What makes chemical hazards potentially matters of justice?
Image courtesy of mysafetysign.com (click image for link)
Exposure to dangerous chemicals and toxic materials is a pervasive fact of modern life. There are familiar public policy issues: many well-known and not so well-known health risks, environmental degradation, and potentially significant economic benefits and burdens for current as well as future generations. What, then, makes these public policy issues matters of justice? Several points may be relevant.
- health risks and adverse economic consequences may be imposed upon others without without consent, without proper disclosure of known risks, or without due diligence in establishing hazards and their potential magnitude and probability of harm
- on the domestic front, manufacturing and disposal facilities posing large health and environmental hazards may be sited disproportionately in low-income and minority population centers, adding still further to systematic disadvantage these communities already experience
- on a global scale, hazardous wastes may be "dumped" in, or hazardous products sold to, and dangerous factories sited in developing nations, especially in the poorest regions, thus disproportionately affecting the long-term health and other life prospects of vulnerable children
Global Environment Outlook-5 Report (UNEP)
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) recently released the GEO-5 report as one of the most comprehensive scientific assessments of contemporary trends in climate change, chemical and waste treatment, and water, land, and natural resource management. Viewed as a preliminary measure for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (better known as the Rio+20 Conference) that took place two weeks later, the report serves as a literal report card for global progress towards 90 of the UN's most important environmental objectives. The results are discouraging, if not shocking - "significant progress" has been made only with respect to eliminating ozone-depleting substances, eliminating lead from gasoline, increasing research related to marine pollution, and, to a lesser extent, increasing equitable access to better quality water.
For more information on the report and its findings, please see the corresponding UNEP website.
For more information on the report and its findings, please see the corresponding UNEP website.
The Primary Sources of Deterioration in Water Quality
Poisoned Waters, A PBS Frontline special report examines a host of issues of ground water quality and availability using the Puget Sound and the Chesapeake bay as cases studies.
The film documents the biological transformation of these two major estuaries by the increased concentration and effects of chemicals such as estrogen from birth control pills, commonly prescribed anti-depressants, rocket fuel, and especially, the large volume of agricultural pollution that includes animal waste, fertilizers, endocrine disrupting animal growth hormones, and antibiotics.
Topics related to loss of groundwater availability include the role of hardscape in excess urban water run-off, the stress on water resources created by suburbanization, the significance of deforestation in regional watershed destruction. While the two case studies are in the US, the problem is a global one, and in some nations far more extreme than in others. For example, many of the world's most industrially polluted rivers are in rapidly developing nations such as China. While it is somewhat difficult to say just what counts as the most polluted rivers and lakes, given the diversity of toxic substances and their harmful effects, there are many useful lists such this one with photos and brief descriptions attached.
The film can be seen online, along with useful supplemental materials at the PBS Frontline website.
The film documents the biological transformation of these two major estuaries by the increased concentration and effects of chemicals such as estrogen from birth control pills, commonly prescribed anti-depressants, rocket fuel, and especially, the large volume of agricultural pollution that includes animal waste, fertilizers, endocrine disrupting animal growth hormones, and antibiotics.
Topics related to loss of groundwater availability include the role of hardscape in excess urban water run-off, the stress on water resources created by suburbanization, the significance of deforestation in regional watershed destruction. While the two case studies are in the US, the problem is a global one, and in some nations far more extreme than in others. For example, many of the world's most industrially polluted rivers are in rapidly developing nations such as China. While it is somewhat difficult to say just what counts as the most polluted rivers and lakes, given the diversity of toxic substances and their harmful effects, there are many useful lists such this one with photos and brief descriptions attached.
The film can be seen online, along with useful supplemental materials at the PBS Frontline website.
Global Dumping of Hazardous Wastes and Sale of Banned Products
click image for link
The problem is huge. The developed North has treated the global South as a global dumping ground. everything from e-waste disposal to the sale of some of the most dangerous chemical substances not sold in developing countries has become part of the global norm of conduct for multi-national corporations. For many in the developed world, this problem is "out of sight, out of mind."
