June, 16 2010, 12:13pm EDT
Whole Foods Market Imposes One-Year Deadline on Brands to Drop Bogus Organic Label Claims and Calls for Federal Regulation of Personal Care Products
In Wake of BP Oil Spill, Consumers Want Bodycare Products Made without Petrochemicals: Organic Consumers Association Calls on Other Leading Retailers to Follow Whole Foods' Example
WASHINGTON
The
Organic Consumers Association (OCA), the nation's largest consumer
group dedicated to organic integrity, is pleased the nation's largest
natural products retailer Whole Foods Market is taking action to
address widespread organic labeling fraud in personal care. Such brands
as Avalon Organics, Nature's Gate and Giovanni, make organic claims on
products whose main cleansing and moisturizing ingredients are
generally made without any organic material whatsoever and are usually
composed in significant part from petrochemicals.
Whole
Foods staff should be commended for taking such a bold meaningful step
on behalf of organic integrity for their customers. The new standard
announced by Whole Foods is a milestone achievement for OCA campaigners
who recently began escalating tactics with boycotts of organic
cheaters, protests at trade shows and forging strong alliances with
groups such as Consumers Union.
"In
the wake of the BP oil spill, Whole Foods' announcement couldn't come
at a better time. Now more than ever, Americans are searching for
alternatives to petro-chemicals, including in the bodycare aisle," says
Ronnie Cummins co-founder and Executive Director of OCA. "The new Whole
Foods policy is a major victory for people who want to stop washing
petrochemical formulations all over their bodies and then down the
drain. These consumers want trusted options for real organic personal
care. Whole Foods policy will force major organic cheater brands to
drop organic claims from their branding and labeling."
The
new Whole Foods Market policy on "organic" labeling personal care
products states: "We believe that the "organic" claim used on personal
care products should have very similar meaning to the "organic" claim
used on food products, which is currently regulated by the USDA's
National Organic Program. Our shoppers do not expect the definition of
"organic" to change substantially between the food and the non-food
aisles of our stores."
Whole
Foods new policy mandates that "Organic Product" or "Product made with
Organic [specified ingredients]" claims must be certified under the
USDA National Organic Program, just like food. A more limited
"Contains Organic Ingredients" claim for personal care may be certified
under the NSF ANSI 305 standard, which has additional allowances for
personal care products. All organic claims which are not certified,
including "Organics" in branding must otherwise be dropped. Brands have
been told they have until August 1, 2010 to explain how they will
change their labeling or formulations to comply with the new standard.
Those that don't submit an explanation are expected to be dropped from
store shelves over the coming year while those that comply will have
until June 1, 2011 to be in full compliance with Whole Foods new
policy.
Other
major natural product retailers such as Trader Joe's and the National
Co-Op Grocers Association (representing over 100 natural product
retailers in the US) now have a choice in the face of Whole Foods' new
policy. Will these other natural products' stores follow Whole Foods
lead and require truthful labels, or will they choose to enable organic
fraud with the old status quo? With two labeling options, natural
stores must make a choice and can no longer duck responsibility and
profit from organic cheater brands ripping off their customers. OCA
will send a letter to all of these stores asking for a formal response
by August 1st, whether they will join Whole Foods in demanding that
organic fraud cease in their stores by June 11, 2010. OCA will then
publish each stores' response so consumers can see whether their
preferred natural products store chooses to stand up for organic
integrity or not. To see letter go to https://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare
"What
a relief for people ridding themselves of petrochemical products, that
they can shop at least one chain without worry they will be ripped off
with petrochemical formulations masquerading as organic products,"
says Cummins. "Trader Joe's, NCGA and all other natural products stores
need to get with the program and follow this market leader's example."
Mr.
