Glyphosate-free label unveiled in U.S.

Food label claims have become about as rare as air molecules. Seemingly, every food item in the grocery store is either free range, free run, humanely raised, organic, GMO-free and of course, gluten-free.

But a label officially launched in March and now on the market might generate more controversy than any of the previous claims.

Yesterday, Leaf & Love Lemonade, made by a California company, became the first product in America to be certified as “Glyphosate Residue Free.”

Leaf & Love Lemonade announced the new label claim in a YouTube video.

The Detox Project, a research and certification program that campaigns against glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, is behind the Glyphosate Residue Free label.

It unveiled the labelling program March 19 as a way for consumers to avoid residues of the most popular herbicide in the world.

ADVERTISMENT

“Glyphosate Residue Free certification enables food manufacturers to give consumers what they really want – glyphosate residue free food,” said Henry Rowlands, Detox Project director. “Consumers have the right to know what toxic chemicals are in the food they buy at grocery stores across the U.S.”

The verified products may not be completely free of glyphosate. Residues must be .1 to 20 parts per billion, depending on the food.

The Detox Project, on its website, says that glyphosate can have toxic effects on humans, such as causing cancer, birth defects, damage to DNA and disruption of hormonal systems.

Many toxicologists and almost all regulatory agencies have rejected such claims. The European Food Safety Authority, the United Nations’ World Health Organization, Health Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other national bodies have studied the risk and said the herbicide doesn’t cause cancer or other health problems.

In mid-March, yet another group of scientists, the European Chemicals Agency, said direct contact can cause eye damage and chronic exposure poses a risk to aquatic life. However, glyphosate isn’t carcinogenic to humans.

“The available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria … to classify glyphosate for specific target organ toxicity, or as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or for reproductive toxicity.”

ADVERTISMENT

Amy Dibianca, co-founder of Leaf & Love Lemonade, told SustainablePulse.com that she signed up for the labelling program because she wants to sell a safe product.

“Having the peace of mind that our product is free of a potentially dangerous pesticide residue is just as important as knowing the ingredients are organic and natural.”

Dibianca’s decision to adopt the label could generate media attention because she is a celebrity.

She has appeared in dozens of TV shows, usually in an episode or two, on series like Desperate Housewives, The West Wing, NCIS, Code Black and CSI.

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

ADVERTISMENT

  • richard

    two billion, seven hundred and fifty million pounds of glyphosate will be unleashed on the biosphere in 2017 (WHO FAO)……Is anyone really surprised it has come to this? An entire sector of the economy addicted to one ingredient, drunk on its own excess and left wondering why the public might be concerned……Are we living on the planet of the apes?

    • Stephen Daniels

      So replacing that millions of pounds of glysophate with billions of gallons of fossil fuel and tillage will make you happy?…

      • richard

        No, what will make me happy is a drink of the new glyphosate free beverage….. the kool aid for those who don’t wanna drink the “kool aid”……….???

        • Happy Farmer

          Did you read the article? In clearly stated the beverage is NOT glyphosate free. Only its label says it is. So now who is lying to the consumer?

          • Harold

            A label showing a standard is hardly lying to the consumer.
            The label deceives no one. The Company clearly shows the maximum allowable limit that earns that title. Those who want zero will not buy it and they will have lied to no one. I don’t understand what you think lying is. The products that have glyphosate levels much higher and do not have the ingredient mentioned at all; are they lying? Perhaps deceiving the consumer into the higher levels of Glyphosate content sounds softer and more acceptable. See no evil – speak no evil – hear no evil.

          • Happy Farmer

            Sorry Harold. I should have chosen my words better. I meant to say that the name of the product claims to say(at least to me) that it is free of glyphosate. If one choses to read the ingredient label it becomes clear that it is not FREE of glyphosate. I think a lot of people will simply read the name and conclude as I did that it is glyphosate free.

            IF a similar name is on a GMO item and the label then indicates something different, I suspect that we would here about that in length.

            It goes without saying, I don’t always understand you either. So, in the context of what you wrote to me, what does your last sentence mean?

          • Harold

            Bread is labeled Organic in bold across the bag but if you look at the fine print it may be only 87% organic ingredients. This is common. The fact that I know this means the company has not lied. Government regulations allow this practice and it is in a false sense of security in government that be blindly accept the title and ignore the details. .You change government and you change the practice. This is where the Peoples voices and action matter and they rally. This is why the people go to court in these matters. Other’s with their dollar judge misleading labels and do not buy the product; I do this regularly. (87% stays on the shelf) You look for solutions not liars. Solutions look after the liar.

            The last sentence was from a past era of common sense and where illustrated there were three monkeys sitting together side by side. One monkey had hands over its own eyes, the next had hands over its own ears and the last monkey had its hands covering its own mouth. This represented see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The monkeys illustrated the character of those who ignore evil; you are nothing more to society than a monkey is. It simply means that you don’t want to see it, and you don’t want to hear about it, and you don’t want to talk about it; you’d rather swing in the trees. I made the reference to match a company that will not disclose an unwanted or unanticipated ingredient to the consumer; as then a consumer cannot see it, cannot hear of it, cannot speak of it, therefore we unwittingly become the three monkeys and to the benefit of the company or corporate profits. You only need to examine the government and corporations to discover how many times that they both have placed the public into the position of the three monkeys. We spend a lot of time “in the trees”. Thank you for asking me to clarify; clarification is what a conversation is all about; not agreement, agreement looks after itself.

        • Stephen Daniels

          So burn more fossil fuel you are saying you can’t have it both ways unless you and millions others are gonna get your hoes out and get to work.

          • richard

            Forty years no chem on my farm….no hoes, no chasing the joneses, no agribiz fantasy outcomes……..just intensive use of forage legumes and extensive rotations….. the very things that would relieve you of your cognitive dissonance and the need to defend feed the planet illusions…..

    • Stephen Daniels

      And if that millions of pounds of round up isn’t used billions of gallons of fossil fuel will be burned through tillage.So you lose either way so pick a poison already.

      • richard

        Perhaps you are referring to the fuel wasted by the ten passes of heavy equipment on a typical year growing zero till dreams……Or the energy wasted on building and servicing these machines…….And then of course the shiny new three hundred thousand high speed discs for five hundred horsepower tractors…. used by whom? You got it…..zero till ??? sorry……I’ll stick to three passes of tillage and actually making money……You drink the kool aid.

        • Stephen Daniels

          Stats today stated 40 percent less fuel expended to grow a tonne of wheat then 30 years ago.And all you stated was machinery is larger nowadays that has 0 to do with 0 till so your logic is flawed.

          • richard

            …..and 400 percent more chemical and 4000 percent more rolling stock……sorry only in the rarefied world of agribiz mythology can we ignore externalities……It costs a dollar an acre to summerfallow….nozzleheads cant match that sorry but nice try…..

          • Happy Farmer

            Summerfallow for a dollar/acre? Fuel alone will be more than $1.

          • Harold

            How do you know that burning fossil fuel is bad? What is it personally that you wish to prevent?

          • Stephen Daniels

            Ask Al Gore.

          • Harold

            Seriously? I’ve done more than that. I have examined what Al Gore has said in the onset and none of his predictions have been true. (Al Gore didn’t appear just yesterday) Al Gore has been debunked. I also know that he has been made quite wealthy since he first made the claim. (Investments in his own hype) I didn’t ask you what Al Gore knew but now I understand where you get your information from; a Politician. My second question was: What is it personally that you wish to prevent? Be the elected one.

        • Happy Farmer

          Ten passes, a high exaggeration by what I do and see around me. Less maintenance and longer lasting machinery with zero-till(personal experience here). Checked out high speed disc prices here, nothing close to your number. AND on my farm minimum 40% less fuel use with zero-till.

  • Denise

    This is wonderful news! As more labelling takes place, knowledgeable people will be able to choose a life free of gastrointestinal pain and discomfort plus avoid other diseases brought about from the effects of glyphosate- residue in their food. It takes the guess work out of shopping when you see the label “Glyphosate Residue Free”.
    And this is just the beginning.

  • Bethany R.

    How can the author exclude recent facts like that the WHO’s IARC did find glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen and that the EPA’s Jeff Rowland has been accused of intimidating staff to cover up studies showing as such. Also excluded is that California now is listing it as a carcinogen: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/glyphosate-be-listed-under-proposition-65-known-state-cause-cancer#_ftn5

  • alex

    Buy organic as it’s pesticide free derp

    • Harold

      Thanks for your advise but I can assure you that your advice was not necessary. I am not lacking in personal directions.