ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Healthy Stuff search tool hits the mark
EWG testifies in Congress about cell phone radiation
Gorillas in the Bay: Time to Face Facts in the Chesapeake
What's going on with toxic chemicals in cosmetics?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
Chesapeake Bay residents are part of the solution
By Lisa Frack and Michelle Perez
Earlier this month, EWG released a report about the Chesapeake Bay water quality crisis. The report focuses on agriculture's heavy - if unintended - damage to the Bay, specifically the inability of the six Bay states (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, and New York) to cope with this agricultural pollution, over which the federal government has no jurisdiction.
While we know that farm runoff is the main cause of damage to the Bay (and we recommend how to reduce it in our report), runoff from cities and suburbs are a major part of the problem too - causing 11 percent of the nitrogen problem and a whopping 31 percent of the phosphorus problem.
So there's a healing role for the Bay watershed's residents to play, too.
What can Bay state residents do?
We agree with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recommendations, and highlight some key ones here:
Garden with your watershed in mind:
- Fertilize your lawn in the fall and skip the spring fertilizer. Heavy rains in the spring wash fertilizers off lawns into storm drains, then into local waterways and eventually the Bay.
- Use leftover grass clippings on lawn as a natural fertilizer. Compost excess grass clippings and leaves. Never allow them to wash into roadways where they will reach storm drains.
- Have your soil tested to determine how much fertilizer your lawn actually needs (if any at all) and the best time to apply it. Also, identifying your grass will help you understand how to properly care for it.
- Follow manufacturer guidelines and only apply the amount of fertilizer that you need. Twice the product will not make your lawn twice as green!
- Never apply fertilizer to dormant lawns or on frozen ground.
- Do not use fertilizer as a de-icer.
- Get involved in the planning and zoning process in your community. That's where the decisions are made that shape the course of development and the future quality of our environment.
Add green building features @ home:
- Position gutters and down spouts so they don't drain directly onto paved surfaces but do drain into vegetated or gravel- filled seepage areas. Splash blocks also help reduce erosion.
- Limit the amount of impenetrable surfaces in your landscape. Use permeable paving surfaces such as wood decks, bricks, and concrete lattice to let water soak into the ground.
- Install a rain barrel to capture water for your plants and garden.
Take responsibility for your waste:
- Pet owners should pick up after their pets and dispose of the wastes in the garbage or toilet. Animal wastes contain bacteria and viruses that kill shellfish and close swimming areas.
- Place litter, including cigarette butts, in trash receptacles. Never throw litter in streets or down storm drains.
- Wash your car on the grass so soapy water soaks into the ground. Use a hose nozzle to prevent water from running when not in use.
- Don't hose down driveways or sidewalks. Dry sweeping paved areas, along with careful trash disposal, are simple, effective pollution reducers.
Dr. Beverly Wright wins a Heinz Award
Dr. Beverly Wright is being honored this year as one of 10 recipients of The Heinz Awards.
In honor of its 15th year, this prestigious award focuses on environmental heroes who, "like [the late] John Heinz, have confronted environmental concerns with a spirit of innovation and who demonstrate the same blend of action and creativity in approaching the protection of our environment."
About The Heinz Awards
Over the years, the award has spotlighted and rewarded people in a number of areas important to Heinz, in whose name the award was established. But this year, the award focused only on the environment, because of its increasing relevance - and urgency - in every facet of our lives. According to the awards' site:
At this unique time in history, when the environment is even more important to our lives, our economy, our national security and our future than ever, it is only fitting this year that we focus on this singular and critical topic.These awards seek to celebrate those guardians of our future who value the importance of our natural resources, who work to remove toxic chemicals from our air and water, who are concerned about the health of all of our citizens, and who are creating the policies and the technology that will ensure a totally sustainable planet for future generations.
Having had the pleasure of working directly with one of this year's impressive honorees, Dr. Beverly Wright, we know well how strong a winner she is.
