Would you be surprised if I told you that the United States uses a lot of agricultural pesticides that are banned in Europe? Maybe not. But what about pesticides that are banned in China? Or Brazil?
50 years ago the USA led the way in regulating pesticides, but research published in Environmental Health finds that the country is still using many pesticides that are either banned or being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. In this blog Nathan Donley, author of the research, tells us about his study and how an unofficial policy of relying on voluntary pesticide cancellations has led to this situation.
Would you be surprised if I told you that the United States uses a lot of agricultural pesticides that are banned in Europe? Maybe not. But what about pesticides that are banned in China? Or Brazil?
After all, many people still remember the transformative period in the 1960s and ‘70s when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring spurred the United States to establish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and transform the country’s pesticide laws. The years that followed saw a flurry of activity from the EPA – banning pesticides like DDT, aldrin and toxaphene and fending off legal challenges from agrochemical companies infuriated that they were now subject to regulatory oversight. The agency used its new found authority to impose commonsense safety and health measures on a lawless industry, protecting countless human and animal lives in the process.
Since then, many countries around the world have followed the lead of the United States and strengthened their pesticide regulations. But today, the United States’ leadership has waned significantly and much of that is evident not in what the agency does, but what it often fails to do.
Let’s compare
Nations with large agricultural economies tend to use a lot of agricultural pesticides – that is certainly the case with four of the largest agricultural economies in the world: the United States, European Union (EU), China and Brazil. Comparing the ability of regulatory agencies in each of these nations to ban some of the most harmful pesticides used in agriculture is one way to differentiate those that are progressing from those that are lagging.
I recently compiled the approval status of over 500 pesticides in each of these four agricultural economies and found that the United States stills uses a whole lot of pesticides in outdoor agricultural applications that are banned or being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Just how much is truly staggering: The United States uses around 320, 40 and 26 million pounds of pesticides each year that the EU, China and Brazil, respectively, have deemed too dangerous to use within their borders.
There are more than a dozen agricultural pesticides that are EPA-approved but are banned by at least two of the three other nations in the study. The majority of those pesticides have not significantly decreased in use in the United States over the last 25 years.
Not just any other pesticides
As you might expect, the pesticides that are banned by multiple other regulatory agencies but still approved in the United States are not on the benign end of the spectrum.
Five of the pesticides – bensulide, dicrotophos, phorate, terbufos and tribufos – are in the neurotoxic organophosphate class that was once used in chemical warfare in World War II. Another, paraquat, is one of the most acutely lethal pesticides still in use today, with a teaspoon-sized dose being enough to kill a grown adult.
In addition to causing immediate, acute harm – only a fraction of which is reported to state agencies and poison control centers – other pesticides on this list can have more indirect effects. The medically-important antibiotics oxytetracycline and streptomycin are used on many fruit trees to fight bacterial diseases in the United States, and recent expanded approvals by the EPA have all but guaranteed that they will be more widely used as pesticides than they are as human medicines. This comes despite strong objections from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that this could facilitate the development of antibiotic-resistant human pathogens.
May I have a volunteer, please?
There is one key difference in the way these other nations go about prohibiting pesticides that is likely playing a major role in this discrepancy. The United States utilizes voluntary, industry-initiated cancellation as the primary method of prohibiting pesticides, which differs significantly from the non-voluntary, regulator-initiated cancellations that predominate in the EU, Brazil and China. In the last two decades, pesticide makers in the USA have voluntarily phased out nearly 60 pesticides – yet I can count on one hand the number of pesticides the EPA has taken upon itself to cancel during that same time.
Voluntary cancellations can be the product of a negotiation and, therefore, don’t always represent a truly “voluntary” act. However, many voluntary cancellations are business decisions rooted in simple economics rather than human and environmental health concerns. Furthermore, if a regulatory agency is “negotiating” the cancellation of nearly every single pesticide it decides to ban, then that is a strong indication that the regulatory system is broken and that far too much power is being held by the pesticide makers.
Abdication nation
What does it say when the country that once had the strongest pesticide laws in the world is now relying on the regulated industry to erase the worst pesticides from its roster? And what does all of this say about the industry that tells us we need to keep using these poisons on our food or face famine? If the most successful agricultural economies in the world are growing the same crops and dealing with many of the same pests we are without the use of these dangerous pesticides, then there is no good reason why we should continue using them in the United States.
In the 1970s, the EPA recognized the importance of banning the most dangerous, persistent pesticides that were still in use at the time. We all benefitted immensely. Now, 50 years later, there is broad scientific consensus that some of the pesticides once considered to be “safer alternatives” are too harmful to safely be used. As other nations are, to varying degrees, taking steps to get rid of the worst-of-the-worst pesticides, the United States is relying on the pesticide industry to regulate itself.
“America’s farmers have been bracing for a reckoning–and now it’s here,” begins an article in the Wall Street Journal. The stats are so appalling I found myself reading them out loud and taking notes.
Unfortunately. these headlines continue. If you want to fact check any of it, just head out to Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio or any other farm community to learn for yourself. What were once bustling communities now look more like ghost towns. Towns that once had three high schools are now down to one.
Is it any wonder that the U.S. farm economy is struggling, given the statistics shared below:
“U.S. farm households had a median farm income in 2018 of negative $1,548.
Negative $1,548.
U.S. farm debt—covering operations, land, equipment, livestock and more—last year climbed to more than $409 billion, according to the USDA .
Nationwide, the volume of loans to fund current operating expenses grew 22% in the fourth quarter from year-ago levels, hitting a quarterly record of $58.7 billion.
Last year, bankruptcies in farm counties made up 48% of the U.S. total of chapter 12 bankruptcies.”
On top of that, farmers don’t have health insurance unless they take an off the farm job.
Is it any wonder that our farmers are in crisis, that few from younger generations want to take over the farm? Or that there are more suicides among farmers than any other industry? The suicide rate for farmers is more than double that of veterans, according to the Guardian which ran an article “Why are American Farmers Killing Themselves?”
Farmers have literally mortgaged their lives to feed America.
We have to value their lives and refinance these farms. The business model is not sustainable, the career is not appealing, and without food security, we are a country in crisis.
Our lives, our national security, depend on food security.
It is time to break the operating model put in place in the late 20th century by the agrochemical companies like Monsanto. Operating systems that not only require farmers to purchase genetically engineered seeds rather than save heritage seeds, but that also require farmers to purchase the suite of -cides—pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides—required to grow them.
Farmers are no longer allowed to save seeds under the genetically engineered operating model. They have been forced into debt and bankruptcies to finance the repeat purchases of genetically engineered seeds and the products required to grow them.
The bottom line is that this recurring revenue model of Monsanto’s has bankrupt the American farmer.
The chemically intensive operating system of genetically engineered crops and the suite of -cides—pesticides, herbicides, insecticides—required to grow them have allowed a few corporate giants to generate earnings on the backs of American farmers. It’s no wonder Monsanto was sold to a German chemical company. They knew their time here was up, they leveraged the lives of our farmers.
At this point, I don’t have words for what they’ve done to generate their earnings on the backs of our farmers, except for one: extortion.
Thankfully, a growing number of farmers around the country are realizing that this costly input model cost them more than profitability. And they are turning towards regenerative, organic farming methods to reclaim the health of their soil and the legacy of their farms. It can not happen quickly enough, as resilient soil not only has a stronger capacity to conserve water but also sequester carbon. In other words, our farmers are stewards for some of our most precious natural resources.
For the companies who abused that, there truly are no words.
For the companies who now recognize the critical importance of our farmers in the health of our country and climate, thank you.
In the last two weeks, students in Colorado had schools shut down, locked down, and sadly, shot down, making national headlines for a school shooting once again.
It is a fear that grips our children every day, from elementary school through high school.
As parents, none of us are equipped for this. For our teachers, faculty and administrators, it is an epic task that many would not have signed up for. How do we keep our children safe at school? What steps do we need to take to ensure that this violence and these deaths stop?
When 12 year olds are in the news saying that they want “to go down fighting” and a sixteen year old Colorado teenager authors pieces like the one below in response to her teacher’s request, it shows how deeply we have failed our children and how urgently we need to address this.
Please take a minute to read what it feels like as a student today. And think about what you can do to address this.
Student Perspective:
“I am writing this sitting at home at 11am on a Thursday. Today is the third day in the last month that I’ve had to miss school due to a school shooting threat.
Two days ago senior Kendrick Castillo was shot and killed in a shooting at a school a few miles away. Instead of attending his graduation, his family will be attending his funeral.
To say that gun violence has consumed and ravaged the education experience in America is an understatement. I think that as students we carry a great deal of fear in going to school. We practice lockdown drills at school regularly. We’ve memorized where we would hide in each of our classrooms if a shooting were to start. You want to not be in a 3rd floor classroom because it’s harder to jump out the windows if you have to.
When the lockdown starts you need to turn off the lights and hide in the corner so someone in the door can’t see you. If you’re in the bathroom when the lockdown starts, you need to stand on the toilet in a stall so they can’t see your feet.
This is the reality of being a student in America right now. And it’s infuriating. We are angry and we deserve to be. Our politicians are failing us.
A lot of people don’t want to “make this political” but the truth is that this is in every way political. But it shouldn’t be controversial. I cannot believe that we need to debate whether or not kids being killed in school is normal.
We need policy change.
But most students—the direct victims of our country’s lack of gun control—aren’t old enough to vote.
The people creating gun legislation are the ones who have no idea what it’s like to crouch in the corner and pray that the classroom door doesn’t open and a shooter walks through it.
As much as we’re desperate for change, our voices can’t yet be represented.
So I think I speak for most students in America right now when I beg people to do something. If you can vote, vote. If you can march, march. If you have a phone, call your legislators.
Don’t let yourself grow numb to this. This will keep happening, and kids will keep dying, until people finally say that enough is enough. Until then, we are all just waiting and hoping that we’re not next.”
All of us are exposed to a cocktail of toxic synthetic pesticides linked to a range of health impacts in our daily diets. Certified organic food is produced without these pesticides. But can eating organic really reduce levels of pesticides in our bodies?
In this peer-reviewed study, we compared pesticide levels in the bodies of four American families for six days on a non-organic diet and six days on a completely organic diet. We found that eating organic works.
An organic diet rapidly and dramatically reduced exposure to pesticides in just six days.
Organic Works
We found 14 chemicals representing potential exposure to 40 different pesticides in every study participant, including organophosphates, pyrethroids, the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the phenoxy herbicide 2,4-D.
Levels of all detected chemicals dropped an average of 60.5 percent in just six days on an organic diet with a range of 37 percent to 95 percent depending on the compound.
The most significant drops occurred in a class of nerve agent pesticides called organophos- phates. The metabolites for malathion (MDA) and chlorpyrifos (TCPy) decreased 95 and 61 percent respectively, and a set of six metabolites representing organophosphates as a class (DAPs) dropped 70 percent. These pesticides are so harmful to children’s developing brains that scientists have called for a full ban.1 Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxic pesticide linked to increased rates of autism, learning disabilities and reduced IQ in children and is also one of the pesticides most often linked to farm worker poisonings.2
The neonicotinoid pesticide clothianidin dropped by 83 percent. Neonicotinoids are among the most commonly detected pesticide residues in baby foods.3 They are associated with endocrine disruption and changes in behavior and attention, including an association with autism spectrum disorder.4,5 Neonicotinoids are also a main driver of massive pollinator and insect losses, leading scientist to warn of a ‘second silent spring’.6,7
Levels of pyrethroids were halved. Exposure to this class of pesticides is associated with endocrine disruption, adverse neurodevelopmental, immunological and reproductive effects, increased risk of Parkinson’s and sperm DNA damage.8,9,10,11
Finally, 2,4-D dropped by 37 percent. 2,4-D is one of two ingredients in the Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange.12 It is among the top five most commonly used pesticides in the U.S.13 and is associated with endocrine disruption, thyroid disorders, increased risk of Parkinson’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, developmental and reproductive toxicity and damage to the liver, immune system and semen quality.14,15
We All Have the Right to a Toxic-Free Food System
The science is clear. Organic agriculture can produce enough food to feed a growing world population while protecting our health and the environment.16
We have the solution. And yet, our government subsidizes pesticide-intensive agriculture to the tune of billions of dollars while organic programs and research are woefully underfunded.17
Pesticide companies spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying legislators and funding false science and front groups that mislead the public about the harms of pesticides to keep their toxic products on the market.18
The top four pesticide manufacturers reap over $150 billion in profit each year.19 Meanwhile, the estimated environmental and health care costs of pesticide use in the U.S. is estimated to be upwards of $12 billion annually.19
We Should Not Have to “Shop Our Way Out” of Exposures to Toxic Pesticides
Elected officials must protect the health of people and the planet and stand up to corporate influence. And the food industry has a responsibility to consumers, the environment and society at large.
We all have the right to food that is free of toxic pesticides. The farmers and farmworkers who grow our nation’s food, and their communities, have a right to not be exposed day in and day out to chemicals linked to cancer, asthma, reproductive and developmental harm and other serious health problems. And the way we grow food should “Everyone has the right to clean organic food. That is a human right.” Tara, study participant, Baltimore protect rather than harm the ecosystems that sustain all life.
Together, We Can Make Organic For All
Together, we can demand government and corporations step up to create a healthier world for all people. We can work together to pass laws in our cities, states and nationally that decrease pesticide use and expand organic farming. We can change the national Farm Bill — a major piece of legislation that determines how food is grown in the U.S. and what food is available to us as eaters. And, we can tell food companies and grocery stores to end the use of toxic pesticides in their supply chains and expand organic offerings.
The solution is here — we just have to grow it.
Link to Study, Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary pesticide levels U.S. children and adults: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935119300246
SOURCES
1. Hertz-Picciotto, I., Sass, J. B., Engel, S., Bennett, D. H., Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B. and Whyatt, R. 2018. Organophosphate exposures during pregnancy and child neurodevelopment: Recommendations for essential policy reforms. PLoS medicine, 15(10), e1002671.
2. Cimino, A.M., et al. 2017. Effects of Neonicotinoid Pesticide Exposure on Human Health: A Systematic Environ Health Perspectives. 125(2): p. 155-162.
3. Hoshi, N., Hirano, T., Omotehara, T., Tokumoto, J., Umemura, Y., Mantani, Y., Tanida, T., Warita, K., Tabuchi, Y., Yokoyama, T. and Kitagawa, H., 2014. Insight into the mechanism of reproductive dysfunction caused by neonicotinoid pesticides. Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 37(9), 1439-1443.
5. Bijleveld van Lexmond, Maarten et al. 2015. Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Impact of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2(1).
7. Go, V., Garey, J., Wolff, M.S. and Pogo, B.G., 1999. Estrogenic potential of certain pyrethroid compounds in the MCF-7 human breast carcinoma cell line. Environmental health perspectives, 107(3), p.173.
8. Quiros-Alcala, L., S. Mehta, and B. Eskenazi, 2014. Pyrethroid Pesticide Exposure and Parental Report of Learning Disability and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in U.S. Children: NHANES 1999–2002. Environ Health Perspect.
10. Jurewicz, J., Radwan, M., Wielgomas, B., Sobala, W., Piskunowicz, M., Radwan, P., Bochenek, M. and Hanke, W., 2015. The effect of environmental exposure to pyrethroids and DNA damage in human sperm. Systems biology in reproductive medicine, 61(1), pp.37-43.
16. DeLonge, M.S., Miles, A. and Carlisle, L., 2016. Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, pp.266-273.
19. Pimentel, D., 2005. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United Environment, development and sustainability, 7(2), pp.229-252.
A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Research found that switching to an organic diet significantly reduced the levels of synthetic pesticides found in all participants – after less than one week. On average, the pesticides detected dropped by 60.5% after just six days of eating an all-organic diet (see www.OrganicforAll.org).
The study found significant reductions in pesticides that have been associated with increased risk of autism, cancers, autoimmune disorders, infertility, hormone disruption, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.
Researchers from UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and Friends of the Earth tested the urine of four racially diverse American families in Oakland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and Baltimore after eating their typical diet of conventional food for six days and then after a controlled diet of all organic food for six days
The most significant declines involved organophosphates, a class of highly neurotoxic pesticides linked to brain damage in children: the study found a 95% drop in levels of malathion, a probable human carcinogen, and a nearly two thirds reduction in chlorpyrifos. Organophosphates are so harmful to children’s developing brains that scientists have called for a full phase out.
The neonicotinoid pesticide clothianidin dropped by 83%. Neonicotinoids are among the most commonly detected pesticide residues in baby foods. They are associated with endocrine disruption and changes in behavior and attention, including an association with autism spectrum disorder. Neonicotinoids are also a main driver of massive pollinator and insect losses, leading scientist to warn of a ‘second silent spring’.
Levels of pyrethroids were halved. Exposure to this class of pesticides is associated with endocrine disruption, adverse neurodevelopmental, immunological and reproductive effects, increased risk of Parkinson’s and sperm DNA damage.
Finally, 2,4-D dropped by 37 percent. 2,4-D is one of two ingredients in the Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange. It is among the top five most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. and is associated with endocrine disruption, thyroid disorders, increased risk of Parkinson’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, developmental and reproductive toxicity and damage to the liver, immune system and semen quality.
Other recent studies have found compelling evidence of the health benefits of an organic diet. One study found 25% reduction in cancer risk for participants who ate the most organic food. Other studies have found fertility benefits for women who ate organic food.
MAKE ORGANIC FOR ALL
We all have the right to food that is free of toxic pesticides. The farmers and farmworkers who grow our nation’s food, and their communities, have a right to not be exposed day in and day out to chemicals linked to serious health problems. And the way we farm should protect rather than harm the biodiversity, soil and water that sustain all life.
Organic works. We already have the solution. And yet, our government subsidizes pesticide-intensive agriculture to the tune of billions of dollars while organic programs and research are woefully underfunded. This misdirection of public dollars is one of the main reasons many people across the country still don’t have access to, or can’t afford, organic food. This is unacceptable.
We should not have to “shop our way out” of exposures to toxic pesticides. Elected officials must protect the health of people and the planet and stand up to corporate influence. And the food industry has a responsibility to consumers, the environment and society at large. Together, we can demand government and corporations step up to create a healthier world for all people.
Working to make organic for all means investing in a food system that is healthier for you and healthier for farmers, farmworkers and rural communities. And it means investing in a system that protects bees, helps mitigate climate change and safeguards water, soil and the ecosystems that sustain all life.
We can work together to pass laws in our cities, states and nationally that decrease pesticide use and expand organic farming. We can change the national Farm Bill — a major piece of legislation that determines how food is grown in the U.S. and what food is available to us as eaters. And, we can tell food companies and grocery stores to end the use of toxic pesticides in their supply chains and expand organic offerings.
Right now, farming with toxic pesticides is the norm. But, we can turn the system around. The science is clear that we can grow abundant food without pesticides. We need to organize, raise our voices, demand that our leaders step up and shift support, research and policies to create a system where organic is for all. The solution is here—we just have to grow it.
The article below was originally published in the ZachBushMD.com newsletter.
Over the years, I’ve had many experiences with patients which led me to begin questioning the way Western medicine approaches illness and treatment. In the majority of cases, the goal has become managing a disease, rather than inducing health.
My questions led me to discover some uncomfortable and astonishing statistics.
Starting in the 1990’s, something alarming began to happen in the United States.
Diseases—in what seemed like completely different organ systems—were going epidemic, almost simultaneously.
Dementia in women increased.
Parkinson’s in men increased.
Autoimmune diseases hit an all time high.
Today, 1 in every 2 people will be diagnosed with cancer before they die.
And 1 in 36 children are now diagnosed with autism, compared to a mere 1 in 5,000 in the 1970’s.
Why are so many diseases, in such unrelated parts of the body, increasing at such a rapid rate? What’s the relation?
The connecting factor is chronic inflammation.
And chronic inflammation is the root of all disease.
By definition, inflammation is actually a normal biological response to an injury. It’s the bodies reaction to tissue or cell damage caused by harmful pathogens or other stimuli.
Our gut has a very thin membrane that protects it’s cells from inflammatory causing compounds and bacteria.
If that thin membrane becomes permeable, our entire immune system feels the effects, and we experience inflammation.
We know our diet certainly plays a role in our gut health—but unfortunately, we can’t just throw out the snack cakes and start eating vegetables and hope our health takes a total turnaround. It may help, but as I found, it’s only a piece of the puzzle.
I have focused on holistic health and nutrient rich foods to heal disease for years at The M Clinic.
But initially, the statistics were not what I had hoped for.
About 30% of my patients had a complete and miraculous turnaround of disease while implementing diet changes.
Another 30% saw some improvement.
But a surprising 40% saw zero improvement, or an actual worsening of symptoms with their new, health focused plans.
So then I asked, if the cause of disease is inflammation, what is causing our guts to be so affected, and our bodies to be so inflamed?
If the problem isn’t less sugar and more vegetables, then what is it?
To answer this question, we must first understand some of the history of our countries food sources and farm lands.
After World War II, the United States was left with an excess of petroleum that they no longer had use for. They found that petroleum could be used as a chemical fertilizer, and they marketed it as such.
For the first time in history, farmers ignored the generational wisdom of good crop practices. They stopped letting their soil rest, they stopped rotating their crops. They forgot the hard lessons of the 1930’s Dust Bowl.
The farmers became convinced that fertilizing crops with chemicals saved time, increased yield, and created healthier, greener plants.
The plants were greener, but they weren’t healthier—they were now weak and lacking major nutrients. (In fact, a tomato grown today has almost no lycopene left in it, compared to one grown in 1950.)
Weak plants are more subject to disease and pests, so the solution became to add more chemicals—this time in the form of pesticides (which are essentially an antibiotic)—to the soil, and ignore the failing biology just underneath the surface.
It was, and still is, an environmental version of exactly how we are treating disease in humans today.
The most widely used commercial pesticide is a glyphosate-based herbicide called Roundup. Today, Roundup’s use is so profuse, that it has become impossible to avoid its affects all together. In fact, 99.99% of Roundup never even hits a weed—instead, it’s found primarily in runoff, and ends up in the water we drink and the air we breathe. In the southern United States, 75% of the air and the rain are contaminated with glyphosates.
Before you even take a bite of food, you are being hit with an antibiotic every time you inhale.
So how, specifically, does this prolific chemical affect our health? Glyphosates increase the permeability of the gut membrane. This means that the side effects of Roundup are direct injury to the very protein structure that holds your gut together—and every macro membrane in your body is held together by the same tight junctions that the gut has.
Our environment has made us into leaky sieves, and the very blood vessels in our bodies that are supposed to be delivering an immune response or getting nutrients, are also leaking and affecting the blood/brain barrier, leading to an abundance of neuro disorders like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and autism.
When we breathe, drink, eat, or stand in the rain, we are being subjected to antibiotics that are killing the healthy bacteria that we need to thrive. Our innate capacity to heal ourselves is being stripped away, because our biome has been obliterated by all of the glyphosate.
We have created a war in both our internal and external environment. So how do we rectify this bleak reality? Where do we even begin?
One good piece of news is that Monsanto (the distributors of Roundup) have leaked an encouraging statistic – if 16% of food in the United States was purchased organically, the chemical fertilizer industry would lose financial stability.
Just 16%.
The truth is, if we stopped spraying Roundup tomorrow, it would take 50 years before we saw a drop in toxic levels.
But—there are bacteria and fungi in our soil that can digest the glyphosates. Our world, like our bodies, has an innate ability to heal itself. If we let it.
We have to begin to do things differently.
At the current rate of health decline, in the year 2035, 1 in 3 children will be diagnosed with autism. That statistic alone would send our country into total financial collapse.
A change needs to happen, and it can happen.
We, the consumers, are the solution.
So which actions do I recommend we take to help change things for our own health, and for society’s future?
Macro Ecosystem Shifts
Breathe as many different environments as you can. This means, get out of your house. Leave your immaculate lawn. Hike a mountain. Go sit by a waterfall. Read under a mossy tree. Visit a swamp. Get into as many different ecosystems as you can, and just breathe them for a few hours. Shifting your environment is one of the simplest ways to repopulate your microbiome (and rejuvenate your mental health).
Eat Fermented Foods
Before refrigeration, we used fermentation as a preservation method. As we have lost this need, we’ve also lost its benefits. Fermented foods contain immune boosting bacteria, and you only need to eat a few forkfuls of homemade sauerkraut to get your daily dose.
Buy Organic Food
This one is for your own health, of course, but it’s also for the betterment of the future. Remember – if only 16% of the population bought organic food, Monsanto would collapse. Organic food can be more expensive in some cases, but if we all found ways to make the sacrifice now, the price of chemical free foods would dramatically decrease once spraying ceased.
Share The Message
Get people thinking and talking about these issues and the various misconceptions. Listen to the latest interview with Rich Roll here and share with your friends, family and local farmers.
Human hope is contagious, and if a few of us can become more conscious of ourselves, our environment, and our communities, it has a ripple effect.
It can happen quick. And it has to. Do what you can, where you can, with what you have.
Today is National Peanut Butter Day. Could there be a product that is both so loved and so feared?
And what do we actually know about it?
Most of the peanuts consumed in the U.S. are now one of the most pesticide-contaminated snacks we eat. The USDA Pesticide Data Program found 8 pesticides on peanut butter. Piperonyl butoxide was found 26.9% of the time.
We tend to only hear about the peanut allergy when it comes to peanuts in the news, but a deeper look into how we grow peanuts today unearths a lot of questions.
Since when did so many kids suddenly have a peanut allergy? The number of people with peanut allergy has quadrupled in the last thirteen years. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich hasn’t always been a loaded weapon on a lunchroom table.
From 1997-2002, the incidence of peanut allergy doubled. In the last thirteen years, it has quadrupled. In the last fifteen years, there has been a 50% increase in the number of children with food allergies. About 1 in 13 U.S. children have food allergies—a 50 percent increase from the late 1990s, according to a recent CDC survey.
But that’s not where it stops.
Children with food allergy are two to four times more likely to have other related conditions such as asthma and other allergies, compared with children without food allergies.
In part, this is why this generation of children has earned the title of “Generation Rx.” They can’t go anywhere without an asthma inhaler or EpiPen, a life saving injection of epinephrine should an allergic reaction occur. In 2012, EpiPen sales were on track to bring in $640 million this year, a 76 percent increase over last year.
And when President Obama shared on CBS News a few years ago that his daughter has a peanut allergy and asthma, peanut allergies got even more serious, and the online world got fired up, as the President was signing a bipartisan bill that offers a financial incentive to states if schools stockpile epinephrine. Epinephrine, also known by the brand name, EpiPen, is considered the first-line treatment for people with severe allergies.
Online comments flooded in:
As a mother of two kids with severe peanut allergy, I think this is a GREAT idea! We are a military family and have had three addresses in the last few months. Each time my son had to be enrolled in school we need a form signed by our doctor for each the Benedryl and Epipen. Our doc no longer faxes these forms so there IS a waiting period while it goes through the mail!!! I can rest easy that our school has a few on hand until the paperwork gets signed and mailed to me and I can supply our own Rx epipens!!!
Epi-pens do expire but they likely are good for 2-3 years. They are ridiculously expensive. A 250ml bottle of generic epinephrine costs about $3, but an epi-pen containing 0.20ml of the same strength epinephrine costs about $300, probably due to the patent on the auto-injector.
25% of anaphylactic reactions happen in those with no known/diagnosed allergy. This can include food allergies and bee sting allergies. The risks of not administering epinephrine in an emergent situation far outweigh any risks of giving it. For example, anaphylaxis is often confused with severe asthma attacks but epinephrine was the first line treatment for severe asthma attacks for years.
Here’s an idea…lets have the PARENTS of the kid who has allergies send the EpiPens into school vs having the schools pay to stockpile them, when most will not be used and expire anyway. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize kids didn’t have all these “allergies” before chemicals were put into our food.
Others called this a “band aid” solution to a real problem: the skyrocketing rates of allergies in our children and how to get to the bottom of what is causing them. Some will talk about peanut oil used in vaccines and others will float the hygiene hypothesis, saying that we are no longer exposed to healthy bacteria because we no longer live on farms. The peanut allergy epidemic began fifteen years ago. We weren’t living on a farm when this took off. If we are going to talk about our overly Purell-ed environment, then we also need to talk about the fact that we are no longer exposed to healthy bacteria because how our food is now processed, treated with chlorine, preservatives, antibiotic, growth hormones and synthietc chemicals before it even hits our dinner plates.
It begs the question: Are we allergic to food? Or to what’s been done to it? Are we allergic to peanuts or what’s been done to them?
And why all of a sudden do we have so many children with such severe food allergies that it requires the President to essentially write a prescription for kids around the country?
Well, a closer look at the mighty peanut might shed some light.
It’s interesting to note that the peanut is actually a bean. Its shape is similar to a soybean, and it is not a nut at all. It is part of the legume family but different to the soybean and other beans which grow in pods on vines. The peanut has its pod in the ground.
In other words, it’s buried in the soil. It has a soft skin that protects it (not a hard shell like a walnut). Put anything in that soil and you can imagine how it gets absorbed into the peanut. Put genetically engineered seeds in that soil and you get soil that is saturated with a controversial chemical, glyphosate, linked to everything from cancer to infertility.
Peanut crops are often rotated with cotton crops, and now that cotton has been genetically engineered to withstand increasing doses of crop chemicals, it’s anyone’s guess as to just how polluted that soil has become.
But it’s not a guess to the farmers.
According to farmers, “Peanuts are raised in the part of our country where peanuts are a rotation crop with cotton. Most of the cotton is glyphosate tolerant and receives numerous glyphosate applications per year. Glyphosate severely damages the beneficial microorganisms in the soil. This leads to an increase in the population of opportunistic or bad organisms in the soil. The bad organisms cause an increase in the number of diseases that will adversely effect the peanut crop. This leads to an increased use of insecticides and fungicides on the peanut crop. It is common to see a conventional peanut crop sprayed with some type of pesticide every 8-10 days during the growing season.”
“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,” the study says. The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited. The study is among many comments submitted to the agency.
Peanuts tend to be grown in warm climates and as a result things can get pretty humid. Fungus can grow, and this results in increased use of fungicides being applied to non-organic peanut crops.
The fungus itself is not what we need to worry about (though the increasing levels of fungicides raises concern), but there is a poison that is released from the fungus known as “aflatoxin”. This cancer causing agent can attack the liver and is a deadly toxin. Scientists have expressed concern over low-level, long-term exposures to aflatoxin. According to Cornell University, studies have shown a correlation with liver cancer risk.
Because the peanut is also a big target for little pests, peanuts are also one of the crops most heavily routinely saturated with pesticides.
Most of the peanuts consumed in the U.S. are now one of the most pesticide-contaminated snacks we eat. The USDA Pesticide Data Program found 8 pesticides on peanut butter. Piperonyl butoxide was found 26.9% of the time.
According to the National Pesticide Information Center, piperonyl butoxide is considered a possible human carcinogen based on limited evidence of cancer in laboratory animals. Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO), a highly toxic substance that causes a range of short- and long-term effects, includ- ing cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system, is one of the most commonly used synergists in pesticide products. Synergists are chemicals added to pesticide formulations to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredients.
As it turns out, peanuts and these pesticides aren’t the only ingredients in peanut butter. Conventional peanut butters can contain hydrogenated oils, sugar, salt and other ingredients such as soy protein, corn syrup and stabilizers. Many of these ingredients can be genetically engineered to either produce their own insecticidal toxins or to withstand increasing doses of weed killer. In other words, you’re getting a whole suite of products along with that peanut.
Aflatoxins can be present in either conventional or organic making refrigeration of peanut butter so important, as it slows down the growth of aflatoxins. As you might imagine, all peanut butters must be tested for aflatoxins.
So what’s an eater to do?
Buy organic peanut butter if you eat peanut butter and refrigerate it. Why organic? You will be avoiding that added load of fertilizer, fungicides and pesticides that are applied to conventional peanuts, as well as any high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils (possibly full of GMOs or genetically engineered ingredients and genetically engineered soy, which when introduced in the late 1990s resulted in a 50% increase in the number of people with soy allergies).
On top of that, there are no animal testing models for the allergenicity of genetically engineered ingredients, so we are just banking on the promises of the chemical companies that have introduced and patented these ingredients. The FDA has not conducted any independent, long-term, human health studies. They don’t have the resources or access since genetically engineered ingredients are protected as intellectual property under U.S. Patent law.
As a result, grocery store chains like Wegman’s state:
“Testing for GE ingredients is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do. For example, there is no test available that can reliably determine the source of ingredients that have been highly processed, which is the case for corn syrup, soybean, canola, and corn oil. These are four of the most common ingredients made from GE crops.”
That’s enough to make any parent of a child with food allergies stop in her tracks.
If you head into the grocery store, you can see an expanding line of organic peanut butters. And if you are not peanut allergic, according to a 2002 Harvard School of Public Health study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, consuming one tablespoon of peanut butter five or more times a week can reduce the risk of developing type-2 diabetes by 20%.
The mighty, unpolluted peanut is also a good source of fiber, vitamin E, potassium, folate, zinc and magnesium and contains resveratrol (also found in red wine), flavonoids, and antioxidants, all of whose health benefits are increasingly being proven to help you prevent a wide variety of diseases. Just remember to go organic to avoid that load of chemicals. Arrowhead Mills Organic Peanut Butter claims to be completely aflatoxin-free.
And lastly, it’s also really important for parents of children with peanut allergy to know that the peanut can be cross-reactive with soy. According to the Mayo Clinic and the Asthma and Allergy Resource Center, a person with a peanut allergy can have an allergic reaction after eating a food that contains soy (link to additional information here).
So what’s an American to do?
If you have or suspect you have a peanut allergy, see a medical professional immediately to determine the best treatment and prevention plan.
If you are a peanut butter lover, eat a clean peanut. Organic peanut butter does not allow genetically engineered ingredients and synthetic toxic chemicals to be used in its production.
Refrigerate peanut butter to keep those aflatoxins away.
Learn about options: almond butter, sunflower nut butter and other options are increasingly available as more and more people are impacted.
Be compassionate for those that are affected by the peanut allergy. No one would choose to have it. Having a child whose life could depend on an epinephrine shot is not something any parent anywhere would choose. Work together. Parents of peanut allergy kids are probably really scared and that can present in a lot of different ways.
Learn the signs (a detailed list is below). The landscape of childhood is changing.
Know the Signs of an Allergic Reaction
The Mayo Clinic is a trusted resource for food-allergic information and highlights the following:
The most common food allergy symptoms include:
Tingling or itching in the mouth
Hives, itching or eczema
Swelling of the lips, face, tongue and throat, or other parts of the body
Wheezing, nasal congestion or trouble breathing
Abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting
Dizziness, lightheadedness or fainting
Anaphylaxis
In some people, a food allergy can trigger a severe allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. This can cause life-threatening symptoms, including:
Constriction and tightening of airways
A swollen throat or the sensation of a lump in your throat that makes it difficult to breathe
Shock, with a severe drop in blood pressure
Rapid pulse
Dizziness, lightheadedness or loss of consciousness
There are some huge trends emerging in 2019. And I’m not talking about CBD, plant protein or mushrooms, as that would be a ‘year in review’.
There are trends that are coming hard and fast at the food industry that few are discussing and that need to be addressed, so we are going to lay out all eight of them here:
Racial Advertising: Our food system is not only loaded with artificial ingredients, but also systemic racism. In no way is that more obvious than in the excessive advertising that targets people of color. In 2017, black teens saw more than twice as many ads for unhealthy food products as white teens, researchers found. Statistics show that growth in consumption of organic food by communities of color is outpacing that of the total population, so someone tell the ad agencies and marketing directors: targeting black teens with junk food has to stop.
Whitewashed Venture Capital: Less than 1% of American venture capital-backed founders are black. Less than 1%. So venture capital is failing to invest in diversity of innovation, and it’s costing us: in 2016, the Center for Global Policy Solutions reported that due to discriminatory financing practices and a bias towards companies primarily operated by white males, America is losing out on over 1.1 million minority-owned businesses, and as a result, foregoing over 9 million potential jobs and $300 billion in collective national income, according to Forbes.
B Corp: This certification is exploding. Danone officially became the world’s largest B corp in 2018, defying any and all excuses. A challenge within the certification itself is that due to its costs, it inadvertently burdens minority groups who do not have the same access to capital, as discussed above. There has always been some backlash against the certification and the suggestion that it is yet another “Winner Take All” strategy. However, that can be addressed, and given the intent of the board of B Lab, I am certain that with increased noise and pressure, it will be.
The Bullshit Factor: Consumers are calling out companies that fake authenticity. RXBar is the poster child for this one. For almost 18 months, consumers complained about reactions they were having to these products: from life-threatening allergic reactions, to GI upset, to vomiting to skin rashes. It took 18 months before a recall was issued. So if a company promises “No B.S.” in their products, chances are you want to take another look.
Food Waste: It’s seismic in our food system, from soil to shelf. Imperfect produce is not accepted at the grocery store and antiquated “sell by” dates fill dumpsters with products fit for a kitchen. Almost 40% of the food that we produce is wasted. The bottom line is that we need it to feed the world. Around the country and world, we are now seeing everything from food recovery programs to zero food waste bloggers to ambitious European Union (EU) food waste reduction targets. Food policy in the U.S. needs to get with the 21st century.
Melatonin-infused Products: Anxiety and depression are impacting millions of Americans. Is it any wonder? The steady stream of headlines put us into fight or flight mode, and stories of “climate grief” and the growing emotional toll of climate change are mounting. Climate grief is yet another reason why sleep is elusive to millions. What helps? Melatonin. So look for melatonin-infused supplements, teas and snacks to help pillow our heads and settle our minds.
A New Labeling Debate: With lab grown and cell-based ‘milks’ and ‘meats‘ in production, the FDA and USDA are playing a game of “Who’s on First”? Nobody is quite sure by whom or how these products are going to be regulated. There are no long term testing models. On top of that, the meat industry is suddenly getting defensive about who can label what “milk” and “meat.” Is a tofu sausage really a sausage? Stay tuned.
Climate Calories:Two-thirds of the U.S. military installations are threatened by flooding, drought and wildfires driven by climate change, the Defense Department said in a new report required by Congress. But it’s not just impacting the Department of Defense, climate change is a national security issue, a food security issue and so much more. It’s disrupting agriculture and farming. So put it on the balance sheet, measure the risk and mitigate it. We need to think about it this way: How many climate calories does your product consume? And what plans are you putting in place to mitigate climate risk?
“Unnerved by fundamental economic changes and the failure of government to provide lasting solutions, society is increasingly looking to companies, both public and private, to address pressing social and economic issues. These issues range from protecting the environment to retirement to gender and racial inequality, among others. Fueled in part by social media, public pressures on corporations build faster and reach further than ever before.”
Heading into 2019, make sure you are managing your business for purpose-driven profits that align with the values of 21st century consumers.
There is too much at stake, and the risk of obsolescence extends far beyond a company’s bottom line.
A new analysis from the peer-reviewed scientific journal Environmental Sciences Europe documents the diametrically different approaches the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization took when determining the cancer risk from exposure to Monsanto’s weedkiller glyphosate.
A new analysis and report shows that the EPA ignored peer-reviewed independent studies that link glyphosate to cancer. The agency instead used research paid for by Monsanto to support the agency’s position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.
Dr. Charles Benbrook, a longtime friend and ally in this work, recently shared the following information.
It shines a bright light on why, after reviewing extensive U.S., Canadian and Swedish epidemiological studies on glyphosate’s human health effects, as well as research on laboratory animals, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The concerns around this weedkiller have been ongoing for decades. A recent ruling by a jury found Monsanto guilt in August 2018 and the company was ordered to pay over $250 million in damages.
There are over 9,000 other lawsuits pending. Since the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, a German conglomerate, Bayer’s share price has plunged 30%.
As information continues to come out on the dishonest means by which this approval was sought, more lawsuits are sure to follow.
Key findings are highlighted below. The graphics are available in different formats (see below).
Key Finding #1:
While IARC referenced only peer-reviewed studies and reports available in the public literature, EPA relied heavily on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by pesticide manufacturers. In fact, 95 of the 151 genotoxicity assays cited in EPA’s evaluation were from registrant studies (63%), while IARC cited 100% public literature sources.
There is also a stark difference in the outcomes of registrant-sponsored assays versus those in the public literature. Of the 95 regulatory assays taken into account by EPA, only 1 reported a positive result, or just 1%. Among the total 211 published studies (right circle in the graphic), 156 reported at least one positive result, or 74%!
Key Finding #2:
Another important difference is that EPA focused their analysis on glyphosate in its pure chemical form, or “glyphosate technical.”
IARC, on the other hand, placed considerable weight on 85 studies focused on formulated GBHs, the herbicide people actually use and are exposed to (“Glyphosate Herbicides” in the graphic). 79% of the GBH assays published in public literature reported one or more positive result.
While EPA did list studies on formulated glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) in an Appendix F of its report, EPA acknowledges it placed little to no weight on GBH assay results.
This difference is reflected in the overall percent of positive assays. Just 24% of the 151 assays cited by EPA reported positive results, while 76% of those cited by IARC had at least one positive result.
Key Finding #3
EPA’s analysis was limited to typical dietary exposure to the general public as a result of legal uses on food crops, and did not address occupational exposure and risks.
IARC’s assessment encompassed data from typical dietary, occupational, and elevated exposure scenarios. Elevated exposure events caused by spills, a leaky hose or fitting, or wind are actually common for people who apply herbicides several days a week, for several hours, as part of their work. The highest exposures typically occur when herbicides are applied with a handheld or backpack sprayer, or an ATV or truck-mounted sprayer.
The equipment used to apply GBHs has a huge impact on applicator exposures, as does whether applicators use Personal Protective Equipment like gloves. The applicator driving the modern, large-scale sprayer pictured on the left might typically spray around 500 acres in an 8-hour day, apply 700 pounds of glyphosate technical, and be exposed to 3.5 milligrams (3,500 ug, or micrograms). The applicator using a backpack sprayer without gloves would apply only about 3 pounds of glyphosate in 8 hours, but would be exposed to around 175 milligrams of glyphosate, 50-times more than the driver of the spray rig. And that driver would spray more than 230-times more glyphosate in an 8 hour day. In virtually all high-exposure scenarios, wearing gloves makes a big difference, reducing exposures by around one-half to one-tenth of “no gloves” exposure levels. The estimated exposures in the scenarios in the graphic represent applications during which everything goes “by the book,” but in the real-world a variety of factors can, and frequently do dramatically increase exposure levels.
Key Finding #4
A closer look at the assays referenced by EPA but not IARC, and by IARC but not EPA helps explain why EPA and IARC reached opposite conclusions.
EPA cited 109 total assays not included in the IARC report, 87% of which were regulatory studies commissioned by industry, and all but one was negative.
IARC included the results from 67 assays not included in EPA’s analysis, all of which were from peer-reviewed publications, and 82% of which had at least one positive result for genotoxicity.
Whole Foods Market on Tuesday posted a recall announced by the maker of the RXBAR bar brand warning people who have peanut allergies of the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the snacks.
Back on September 5, 2017, I ran an article here titled “Does the RX Bar Require an RX for Epinephrine.” At that point, we’d had too many consumers contacting us to share their experiences, and in the last 17 months, they have continued. When Kellogg’s paid an eye-popping sum of $600 million for the RX Bar, again, we questioned whether or not these complaints, filed to the company, had been disclosed.
This week, the recall by Chicago Bar Company LLC dba RXBAR expands from two varieties in December to 12 varieties and three kids’ varieties.
“We are expanding the recall out of an abundance of caution, after recently receiving consumer contacts regarding allergic reactions to additional varieties,” said the company. “Our investigation concluded that the issue stems from a specific ingredient supplied by a third party. We immediately changed suppliers for this ingredient when the issue arose.”
Recalled products include:
Apple Cinnamon, single bar, UPC 57777 00417, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00424Best By Dates between 4/16/2019 – 5/12/2019 and 7/10/2019 – 7/11/2019
Blueberry, single bar, UPC 57777 00419, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00426 , 10-count carton, UPC 58030 00840, 5-count carton, UPC 58030 00843, 4-count carton, UPC 57777 00447Best By Dates between 3/21/2019 – 5/21/2019 and 7/7/2019 and 9/29/2019
Chocolate Chip, single bar, UPC 57777 00469, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00472, 5-count carton, UPC 58030 00845, 4-count carton, UPC 57777 00492Best by Dates between 3/24/2019 – 5/14/2019, 7/11/2019 – 9/8/2019 and 9/30/2019 – 10/1/2019
Chocolate Hazelnut, single bar, UPC 59162 00709, 12-count carton, UPC 59162 00710, 4-count carton, UPC 59162 00717, Best By Dates between 2/17/2019 – 10/18/2019
Chocolate Sea Salt, single bar, UPC 57777 00423, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00430, 10-count carton, UPC 59162 00720, 5-count carton, UPC 58030 00841, 4-count carton, UPC 57777 00448 Best By Dates between 3/4/2019 – 9/11/2019 and on 10/11/2019 only
Coconut Chocolate, single bar, UPC 57777 00421, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00428, 5-count carton, UPC 58030 00844, 4-count carton, UPC 57777 00491 Best By Dates between 3/1/2019 – 10/13/2019
Coffee Chocolate, single bar, UPC 57777 00422, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00429, Best By Dates between 4/13/2019 – 8/15/2019
Mango Pineapple, single bar, UPC 57777 00494, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00495, 4-count carton, UPC 59162 00718, Best By Dates between 2/16/2019 – 10/19/2019
Maple Sea Salt, single bar, UPC 57777 00441, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00440, 4-count carton, UPC 57777 00454 Best By Dates between 3/2/2019 – 5/23/2019, 7/18/2019 – 7/19/2019 and 9/9/2019 – 9/10/2019
Mint Chocolate, single bar, UPC 57777 00433, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00434, 4-count carton, UPC 57777 00449 Best By Dates between 3/2/2019 – 4/18/2019 and 7/26/2019 – 8/9/2019
Mixed Berry, single bar, UPC 57777 00467, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00470, 4-count carton, UPC 59162 00700 Best By Dates between 3/14/2019 – 5/6/2019 and 7/10/2019 – 8/30/2019
KIDS Apple Cinnamon Raisin, single bar, UPC 57777 00477, 16-count carton, UPC 57777 00479, 5-count carton, UPC 57777 00453 Best By Dates between 3/3/2019 – 4/16/2019 and 7/12/2019 only
KIDS Berry Blast, single bar, UPC 57777 00475, 16-count carton, UPC 57777 00478, 5-count carton, UPC 57777 00451 Best By Dates between 3/14/2019 – 4/26/2019 and 6/6/2019 – 8/5/2019
KIDS Chocolate Chip, single bar, UPC 57777 00476, 16-count carton, UPC 57777 00480, 5-count carton, UPC 57777 00452, Best By Dates between 3/15/2019 – 4/14/2019 and 7/17/2019 – 9/21/2019
Pumpkin Spice, single bar, UPC 57777 00418, 12-count carton, UPC 57777 00425, 4-count carton, UPC 59162 00719 Best By Dates between 5/9/2019 – 7/11/2019
10-Bar Variety Pack (Blueberry, Chocolate Sea Salt, Coconut Chocolate, Peanut Butter Chocolate), UPC 59162 00725, Best By Dates between 1/14/2019 – 10/16/2019
12-Bar Variety Pack (Chocolate Sea Salt, Peanut Butter Chocolate), UPC 57777 00481Best By Dates between 1/14/2019 – 6/10/2019
12-Bar Variety Pack (Blueberry, Chocolate Sea Salt, Mixed Berry, Peanut Butter, Peanut Butter Chocolate), UPC 57777 00435, See Best By Date on individual bars as noted in other 12-bar pack
14-Bar Variety Pack (Chocolate Chip and Chocolate Sea Salt), UPC 58030 00821, Best By Dates between 9/20/2019 – 10/1/2019
16-Bar Variety Pack (Chocolate Sea Salt, Peanut Butter Chocolate), UPC 59162 00784, Best By Dates between 7/18/2019 – 9/7/2019
RXBAR said the following bars are not included in the recall:
