The Canary Report

Danish report explores Multiple Chemical Sensitivity policy in 11 European countries

Posted on Jun 30, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Guest Bloggers, Law, MCS, Policy

Here is the English translation of a Danish report on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity policy in 11 European countries.

By guestblogger Harry Clark, President, MCS Society of Australia, Inc.

Cover of Danish report translated by Harry Clark, et al.

The Danish Health Ministry recently released a report about measures being taken by 11 European countries to address Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). Please find attached an English translation of the document, entitled Measures Taken by European Countries for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which I have translated with the kind assistance of several people. I extend my thanks to Sandra, Monika, Mervi, Martine and Charlotte for their invaluable assistance with translations, corrections, proofing and suggestions. I also wish to thank Martine who brought the Danish report to my attention.

Please check Eva Caballe’s blog, No Fun,  and Mariajo Moya’s blog, Mi Estrella de Mar, for subsequent Spanish translations.

SUMMARY OF REPORT

In many countries around the world, there are fascinating and important developments occurring in the realm of MCS. Yet, much of this knowledge is unintentionally restrained behind veils of the different languages used. These veils that partition MCS knowledge and restrict its flow need to be actively pushed aside so that we can all freely share in the full and developing body of MCS materials. Translations, like the one in English presented here of the Danish Health Ministry’s report, are of great importance because they enable MCS knowledge to spread further afield, which in turn empowers all of us as we engage in the challenge of improving the lives of people who have MCS.

The Danish paper represents an important snapshot of current MCS thinking and activity in Denmark and 11 other European governments. It reports on a pioneering conversation between governments. It is not full of news or attitudes that are the absolute best for those of us with MCS, but there are plenty of threads of opportunity and hope. I suggest this report reflects conversations on MCS that are occurring within some European countries and also in some offices of the European Parliament. Clearly those who wish to dismiss MCS have lost some influence, otherwise this Danish report would not exist.

To briefly summarize the Danish report:

• Only two countries, Germany and Austria, recognize MCS as a physical disease on their ICD disease registers. In Germany this means a sick leave note and perhaps sick pay may be available, but confusingly they say that MCS is not explicitly recognized as a disease in Germany and that it is not recognised as an occupational disease there. To add to the confusion, in Austria a person disabled by MCS will likely be diagnosed as having a mental disorder in order for them to have the opportunity to gain a pension.

• Three countries– Finland, Sweden and Germany– recommend perfume and strong detergents be avoided in the public sphere; including for example hospitals, kindergartens, schools and after school care.

• Six countries– Finland, Luxemburg, Nederland, Sweden, Germany and Austria– follow the European Union Directive on labelling for cosmetics. Germany particularly mentioned that sensitising agents need to be listed on a products label. Britain labels according to other EU environmental legislation. Denmark says it labels all cosmetic products with declarations of their contents such that people with allergies can avoid products they might react to, but does not say what law or directive it follows.

• France, while not identifying MCS as a special strand of study, is setting up a number of systems and studies to obtain information on Electromagnetic Sensitivities and to collect records of people who suffer symptoms that appear to be allergy related but are not proven to be allergies. They are looking at the biochemical status of 20,000 children in a longitudinal study. Allergies and their prevention is a specific focus of the Environment and Health Plan for 2009-2010.

• The Västra Götalands region of Sweden put in place a region-wide Fragrance-Free Hospital policy in 2008 that covers 17 hospitals. Also, the Swedish EPA says that sustainable development requires the reduction of the inconvenience brought about by chemicals to people who are already hypersensitive. However they have suggested no measures to achieve this.

• The Federal Agency for the Environment in Germany generally recommends that those with MCS should not be socially excluded.

• Luxembourg’s environment ministry has a campaign to promote the use of organic laundry detergent and cleaning products and warns against adding fragrances that don’t aid the cleaning.