Dr. Wright knows her chemical body burden
Dr. Wright was one of five extraordinary women leaders to participate in our 2-year body burden study of environmental justice leaders.
Biomonitoring tests found Wright's body polluted with up to 39 toxins, including mercury, lead, perfluorchemicals used in Teflon, stain and water resistant textile coatings, flame retardants, synthetic fragrances and rocket fuel.
"I'm very disappointed," Wright said, "to find out that while we were fighting so hard to get chemicals we know are dangerous reduced in the environment, there were so many chemicals inside our homes that were also poisoning us. That puts us in double jeopardy - and I say triple jeopardy because of our skin color."
Herstory of an environmental justice leader
A sociology professor and New Orleans native, Dr. Wright joined the environmental justice movement after a visit to "Cancer Alley," as many residents call the Lower Mississippi River Industrial Corridor, an 85-mile stretch of oil refineries and petrochemical plants between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
In her recent book, Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina, with Robert D. Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and author of the ground-breaking 2000 book Dumping in Dixie, Dr. Wright recalls that whites had fled the area, but poor African Americans remained behind, living in the shadow of the petrochemical plants.
She blames "a pattern of discrimination and exclusion based on a culture of segregation and racism that allowed these polluting facilities and local government to respond to the needs of white citizens while ignoring the needs of black citizens."
To redress the balance, Wright helped found the New Orleans-based Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) in 1992. After Hurricane Katrina devastated her own neighborhood, she wrote In the Wake of the Storm, published in 2006. Her book, Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty was published in 2007.
Curious about the results of our study?
In short, we found that all of the women were contaminated with flame retardants, Teflon chemicals, synthetic fragrances, the plastics ingredient bisphenol A and the rocket fuel component perchlorate. You can read the full report here.
Will EPA regulate rocket fuel in drinking water?
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Director of Communications
Making good on Administrator Lisa Jackson's confirmation promise, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving ahead with its deliberations on whether to impose the first national limits on drinking water contamination by perchlorate, the main component of solid rocket fuel.
The EPA has reported finding perchlorate, a potent thyroid toxin, in public water systems in 28 states and territories. Researchers have also detected perchlorate in infant formula, breast milk and produce. EWG's own tests have identified significant perchlorate contamination in nearly a fifth of lettuce samples grown in Southern California and Arizona.
Surprise! Industry opposes stronger regs
The defense and aerospace communities have lobbied against legal limits on perchlorate contamination in drinking water, fearing that regulation would require them to mount clean-ups at Cold-War era rocket and missile testing sites and storage facilities where tons of the chemical were spilled.
"We hope the Obama EPA will reverse the harmful perchlorate decisions made under the previous administration," said Anila Jacob, M.D., M.P.H., Senior Scientist with EWG."Scientists have established that even very small amounts of perchlorate can disrupt thyroid hormone production that is critical to brain and neurological development. This makes the chemical particularly dangerous to the fetus, infants, and children."
Perchlorate: Not so healthy
In comments submitted to EPA on September 18, EWG argued that perchlorate "contaminates drinking water supplies nationwide at levels of concern for human health, providing the agency with a meaningful opportunity for human health risk reduction through a national primary drinking water rule."
Jacob is co-author of several papers on the public health threat of perchlorate, among them a January 2008 analysis that found that the average 2-year-old would be exposed to more than half the EPA's safe dose of perchlorate from food. Drinking perchlorate-tainted tap water could push the toddler's daily consumption to unsafe levels, the EWG study concluded.
Last October, at the urging of the Pentagon and defense and aerospace industry officials, the Bush administration decided against regulating perchlorate water contamination. The move caused an outcry from scientists, medical experts and children's health advocates.
EPA's Lisa Jackson promised to act
During her confirmation hearing last January, Jackson pledged that she would act "immediately" to protect pregnant women and children from perchlorate pollution.
