Bulletin #629
July 25, 2006
I am writing this as an award-winning, concerned environmental journalist.
It’s time the EPA began to concern itself with protecting the health of
children, not corporations. I am more than disturbed about a new
fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl fluoride) that EPA is allowing to be
sprayed on all processed foods and a broad assortment of raw food. Evidence
indicates this is not a healthy product for humans. While EPA’s decision may
benefit the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences, it does not protect the public
health, or the public interest. And it’s time we get some balance back in
our national priorities.
Response made by Dr. Hardy Limeback, Canada.
Since our borders are wide open (free trade) and Canadians consume a LOT of produce from the USA, I have to protest the EPA’s move to allow sulfuryl fluoride in foods at levels that will undoubtedly cause not only dental fluorosis but various illnesses now known to be linked to excess fluoride ingestion.
As Canadians find out about how contaminated with fluoride the US food supplies can be as a result of the EPAs policies such as the widespread use of pesticides like sulfuryl fluoride, they will avoid purchasing US foods and beverages.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Dear EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson:
I am a mother of a teenage son who has fluorosis and am deeply concerned
about a new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl fluoride) that EPA is
allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad assortment of raw
food. We are already OVER-exposed to fluoride. It is necessary for my
family to distill our water since this is one of the few ways we can remove
the fluoride from our drinking water. It is not just the visual appearance
of my son’s teeth but the structual damage of his bones etc. that concerns
me as there are studies linking water fluoridation to bone cancer in boys
who consumed it at a certain time during their growing years.
As a individual citizen I expect EPA to protect me and my family and employ
the best science available in its approval of pesticides. However, it is
apparent that this did not happen with sulfuryl fluoride. Indeed, the
National Academy of Sciences recently concluded that the safety standard
used by EPA to approve sulfuryl fluoride is, in fact, not safe at all.
Moreover, as the NAS report makes clear, and as is evident by the growing
number of children with dental fluorosis, mine included, many Americans are
being OVER-exposed to fluoride. It is the compounded affect that is so
damaging, and we must stop it. So there is no safety margin for additional
fluoride exposures that will result from sulfuryl fluoride. I am
particularly concerned for susceptible subsets of consumers, including
children, people with kidney disease, people with excess thirst (e.g.
And if your not concerned about yourself, Mr. Johnson, you should be
concerned about your children and grandchildren, for their future surely
will be affected by your decision.
Finally, as Director of EPA, I would like you to investigate why EPA
increased the allowable dosage for infants and children not once, but twice,
during its approval process for sulfuryl fluoride. Who are they protecting?
It sure isn’t our children. for in direct violation of the Food Quality
Protection Act, these manipulations have left them ten times less protected
than adults.
For these, and the many other reasons detailed in the petition to EPA, I
urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
As a parent of four young children, I am extremely concerned about EPA’s
decision to approve the use of a new fluoride-based pesticide, sulfuryl
fluoride, and I support the petition to revoke all food-based uses of it.
This pesticide will dramatically increase the amount of fluorides that my
National Academy of Sciences in their report on fluoride exposures, these
levels of exposure are well beyond safe levels and are completely
unacceptable.
This decision does not protect the public health and is especially dangerous
for our children. I believe that there are many excellent scientists trying
apparent political basis of some of the decisions that are rendered by those
in positions of authority. Does EPA serve the interests of the public or
industry?
Please prove me wrong and show that EPA is willing to correct itself and
truly serve the citizens it is intended to serve by reversing this decision
to approve sulfuryl fluoride.
Respectfully yours
I have recently begun to research fluoride and its effects on humans and
have grown increasingly frightened the more I learn. Which is why I am was
appalled at the thought that you would allow the usage of more fluoride
based pesticides. Considering the recent study from the National Academy of
Sciences that indicates Americans are over exposed to fluoride, I would
think it would be wise to spare the public any further toxic burden.
As a concerned mother and thyroid patient, I am finding it increasingly
difficult to protect myself and my three year old son from the growing
number of toxins in the environment. Therefore, I am appealing to you on a
scientific, ethical and moral basis to step in and do what is right for
millions of developing infants and children and other populations who are at
risk from fluoride. Surely, you must have children of your own,
grandchildren or family members who would also be affected by your decision.