Harry Clark

President
MCS Society of Australia, Inc.
Email: MCS-Society-of-Australia@bigpond.net.au

Founder
MCS News Australia

Continue Reading

Tags: MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy, Support, Work

The President’s Cancer Panel releases report: We must eliminate environmental carcinogens from our workplaces, schools, and homes.

Posted on May 06, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Policy, Research, Susie Collins

Report to the President concludes that the nation needs a comprehensive, cohesive policy agenda regarding environmental contaminants and protection of human health. The main problem they say? Toxic chemicals in the environment.

The President's Cancer Panel releases their 2008-2009 report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now." The report emphasizes prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention.

The U.S. President’s Cancer Panel released their 2008-2009 report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now. As a person with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who has survived breast cancer, I’m pleased to see the panel addressed myriad health problems associated with toxic chemicals in the marketplace; the panel extended it’s opinion beyond carcinogens to include “other toxins” as well such as endocrine disruptors.

From the report’s introduction:

The Administration’s commitment to the cancer community and recent focus on critically needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is praiseworthy. However, our Nation still has much work ahead to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our workplaces, schools, and homes [emphasis added]. [...]

The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. [...]

The American people—even before they are born—are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures. The Panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.

I’m really impressed with the report’s emphasis on prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention. The report also emphasizes the fact that most people are unaware “that children are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation than adults.” They recommend that this perpetual state of ignorance be corrected by increasing efforts “to inform the public of such harmful exposures and how to prevent them.” Doesn’t that sound just like what most of us with MCS do on a regular basis? It’s so nice to see this prestigious panel catch up with us!

I also was very impressed with their conclusion, where they end with an emphasis on prevention:

The Nation Needs a Comprehensive, Cohesive Policy Agenda Regarding Environmental Contaminants and Protection of Human Health.

Environmental health, including cancer risk, has been largely excluded from overall national policy on protecting and improving the health of Americans. It is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it, but cancer prevention efforts have focused narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviors, and chemopreventive interventions. Scientific evidence on individual and multiple environmental exposure effects on disease initiation and outcomes, and consequent health system and societal costs are not being adequately integrated into national policy decisions and strategies for disease prevention, health care access, and health system reform.

Use this document to your full advantage. Share it with employers, family, friends, members of your church, administrators at your kid’s schools, and other people that need an education about the risks of toxic chemicals in everyday life.

What do I keep telling you? Trends are moving in our direction.

Here’s the link to the full report.

Here’s a link to an article about the report from Environmental Health News. Thanks, Roslyn!

Here’s a link to column about the report by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.

Continue Reading

Tags: Cancer, Chemicals, Environmental Health, Policy, Pollution, Research, Toxic

Sen. Lautenberg introduces “Safe Chemicals Act” to protect Americans from toxic chemicals

Posted on Apr 19, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, Policy, Susie Collins

Measure will require safety testing for chemicals.

U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)

This is VERY good news! The moment we’ve been waiting for. A press release from Sen. Lautenberg’s office:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced legislation to overhaul the “Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976” (TSCA), an antiquated law that in its current state, leaves Americans at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” to protect the health of families and the environment.

“America’s system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken,” said Senator Lautenberg. “Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children’s bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My ‘Safe Chemicals Act’ will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals. Chemical safety reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is a common-sense issue and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this measure.”

The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” requires safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market. Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

Over the last several months, Sen. Lautenberg has chaired a series of hearings to help craft the “Safe Chemicals Act” with dozens of witnesses including business leaders, public officials, scientists, doctors, academics, and non-profit organizations [read about one of the hearings on a post here at The Canary Report]. Through the hearings, public health groups, environmentalists, industry representatives and the EPA have expressed support for reforms to our nation’s toxic substance laws. The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” comports with the reform principles laid out by the Obama Administration, the American Chemistry Council and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition.

The text of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010″ can be found here and a full summary of the bill can be found here.

Highlights of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010”

Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical’s safety. Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing. EPA will have full authority to request additional information needed to determine the safety of a chemical.