On Aug. 5, Jackson announced that EPA would reevaluate the safety of perchlorate in drinking water, with "special emphasis" on the chemical's impact on children's development. She said the review would consider regulating perchlorate in light of "the fact that infants and children consume more water per body weight than do adults." Previous EPA assessments appeared to make little or no distinction between water consumption patterns of adults and children.
Time will tell if EPA's actions lead to stronger regulation
Now that the public comment period is completed, EPA officials say their next move is to determine whether to regulate perchlorate pollution under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. If they choose to regulate, the EPA must draft a proposal for a national drinking water standard, setting the maximum legal limit on the amount of perchlorate in drinking water produced by municipal water utilities. If such a rule were finalized, water utilities across the U.S. would be required to test their output and meet the new legal limit for perchlorate contamination.
The tortuous rule-making process could take many months. Still, the Obama administration's commitment to tackling the perchlorate issue is a marked improvement from the previous administration's refusal to consider the subtle public heath implications of the widespread problem.
"The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 100 percent of the U.S. population has been exposed to perchlorate," Jacob said. "Strict mandatory regulations on perchlorate in drinking water would go a long way toward lowering the number of people, particularly children, exposed to dangerous concentrations of this chemical."
Interested in the history of perchlorate health effects research? Great news, we created a timeline.
Not my flip-flops, bro....
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Director of Communications
What's the world coming to when your freakin' flip-flops are laced with toxic chemicals dangerous to human health and the environment?
I mean, the main pillar of my decades-old No Socks policy between May and September include the purchase of a new pair beginning each spring.....INSERT EXPLETIVE-FUELED RANT HERE:
So, when I saw the headline in the Manila Bulletin "Sandals, flip-flops found with harmful chemicals" it really harshed my mellow.
Then there's this from yesterday's Business Report:
"In a study released last week, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) found high levels of a toxic chemical known as diethyl-hexyl phthalate (DEHP) in 17 out of 27 pairs of shoes manufactured in various countries including India, Indonesia, Tanzania, The Philippines, Sweden and South Africa.The chemical can cause cancer, severe damage to a developing fetus and the central nervous system."
Now, I love the Swedes and all they've done to advance science throughout the years, and the meatballs at Ikea are the best in town, but this is one study I'd just as soon had not been done.
I won't hang up my flip-flops but, what gives, sandalistas?
[A big thx to flickr and theogeo for the pink flops]
Healthy Stuff search tool hits the mark
If you want to see a very cool combination of solid science, smart advocacy and consumer empowerment, check out HealthyStuff.org, a project of our friends at The Ecology Center in Ann Arbor.
They tested and rated over 5,000 consumer items for an array of toxic metals and other nasty stuff, basing their ratings on toxicity, persistence and tendency to build up in people and the environment.
This toxic stuff is worth researching as it has been linked to reproductive problems, developmental and learning disabilities, liver toxicity and cancer.
You can find the nice and the nasty in a bunch of categories - children's products, stuff for pets, cars, clothing, jewelry, and toys.
EWG testifies in Congress about cell phone radiation
After we released our report about cell phone radiation, EWG Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko, PhD. testified in the U.S. Senate about our findings. Here she talks with EWG's Chief of Staff, Heather White, just before her testimony:
Senator Harkin (Iowa) chaired the hearing in the Senate Appropriations Health Subcommittee. Dr. Naidenko was one of five experts to testify on the topic - you can watch the full hearing here.
What can you do to reduce your exposure to cell phone radiation?
Follow our 8 tips and read our extensive FAQ - after searching for a low-radiation phone. It's all right here.
Gorillas in the Bay: Time to Face Facts in the Chesapeake
By Michelle Perez, EWG Senior Analyst
Press coverage last week of the latest federal proposals to clean up the Chesapeake Bay was good. But, an important piece of the puzzle was missing from the discussion.
The puzzle's missing piece
Yes, it's fantastic that President Obama has asked five federal agencies to propose ways they can do their jobs better to restore water quality in the six-state, 64,000 square-mile Bay watershed. And yes, Senator Ben Cardin's (D-Maryland) draft legislation is crucial to give EPA unprecedented power to compel the states to clean up the Bay and punitive authority if they fail to act.
