, el Tribunal insiste en la creciente brecha entre la legislación internacional de derechos humanos y la responsabilidad corporativa. Llama a dos acciones urgentes.

 Primero está la necesidad de afirmar la primacía de la legislación internacional de derechos humanos y ambientales. En efecto, ya existe un acuerdo de reglas legales para proteger los derechos de inversores en el marco de la Organización Mundial de Comercio, así como en tratados de inversión bilateral o en cláusulas relacionadas con inversiones en los acuerdos de libre comercio. Estas previsiones tienden a socavar la capacidad de las naciones para mantener políticas, leyes y prácticas que protejan los derechos humanos y ambientales. De acuerdo al Tribunal, hay un riesgo importante de una brecha creciente entre legislación internacional de derechos humanos y ambientales y legislación internacional de comercio e inversión. Los organismos de la ONU necesitan tomar acción de manera urgente; de otra manera cuestiones clave serán resueltas en tribunales privados operando completamente fuera del marco de la ONU.

El segundo llamado concierne a la necesidad de hacer responsables a actores no estatales dentro de la legislación internacional de derechos humanos. El Tribunal es de la visión de que ya es tiempo de considerar a las empresas multinacionales como sujetos de ley que pueden ser demandados en caso de infracción de derechos fundamentales. El Tribunal identifica claramente y denuncia la disparidad severa entre los derechos de corporaciones multinacionales y sus obligaciones. Por lo tanto, la opinión consultiva llama a los organismos de autoridad a proteger la efectividad de la legislación internacional de derechos humanos y ambientales contra la conducta de las corporaciones multinacionales.

Apéndice 1: carta enviada por el Tribunal para invitar a Monsanto a participar en las audiencias en La Haya el 15-16 de octubre del 2016.

 Apéndice 2: lista de testigos en orden alfabético

 Farida Akhter, analista de políticas, Bangladesh

Krishan Bir Choudhary, científico, India

Shiv Chopra, experta agencia regulatoria, Canadá

Peter Clausing, toxicólogo, Alemania.

María Colin, abogada, México

Art Dunham, veterinario, EUA

Angélica El Canché, apicultora, México

Diego Fernández, agricultor, Argentina

Marcelo Firpo, investigador de salud pública y ambiental, Brasil

Paul François, agricultor y víctima, Francia

Sabine Grataloup, víctima, Francia

Don Huber (representado por Art Dunham), biólogo, EUA

Channa Jayasumana, experta salud ambiental, Sri Lanka

Monika Krueger, veterinaria, Alemania

Timothy Litzenbur, abogado, EUA

Miguel Lovera, agrónomo, Paraguay

Steve Marsh, agricultor, Australia

Pedro Pablo Mutumbajoy, víctima, Colombia

Ib Borup Pedersen, ganadero porcino, Dinamarca

Juan Ignacio Pereyra, víctima, Argentina

Claire Robinson, investigación académica, Reino Unido

María Liz Robledo, víctima del Roundup, Argentina

Kolon Saman, víctima, Sri Lanka

Percy Schmeiser, agricultore, Canadá

Gilles-Eric Séralini (representado por Nicolas Defarge), investigación académica, Francia

Christine Sheppard, víctima, EUA

Ousmane Tiendrebeogo, agricultor, Burkina Faso

Feliciano Ucán Poot, apicultor, México

Damían Verzeñassi, doctor en salud pública, Argentina

 

Apéndice 3: lista de expertos legales en orden alfabético

 William Bourdon

Claudia Gómez Godoy

Maogato Jackson

Gwynn McCarrick (representado por Maogato Jackson) y Koffi Dogbevi.

LEER EL OPINIÓN CONSULTIVA COMPLETA AQUÍ

Make Our Soil Great Again

/by

Author: David R. Montgomery | Published: April 14, 2017 

Most of us don’t think much about soil, let alone its health. But as Earth Day approaches, it’s time to recommend some skin care for Mother Nature. Restoring soil fertility is one of humanity’s best options for making progress on three daunting challenges: Feeding everyone, weathering climate change and conserving biodiversity.

Widespread mechanization and adoption of chemical fertilizers and pesticides revolutionized agriculture. But it took a hidden toll on the soil. Farmers around the world have already degraded and abandoned one-third of the world’s cropland. In the United States, our soils have already lost about half of the organic matter content that helped make them fertile.

What is at stake if we don’t reverse this trend? Impoverished trouble spots like Syria, Libya and Iraq are among the societies living with a legacy of degraded soil. And if the world keeps losing productive farmland, it will only make it harder to feed a growing global population.

But it is possible to restore soil fertility, as I learned traveling the world to meet farmers who had adopted regenerative practices on large commercial and small subsistence farms while researching my new book, Growing A Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life. From Pennsylvania to the Dakotas and from Africa to Latin America, I saw compelling evidence of how a new way of farming can restore health to the soil, and do so remarkably fast.

These farmers adopted practices that cultivate beneficial soil life. They stopped plowing and minimized ground disturbance. They planted cover crops, especially legumes, as well as commercial crops. And they didn’t just plant the same thing over and over again. Instead they planted a greater diversity of crops in more complex rotations. Combining these techniques cultivates a diversity of beneficial microbial and soil life that enhances nutrient cycling, increases soil organic matter, and improves soil structure and thereby reduces erosive runoff.

Farmers who implemented all three techniques began regenerating fertile soil and after several years ended up with more money in their pocket. Crop yields and soil organic matter increased while their fuel, fertilizer, and pesticide use fell. Their fields consistently had more pollinators — butterflies and bees — than neighboring conventional farms. Using less insecticide and retaining native plants around their fields translated into more predatory species that managed insect pests.

Innovative ranchers likewise showed me methods that left their soil better off. Cows on their farms grazed the way buffalo once did, concentrating in a small area for a short period followed by a long recovery time. This pattern stimulates plants to push sugary substances out of their roots. And this feeds soil life that in return provides the plants with things like growth-promoting hormones and mineral nutrients. Letting cows graze also builds soil organic matter by dispersing manure across the land, rather than concentrating it in feedlot sewage lagoons.

KEEP READING ON THE CONVERSATION