Prioritizes chemicals based on risk. Calls on the EPA to categorize chemicals based on risk, and focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm.

Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market. Places the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals. All uses must be identified and determined safe for the chemical to enter the market or continue to be used.

Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals. Requires EPA to take fast action to reduce risk from chemicals that have already been proven dangerous. In addition, the EPA Administrator is given authority to act quickly if any chemical poses an imminent hazard.

Creates open access to reliable chemical information. Establishes a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA’s safety determinations. The EPA will impose requirements to ensure the information collected is reliable.

Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry. Establishes grant programs and research centers to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives, and brings some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

###

Although this is terrifically good news, there still remains much work to be done to ensure the reform is done right. Read more from Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the Environmental Working Group.

Continue Reading

Tags: Chemicals, Environment, Law, Policy

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues indoor air quality policy for all CDC offices nationwide

Posted on Apr 07, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, MCS, Policy, Susie Collins, Worker's Rights

This is arguably the strongest and most important toxic chemical-free and fragrance-free policy in existence for the workplace.

CDC′s Roybal campus in Atlanta, GA.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, recently issued a policy on indoor air quality that will affect all CDC offices (owned, leased and rented) and more than 15,000 employees nationwide. Among a host of indoor air quality standards, the policy includes specific guidelines restricting the use of fragrance in cleaning and personal care products.

Housekeeping Guidelines

CDC will ensure that products used in the workplace, such as soaps, cleaning products, paints, etc. are safe and odor-free or emit low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the fullest extent feasible. Only green cleaning products shall be specified and used within CDC facilities and leased spaces unless otherwise approved by the Office of Health and Safety. [...]

Non-Permissible Products

Scented or fragranced products are prohibited at all times in all interior space owned, rented, or leased by CDC. This includes the use of:
• Incense, candles, or reed diffusers
• Fragrance-emitting devices of any kind
• Wall-mounted devices, similar to fragrance-emitting devices, that operate automatically or by pushing a button to dispense deodorizers or disinfectants
• Potpourri
• Plug-in or spray air fresheners
• Urinal or toilet blocks
• Other fragranced deodorizer/re-odorizer products

Personal care products (e.g. colognes, perfumes, essential oils, scented skin and hair products) should not be applied at or near actual workstations, restrooms, or anywhere in CDC owned or leased buildings.

In addition, CDC encourages employees to be as fragrance-free as possible when they arrive in the workplace. Fragrance is not appropriate for a professional work environment, and the use of some products with fragrance may be detrimental to the health of workers with chemical sensitivities, allergies, asthma, and chronic headaches/migraines.

Employees should avoid using scented detergents and fabric softeners on clothes worn to the office. Many fragrance-free personal care and laundry products are easily available and provide safer alternatives.

Further, the policy extends to enforcement. Within the document itself is clearly stated the process by which an employee may file a report about air quality problems through a questionnaire, and further still, who is responsible for overseeing the investigation:

Building occupants who experience irritation or symptoms that may be related to the quality of indoor air should notify their supervisors, and the OHS or local Safety Officer to initiate a complaint. BFO must also be contacted upon initiation of a complaint, to identify and/or review any potential structural, maintenance, or heating, ventilating or air conditioning (HVAC) issues. Building occupants must also complete the Indoor Air Quality Questionnaire (see Attachment B) in order to properly document the complaint. Each IEQ complaint poses a unique set of circumstances that will determine the investigative procedures used to resolve each IEQ concerns.

Office of Health and Safety/Designated Safety Officer Administers the Indoor Environmental Quality Program and serves as the primary coordinator and investigator for reported incidents involving IEQ hazards or conditions; educates CDC supervisors and workers; develops report findings and recommendations for corrective action; and reviews and updates to meet future needs and regulatory changes.

You’ll also be happy to see that there is a section on pest control. Although it’s not perfect, it’s far safer than the hazards many workers endure with ubiquitous application of hazardous pesticides, usually performed without notice: “Pest management, for both buildings and lawn care, will emphasize non-chemical management strategies whenever practical, and the least-toxic chemical controls when pesticides are needed. Integrated Pest Management practices must be utilized.”