Cummins published an Op-Ed today in the Huffington Post entitled "The
Oil Spill in the Bathroom." OCA also submitted a letter to the USDA
National Organic Program, following up the formal Complaint OCA
submitted in January against organic cheaters, informing NOP that all
the relevant organic groups in the US, including OCA, OTA, Consumers
Union, Cornucopia and Whole Foods, have weighed in that NOP needs to
regulate personal care. See https://www.organicconsumers.org/
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders Praises FTC Challenge of 'Junk' Patents for Drugs Including Ozempic
"We can no longer tolerate Novo Nordisk charging the American people $969 for Ozempic when that same exact drug can be purchased for just $155 in Canada and $59 in Germany while it costs less than $5 to manufacture."
Apr 30, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday lauded the Biden administration for expanding its "campaign against pharmaceutical manufacturers' improper or inaccurate listing of patents" for a wide range of drugs including Novo Nordisk's Ozempic.
"Let me commend the Federal Trade Commission, under the leadership of Chair Lina Khan, for taking bold action today against the bogus patents Novo Nordisk has filed to prevent Americans struggling with diabetes from receiving a generic version of Ozempic at a much lower price," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
Sanders—who leads the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee—stressed that "Novo Nordisk must not be allowed to make billions in profits by delaying generic competition for Ozempic by unlawfully filing junk patents that have nothing to do with the drug itself, but the injection pen."
"Last week, the HELP Committee, that I chair, launched an investigation into the outrageously high prices Novo Nordisk is charging for Ozempic and Wegovy in the United States," he noted. The former name is used when the patient is taking the medication for Type 2 diabetes and the latter is used when it is prescribed to treat obesity in adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity.
"In my view, we can no longer tolerate Novo Nordisk charging the American people $969 for Ozempic when that same exact drug can be purchased for just $155 in Canada and $59 in Germany while it costs less than $5 to manufacture," said the senator. "I look forward to working with the Biden administration to take on the greed of Novo Nordisk and substantially reduce the price of Ozempic and other prescription drugs."
After disputing more than 100 patents in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Orange Book in November, the FTC on Tuesday sent warning letters to 10 companies and notified the agency that it challenges the accuracy or relevance of over 300 listing across 20 different brand name products.
In addition to Denmark-based Novo Nordisk, the FTC sent letters to Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Covis Pharma, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and some subsidiaries for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and weight loss drugs.
"By filing bogus patent listings, pharma companies block competition and inflate the cost of prescription drugs, forcing Americans to pay sky-high prices for medicines they rely on," said Khan. "By challenging junk patent filings, the FTC is fighting these illegal tactics and making sure that Americans can get timely access to innovative and affordable versions of the medicines they need."
Sanders was not alone in praising the commission and its leader—an appointee of President Joe Biden—for the ongoing efforts to battle Big Pharma's greed.
Public Citizen's Access to Medicines program advocate, Steve Knievel, said that "it's becoming harder for drug corporations to use patent shenanigans to thwart competition, thanks to the FTC and Chair Lina Khan."
"Improperly listing patents in the FDA Orange Book stymies generic competition, which is proven to dramatically lower prescription drug prices, saving patients and the public billions of dollars," he said, echoing Khan. "Today's letter is yet another demonstration from the Biden-Harris administration that Big Pharma business-as-usual monopoly abuses and price gouging will not be tolerated."
"The FDA should supplement FTC's action by clarifying guidelines for patents that can be listed in the Orange Book," he continued, noting that such action has been proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "The government should also explore using licensing authorities to overcome pharmaceutical monopoly abuses, leaving no option off the table."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Biden Plans to Reschedule Marijuana, Advocates Say 'Fully Legalize' It
Sen. Cory Booker urged fellow lawmakers to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."
Apr 30, 2024
U.S. marijuana legalization advocates greeted Tuesday's news that the Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing rescheduling cannabis to a less restrictive class by calling on President Joe Biden to fully deschedule the plant, which is approved for recreational or medicinal use in the vast majority of states.
The Associated Pressreported the DEA is proposing rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I—which includes heroin, MDMA, and LSD—to Schedule III, a far less restrictive class that includes ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone, and over-the-counter products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dose. According to the DEA, Schedule I drugs have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
While it would not legalize cannabis for recreational use, the DEA proposal—which is subject to review by the White House Office of Management and Budget—would affirm medicinal marijuana and recognize that the plant has a lower potential for abuse than other widely used recreational drugs.