Therefore, I urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Respectfully yours,
I am 83 years old with severe pain, joint, and bone problems. I can not
tollerate fluoride and do not want any in my foods increasing bone problems.
The survival rate for older people who break bones is very poor. Fluoride
makes bones and teeth more brittle, contributing to them breaking. The
toxicity of fluoride is between arsenic and lead and I don’t want any of
those added to my food. The only reason for SF in foods is for profit and
they are lazy. They can move the foods out to fumigate warehouses. Mr.
Johnson, think about the children, seniors, and those more sensitive to
chemicals before you sell your soul to Dow AgroChemical.
For these, and the many other reasons detailed in the petition to EPA, I
urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Sincerely
It is quite troubling to read, especially as a grandmother of several
grandchildren, that the EPA is allowing processed and raw foods to be
sprayed with the pesticide, sulfuryl fluoride. This does not protect the
public, public health and public concern.
As Director of the EPA, scientific investigation should determine our
standandization; The National Academy of Sciences, which disagrees with the
EPA determination. Why the EPA is allowing the increased dosage for infants
and children seems like a potential destructive decision for our future
sulfuryl fluoride. There are many questions about the safe use of fluoride
that we use already. Why add more???
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-03736.
Your constituent
fluoride on hundreds of foodstuffs in warehouses and food processing plants.
We (especially our children) are already over-exposed to fluoride. This is
not in the best health interest for any of us.
My late husband was a dentist for over 30 years and he studied the fluoride
we are over-exposed. Please protect us and future generations from the
negative effects of this environmental toxin.
Please add my comments to the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373
I urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
As a dentist I have grave concern about the increasing amounts of flouride
that are in everyday foods and drinks. It is becoming almost impossible to
avoid flouride due to flouridation of water supplies. It is in every product
that has that water added. It is in hundreds of dental care products. It is
in bottled “spring water” I have seen the problems of excessive flouride in
my office setting. Flourosis of teeth is readily seen in any dental office.
I have studied flouride, its benefits certainly do not justify the problems
it causes. I see no justification of further mass medicating with a known
toxic substance - it is just adding to the problems I see of toxic
reactions. Surely you are aware of the health problems everday toxic
substances such as flouride are creating for humans. Don’t make a decision
that will put more burden on our already overworked health system. You
apparently have an important decision to make, make it in favor of my
children and grandchildren. They have enough problems to contend with
without your approving another one. My father in law and his co worker died
of leukemia with in months of each other - they both worked for Dow Chemical
Company in the Agriculture division. Please!G.W. EDWARDS DMD
Sincerely
about a new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl fluoride) that EPA is
allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad assortment of raw
food. While EPAs decision may benefit the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences,
it does not protect the public health, or the public interest.
Like everyone else making up the public, I expect the EPA to employ the best
science available in its approval of pesticides. However, it is apparent
that this did not happen with sulfuryl fluoride. Indeed, the National
Academy of Sciences recently concluded that the safety standard used by EPA
to approve sulfuryl fluoride is, in fact, not safe at all.
…
Respectfully yours
I am deeply concerned about a new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl
fluoride) that EPA is allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a
broad assortment of raw food. While EPAs decision may benefit the bottom
my children. We live in an area where flouride is put in our water. My
grandchild has brown yellow spots on her teeth from too much flouride in her
system.
…
Sincerely
allow more fluoride in our FOOD; there’s already so much in our
environment, both naturally and ADDED to many of our water supples.
We as the public are depending on you and your agency to protect us from
overexposure of additives; and the pesticide Sulfuryl Fluoride definitely
seems to come into that category.
I urge you to revoke all food based uses of Sulfuryl Fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Sincerely
I am opposed to the spraying of sulfuryl fluoride on any foods.
Recent research from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) shows that
overexposure to fluoride carries serious health risks. The NAS report also
makes clear that many Americans are aleady being over-exposed to fluoride.
There is no safety margin for any additional fluoride exposures, including
those that would result from sulfuryl fluoride. I am especially concerned
for susceptible consumers including children, people with kidney disease,
people with excess thirst (e.g. diabetics, athletes, and laborers) and
people with nutritional deficiencies.
Why did EPA increase the permissible dosage for infants and children not
once, but twice, during its approval process for sulfuryl fluoride? This
leaves our children ten times less protected than adults and is in violation
of the Food Quality Protection Act.
