Trump EPA Nixes Warning Labels On Glyphosate

Action alert from Iowa Public Interest Research Group:

Mission Statement of Iowa PIRG:

“Iowa PIRG is an advocate for the public interest. When consumers are cheated, or the voices of ordinary citizens are drowned out by special interest lobbyists, Iowa PIRG speaks up and takes action. We uncover threats to public health and well-being and fight for the public interest. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students across the country, we take on issues ranging from the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture to consumer protection on Wall Street.”

Follow Iowa PIRG on social media.  Facebook and Twitter

The EPA just prohibited companies from putting warning labels on pesticides containing glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup.1

As consumers, we have the right to know if using a product could put us at risk, but the EPA’s new decision will keep vital information from all of us.

Take Action:  Tell the EPA to require warning labels on products containing glyphosate — not forbid them.

Glyphosate is classified by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency as a “probable carcinogen.”2 It’s irresponsible for the agency tasked with protecting us from harm to keep important health warnings out of the hands of consumers.

As the evidence mounts that glyphosate is linked to cancer, it’s more important than ever to get it off of store shelves and out of the environment. It’s past time to ban Roundup until and unless it’s proven safe. But as long as it remains on the shelf, consumers have the right to know that glyphosate is dangerous.

If you agree that consumers should be warned about probable carcinogens take action today.

Glyphosate is everywhere: Our research partners tested 20 beer and wine samples and found that glyphosate has made its way into many products that we consume.3 Across the world, enough glyphosate is used every year to spray nearly half a pound of this dangerous chemical on every single acre of cultivated land.4

Iowa PIRG and our national network have mobilized tens of thousands of people to call for bans on glyphosate nationwide. As we keep working towards a ban, we also need to hold the EPA accountable and make sure it places vital warnings on products that pose deadly risks to consumers.

We have the right to know about products that can harm us and our families. Add your name today.

Thank you,

David Rossini
Acting Director

1. “Trump administration says it won’t approve Roundup cancer-warning labels,” CBS News, August 9, 2019.
2. “IARC Monograph on Glyphosate,” International Agency for Research on Cancer / World Health Organization, January 3, 2016.
3. Kara Cook, “Glyphosate Pesticide in Beer and Wine,” U.S. PIRG Education Fund, February 2019.
4. Charles Benbrook, “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally,” Environmental Sciences Europe, February 2, 2016.

This entry was posted in Blog for Iowa and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Trump EPA Nixes Warning Labels On Glyphosate

  1. C.A. says:

    Hundreds if not thousands of Iowa conservationists, including people in many Iowa conservation organizations, use glyphosate for ecological restoration work. It is a very important tool for fighting invasive exotics and invading woodies in Iowa, a state that has less of its original landscape left than any other state.

    We use it very carefully and we certainly never spray a field year after year as some farmers do. But we do use and need it. It is vital for some kinds of aquatic ecological restoration. And we use it to help restore original tallgrass prairie, a globally-endangered ecosystem. I am lucky enough to own a small original prairie, and I use glyphosate because no other chemical works as well with so little risk.

    Has IPIRG ever investigated what a total ban on glyphosate would mean for Iowa conservation work? It’s a question that really should be asked.

    Like

  2. song boat says:

    I owned 6 lots in my home town but my neighbor determined he needed my property. Te acquire it he used chemical unlawfully applied, and not according to the label directions to eliminate me from my private property. So who should be held liable? Me because I owned the property that he need to get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map? The city because they held him above the law in every criminal act he committed against me? Or him, because he has psychopathic personality disorder, determined by his lack of empathy knowing his actions were causing physical harm to another human being?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.