One of the publisher's promotion blurbs for David Naguib Pellow's book is admirably clear in describing some of the key points that everyone interested in the global distribution of the benefits and burdens of modern industrial society needs to know:
"Every year, nations and corporations in the "global North" produce millions of tons of toxic waste. Too often this hazardous material--linked to high rates of illness and death and widespread ecosystem damage--is exported to poor communities of color around the world. In Resisting Global Toxics, David Naguib Pellow examines this practice and charts the emergence of transnational environmental justice movements to challenge and reverse it. Pellow argues that waste dumping across national boundaries from rich to poor communities is a form of transnational environmental inequality that reflects North/South divisions in a globalized world, and that it must be theorized in the context of race, class, nation, and environment. Building on environmental justice studies, environmental sociology, social movement theory, and race theory, and drawing on his own research, interviews, and participant observations, Pellow investigates the phenomenon of global environmental inequality and considers the work of activists, organizations, and networks resisting it. He traces the transnational waste trade from its beginnings in the 1980s to the present day, examining global garbage dumping, the toxic pesticides that are the legacy of the Green Revolution in agriculture, and today's scourge of dumping and remanufacturing high tech and electronics products."
Among the chapters are discussions of the problems of electronic wastes in specific countries and the policies of various multinational corporations, case studies of the export and sale of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as pesticides banned in developed countries, and chapter 3's short but wonderfully illuminating survey of some of the major activist movements and the increasingly global networking of these movements.
One of the publisher's promotion blurbs for David Naguib Pellow's book is admirably clear in describing some of the key points that everyone interested in the global distribution of the benefits and burdens of modern industrial society needs to know:
"Every year, nations and corporations in the "global North" produce millions of tons of toxic waste. Too often this hazardous material--linked to high rates of illness and death and widespread ecosystem damage--is exported to poor communities of color around the world. In Resisting Global Toxics, David Naguib Pellow examines this practice and charts the emergence of transnational environmental justice movements to challenge and reverse it. Pellow argues that waste dumping across national boundaries from rich to poor communities is a form of transnational environmental inequality that reflects North/South divisions in a globalized world, and that it must be theorized in the context of race, class, nation, and environment. Building on environmental justice studies, environmental sociology, social movement theory, and race theory, and drawing on his own research, interviews, and participant observations, Pellow investigates the phenomenon of global environmental inequality and considers the work of activists, organizations, and networks resisting it. He traces the transnational waste trade from its beginnings in the 1980s to the present day, examining global garbage dumping, the toxic pesticides that are the legacy of the Green Revolution in agriculture, and today's scourge of dumping and remanufacturing high tech and electronics products."
Among the chapters are discussions of the problems of electronic wastes in specific countries and the policies of various multinational corporations, case studies of the export and sale of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as pesticides banned in developed countries, and chapter 3's short but wonderfully illuminating survey of some of the major activist movements and the increasingly global networking of these movements.
The Toxicity of Extractive Industries
click image for link
The sale of hazardous products banned because of their adverse environmental and human health effects and the dumping of hazardous wastes from electronic equipment production are two cross-border environmental problems of justice that have become established norms of global commerce. And as always the defense is that it's perfectly legal in the host country. Two other problems, usually met with the same defensive response, are the toxic effects of traditional extractive industries such as mining and the new forms of extraction associated with foreign investment - the extraction of water for bottled water and other uses and the extraction of soil nutrients from large-scale, chemically intensive, soil depleting modes of agriculture.
The common denominator is that what is left behind when the raw materials run out is environmental degradation, chemical residue associated with extraction, and unsustainable local ecologies. Many of these problems are dealt with under the rubric of the resource curse, but not enough attention is always given to the strictly environmental side of the equation. Political corruption, personal enrichment of foreign investors and local elites, squandering of non-renewal resources, and failure to re-invest in infrastructure necessary to spread some of the economic benefits to future generations are among the central issues described in discussions of the resource curse. But there is a need for more attention to the environmental injustices associated with taking the resources away and leaving behind the toxic messes for locals to contend with on their own. The collection of essays edited by JoAnn Carmin and Julian Agyeman deals with these concerns and more. Most of the chapters are not only factually rich case studies but the narratives make clear the normative issues of distributive injustices in the distribution of the benefits and burdens of some of the most environmentally destructive forms of global commerce.