Coming from the CDC, this is arguably the most important toxic chemical- and fragrance-free policy in existence for the workplace. In the words of former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding, the agency is charged with confronting “the challenges of 21st-century health threats.” It looks like the current CDC director, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, believes this responsibility covers not only the general public, but CDC’s own employees and workplaces as well.

Creating nontoxic work environments is not just good for employees’ health, it’s good for the bottom line, too. Workers who are not being slowly poisoned by toxic chemicals on the job can think clearer, work more efficiently and be more productive. Employees who suffer toxic chemical sensitivity, asthma and other respiratory ailments will take less sick days. People who are prone to developing health problems triggered by toxic chemicals will be safer; in fact, everyone who works in CDC buildings will now be safer.

For those of you with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who are currently battling it out with your employer over hazardous chemicals in your work environment, in addition to discussing your rights to safer accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you might want to print out this new CDC policy and give copies to your boss, your CEO, and your human resources director. Explain to them that the experts at CDC understand that indoor air quality is greatly compromised by a host of toxic chemicals, including those from cleaning products used by maintenance personnel and personal care products used by employees. Tell them that this recent CDC policy is indicative of the way trends are going, and any company getting on board now will be spared future costs caused by condoning an unsafe environment for employees.

This policy is incredibly good news– use the clout and expertise of this CDC policy to strengthen your arguments for a toxic chemical- and fragrance-free work environment.

Here’s the pdf of the policy.

Here’s the pdf of the questionnaire to be used when CDC employees file a complaint about air quality.

Thanks to Harry Clark for obtaining these documents from CDC and for sharing them so freely!

Continue Reading

Tags: Air, Asthma, Chemicals, Environmental Health, Fragrance, Indoor Pollution, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Perfume, Personal Care, Policy, Pollution, Products, Sick Building, Toxic, Work

National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures

Posted on Apr 06, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Policy, Susie Collins

You’re invited to discuss your opinions at the CDC’s National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures. Three days: April 5-7. Sign up and tell ‘em what you think!

ATSDR and CDC's National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) have launched a National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures, working with government, professional organizations, tribal groups, community and nonprofit organizations, health professionals, business and industry, and members of the public to create a national action agenda.

A comment from Canary Report reader Lauren Gerard that I wanted to be sure you didn’t miss:

I would like to encourage all your readers to participate in the National Conversation on Public Health and Environment Exposures, a format which is being conducted by the CDC and ASTDR. For overall information on the forum, check out their website at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/nationalconversation The web dialogue is April 5-7. Please, everyone, sign up and make your voices heard! Let others know, who are also dealing with the ill effects of chemicals! Go to http://www.webdialogues.net/cs/nationalconversation-vision/view/di/212?x-t=home.view and sign up! I don’t know how much teeth this governmental exercise will bear, but we need to take advantage of the few opportunities given us to get our government to act responsibly on this ever growing health issue!

Thanks, Lauren!

Continue Reading

Tags: Air, Chemicals, Children's Health, Environment, Policy

Health care reform at last?

Posted on Mar 25, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Keith Carlson, Policy, Social Justice

While reports state that the legislation is indeed imperfect and will make as many enemies as friends, some semblance of reform is now on its way to the American people.

By Keith Carlson, RN.

President Obama signs health reform into law. White House Photo, Pete Souza, 3/23/10

It appears that health care reform in all it’s tattered and tainted glory has finally passed through both the House and the Senate. While reports state that the legislation is indeed imperfect and will make as many enemies as friends, some semblance of reform is now on its way to the American people. Some behind-the-scenes tweaking will still certainly take place, but it seems that the reform train has now left the station and will eventually arrive at a health plan near (most of) you, with the majority of changes beginning in 2014.

From my personal point of view, this train has been delayed for decades, especially taking into consideration that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal health coverage to most of its citizens, or at least guarantee access to such coverage.