However, these reports and legislation and the resulting press coverage ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room:
The federal government's reach over farm pollution - which is the single largest source of the nutrient and sediment pollution harming the Bay - is limited to regulating only the largest animal production farms. This leaves the majority of animal farms and the majority of animal waste unregulated by the federal government.
What's worse, there's a huge loophole in the federal animal farm regulation: the feds have no authority over the manure that gets transferred off the regulated farm and onto an unregulated farm where the manure is applied to land as a fertilizer substitute.
The current system isn't working
EWG released a report last week - Facing Facts in the Chesapeake Bay - that points out the real gorilla in our midst:
The inability of the six Bay states (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, and New York) to cope with the agricultural pollution that the federal government has no jurisdiction over.
Furthermore, EWG's analysis explains why and gives examples of how the voluntary approach that pays farmers to install best management practices that are good for the farm and good for the environment has failed to clean up the unintended pollution.
What needs to happen
Finally, EWG points out that the only way these state governments can show EPA they are truly able to achieve their portion of the upcoming Bay clean-up goals is if they develop a fair and sensible regulatory framework to reduce agricultural pollution.
Read more about what a fair and sensible regulatory framework could look like and find out what agricultural pollution regulations do exist are in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, and New York.
What's going on with toxic chemicals in cosmetics?
It's a question most people are surprised by, in a "Huh, that's something I need to think about?" way.
Check out this new video from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of nonprofits, co-founded by EWG, that works to get toxic chemicals out of personal care products. As it makes all too clear, your average park-goer thinks that some government agency regulates personal care products to make sure they're safe.
That's what really gets me angry -- it's bad enough that there's no testing required before products are allowed on the market, and that there are no regulations against, say, carcinogens in your baby shampoo. But shouldn't the FDA be doing what American citizens assume it does?
So, really, FDA, what IS going on with toxic chemicals in cosmetics?!? (Sure looks like not much.)
Written by Amy Rosenthal
Water pollution free-for-all
Like most kids, mine love bathtime. And while I take care to avoid the toxic chemicals in some bath products by making careful choices, at least I don't have to worry about the safety of the water itself. As it should be.
But that's very much not the case for the Hall-Massey family of West Virginia. Quite the contrary, they do have to worry about the safety of the water itself. So much so that the kids take super-quick baths and they buy and truck in water that they store in big barrels on the porch. Today? In America?
This family's very unsafe drinking water is chronicled by the New York Times in the second article (and compelling video) in its important series on the increasing pollution in American waters. As Mrs. Hall-Massey says so well:
"How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water? ... How is this still happening today?"
How is this still happening today?
Mrs. Hall-Massey's question is easily answered: the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are being violated significantly and routinely, and the violators are simply not being punished.
According to the NYT's investigation, state officials fined or otherwise punished fewer than 3 percent of Clean Water Act violations. And when there are more than 506,000 Clean Water Act violations by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, 97% unpunished violations means something.
How does your water compare?
The Hall-Massey's downright dangerous water problems (which you can watch on video here) may seem extreme. But are they? Thanks to the New York Times, you can see how many water violations there are in your area and what is - or isn't - being done about it.
You can find water polluters near you here and see how violations are being handled here. It is important to have access to this information, but unfortunate that it tells a story of abuse, very weak enforcement, and ultimately, unsafe drinking water.
Get our Guide to Safe Drinking Water
When I get bad news, I want to do something about it. If you do, too, check out our short guide to safe drinking water to see what steps you can take to improve yours.
Your first step should be reading your water supplier's water quality report - or testing your well - so you know what you're working with. Our top tip for tap water? Filter it. Here's how:
- Carbon filters (pitcher or tap-mounted) are affordable and reduce many common water contaminants, like lead and byproducts of the disinfection process used to treat municipal tap water.