EPA should employ the best science available in its decisions, but this did
not happen with sulfuryl fluoride. The decision may benefit Dow’s bottom
line; it does not protect the public health.
I urge you NOT to allow any more fluorides in our foods. Please revoke all
food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Respectfully yours
trying to keep people safe and I learn that Dow AgroSciences is lobbying to
poison us. It’s outragous that the government even allowing sulfuryl
fluoride as a pesticide and to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad
…
Sincerely
(sulfuryl fluoride) to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad
assortment of raw food.
The latest research and studies I have read indicate that fluroide may a
health hazard. Until we apsolutely know that fluoride has no effect on us
and our childrens health, it would be in the public’s best interest if
fluoride use is banned where ever possible.
Please don’t repeat past mistakes where the public has been exposed to
harmful chemicals, and only years later, after we suffered the consequences
did we finally make changes.
You are a steward of the best interests of citizens of the United States of
America and I expect you to do what is right for us.
Please revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride untill we are sure of
its effects.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
Respectfully yours
of fluoride in the above manner will be another reason that I increase my
intent to “only” eat organic. This applies to restaraunt patronage as well.
Thank you
I am extremely troubled by the new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl
fluoride) that EPA is allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a
range of raw food. This is a dangerous practice and must cease.
Fluoride over-exposure is in abundance in our society. It causes
dental/skeletal fluorosis (even though skeletal fluorosis is NOT being
tested for in USA - see WHO document EHC227, Environmental Health Criteria
227), dental fluorosis burgeoning rates indicate fluoride over-dose in the
general population.
We would hope the EPA would use its scientific status to ensure that people
are not poisoned by fluoride, which creates many problems; eg thyroid,
resulting in learning difficulties and obesity problems. NOTE that infants
are NOT to have fluoride at all. Why add more to their already overloaded
systems?
Please put me on the listing on the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Sincerely
Any approval of Sulfuryl fluoride by EPA, or any other USA federal regulatory agency, to allow/approve this neurotoxic pesticide to be applied to any Food Product(s) or storage area where raw or processed foods can come in contact with Sulfuryl fluoride would be intentional dereliction of especially ‘child protection duties’ by many at EPA. Especially, since EPA in 1999 established and thus promised to ALL Americans the following program: Excerpt EPA webpage:
” New Data will Help Ensure Protection of Children
August 2, 1999
Action
In an effort to further increase protections for infants and children, EPA is requiring registrants of pesticides thought to have neurotoxic effects to conduct acute, subchronic, and developmental neurotoxicity studies and submit the results to EPA. These studies are designed to show the effects on the nervous system of a chemical after a one-time or very short-term exposure (acute), an exposure over an extended period of time (sub-chronic or intermediate), and an exposure before or shortly after birth (developmental).
This program to call in data will apply to approximately140 pesticides and will be completed in phases over the next several months. EPA expects to receive the first studies within two years. This data call-in program was developed after seeking advice from the Children’s Health Advisory Committee and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel.
Rationale for this Action
Many currently-registered conventional food use pesticides have been observed to affect the nervous system in humans and/or laboratory animals. There are outstanding questions about these neurotoxic effects such as:
*
Do these chemicals harm the nervous system following exposure during critical stages of its development, both before birth in the fetus, and after birth in infants and young children? *
Are the effects in the young different from those observed in an adult? *
If similar effects were to occur in both the young and adults, would the young be more or less sensitive than the adult to these effects? “
____ (end of excerpt) ___________
Moreover, as the NAS report makes clear, and as is evident by the growing number of children with dental fluorosis, many Americans are being OVER-exposed to fluoride. There is no safety margin for additional fluoride exposures that will result from sulfuryl fluoride. I am particularly concerned for susceptible subsets of consumers, including children, people with kidney disease, people with excess thirst (e.g. diabetics, athletes, and laborers) and people with nutrient deficiencies.
Finally, as Director of EPA, I would like you to investigate why EPA increased the allowable dosage for infants and children not once, but twice, during its approval process for sulfuryl fluoride. In direct violation of the Food Quality Protection Act, these manipulations have left our children ten times less protected than adults.
For these, and the many other reasons detailed in the petition to EPA, I urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Sincerely,
I am writing this as an award-winning, concerned environmental journalist.