According to the information gleaned from articles and online sources, I understand that some of the salient points are thus:

• Parents will be able to keep dependent adult children on their health plans through age 26, and this benefit (which will necessitate an extra fee) will be enacted almost immediately.
• Beginning in 2014, Americans with employer-based health plans who lose their jobs will be able to buy their own (hopefully affordable) insurance without being denied or charged extra due to pre-existing conditions.
• Apparently, chronically ill children will be covered almost immediately, and chronically ill adults may have access to certain pools of coverage quite soon.
• An expansion of Medicaid coverage for the poor now seems to be a certainty after 2014.
• Some tax credits for small businesses will make it easier for coverage to be offered to be employees, and this reform may also be enacted rather soon.
• Medicaid will be expanded to cover an additional 16 million poor Americans.
• Price gouging by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions will no longer be allowed by the new regulations.
• Insurance companies will no longer be able to cancel the policies of consumers who become ill, a practice that has become all too common.
• Insurance companies will also no longer be able to place a spending cap on the amount of money they are willing to spend on a consumer in any given year (or perhaps over a lifetime).
• In six months, all new health plans will have to cover the full cost of all preventive care.
• Beginning July 1st of this year, low-income seniors on Medicare will enjoy a 50% discount on brand-name drugs.
• By 2019, it seems that more than 90% of Americans will have health care coverage of some kind.
• Most importantly, it seems that reforms of Medicare and Medicaid are in the works, and a complicated array of regulatory reforms may indeed change the face of health care in this country by cutting costs, streamlining the delivery and payment system, and reining in health care inflation.

There is no doubt that conservative pundits will do their best to cast doubt on these reforms in an attempt to turn the American people against what will most likely be billed as “socialism” and a government take-over of health care and medicine. Many will complain that the government has no place in regulating health care, even as those same complainers enjoy the vast benefits of their (government regulated) Medicare coverage. It is ironic that so many Americans forget that Medicare, a government benefit that changed the face of health care for older and disabled Americans many decades ago, is a hugely successful program of government-based health care reform.

It is disgraceful that so many millions of Americans still live without health insurance. Due to the cost of medical care, homes are foreclosed, jobs are lost, lives are destroyed, and the most basic and important health maintenance screenings (like PAP smears, prostate exams and annual physicals) are missed due to lack of insurance coverage.

With both houses of Congress passing this historic legislation, the health care reform train has indeed left the station. There’s no doubt that there will be many arguments and problems along the way, but there now exists the true probability that, within our lifetimes, all Americans will enjoy what the citizens of other industrialized nations have enjoyed for decades.

~~~

To read 10 things that every American should know about health care reform according to MoveOn.org, please click here.

~~~

This post was originally published on my blog Digital Doorway, a digital venue for creative expression, nursing adventures, reflections, thoughtful reverie, thoughtless repose, and other flotsam and jetsam.

You can also visit me at Mary and Keith’s Excellent Adventure, where my wife and I blog about living full-time in our new RV, traveling the highways and byways of America, visiting intentional communities, and bringing Laughter Yoga and the benefits of health and wellness coaching to new and old friends along the way!

Photo credit

Continue Reading

Tags: Law, Policy

MCS groups in Spain to meet with Secretary of Health

Posted on Jan 26, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, Eva Caballé, Government Regulation, MCS, Policy, Social Justice, Susie Collins

A coalition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Groups in Spain will meet with the Secretary General of the Ministry of Health to discuss formal recognition of MCS.

Eva Caballé

Eva Caballé at NO FUN reports that a coalition of MCS groups in Spain will meet with the Secretary of the Ministry of Health on Feb. 4 to discuss the formal recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as a physical illness. The groups also will ask that all people with MCS have the same rights as the other chronically ill people.

The meeting will be held on February 4th 2010 in the Ministry of Health. Mr José Martínez Olmos, Secretary General of the Ministry of Health and Mr Alberto Infante Campos, General Director of Professional Planning, Cohesion of SNS and High Inspection will attend to the meeting representing the Ministry of Health. Following the Ministry of Health instructions, one person by each MCS Association will attend to the meeting and a lawyer and a doctor specialized in MCS too.

David Palma is coordinating this process selflessly.

We are now working on petitions document that will be signed by all MCS associations. This document will be given to the Ministry during the meeting, along with medical information about MCS.

List of MCS associations that are part of this process:

* ACAF
* AFCISQUIM
* Alas de Mariposa
* ALTEA – SQM
* APQUIRA
* ASQUIFYDE
* AVASFASEM-AVASQ
* ENA
* MERCURIADOS
* PLATAFORMA PARA LA FM ,SFC, SQM, reivindicación de derechos, Asociación Nacional

Link to read more about Eva’s book.

Link to read about Eva’s essay in Delirio’s “Silence” issue.

Link to read about Eva’s essay in Delirio’s “Naked” issue.

Continue Reading

Tags: Law, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy

Environmental illness and disability law proposed in Italy

Posted on Dec 27, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, Government Regulation, MCS, Policy, Social Justice, Susie Collins, Worker's Rights

Silvia Müller at the Chemical Sensitivity Network wrote to tell me there’s an Italian law proposal for environmental illnesses and disability. The proposed law includes definitions of various environmental illnesses such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and Electromagnetic Sensitivity, diagnosis and prevention guidelines, guidelines for health care professionals, building and planning rules, employment protections, and financial coverage.

This is really good news. We are seeing country after country enact these types of laws, most recently Germany and Japan. Getting these laws enforced is another story, but we should still celebrate this forward momentum toward global recognition of environmental illnesses, moving us closer to full rights given to those who need medical care, safe housing, financial, and other support.

MeP DOMENICO SCILIPOTI (IDV): “HOW TO HELP PEOPLE AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL DISABILITY”

PRESS RELEASE, Rome 21.dec.09

“In order to help people with Environmental Disabilities whose survival and quality of life depend not on drugs, but on avoiding certain environmental factors, today I presented a project of law about this issue”, comments On. Scilipoti. “The law is meant for environmentally triggered diseases such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), involving a loss of tolerance of chemicals, or Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), forcing the affected ones to get far from electromagnetic fields emitted by mobiles, Wi-Fi, electric cables, etc. But the law is also meant for genetic, metabolic, neurological or immunological disorders such as fibromyalgia or CFS (involving chemical intolerances) or favism, which gives serious reactions to legumes. Other cases of environmental disability are seen in autism, epilepsy, migraine and lupus that involve reactions to fluorescent lighting”. “It’s important to discuss this law as soon as possible in order to give an answer to these people”, Scilipoti concludes.

Link to read entire law proposal.

Thanks, Silvia!

Continue Reading

Tags: Environmental Illness, Law, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy, Support, Work

Change is coming on U.S. toxic chemical policy

Posted on Dec 09, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, Policy, Social Justice, Susie Collins

A great report today from the Huffington Post on the work currently being done in Washington DC to change toxic chemical policy.

While Afghanistan, the economy, Copenhagen and health care grabbed headlines this week, on December 2nd, Senators Frank Lautenberg and Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, held a hearing on an issue that could significantly influence three out of four of those big ticket items. That issue is chemicals – the synthetic and industrial chemicals, largely petrochemical in origin that permeate every aspect of our lives – and the inadequacies of TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act), the primary law aimed at protecting Americans from chemical hazards.

The report also covers introduction of the Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009 by Senator John Kerry and Representative Jim Moran. The Environmental Working Group’s study is included as reference (they are doing God’s work in my opinion). EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has called for increased research and development of safer chemicals through green chemistry. Coinciding with the Senate hearing was a statement signed by 13 states also calling for TSCA reform.

The coming changes might not impact the lives of people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in real time, but the current paradigm on chemical policy, the one that got most of us sick in the first place, is about to get trounced.

Link

Continue Reading

Tags: Chemicals, Environment, Environmental Health, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy

Government to improve regulation of toxic chemicals

Posted on Oct 14, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Policy, Social Justice, Susie Collins

EPA director presents new guidelines to improve regulation of toxic chemicals.

The Michigan Messenger reports momentum builds for tighter regulation of industrial chemicals; health care providers say reform of chemical regulation is key to creating public health system.

In a recent policy speech, Lisa Jackson, director of the Environmental Protection agency, called the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act an “inadequate tool” and presented a set of guidelines that she said should steer efforts to improve regulation of chemicals. Environmental health activists, representatives of the American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Clean Water Action are urging the EPA to use biomonitoring data — data gleaned from screening certain demographics for chemicals in blood and urine — as a guide in prioritizing its investigation of chemical safety.

The Michigan Messenger reports on the EPA announcement from their state’s perspective:

New chemical regulations could have special meaning in Michigan. Midland-based Dow Chemical (NYSE:DOW), the nation’s largest chemical company, is in negotiations with EPA officials over how to handle the company’s widespread contamination of the state’s largest watershed with industrial chemicals. In the Midland area, and in other industrial and post-industrial sites around the state, people are burdened with historic chemical contamination in the environment as they also encounter new chemicals in everyday items [emphasis added].

Unlike pharmaceutical chemicals, which are often only available by prescription and only after they are evaluated for safety by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and manufacturers are required to divulge information about possible side effects, industrial chemicals — found in plastics, food packaging, cleaning products, building materials, furniture, medical supplies and a host of consumer products — are generally not reviewed for safety by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“[W]e need to review all chemicals against safety standards that are based solely on considerations of risk — not economics or other factors ,” Jackson said, “[A]nd we must set these standards at levels that are protective of human health and the environment.

Although more than 80,000 chemicals have been manufactured, since the 1976 enactment of the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA has only declared five unsafe.

The article explains well the problems in current chemical regulations.  Given the weak federal protections, states were pretty much left on their own to strengthen the most problematic of health and environmental toxicity. We saw this when California recently initiated the first of its kind state-level chemical oversight program. The article makes the case for using the new momentum initiated by the EPA to strengthen chemical regulations at both state and federal levels.

I don’t think any of this current activity is going to bring tangible relief to those of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Both policy reform and biomonitoring initiatives are first looking at the most egregious offenders, already backed by solid science as being harmful — such as lead, Bisphenol A, mercury, perfluorinated compounds, phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and triclosan — not necessarily the most common household chemicals that can make our lives a living hell on a daily basis. But there are trends moving in our favor in toxic chemical regulation reform and also with breakthroughs in green chemistry. Again, perhaps not activity that will bring people with MCS relief in the near future, but nonetheless positive activity when looking at “cause” of our illness.

It’s wise to remember while watching trends that government regulations do not truly change corporate practices in a systemic manner until consumers demand it. So keep doing what canaries do best: educate, educate, educate. Live by example. Continue sparking discussion and debate about toxic chemicals with your friends, family, employers, landlords and elected officials. It’s a tough job, especially when struggling with chronic illness, but it’s always tough for people ahead of the curve on medical, social and economic change. Hang in there and be aware that there are forces out there finally taking a look at toxic chemical regulation reform.

Continue Reading

Tags: Chemicals, Environment, Environmental Health, EPA, Fragrance, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy, Pollution, Products, Research, Toxic

Stand with President Obama on health care reform

Posted on Jul 21, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, Media/Videos, Policy, Social Justice, Susie Collins

The Principles

President Obama has announced three bedrock requirements for real health care reform:

* Reduce Costs — Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals and families and they must be brought under control
* Guarantee Choice — Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor – including the choice of a public insurance option
* Ensure Quality Care for All — All Americans must have quality and affordable health care

Stand with the President! Click here to declare your support.

Continue Reading

Tags: Children's Health, Environmental Health, Policy, Video