RITE is a demand for transparency and accountability.
Over the last 30 years pesticide corporations have developed successful 'extension strategies' to maintain and increase sales. Build business. This is how corporations should work. The result of this, is that today, pesticides like Roundup can be sprayed ON our food. Not just on our soil. Not just on our weeds. On our food.
When pesticides are sprayed on our staple foods, wheat, oats, rye, corn, animal feed, soy, canola and other oilseed crops, the amount of pesticides in our body cumulatively increases.
The international pesticide toxicity assessment agencies - US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organisation and the European Commission - declare our permitted pesticide exposure levels (for example glyphosate) - how much we can tolerate every day for the rest of our lives. These agencies are our guardians, our gatekeepers. Governments confer with these agencies to approve of new pesticides or to raise residue levels.
These agencies only ever use private corporate studies for the critical research that establishes our acceptable daily intake levels (ADI). They hold onto ancient, unpublished studies to maintain high ADI/RfD (permitted levels in our daily diets for the rest of our lives). In the last decade pesticide residues on our staple food groups have been permitted to increase, massively. Multiple applications of different products on the one plant has increased massively. When new assessments are conducted, these agencies still manage to only consider science solely selected and supplied by the agrichemical industry - a profound conflict of interest.
Respected public domain scientists have been producing published research for years, that demonstrates how unsafe our current pesticide exposure levels are. They do not believe the current residue levels are safe. Yet this independently produced science doesn't appear to be included in the major assessments that are held every 12-15 years. This research usually isn't added to government pesticide information systems in the interim period, either.
Farmers and pesticide applicators trust that government regulators, such as the EPA or EFSA, will consider all science to ensure the product they use on a regular basis is safe. But regulators only consider science supplied by the pesticides organisations (frequently known as the applicant). Regulators ignore recently published science that establish that exposures are unsafe, and frequently use 10-20 year old seller sponsored (corporate paid) studies to establish the AOEL - accepted operator exposure level. Regulators ignore endocrine studies, long term sub-lethal effects, the impact on the gut that can be tied to depression or gastrointestinal disease. Regulators ignore full formulation studies. Every farmer and applicator knows the full formulation is stronger and more effective. Risk assessment is completely inadequate for those who use pesticides frequently.
A corporations' primary obligation is to their stakeholders, their shareholders. They carry a legal obligation to shareholders to maximise profits. This is naturally, their priority. Pesticide corporations work intimately with the agencies to provide the specific studies that establish the ADI. The ADI level directly impacts product sales.
And these agencies have enormous influence over our government policy.
Who decided that private, corporate paid studies were safer than the research of independent scientists representing public welfare?
Independent research is ignored & dismissed. RITE establishes a framework to make pesticide assessment safer.
What if all the groups who understand that the pesticide assessment systems are faulty, formed a consensus for the same demand for change?
Wouldn't that be powerful?
These groups include doctors, veterinarians, soil and water specialists, biologists, genetic engineers or people concerned with GMOs, paediatricians & parents, oncologists or cancer sufferers, people suffering from the the broad spectrum of illness that originates with permeable bowel and reduced microbiota in the gut, immunologists, thyroid and endocrine specialists, bee & pollinator groups, farm workers & farmers & people seeking to understand the implications behind Northern Latitude disease. And more.
Change on an international scale takes time – RITE is a platform for a new assessment system that, once established, will directly benefit both developed and emerging economies.
What if everyone pointed their fingers at these failing agencies and said 'we can do better' - And the demand for change was logical and based precaution and on sound science?
RITE : Requirement for Independent Toxicity Evaluations.
9 demands for change in the processes and methods used to assess pesticides for toxicity.
These 9 demands, or principles directly reflect the inadequacies, inconsistencies and conflicts of interest endemic in the existing assessment institutions - the European Commission (and within the EC, the RMS & EFSA), World Health Organisation and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
We've got a lot more to be concerned about than just the revolving door.
It's profound institutional failure.
WHY DO WE NEED RITE?
Do you know that the actual formulation of Roundup pesticide applied to cereals and oilseeds is never studied, never researched? .... well, not with the major assessment agencies, the European Commission, US EPA and the WHO.
Independent scientists have found the full formulation of Roundup to be 125 times more toxic than the weaker active chemical.
Do you know that the amount of Roundup pesticide permitted on our daily bread can be higher than that permitted on Roundup Ready (herbicide tolerant) GMO food?
Where is the endocrine research? The thyroid research?
There are massive data gaps.
Regard the examples of the original research - direct quotes from the source, the original studies held with the EPA, WHO and European Commission.
These are the studies that declare the safe levels of pesticides. And look at how much they dismiss, excuse or downplay, the toxic effects of pesticides.
The corporations that supply these studies are the same corporations that market the chemical formulations - a profound conflict of interest.