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)—which works to end the failed 53-year War on Drugs—warned that "under this proposed shift, marijuana criminalization would continue at the federal level and most penalties, including those for simple possession, would continue as long as marijuana remains anywhere on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)."
While running for president in 2020, Biden repeatedly vowed to decriminalize marijuana and expunge the criminal records of people convicted of cannabis possession. In 2022 the president issued a "full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents" convicted of simple federal marijuana possession—a move that affected thousands of people but excluded those who are in the United States without authorization.
The following year, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra confirmed that his department would recommend rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Tuesday urged Congress to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."
"Thousands of people remain in prisons around the country for marijuana-related crimes. Thousands of people continue to bear the devastating collateral consequences that come with a criminal record," the senator continued. "Legal marijuana businesses, especially those in communities hardest hit by the War on Drugs, still have to navigate a convoluted patchwork of state laws and regulatory schemes."
"I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially those who represent constituents benefiting from medical or adult-use programs, join me to pass federal legislation to fix these problems," Booker added.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that "it is great news that DEA is finally recognizing that restrictive and draconian cannabis laws need to change to catch up to what science and the majority of Americans have said loud and clear."
"While this rescheduling announcement is a historic step forward, I remain strongly committed to continuing to work on legislation like the SAFER Banking Act as well as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which federally deschedules cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act," he added.
Booker and Schumer were among the 21 senators who last week sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram noting that it's been 18 months since Biden ordered HHS October to review cannabis scheduling and eight months since the agency's rescheduling recommendation.
"While we understand that the DEA may be navigating internal disagreement on this matter, it is critical that the agency swiftly correct marijuana's misguided placement in Schedule I," the letter states.
Legalization advocates, meanwhile, pushed the Biden administration to go much further, as 24 states plus the District of Columbia have approved adult-use recreational marijuana and 38 states have legalized medicinal cannabis.
"Supporting federal marijuana decriminalization means supporting the removal of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, not changing its scheduling," DPA director of drug markets and legal regulation Cat Packer said in a statement. "We all deserve a federal framework for marijuana that upholds the health, well-being, and safety of our communities—particularly Black communities who have borne the brunt of our country's racist enforcement of marijuana laws."
"Rescheduling marijuana is not a policy solution for federal marijuana criminalization or its harms, and it won't address the disproportionate impact that it has had on Black and Brown communities," Packer added.
Dasheeda Dawson, chair of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition and founder of Cannabis NYC, said: "The time for descheduling cannabis is not just a matter of policy; it's an imperative for justice and equity. Rescheduling would undermine the hard-fought progress made by cannabis equity and policy reform leaders like the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, jeopardizing the livelihoods and futures of those entrepreneurs and communities disproportionately affected by past criminalization."
"We cannot afford to backtrack on our commitment to repair the harm inflicted by outdated policies," Dawson added. "Descheduling is not just about legality; it's about rectifying historic injustices and ensuring a fair and inclusive future for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
G7 2035 Coal Phaseout Pledge Called 'Too Little, Too Late' to Match Climate Emergency
"If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," one advocate said.
Apr 30, 2024
The Group of Seven Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministerial concluded a meeting in Turin, Italy, on Tuesday with a commitment to phase out "unabated" coal use by 2035.
While the agreement is "unprecedented" for the U.S. and Japan, which had not previously set an expiration date on their burning of the dirtiest fossil fuel, it still does not align with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C.
"The commitment to phase out coal is simply too little, too late. If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," Greenpeace International global climate politics expert Tracy Carty said in a statement. "And the climate emergency demands they just don't stop at coal. Fossil fuels are destroying people and planet and a commitment to rapidly phase out all fossil fuels—coal, oil, and gas—is urgently needed."
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice."