- Install a reverse osmosis filter if you can afford it, to remove contaminants that carbon filters can't eliminate, like arsenic and perchlorate (rocket fuel).
NBC Nightly News talks cell phone radiation
Last week, EWG released a report about exposure to cell phone radiation. Today, its author, EWG Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko, PhD, testifies in Congress about the issue.
Here's a quick take on the report on NBC's World News Tonight:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In the meantime, we're asking the FDA and the FCC to step up their oversight of this fast-changing and increasingly popular technology. We think the federal government has been TOO LAX in evaluating the science and TOO SLOW in reexamining regulations.
Please join us by sending a quick email asking your representatives to modernize our cell phone radiation standards.
Limit your exposure to cell phone radiation
Yet, many of us are, well, addicted. And some of us no longer have a land line at home. My kids call their grandparents to chat on mine in the backseat of the car all. the. time. (it's free! it's convenient! it promotes family happiness!)
But is it all OK?
EWG is troubled by the existing science
We, too, wondered whether cell phone radiation and the changing ways we use them is safe, so we analyzed the possible public health risks.
We recently completed a 10-month investigation of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies, government advisories and industry documents to reach our conclusion. Report author Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG Senior Scientist, sums it up this way:
"We would like to be able to say that cell phones are safe, but we can't. The most recent science, while not conclusive, raises serious issues about the cancer risk of cell phone use that must be addressed through further research. In the meantime, consumers can take steps to reduce exposure."
EWG's top tips to reduce your radiation exposure
As usual, we've paired it all down to a manageable number of tips that top our to-do list for using cell phones more safely.
Our top tip? Buy a low-radiation phone. And yes, they are different. Download EWG's guide to reduce cell phone radiation exposure to get useful links and the reasoning behind each.
Protect your family, then take action to protect everyone
Current U.S. cell phone radiation standards, set by U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and based largely on 1992 cell phone industry recommendations, are outdated and allow 20 times more radiation to penetrate the head than the rest of the body.
Health agencies in six nations -- Switzerland, Germany, Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Finland -- have issued warnings to limit cell phone use, particularly by children, whose softer, thinner skulls are less able to shield the brain from radiation. Scientists have found that children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults.
EWG urges the FCC to upgrade its standards to take account of the newest scientific evidence and also increasing cell phone use by children. Help us send the FCC a strong message that it's time to update its standards. It is 2009, folks.
Got questions? We've got answers.
We've thoroughly answered 14 of the most common and important questions people have about cell phone radiation. In our FAQ, you'll find answers to questions like these:
- Are cell phones safe for children?
- Do cell phones cause cancer?
- Does cell phone radiation affect sperm count?
Embed EWG's search widget for finding low-radiation phones
You (and your readers if you're a blogger) can easily search for low-radiation phones - and see how yours measures up - on our free, online searchable database. Grab the embed code from Widgetbox.
Healthy Home Tip 4: Pick plastics carefully
Our homes are filled with plastics, and most of us don't really know what they're made of -- or whether they're safe.
Tired of being confused??
Making sense of plastics can be confusing and time-consuming: Can I recycle it? Can I microwave it? Can I drink out of it? And personally, I'm tired of wondering if I'm ditching plastics where it really matters, or not. A person can get a wee tired of it all.
So, rather than despair, throw it all out, or do nothing (all options I've considered), I'm going to follow my EWG colleagues' advice to pick plastics carefully. It's important to me that they rely on solid science and suggest safer choices that are truly do-able when it comes to my family's environmental health.
To simplify our choices, they shared their top plastics advice for this month's Healthy Home Tip. You'll learn how to choose, use and (sometimes) avoid plastics. We discuss:
- Why you should avoid certain plastics.
- How to choose and use safer plastics -- where it matters most.
- When to use safer alternatives.
Like our healthy home tips? We hope so.
Producing top-notch research and helpful tips is important -- and costly. A contribution from supporters like you ensures that we can continue keep these useful, trustworthy tips coming - thanks!
You can find our first three Healthy Home Tips and sign up to get the rest right here. Talk to you in a month when we discuss our next tip: Wash those hands.
PS - If you try to use less plastic to reduce its overall impact on the environment, check out Lisa's posts on buying no plastic for a week.
Dear SIGG, We think you should....
SIGG CEO Steve Wasik called EWG's President, Ken Cook, earlier today to discuss our response to his recent announcement that SIGG water bottles did in fact contain the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in its liners until August 2008.
As you likely know, Wasik's announcement has caused an uproar because the company led consumers and retailers to believe that its products were free of BPA. In doing so, SIGG capitalized and profited on consumers' clear preference in recent years to avoid products made with the chemical.
Nothing Mr. Wasik said changed our view about SIGG's discredited efforts to mislead consumers and retailers about its products.
We sent this letter today to the co-CEOs of The Riverside Company, the private equity firm that owns SIGG, asking for a public apology and a refund offer - not an exchange policy where jilted consumers are forced to drink from another SIGG water bottle with who-knows-what in it. We wrote:
On behalf of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), I write to ask that you issue an unambiguous apology for misleading consumers and retailers about whether SIGG bottles contain the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA).I further urge you to modify SIGG Switzerland CEO Steve Wasik's recent announcement of a SIGG voluntary bottle exchange program. Consumers should be able to take SIGG bottles that contain BPA to an authorized SIGG retailer and receive a refund for the full retail value of the product. The cost of the refund should be covered by SIGG.
The announced exchange policy, which forces customers to accept a replacement SIGG bottle, puts them in the untenable position of having to trust Mr. Wasik and his team about the composition and safety of the replacement product.
It is our view that SIGG's reputation will be difficult to restore while Mr. Wasik remains at the helm of the company.
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Cook
President
Environmental Working Group
[Thanks to Flickr & rpongsaj for the bottle pic]
This post was first published on The Huffington Post.
Are you looking for the "9" when you buy produce?
The 4 or 5-digit number that you'll find on the little sticker on your produce is a Price Look-Up, or PLU, code. They've been used by grocery stores for about 20 years to identify produce for pricing at the cash register. (I always did wonder how grocery clerks could spot the difference between Bosc and Bartlett pears on sight.) These days, the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), a voluntary organization of those associated with the fresh produce industry, coordinates the use of standardized codes throughout the world.
PLU codes are used for fruits and vegetables sold individually and for other items like nuts and dried fruit sold in bulk. (You won't see a PLU code on anything with a fixed weight, like a pint of blueberries, or that's been processed, like a fruit salad or juice.) The code signals to the retailer the information needed to determine the price - so "4131" indicates not only the type of fruit ("apple") but also the variety ("Fuji") and even the size ("extra large"). If you're a produce nerd like me, you can even look up the exact variety of what you're eating on the IFPS website.
Organic & GMO
As you're no doubt well aware, organic or not factors into the price of what you're buying. As a result, the IFPS decided that organic produce would be identified with a "9" in front of the standard 4 digits traditionally used for the fruit or veggie. So if that big Fuji is organic, the code won't just be "4131" but "94131."
Similarly, an "8" as the first of a five-digit code indicates genetically-modified produce. If that Fuji was created using GM technology, the code would be "84131."
Retailer Codes, not Regulations
Keep in mind that these codes are administered by a voluntary organization (the International Federation for Produce Standards) that's made up largely of produce trade associations. Their main purpose is not to inform consumers but to facilitate grocery transactions.
Produce advertised as organic must comply with the standards of the USDA National Organic Program, but there are no labeling requirements for genetically-modified foods. No need to get too worried about looking for number 8's, though: given current technology, there is very little PLU-coded produce that would have been genetically engineered. Thought there's plenty of GMO corn and soybeans out there, GM technology hasn't yet made inroads on the individually-sold fruits and veggies like tomatoes, apples, etc.
[Thanks to flickr & pabcorwa for the produce sticker artwork.]