At several points, it is said that the FDA will have no regulatory authority over tobacco farms or tobacco leaf warehouses, namely, where the pesticides are applied…and, in the case of farms…where tobacco gets its PO-210 radiation from those phosphate tobacco fertilizers. That is all to be the turf, so to speak, of the Department of Agriculture, which has no problem with all the chemicals and fertilizers despite the effects on farm workers, neighbors, wildlife, and ultimate consumers. The act specifically forbids FDA investigation of the farms or warehouses.
An “adulterated” product is defined, in part, as “…contaminated by any added poisonous or added deleterious substance that may render the product injurious to health.” The catch-word here is “added.” Poisonous, deleterious and injurious pesticide residues are contaminants, not additives.
Whereas pesticides would seem to be out of the picture, a possible hole appears where the legislation addresses “additives”. All sorts of other crop products are added to typical cigarettes. It is highly unlikely that any of them are organic-pesticide-free. If any such additives are named, this is an activist opening to insist that they be clearly identified as being either Organic, or Pesticide-Contaminated. Cigarette paper is an added constituent too. That presents the opportunity to insist that it be qualified as either chlorine-bleached, or not…the former being a source of unquestionable, U.S.-certified dioxin danger to the public.
A “Special Rule” states: “…a tobacco product manufacturer shall not use tobacco, including foreign grown tobacco, that contains a pesticide chemical residue that is at a level greater than is specified by any tolerance applicable under Federal law to domestically grown tobacco.” So, though pesticides were to be a non-issue, here’s this “special” clause about pesticides…supposedly the domain of the USDA. But this is just about keeping typical Pesticide Pegs as deadly as they are, neither more nor less. After all, those who run cancer “cure” businesses have kids and need to make a living too. In any case, this is one of the rare times we find government admission that there are pesticide residues in (non-organic) tobacco.
No Conflicts-of-Interest allowed---sort of. Representatives of tobacco producers, sellers, and distributors are to be barred from the regulatory committee. However, by acknowledging no other conflicts, some noteworthy interests are permitted to join the committee: they may be tobacco pesticide manufacturers, pharmaceuticals that supply both tobacco pesticides and cigarette ingredients, pharmaceuticals that compete with tobacco for the “nicotine delivery” market, chlorine, paper, agricultural conglomerates (noting many ag products in typical cigarettes), sugar and spices and chocolate (more ingredients), etc., and any insurance interests that have investment holdings in cigarette manufacturing, tobacco pesticides, or the rest of them.
That is, those with the highest motives to avoid being implicated in the epidemic of so-called “tobacco-related” diseases and deaths, or being associated with the “tobacco industry” at all, have seats at the table. It is Bonnie “regulating” Clyde.
This is about more than “smelly hair”, “disgusting smoke-filled saloons”, “protecting workers”, “protecting kids”, “littered beaches”, or any of that, as “truthy” as some of that may be. This FDA act is an act in the theatrical sense. It is a crowning part of a classic “pretend enemy” stunt to protect the ostensible “enemy”---cigarette makers--- and also their suppliers of some of the worst industrial substances on earth, all of their insurers and investors, and the complicit officials who let it all happen---for many decades---since the noxious dawn of the modern pesticide and chlorine era.
Proper application of legitimate science, legal integrity, and open journalism, to just this FDA case would offer glimmers of light of a new dawn---the post-pesticide, post-chlorine, post-corporate-corruption-of-government era. Here comes the sun?
Copy of this Legislation, HR 1256, at:
(The Senate version S. 982, seems indistinguishable...same terms, same wording, etc A virtual clone..)
1 | 2