The common denominator is that what is left behind when the raw materials run out is environmental degradation, chemical residue associated with extraction, and unsustainable local ecologies. Many of these problems are dealt with under the rubric of the resource curse, but not enough attention is always given to the strictly environmental side of the equation. Political corruption, personal enrichment of foreign investors and local elites, squandering of non-renewal resources, and failure to re-invest in infrastructure necessary to spread some of the economic benefits to future generations are among the central issues described in discussions of the resource curse. But there is a need for more attention to the environmental injustices associated with taking the resources away and leaving behind the toxic messes for locals to contend with on their own. The collection of essays edited by JoAnn Carmin and Julian Agyeman deals with these concerns and more. Most of the chapters are not only factually rich case studies but the narratives make clear the normative issues of distributive injustices in the distribution of the benefits and burdens of some of the most environmentally destructive forms of global commerce.
Where Do Hazardous Lead Batteries from Developed Nations End Up? How big is the problem?
A New York Times story on the outsourcing of American toxic wastes to Mexico indicated the following: "An analysis of trade statistics by The New York Times shows that about 20 percent of spent American vehicle and industrial batteries are now exported to Mexico, up from 6 percent in 2007. About 20 million such batteries will cross the border this year, according to United States trade statistics, and that does not take into account batteries smuggled in as mislabeled metal scrap or second-hand goods." The significance lies not in the numbers alone but in the apparent reasons for the growing trend. The US Environmental Protection Agency imposes safety requirements on their disposal, which according to the Times story, are easily and cheaply evaded by sending the toxic batteries out of the country.
Mexico is not alone. India and other countries are major recipients of lead battery wastes shipped from developed nations. For more (and from which the image at the right is found) see worstpollluted.org's website. You can find on their website a Top Ten list of the world’s most dangerous pollution problems.
Mexico is not alone. India and other countries are major recipients of lead battery wastes shipped from developed nations. For more (and from which the image at the right is found) see worstpollluted.org's website. You can find on their website a Top Ten list of the world’s most dangerous pollution problems.
Frontline World: Ghana: Digital Dumpling Ground - see a vivid portrait of what e-waste dumping is about
Market Responses and Government Regulations
Image of South African disposal site from flowtv.org
A 2013 story by Ian Urbina in the New York Times reveals some of the inherent difficulties in dealing with the generation and disposal of e-wastes. The sheer volume of electronic waste is staggering, in large part because of the pace of technological development that makes equipment such as monitors and computers obsolete. Urbina notes that the US government alone disposes of 10,000 computers each week. Consider what such a volume of wastes means for the prospects for economically viable recycling industries. Urbina crystalizes the problem with this comment: "In 2004, recyclers were paid more than $200 a ton to provide glass from these monitors for use in new cathode ray tubes. The same companies now have to pay more than $200 a ton to get anyone to take the glass off their hands."
Even some companies that appear to be committed to recycling are engaged in a form of "greenwashing" - in this context, well-publicized programs for collecting e-waste that in reality stockpiles material that has no economic value or hands off the toxic material to companies that appear to be committed to responsible recycling standards, but who in turn hand off the wastes to subcontractors who are unaccountable for what becomes of what they receive.
For a detailed treatment of the global implications of the disposal of CRTs, see this discussion by Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller posted on flowtv.org.
Even some companies that appear to be committed to recycling are engaged in a form of "greenwashing" - in this context, well-publicized programs for collecting e-waste that in reality stockpiles material that has no economic value or hands off the toxic material to companies that appear to be committed to responsible recycling standards, but who in turn hand off the wastes to subcontractors who are unaccountable for what becomes of what they receive.
For a detailed treatment of the global implications of the disposal of CRTs, see this discussion by Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller posted on flowtv.org.
Who is Most Affected by Global Pollution?
click image for the report
The Top !0 most dangerous pollution problems was compiled by the Blacksmith Institute in collaboration with Green Cross Switzerland. The report names pollution as one of the leading contributing factors to death and disability in the world and highlights the disproportionate effects on the health of children, and The Top Ten list includes some of the most commonly discussed sources but in addition, it includes more commonly overlooked threats such as car battery recycling. The Blacksmith website describes the focus of its work as follows:
"Toxic pollution poses health risks to over 100 million people, particularly children, in low- and middle-income countries. This is a finite problem that can be solved in our lifetime. Blacksmith Institute works in some of the world's worst polluted places, sharing resources and expertise with local groups and agencies to solve pollution problems, clean up polluted sites, and save lives."
The most toxic form of pollution according to the report is lead. The report identifies over 500 sites polluted by lead, putting an estimated 16 million people at risk. The "top sources contributing to lead pollution, by population, are lead smelting, mining and ore processing, industrial estates and lead-acid battery recycling and manufacturing."
You can find on their website a list of the 10 most polluted places on Earth. The website contains quite a few reports and useful summaries, including a summary of pollution's worst effects, especially on children.
"Toxic pollution poses health risks to over 100 million people, particularly children, in low- and middle-income countries. This is a finite problem that can be solved in our lifetime. Blacksmith Institute works in some of the world's worst polluted places, sharing resources and expertise with local groups and agencies to solve pollution problems, clean up polluted sites, and save lives."
The most toxic form of pollution according to the report is lead. The report identifies over 500 sites polluted by lead, putting an estimated 16 million people at risk. The "top sources contributing to lead pollution, by population, are lead smelting, mining and ore processing, industrial estates and lead-acid battery recycling and manufacturing."
You can find on their website a list of the 10 most polluted places on Earth. The website contains quite a few reports and useful summaries, including a summary of pollution's worst effects, especially on children.
Chemical Intensification in Developing Nations
The Global Chemicals Outlook released in September, 2012 by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) warns that "chemical intensification" in developing nations is associated with the achievement of development goals but that it also poses concerns about health and environmental risks that are not adequately monitored in most instances.
Chemical 'intensification' of economies "means that synthetic chemicals are fast becoming the largest constituents of waste streams and pollution around the world - thereby increasing the exposure of humans and habitats to chemical hazards."
Some of the main concerns in the report arise out of agricultural practices. The report estimates the annual costs of poisonings from pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa at USD $90 billion. Among the report's recommendations is the use of
integrated pest management (IPM), which involves using fewer chemicals, and introducing alternative methods such as crop rotation, providing conditions for natural enemies of pests and better pest monitoring.
Among the highlighted concerns the summary statement includes are the following points:
You can find online from the UNEP an extensive summary of the report issued as a press release.
Chemical 'intensification' of economies "means that synthetic chemicals are fast becoming the largest constituents of waste streams and pollution around the world - thereby increasing the exposure of humans and habitats to chemical hazards."
Some of the main concerns in the report arise out of agricultural practices. The report estimates the annual costs of poisonings from pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa at USD $90 billion. Among the report's recommendations is the use of
integrated pest management (IPM), which involves using fewer chemicals, and introducing alternative methods such as crop rotation, providing conditions for natural enemies of pests and better pest monitoring.
Among the highlighted concerns the summary statement includes are the following points:
- Of the estimated 140,000+ chemicals on the market today, only a fraction has been thoroughly evaluated to determine their effects on human health and the environment.
- Among primarily OECD countries, the data indicate that inorganic chemicals such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid and organic chemicals such as styrene, formaldehyde, toluene and acetaldehyde are routinely among the air pollutants released in the highest quantities.
- Pollutants commonly discharged in large quantities in primarily OECD countries to surface waters include inorganic chemicals such as nitric acid/nitrate compounds, ammonia and manganese and organic chemicals such as methanol, ethylene glycol, phenol, toluene, and formaldehyde.
- Estimates suggest that up to 75 per cent of the e-waste generated in Europe and approximately 80 per cent of the e-waste generated in the United States goes unaccounted for.
- Poisonings from industrial and agricultural chemicals are among the top five leading causes of death worldwide, contributing to over 1 million deaths annually and 14 million Disability Adjusted Life Years. The scope of unintended industrial accidents involving chemicals continues to grow rapidly.
You can find online from the UNEP an extensive summary of the report issued as a press release.
The World's Worst Air Pollution
click image for larger view
A World Health Organization (WHO) 2011 report ranks outdoor air quality in 1100 cities in 91 countries. Air quality is measured by calculating the annual mean concentration of fine particulate matter (PM10, i.e. particles smaller than 10 microns; PM2.5, smaller than 2.5 microns). The primary sources of data relied upon by WHO include "publicly available national/subnational reports and web sites, regional networks." The purpose of the database is to provide representative data regarding human exposure in various parts of the world.
PM10 levels above 20 micrograms per cubic meter can cause health risks. The ten most polluted countries have PM10 levels from six times to 14 times that level. They are: Mongolia; Botswana; Pakistan; Senegal; Saudi Arabia; Egypt, United Arab Emirates; Iran, Nigeria; and Kuwait.
There are a couple of interesting patterns that emerge from the data. First, most of the countries in the list of most polluted are rapidly developing nations having few environmental controls. Second, there is a strong correlation between air pollution particulate matter and extractive industries such as oil and other mining operations.
The chart above shows the regional data. The abbreviations are as follows: Afr: Sub-Saharan Africa; Amr: Americas; Emr: Eastern Mediterranean; Eur: Europe; Sear: South-East Asia; Wpr: Western Pacific; HI: High income; LMI: Low and middle income.
PM10 levels above 20 micrograms per cubic meter can cause health risks. The ten most polluted countries have PM10 levels from six times to 14 times that level. They are: Mongolia; Botswana; Pakistan; Senegal; Saudi Arabia; Egypt, United Arab Emirates; Iran, Nigeria; and Kuwait.
There are a couple of interesting patterns that emerge from the data. First, most of the countries in the list of most polluted are rapidly developing nations having few environmental controls. Second, there is a strong correlation between air pollution particulate matter and extractive industries such as oil and other mining operations.
The chart above shows the regional data. The abbreviations are as follows: Afr: Sub-Saharan Africa; Amr: Americas; Emr: Eastern Mediterranean; Eur: Europe; Sear: South-East Asia; Wpr: Western Pacific; HI: High income; LMI: Low and middle income.
Mercury and other Air Toxics
Source: EPA.gov
For more than 20 years since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments passed there were no federal standards requiring power plants to limit their emissions of toxic air pollutants. Only in 2012 did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalize its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which place limits on mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, and other toxic emissions. The rules set standards for all hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater.
While existing facilities generally have up to 4 years if they need it to comply with MATS, at least as stringent as the emission reductions achieved by the average of the top 12 percent best controlled sources. According to the National Resources Defense Council, by 2015 the regulations would reduce mercury pollution by 79% (from 34 tons to 7 tons), sulfur dioxide pollution by 63% (from 5,140,000 tons in 2010 to 1,900,000 tons), and hydrochloric acid by 95% (from 106,000 tons in 2010 to 5,500 tons).
Mercury damages the respiratory, gastrointestinal, haematological, immunological and reproductive systems, as well as the kidneys. Its perhaps best known health effect is its role as a neurotoxin affecting the central nervous system and the brain.
The coal industry has been pressuring the EPA to weaken regulations, and following legislative efforts to overturn the rules thus far have fallen short of a the necessary votes in the US Senate, the EPA has issued a letter explaining their decision to reconsider the current standards even before their full implementation. You can see from the EPA graphic above that elctrical power plants account for significant proportions of various common forms of air pollution.
While existing facilities generally have up to 4 years if they need it to comply with MATS, at least as stringent as the emission reductions achieved by the average of the top 12 percent best controlled sources. According to the National Resources Defense Council, by 2015 the regulations would reduce mercury pollution by 79% (from 34 tons to 7 tons), sulfur dioxide pollution by 63% (from 5,140,000 tons in 2010 to 1,900,000 tons), and hydrochloric acid by 95% (from 106,000 tons in 2010 to 5,500 tons).
Mercury damages the respiratory, gastrointestinal, haematological, immunological and reproductive systems, as well as the kidneys. Its perhaps best known health effect is its role as a neurotoxin affecting the central nervous system and the brain.
The coal industry has been pressuring the EPA to weaken regulations, and following legislative efforts to overturn the rules thus far have fallen short of a the necessary votes in the US Senate, the EPA has issued a letter explaining their decision to reconsider the current standards even before their full implementation. You can see from the EPA graphic above that elctrical power plants account for significant proportions of various common forms of air pollution.
Global Mercury Emissions Treaty
Click UNEP image for larger view
In January of 2013 more than 140 nations adopted the first legally binding international treaty aimed at reducing mercury emissions. The treaty set enforceable limits on mercury emissions and excluded or set in motion plans for phasing out or restricting some products that contain mercury. The treaty would affect emissions from coal burning facilities and mining operations for metals such as gold, and it would seek to limit mercury pollution from discarded electronic and other consumer products, including electronic switches and relays, fluorescent lamps, batteries, and even some soaps and cosmetics that presently contain mercury. The treaty to be formally signed in Japan in late 2013 will be known as the Minamata Convention on Mercury, but it will take 50 signatories before going into effect.