It’s time the EPA began to concern itself with protecting the health of
children, not corporations. I am more than disturbed about a new
fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl fluoride) that EPA is allowing to be
sprayed on all processed foods and a broad assortment of raw food. Evidence
indicates this is not a healthy product for humans. While EPA’s decision may
benefit the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences, it does not protect the public
health, or the public interest. And it’s time we get some balance back in
our national priorities.
Response made by Dr. Hardy Limeback, Canada.
Since our borders are wide open (free trade) and Canadians consume a LOT of produce from the USA, I have to protest the EPA’s move to allow sulfuryl fluoride in foods at levels that will undoubtedly cause not only dental fluorosis but various illnesses now known to be linked to excess fluoride ingestion.
As Canadians find out about how contaminated with fluoride the US food supplies can be as a result of the EPAs policies such as the widespread use of pesticides like sulfuryl fluoride, they will avoid purchasing US foods and beverages.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Dear EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson:
I am a mother of a teenage son who has fluorosis and am deeply concerned
about a new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl fluoride) that EPA is
allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad assortment of raw
food. We are already OVER-exposed to fluoride. It is necessary for my
family to distill our water since this is one of the few ways we can remove
the fluoride from our drinking water. It is not just the visual appearance
of my son’s teeth but the structual damage of his bones etc. that concerns
me as there are studies linking water fluoridation to bone cancer in boys
who consumed it at a certain time during their growing years.
As a individual citizen I expect EPA to protect me and my family and employ
the best science available in its approval of pesticides. However, it is
apparent that this did not happen with sulfuryl fluoride. Indeed, the
National Academy of Sciences recently concluded that the safety standard
used by EPA to approve sulfuryl fluoride is, in fact, not safe at all.
Moreover, as the NAS report makes clear, and as is evident by the growing
number of children with dental fluorosis, mine included, many Americans are
being OVER-exposed to fluoride. It is the compounded affect that is so
damaging, and we must stop it. So there is no safety margin for additional
fluoride exposures that will result from sulfuryl fluoride. I am
particularly concerned for susceptible subsets of consumers, including
children, people with kidney disease, people with excess thirst (e.g.
And if your not concerned about yourself, Mr. Johnson, you should be
concerned about your children and grandchildren, for their future surely
will be affected by your decision.
Finally, as Director of EPA, I would like you to investigate why EPA
increased the allowable dosage for infants and children not once, but twice,
during its approval process for sulfuryl fluoride. Who are they protecting?
It sure isn’t our children. for in direct violation of the Food Quality
Protection Act, these manipulations have left them ten times less protected
than adults.
For these, and the many other reasons detailed in the petition to EPA, I
urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
As a parent of four young children, I am extremely concerned about EPA’s
decision to approve the use of a new fluoride-based pesticide, sulfuryl
fluoride, and I support the petition to revoke all food-based uses of it.
This pesticide will dramatically increase the amount of fluorides that my
National Academy of Sciences in their report on fluoride exposures, these
levels of exposure are well beyond safe levels and are completely
unacceptable.
This decision does not protect the public health and is especially dangerous
for our children. I believe that there are many excellent scientists trying
apparent political basis of some of the decisions that are rendered by those
in positions of authority. Does EPA serve the interests of the public or
industry?
Please prove me wrong and show that EPA is willing to correct itself and
truly serve the citizens it is intended to serve by reversing this decision
to approve sulfuryl fluoride.
Respectfully yours
I have recently begun to research fluoride and its effects on humans and
have grown increasingly frightened the more I learn. Which is why I am was
appalled at the thought that you would allow the usage of more fluoride
based pesticides. Considering the recent study from the National Academy of
Sciences that indicates Americans are over exposed to fluoride, I would
think it would be wise to spare the public any further toxic burden.
As a concerned mother and thyroid patient, I am finding it increasingly
difficult to protect myself and my three year old son from the growing
number of toxins in the environment. Therefore, I am appealing to you on a
scientific, ethical and moral basis to step in and do what is right for
millions of developing infants and children and other populations who are at
risk from fluoride. Surely, you must have children of your own,
grandchildren or family members who would also be affected by your decision.
Therefore, I urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Respectfully yours,
I am 83 years old with severe pain, joint, and bone problems. I can not
tollerate fluoride and do not want any in my foods increasing bone problems.
The survival rate for older people who break bones is very poor. Fluoride
makes bones and teeth more brittle, contributing to them breaking. The
toxicity of fluoride is between arsenic and lead and I don’t want any of
those added to my food. The only reason for SF in foods is for profit and
they are lazy. They can move the foods out to fumigate warehouses. Mr.
Johnson, think about the children, seniors, and those more sensitive to
chemicals before you sell your soul to Dow AgroChemical.
For these, and the many other reasons detailed in the petition to EPA, I
urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Sincerely
It is quite troubling to read, especially as a grandmother of several
grandchildren, that the EPA is allowing processed and raw foods to be
sprayed with the pesticide, sulfuryl fluoride. This does not protect the
public, public health and public concern.
As Director of the EPA, scientific investigation should determine our
standandization; The National Academy of Sciences, which disagrees with the
EPA determination. Why the EPA is allowing the increased dosage for infants
and children seems like a potential destructive decision for our future
sulfuryl fluoride. There are many questions about the safe use of fluoride
that we use already. Why add more???
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-03736.
Your constituent
fluoride on hundreds of foodstuffs in warehouses and food processing plants.
We (especially our children) are already over-exposed to fluoride. This is
not in the best health interest for any of us.
My late husband was a dentist for over 30 years and he studied the fluoride
we are over-exposed. Please protect us and future generations from the
negative effects of this environmental toxin.
Please add my comments to the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373
I urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
As a dentist I have grave concern about the increasing amounts of flouride
that are in everyday foods and drinks. It is becoming almost impossible to
avoid flouride due to flouridation of water supplies. It is in every product
that has that water added. It is in hundreds of dental care products. It is
in bottled “spring water” I have seen the problems of excessive flouride in
my office setting. Flourosis of teeth is readily seen in any dental office.
I have studied flouride, its benefits certainly do not justify the problems
it causes. I see no justification of further mass medicating with a known
toxic substance - it is just adding to the problems I see of toxic
reactions. Surely you are aware of the health problems everday toxic
substances such as flouride are creating for humans. Don’t make a decision
that will put more burden on our already overworked health system. You
apparently have an important decision to make, make it in favor of my
children and grandchildren. They have enough problems to contend with
without your approving another one. My father in law and his co worker died
of leukemia with in months of each other - they both worked for Dow Chemical
Company in the Agriculture division. Please!G.W. EDWARDS DMD
Sincerely
about a new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl fluoride) that EPA is
allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad assortment of raw
food. While EPAs decision may benefit the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences,
it does not protect the public health, or the public interest.
Like everyone else making up the public, I expect the EPA to employ the best
science available in its approval of pesticides. However, it is apparent
that this did not happen with sulfuryl fluoride. Indeed, the National
Academy of Sciences recently concluded that the safety standard used by EPA
to approve sulfuryl fluoride is, in fact, not safe at all.
…
Respectfully yours
I am deeply concerned about a new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl
fluoride) that EPA is allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a
broad assortment of raw food. While EPAs decision may benefit the bottom
my children. We live in an area where flouride is put in our water. My
grandchild has brown yellow spots on her teeth from too much flouride in her
system.
…
Sincerely
allow more fluoride in our FOOD; there’s already so much in our
environment, both naturally and ADDED to many of our water supples.
We as the public are depending on you and your agency to protect us from
overexposure of additives; and the pesticide Sulfuryl Fluoride definitely
seems to come into that category.
I urge you to revoke all food based uses of Sulfuryl Fluoride.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Sincerely
I am opposed to the spraying of sulfuryl fluoride on any foods.
Recent research from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) shows that
overexposure to fluoride carries serious health risks. The NAS report also
makes clear that many Americans are aleady being over-exposed to fluoride.
There is no safety margin for any additional fluoride exposures, including
those that would result from sulfuryl fluoride. I am especially concerned
for susceptible consumers including children, people with kidney disease,
people with excess thirst (e.g. diabetics, athletes, and laborers) and
people with nutritional deficiencies.
Why did EPA increase the permissible dosage for infants and children not
once, but twice, during its approval process for sulfuryl fluoride? This
leaves our children ten times less protected than adults and is in violation
of the Food Quality Protection Act.
EPA should employ the best science available in its decisions, but this did
not happen with sulfuryl fluoride. The decision may benefit Dow’s bottom
line; it does not protect the public health.
I urge you NOT to allow any more fluorides in our foods. Please revoke all
food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Respectfully yours
trying to keep people safe and I learn that Dow AgroSciences is lobbying to
poison us. It’s outragous that the government even allowing sulfuryl
fluoride as a pesticide and to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad
…
Sincerely
(sulfuryl fluoride) to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad
assortment of raw food.
The latest research and studies I have read indicate that fluroide may a
health hazard. Until we apsolutely know that fluoride has no effect on us
and our childrens health, it would be in the public’s best interest if
fluoride use is banned where ever possible.
Please don’t repeat past mistakes where the public has been exposed to
harmful chemicals, and only years later, after we suffered the consequences
did we finally make changes.
You are a steward of the best interests of citizens of the United States of
America and I expect you to do what is right for us.
Please revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride untill we are sure of
its effects.
Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
Respectfully yours
of fluoride in the above manner will be another reason that I increase my
intent to “only” eat organic. This applies to restaraunt patronage as well.
Thank you
I am extremely troubled by the new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl
fluoride) that EPA is allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a
range of raw food. This is a dangerous practice and must cease.
Fluoride over-exposure is in abundance in our society. It causes
dental/skeletal fluorosis (even though skeletal fluorosis is NOT being
tested for in USA - see WHO document EHC227, Environmental Health Criteria
227), dental fluorosis burgeoning rates indicate fluoride over-dose in the
general population.
We would hope the EPA would use its scientific status to ensure that people
are not poisoned by fluoride, which creates many problems; eg thyroid,
resulting in learning difficulties and obesity problems. NOTE that infants
are NOT to have fluoride at all. Why add more to their already overloaded
systems?
Please put me on the listing on the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.
Sincerely
Any approval of Sulfuryl fluoride by EPA, or any other USA federal regulatory agency, to allow/approve this neurotoxic pesticide to be applied to any Food Product(s) or storage area where raw or processed foods can come in contact with Sulfuryl fluoride would be intentional dereliction of especially ‘child protection duties’ by many at EPA. Especially, since EPA in 1999 established and thus promised to ALL Americans the following program: Excerpt EPA webpage:
” New Data will Help Ensure Protection of Children
August 2, 1999
Action
In an effort to further increase protections for infants and children, EPA is requiring registrants of pesticides thought to have neurotoxic effects to conduct acute, subchronic, and developmental neurotoxicity studies and submit the results to EPA. These studies are designed to show the effects on the nervous system of a chemical after a one-time or very short-term exposure (acute), an exposure over an extended period of time (sub-chronic or intermediate), and an exposure before or shortly after birth (developmental).
This program to call in data will apply to approximately140 pesticides and will be completed in phases over the next several months. EPA expects to receive the first studies within two years. This data call-in program was developed after seeking advice from the Children’s Health Advisory Committee and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel.
Rationale for this Action
Many currently-registered conventional food use pesticides have been observed to affect the nervous system in humans and/or laboratory animals. There are outstanding questions about these neurotoxic effects such as:
*
Do these chemicals harm the nervous system following exposure during critical stages of its development, both before birth in the fetus, and after birth in infants and young children? *
Are the effects in the young different from those observed in an adult? *
If similar effects were to occur in both the young and adults, would the young be more or less sensitive than the adult to these effects? “
____ (end of excerpt) ___________
Moreover, as the NAS report makes clear, and as is evident by the growing number of children with dental fluorosis, many Americans are being OVER-exposed to fluoride. There is no safety margin for additional fluoride exposures that will result from sulfuryl fluoride. I am particularly concerned for susceptible subsets of consumers, including children, people with kidney disease, people with excess thirst (e.g. diabetics, athletes, and laborers) and people with nutrient deficiencies.
Finally, as Director of EPA, I would like you to investigate why EPA increased the allowable dosage for infants and children not once, but twice, during its approval process for sulfuryl fluoride. In direct violation of the Food Quality Protection Act, these manipulations have left our children ten times less protected than adults.
For these, and the many other reasons detailed in the petition to EPA, I urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
Sincerely,
Posted by Anita
in FAN
0 comments
