Category Archives: Top Topic

NJGIC Golf Classic 2019

AT THE HISTORIC BANKS COURSE — FORSGATE COUNTRY CLUB

Forsgate Country Club Historic Banks Course

Join us on Thursday, October 3, 2019

The Banks Course is consistently ranked by Golf Digest as “Best in State” for New Jersey.  It is regarded as an architectural gem, the “traditional” design of the Banks Course features many holes inspired by some of the legendary Scottish courses, as well as Bank’s signature steep and dramatic greenside bunkers. The course is consistently ranked by Golf Digest as “Best in State” for New Jersey.

Players limited to the first 100 golfers.

Sponsorship Opportunities Available!

Scramble Format

Awards for 1st & 2nd Scramble Teams

Contests:

  • $10,000 Putt Off
  • $10,000 Hole-in-One
  • Longest Drive
  • Closest to the Pin…and more

Breakfast and Lunch Reception

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS & SIGNUP

How Do You Assess if a Chemical Causes Cancer?

It’s been revealed that International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) scientists had removed findings from studies that concluded glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic before publishing their final report claiming that it is a likely carcinogen.  Years of testing glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, has shown us that the chemical is not carcinogenic. Why can’t the public believe it?

Can anyone make sense of the debate over glyphosate, the active molecule in the most widely used herbicide in the world? According to a study by University of California–San Diego researchers published last year, urine samples from a group of 100 southern California residents showed that levels of glyphosate and its metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid have increased fifteenfold between 1993 and 2016.

Unsurprisingly, the publication of this research added considerable fuel to the regulatory fire sweeping Brussels and Washington alike over the use of the chemical, even though the study is limited in scope and has no bearing on the weed killer’s health effects. On Nov. 27, the European Commission agreed to renew the molecule’s market reauthorization for five years, after serious opposition from member states. EU members still retain the right to ban the chemical domestically if they so wish. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology have opened an investigation into the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization that receives U.S. funding, because the agency stands accused of editing its findings to support a 2015 decision that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.

Several things are going on here that are worth untangling. At the heart of the problem is the messy fact that when scientists and policymakers carelessly substitute risk for hazard, flawed conclusions are drawn.

We are generally bad at understanding risk. Determining the carcinogenicity of any foreign bodies that ends up in our ecosystems involves assessing degrees of uncertainty. Unlike with pharmaceutical trials, it is impossible to carry out a randomized clinical trial with glyphosate or any other weed killer.

It goes without saying that weed killers should be toxic to their intended target and benign to humans. Animal studies can be a tool for gauging a biocide’s carcinogenic potential, but they can only provide hazard signals, as multiple studies have shown that simply extrapolating research conducted on rodents to humans rarely produces accurate results. Animal testing therefore has limited value in determining carcinogenicity, because it does not necessarily allow researchers to draw conclusions of causation between a given substance and the occurrence of cancer in test animals, let alone in humans.

Differentiating between absolute risk in the lab and true risk for human health is essential.

This is an important factor to consider with regards to the glyphosate debate. When IARC announced in June 2015 that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” to humans, Kate Guyton, a toxicologist and lead author of the IARC monograph, stated that “because the evidence in laboratory animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, this places [glyphosate] in Group 2A [of probable carcinogens].” It was later revealed that IARC scientists had removed findings from studies that concluded glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic before publishing the final version. The edits were made in the monograph’s chapter on animal studies, which crucially informed IARC’s assessment that glyphosate causes cancer.

The debate sparked by IARC’s evaluation highlights why human studies are so essential. Indeed, one key study—whose initial findings were not included in IARC’s literature review due to their internal prohibition on considering unpublished data—is the Agricultural Health Study, a long-term observational analysis of the health effects of herbicides on 89,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina. Running since 1993, the AHS has consistently failed to find that glyphosate use is linked with increased risk of cancer. Parts of the study, whose failure to find any evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity was already well-known among IARC staff, were finally published earlier in November.

These findings have been backed up by other studies as well.
Last year, the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization presented a joint review report on pesticide residue in indirectly exposed persons, including farming and production workers’ families, as well as consumers. The report did not find any evidence of increased risk of cancer from glyphosate exposure. Instead, after having examined the epidemiological evidence of occupational exposures, the report concluded, “Glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans by food intake.”

 

Glyphosate risk, and What “Probably Causes Cancer” Means – Video

Get a better understanding of what the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) term “probably causes cancer” really means and how it relates in practical terms to products we use in our everyday lives.

Bayer Responds to Recent Glyphosate Judgement

Dear Industry Partners,

I’m connecting again with an important update on the litigation concerning our glyphosate-based products, and with some important resources to ensure you are able to share the most up-to-date information.

Update on Ongoing Trial

A California jury has ruled against Bayer and in favor of the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, in the latest glyphosate trial. The jury of citizens determined that Monsanto is liable for the plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancer and has awarded the plaintiff damages.

We are disappointed with the jury decision and will appeal the verdict, which is in stark contrast to the conclusion of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which re-stated recently its classification of glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” the agency’s most favorable classification. The EPA conclusion is consistent with the determinations of leading global health regulators over more than 40 years.

Bayer will challenge the verdict and damages on appeal. It is important in product liability litigation like this to assess these cases over the long term, as there will be a number of trials and verdicts, as well as appeals to be decided before verdicts become final. This process will take some years before we reach a clear outcome for the litigation, which we are confident will be driven by the extensive body of science that supports the safety of these products.

What You Can Do: Resources

In light of the jury’s decision and an expected increase in media attention, we wanted to provide some resources to help ensure that the conversation surrounding the trial is based on sound science:

These resources speak to the safety and/or importance of Roundup, and we encourage you to use them in whatever ways are most useful to you and your stakeholders.

As ever, we appreciate your time and energy. Please let us know if you have any questions or feedback.

 

Kimberly OBrien
Director, Government Affairs
Bayer U.S. LLC – Crop Science
Tel:          +1 617.608.7288
E-mail:     kimberly.obrien@bayer.com
Web:       http://www.bayer.com

The New Jersey Green Industry Council Scholarship Program

2019 Edward A. Platz Memorial ScholarshipThe ProgramThe New Jersey Green Industry Council (NJGIC) is continuing the scholarship program initiated by the New Jersey Agribusiness Association in memory of Edward A. Platz. This program promotes the tri-state area’s Agriculture and Green Industry students and assists them with their education.Edward A. Platz is the founder of Plant Food Company, Inc. (originated under a different name) in 1946. He was very involved in the Turfgrass and Agriculture Industry, starting the first Liquid Fertilizer Formulation Company in the state. Mr. Platz passed in 1977.

To download the scholarship application, please Click Here

EligibilityApplicants to the New Jersey Green Industry Council Scholarship Program must be…

  • Enrolled at any accredited 4-year college or university in the United States when receiving the scholarship
  • Possess an academic rank of sophomore, junior, or senior at that time
  • Applicant must be majoring in an Agriculture or Green Industry subject area (i.e. Plant Science, Animal Science, Agronomy, Entomology, Ornamental Horticulture, Golf Management, Nursery, etc., or related field
  • New Jersey resident
  • Demonstrate an intention of pursuing a career in production, agriculture, or the Green Industry

AwardsThe NJGIC will award two (2) $1500.00 scholarships in memory of Edward E. Platz. Payment will be made in August of 2019. Recipients are encouraged to receive their awards in person at the regular meeting of the NJGIC Board of Directors held on the campus of Rutgers University. Attendance is not a considering factor in determining the scholarship awardees.Procedures and DeadlinesApplicants must submit the following…

  • Completed application
  • Official copy of transcripts from all colleges attended
  • Two (2) letters of recommendation with at least one academic letter. Letters of recommendation are to be sent directly to the Executive Director of NJGIC.
  • A 1-2-page typed essay stating current education and career goals
  • A one-paragraph answer to the following question…

What has been your most important extra-curricular activity, your most important contribution to it, and what has your participation in it meant to you as an individual?

  • All information must be postmarked no later than June 26, 2019.

Selection of RecipientsScholarship recipients are selected on the basis of academic record, potential to succeed, leadership and participation in school, community, and personal activities, honors, statement of education and career goals, and an outside appraisal.Final selection of recipients is made by the NJGIC Board of Directors. All applicants will be notified of the selection by July 26, 2019.

To download the scholarship application, please Click Here

RevisionsNJGIC Board of Directors reserves the right to review the conditions and procedures of the Scholarship Program and make appropriate changes at any time.

Additional Information

Buddy Freund
NJGIC Executive Director
PO Box 166
Succasunna, NJ 07876

buddy@govisionstrong.com

609-403-0906
973-557-8674

Trump Administration Nears Release of New Overtime Proposal

The Wall Street Journal
By Eric Morath
Jan.10, 2019

WASHINGTON—The Labor Department sent its proposed overtime rule to the White House for review, which could allow the regulation determining how many Americans are entitled to extra pay when working more than 40 hours to be finished by late this year. The department has sent the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an arm of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, two administration officials said. That is typically a sign the regulation is close to a public unveiling.

Businesses and labor groups are carefully following developments on the rule because, depending the details, it could make millions more Americans eligible for extra pay. That potentially puts more money in workers’ pockets, but raises costs for businesses.

The Labor Department hasn’t released specifics on its proposal.

Many businesses pay overtime to hourly workers but often exempt managers and other salaried employees from additional pay when they work more than 40 hours a week. But the Labor Department sets a salary threshold, below which, in most cases, a worker must be paid time-and-half regardless of their role in the firm.

In testimony to Congress, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta has said he was in favor of lifting the annual salary threshold from the $23,660 level set in 2004. The Labor Department, in its July 2017 request for public input on the regulation, asked whether updating the 2004 salary level for inflation would be an appropriate basis for setting the standard salary level. If that were to occur, the new annual threshold would be about $32,000.

In the final year of President Obama’s administration, the department completed a rule to raise the threshold salary to $47,476. That rule sought to adjust the level every three years. The department estimated in 2016 that the rule would have made 4.2 million more Americans eligible for overtime pay.

Many Republicans and business groups opposed the rule, and in December 2016 federal judge halted it from being implemented after states and businesses sued. That Texas judge later struck down the rule, and the Trump administration began working to rewrite it.

In its 2017 request for information, the Labor Department raised concerns that an increased salary threshold could have adverse effects on parts of the country where people earn less. It asked whether salary levels should be set by geographic region, metro areas and employer size. That raised the possibility the department would propose a menu of standards rather than a single national level.

The questions around inflation were interpreted by observers as opening the door to indexing thresholds to price changes—something that wasn’t done when the rule was last reset, during the George W. Bush administration.

Mr. Acosta has signaled sympathy to increasing the level with the cost of living.

“I think it’s unfortunate that rules involving dollar values can go more than a decade without adjusting,” he said in testimony to Congress in 2017. “Life does get more expensive.”

Sending the proposal to the White House this month could put the administration on schedule to finalize the rule late this year, said Heidi Shierholz, the former chief economist at the Labor Department. She was involved in crafting the prior administration’s policy.

However, she said, it’s likely the new rule could be challenged in court, potentially delaying any implementation.

Another wrinkle: The regulatory affairs office receiving the department’s proposal is affected by the partial government shutdown, so it’s unclear how quickly personnel there can begin working on the rule.

Honeybee Population Isn’t ‘Crashing’

Here’s Why

In recent years, articles on honeybees have often started with a sentence like this: “Populations of honeybees have crashed in recent years, and many researchers have pointed the blame at a class of widely used insecticides called neonicotinoids.”

In fact, that’s how an otherwise excellent article in The Scientist summarizing a recent USDA study on honeybees’ molecular responses to neonicotinoids began. The narrative that honeybees, which are not originally native to North America, face mortal danger––has been advanced by environmental groups for years and echoed in the media, in casual blogs and the mainstream science sites alike. This twist on the news is so pervasive that it’s often accepted without question: bee populations are rapidly declining as a result of pesticide use, particularly the use of neonics, and the crucial pollinators could be edging towards extinction, plunging our entire food system into chaos.

  • “Declining honeybee population could spell trouble for some crops,” blared a headline on Fox News last year.
  • “Death and Extinction of the Bees,” was the banner claim on the activist Centre for Research on Globalization.
  • “Honey Bees in a Struggle for Survival,” claimed a guest columnist writing earlier this month for a Tennessee newspaper.

The only problem is that it isn’t true.

Myth of Honeybee decline

Honeybee populations haven’t “crashed” in the United States or elsewhere. Honeybees are not going “extinct.” Crops are not “in trouble.”

To read the full articles, Click Here

 

 

FDA Finds No Glyphosate Residue in Food

FDA testing of glyphosate residues in food found no detectable amounts of the herbicide in over half of commodities tested and minimal amounts in corn and soybean samples, the agency said today.

Those results were included in the FDA’s 2016 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, which tested for 711 pesticides across 7,413 samples. The annual survey found that more than 99 percent of domestic and 90 percent of imported food samples were in compliance with federal pesticide standards, which the agency said “were consistent with previous years’ findings.”

“The findings in this report demonstrate that overall levels of pesticide chemical residues measured by the FDA are below EPA’s tolerances, and therefore at levels that are not concerning for public health,” the agency said in a news release.

The study marked the first time glyphosate and glufosinate were tested by the FDA. Researchers examined the presence of the chemical in corn, soybeans, milk and eggs. The agency discovered that more than 53 percent of samples had no detectable pesticide residues, and all the residues found in the corn and soybean samples were below the tolerance levels set by EPA. No amounts of glyphosate or glufosinate were found in milk or eggs.

Glyphosate, a chemical herbicide found in the popular weedkiller Roundup, has received heightened public scrutiny from some advocacy groups after the World Health Organization’s cancer research institute issued a finding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA and other international regulatory bodies, however, contend that the chemical is safe for human use.

EPA’s conclusions vary from a controversial report from the Environmental Working Group that revealed glyphosate residue on popular foods such as cereal and granola bars, but the threshold for detecting pesticides was much lower than the standard employed by EPA. EWG followed up with the report by asking EPA to reduce the tolerance level for glyphosate in oats.

Article by Politicopro.com

Importance of Glyphosate to Soil Health – One Farmer’s Mission

“They wanted to cart me off to the funny farm.”

Andrew Ward, a farmer in Lincolnshire, England made a surprising decision back in 2002. He adopted a practice known as conservation tillage. This meant no more breaking up the soil or disturbing underground microbial life to remove weeds. Instead, he would allow organic matter left after the harvest to provide a protective layer for the soil. His fellow farmers looked on with skepticism—to this day, cultivation remains a traditional practice for controlling weeds. Andrew on the other hand, saw limitations in tillage.

THE OPTICAL ILLUSION OF TILLAGE

In Andrew’s view, the process of tilling fields to control weeds is visually misleading. On the surface, you see a nicely manicured field with rows of soil ready for planting. But what is happening underneath is another matter.

Every soil disturbance can elicit an array of consequences: carbon stored in the soil is released into the atmosphere, local insects and microbial life are affected, the soil loses moisture and seedlings of weeds can spread, which only compounds the weed problem. Nearly two decades ago, Andrew was ready to test a less invasive approach.

To read the full article by Modernag.org/soil-health, Click Here

Trump admin appeals ruling ordering EPA to ban chlorpyrifos

The Trump administration is appealing a federal court ruling ordering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos.

Justice Department attorneys said that the San Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit violated both Supreme Court precedent and the underlying law when it ruled that former EPA head Scott Pruitt improperly rejected a petition in 2017 to ban a pesticide that has been linked to developmental and neurological disorders.

The administration is asking the full 22-judge court to rehear the case and overturn the ruling that came from a three-judge panel.

The August ruling was a major victory for environmentalists and food safety advocates, who have been pushing for years for the EPA to crack down on chlorpyrifos. The Obama administration proposed banning use of it on food products, but Pruitt reversed course.

While it was one of a growing list of environmental policy court losses for the Trump administration, the Ninth Circuit’s decision was nonetheless aggressive in ordering EPA to completely ban the substance.

Instead of ordering the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos, the court should have overturned the EPA’s decision and sent it back for reconsideration, attorneys said in their Monday filing.

Further, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the court’s finding that there is no safe level of exposure to chlorpyrifos via food should not have necessitated that the EPA ban the substance, attorneys said.

“The important thing here is that courts are not supposed to operate this way,” EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said in a statement.

“This opinion nullifies the FIFRA process, violating a congressionally mandated statute. EPA takes science and health issues very seriously, but we must work within the legal process established by Congress.”

The ruling “conflicts with Supreme Court precedent holding that where an agency’s order is not sustainable on the record, a court should vacate the underlying decision and remand for further consideration by the agency, rather than directing specific action.”

Further, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the court’s finding that there is no safe level of exposure to chlorpyrifos via food should not have necessitated that the EPA ban the substance, attorneys said.

Attorneys also argued that the Ninth Circuit did not have the authority to rule in the case, and that it should have gone to a lower district court first.

Dozens of agriculture groups and companies sent letters to the EPA asking it to appeal, saying a chlorpyrifos ban would be detrimental to growing crops including cotton, soybeans and sugarbeets.

If the Ninth Circuit either rejects the Monday request for a full-court rehearing — known as “en banc” — or the full court agrees with the previous ruling, the Trump administration could appeal to the Supreme Court.

—Updated at 7:30 p.m.

This article was written by: BY TIMOTHY CAMA – 09/24/18 06:03 PM EDT

It was posted on  “The Hill” website, Click Here