The chart above is from the United Nations Environmental Programme's (UNEP) 2013 estimate of 2010 emissions from each global region. Almost 40% of current mercury emissions for 2010 come from East and Southeast Asia. However, the chart would look quite different if we looked at cumulative emissions inasmuch most mercury emissions came from the developed world. Laws limiting mercury emissions in many developed countries have reduced their proportion of annual emissions, but similar laws have not been put into effect in most of the lesser developed nations.
The chart above is from the United Nations Environmental Programme's (UNEP) 2013 estimate of 2010 emissions from each global region. Almost 40% of current mercury emissions for 2010 come from East and Southeast Asia. However, the chart would look quite different if we looked at cumulative emissions inasmuch most mercury emissions came from the developed world. Laws limiting mercury emissions in many developed countries have reduced their proportion of annual emissions, but similar laws have not been put into effect in most of the lesser developed nations.
Congratulations, It's Certified as Organic
Organic farming involves the use of pesticides and fungicides classified as organic by the US government. See The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances published in the Code of Federal Regulations, PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Subpart G. The program was established as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. The question is whether these natural - as opposed to synthetic - chemicals pose significant inherent health risks, or whether the level of their usage poses risk in the form of excessive food residue. Skeptics note that " just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely wouldn’t want sprayed on your food."
There are three things in particular to note about this list.
First, it is important to know that all sorts of non-organic and synthetic additives are permitted. Just take a look for yourself what is permitted with the National Organic Program seal of approval. An example is sodium nitrate, a fertilizer that boosts plant growth but has a substantial detrimental effect on soil quality and leaches out of the soil, adding to water pollution of the sort that other fertilizers produce.
Second, among the primary lobbyists advocating the loosening the standards under the Program has been the Organic Trade Association. What's up with that, you ask? Well, organic food is increasingly owned by the world's largest food conglomerates. Some segments of the organics industry (e.g., Eden Foods) have been vocal in opposition to the lobbying by the very group that many consumers would expect to jealously guard the integrity of the organic label. Some of the best industry data is produced by Mintel.com, but you better have a very large wallet if you want one of their reports on organic food ownership and consumer market trends in the US, Europe or other countries.
Third, the US Department of Agriculture has a streamlined certification process that lets US-based organic food companies source their ingredients from anywhere in the world. In principle, that seems unproblematic inasmuch as the US standards mirror the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (the inter-governmental body that sets standards for all foods) standards which the World Trade Organization uses. They detail the minimum international guidelines for Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods, and there is an International Code of Practice: General Principles of Food Hygiene.
But regulatory controls of organic labeling practices are not substantially better in many parts of the world, and issues of enforcement of hygiene standards is often lax, especially when much of the enforcement is done by industry itself, as it is in the US. In addition, organic certification requires that farms adopt sustainable practices with regard to such things as water conservation, but critics note that many of these requirements are difficult to specify and enforce.
There are three things in particular to note about this list.
First, it is important to know that all sorts of non-organic and synthetic additives are permitted. Just take a look for yourself what is permitted with the National Organic Program seal of approval. An example is sodium nitrate, a fertilizer that boosts plant growth but has a substantial detrimental effect on soil quality and leaches out of the soil, adding to water pollution of the sort that other fertilizers produce.
Second, among the primary lobbyists advocating the loosening the standards under the Program has been the Organic Trade Association. What's up with that, you ask? Well, organic food is increasingly owned by the world's largest food conglomerates. Some segments of the organics industry (e.g., Eden Foods) have been vocal in opposition to the lobbying by the very group that many consumers would expect to jealously guard the integrity of the organic label. Some of the best industry data is produced by Mintel.com, but you better have a very large wallet if you want one of their reports on organic food ownership and consumer market trends in the US, Europe or other countries.
Third, the US Department of Agriculture has a streamlined certification process that lets US-based organic food companies source their ingredients from anywhere in the world. In principle, that seems unproblematic inasmuch as the US standards mirror the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (the inter-governmental body that sets standards for all foods) standards which the World Trade Organization uses. They detail the minimum international guidelines for Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods, and there is an International Code of Practice: General Principles of Food Hygiene.
But regulatory controls of organic labeling practices are not substantially better in many parts of the world, and issues of enforcement of hygiene standards is often lax, especially when much of the enforcement is done by industry itself, as it is in the US. In addition, organic certification requires that farms adopt sustainable practices with regard to such things as water conservation, but critics note that many of these requirements are difficult to specify and enforce.