In their Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministers' Meeting Communiqué, the countries agreed to "phase out existing unabated coal power generation in our energy systems during the first half of 2030s or in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways."
The agreement comes days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule mandating that all coal plants that plan to operate after 2039 must slash their climate-heating emissions by 90% by that date. Like the "unabated" language in the G7 communiqué, the EPA plan leaves open the possibility that coal plants could continue to run if they can effectively eliminate their carbon dioxide pollution with carbon capture and storage. However, this is an unproven technology that has not succeeded at scale; for example, Oil and Gas Watch News reported last Thursday that a taxpayer-funded CCS project at an ethanol plant in Illinois had only captured up to 10-12% of CO2 emissions each year for the past decade.
"It is past time that the U.S. made concrete commitments to phase out coal power," Jeff Ordower, the director of 350.org North America director, said in a statement. He added that while 350.org welcomed "this and all steps toward phasing out fossil fuels, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's recent announcement to further limit coal-fired power plants' CO2 emissions, we must not lose sight of what is really at stake."
Further, Ordower said that the U.S.' plans "must not rely on unproven technologies like carbon capture, or dangerous, expensive, and unequal ones like nuclear just so they can continue business as usual."
Similarly, 350.org Japan campaigner Masayoshi Iyoda said, "Japan agreeing to a specific deadline to phase out domestic coal power generation is momentous and long overdue."
"As an historic outlier among G7 countries on making coal phaseout commitments, and with the highest share of power generated from coal among its G7 peers, this is a step forward. However, 2035 is too late to meet the 1.5°Ctarget set in the Paris agreement," Iyoda continued.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed."
Amnesty International also criticized the timeline of the deal.
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice," Candy Ofime, Amnesty International's climate justice researcher, said in a statement. "Commitments put forward by G7 members—which have burnt coal for power for more than a century—to stop using this pollutant by 2035 are simply too late and weakened by unacceptable caveats."
Ofime pointed out that the deal appeared to make no mention of phasing out coal in steel production, despite the fact that the process burns up around 30% of total coal use. She also argued that the language around "unabated" coal use was "misleading."
"Abatement relies on the use of carbon capture and storage, and other technologies such as ammonia and hydrogen co-firing with coal, which are unproven at scale and can come with other risks," Ofime sad. "Coal pollution cannot be adequately abated, and harms health and the climate whenever it is used."
Campaigners also criticized the G7 countries for focusing their timeline on coal and not oil and gas, especially since all nations agreed to work toward "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner" at last year's COP28 United Nations climate talks in Dubai.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed," said Romain Ioualalen, Oil Change International's global policy campaign manager.
Oil Change pointed out that G7 countries are responsible for nearly half of all CO2 emissions from new oil and gas production, as well as 27% of production overall. At the same time, they subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of $25.7 billion a year between 2020 and 2022, compared to only $10.3 billion for renewables. While the countries did reaffirm a pledge to end "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 or earlier, they did not offer any more details on the timeline.
"While the G7 focuses on coal, it conveniently omits to stress that limiting warming to 1.5°C means they also need to end fossil fuel expansion at home, going fastest in phasing out existing production," Ioualalen said. "They must end the billions of dollars in taxpayer finance still flowing to fossil fuel projects abroad and fund the buildout of affordable renewable energy on fair terms. If their oil and gas expansion plans are allowed to proceed, it would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future."
The ministers also reaffirmed the importance of natural gas deliveries to Europe to help it replace Russian gas in the wake of Russia's ongoing war on Ukraine. However, European officials have said that they will have enough gas supplies to last through the next decade despite a Biden administration pause on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export approvals.
"Faced with climate catastrophe, the G7's persistent endorsement of fossil gas is alarming," Carty of Greenpeace said. "Gas is not needed, not cheap, and is certainly not a 'bridge fuel' to a safe climate. The biggest fossil fuel threat today by wealthy nations is coming from the rapidly expanding LNG industry. An urgent shift is needed towards less, not more, gas—and massively expanded renewables."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular