Pesticide exposure kills elderly woman

EPA files complaint three years later; federal pesticide law limits the penalty EPA can seek to a maximum of $4,550.

(Beyond Pesticides) The U.S. EPA has filed an administrative complaint, seeking a maximum penalty of only $4,550, against a pest control company that sprayed pesticides in a couple’s home, causing the wife to die shortly thereafter. It has been more than three years since the incident took place in Florence, Oregon.

Swanson’s Pest Management of Eugene, Oregon sent an employee to a home on June 29, 2005 to apply Conquer Residential Insecticide Concentrate, active ingredient esfenvalerate, and ULD BP-100 Contact Insecticide, active ingredient pyrethrin. The couple returned to their home two and a half hours later and immediately fell to the ground due to the fumes. Paramedics were called in and they too experienced respiratory distress or became ill when they entered the treated home. According to The Oregonian, Florence Kolbeck was 76 years old and died of cardiac arrest as a result of the exposure. Her husband, Fred, was hospitalized for respiratory distress.

The complaint was filed following a review of Swanson’s use of the two pesticides, finding that the company failed to properly ventilate the home prior to the occupants re-entering, and improperly applied Conquer as a “space spray” at nearly three times the allowable rate. All of which are violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The U.S. EPA complaint also contains alleged violations pertaining to an application at another residence that took place prior to the application that led to the women’s death. In this case, the applicator allegedly used the same tank mix of pesticides, though no adverse health affects were reported.

A 2006 article in the Seattle Times reported that Swanson’s general manager, Steve Fisher, “said his review of the case showed that the technician sprayed the home as he normally would… ‘Unfortunate things happen in just about every walk of life.’”

This past March, Fred Kolbeck settled a $2.5 million lawsuit against Swanson’s for an undisclosed amount, according to The Oregonian.

Swanson’s has 30 days from the day they received the U.S. EPA complaint to either arrange a settlement conference, file an answer to the Complaint, or pay the proposed penalty. Swanson’s operation manager, Joan Jensen told The Oregonian, “that the EPA’s allegations are not accurate” and that the “negotiations with the agency are ongoing.”

According to EPA, “The consequences of Swanson’s alleged violations were extremely serious,” yet the federal pesticide law limits the penalty EPA can seek to a maximum of $4,550.

With the phase-out of most residential uses of the common organophosphate insecticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, home use of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, such as the ones applied at the Kolbeck home, has increased. According to a 2008 report, pyrethrins and pyrethroids were responsible for more than 26 percent of all major and moderate human incidents involving pesticides in the United States in 2007, up from just 15 percent in 1998 - a 67 percent increase. This is based on an analysis of adverse reaction reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency by pesticide manufacturers.

While pyrethroids have been characterized as less toxic than organophosphates, the number of reported human health problems, including severe reactions and even deaths attributed to pesticides containing pyrethrins and pyrethroids, increased from 261 in 1998 to 1,030 in 2007, nearly a 300 percent increase. Pyrethrins and pyrethroids account for more incidents than any other class of pesticide over the last five years. EPA data shows at least 50 deaths attributed to this supposedly safer class of pesticides since 1992.

Pesticide products containing synthetic pyrethroids are often described by pest control operators as “safe as chrysanthemum flowers.” While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chyrsanthemum plant, they are chemically engineered to be more toxic, take longer to breakdown, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide. Pyrethroids may affect neurological development, disrupt hormones, induce cancer, and suppress the immune system. Researchers at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) find that residential pesticide use represents the most important risk factor for children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides.

There are clear established methods for managing homes that prevent infestation of unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals, including exclusion techniques, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth). Based on the host of health effects linked to pesticides, their use in the home is hazardous and unnecessary. Most pest problems can be solved without toxic pesticides, through sanitation, proper storage of food and trash, exclusion (sealing entryways), traps and non-volatile baits. For detailed information on preventing specific pests, see Beyond Pesticides’ Alternatives Factsheets.

For more information on the details of the Kolbeck/Swanson incident and the issues surrounding ventilation after a pesticide application, click here.

Link

The World According to Monsanto

Filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin on the troubling past of one of the world’s biggest agricultural companies.

Don’t miss the very last line by Poppy Bush.

Link

No comment

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

Not to be outdone by Leslie at The Oko Box Blog and her post on The Crazy Sh!t We Gotta Do where she sealed off a door with foil to keep safe from her roomie’s fumes, Mokihana at Vardo for Two writes about her Denny Foil, golden folds of fabric, and The Kitchenette. “Leslie from The Oko Box Blog posted pictures and story of what it takes to live in ’safe’ fashion with stuff that ‘ordinaries’ or ‘civilians’ have/build with …Least I forget how MUCH WE HAVE living in The Kitchenette I felt compelled to make her our very special pin-up girl. With out her we would be dead meat!”

Keith at Digital Doorway writes about the exclusion of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in the recently released U.S. Census on Americans With Disabilities: 2005. In Keith’s post, “The Census and Americans with Disabilities,” he expresses his profound disappointment that illnesses such as MCS and Gulf War Syndrome are once again left out of the data.

While not addressing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity directly, Julie Mellum, president of Take Back the Air, writes at StarTribune.com about the absurdity of men using fragrances as a secret to business success. In her opinion piece, “Scents do not line the path to success,” she says:

…fragrances contain many of the same toxicants that are in tobacco smoke. These include formaldehyde, benzene, toluene and other hazardous volatile organic compounds that pollute the lungs and airspace of those around them.

Synthetic fragrances are about as romantic as a toxic-waste site, for many of their shared toxicants are on the EPA’s list of most hazardous wastes. They also contain highly addictive class A carcinogens. See www.takebacktheair.com for the facts.

Just as bottled deer musk masks the human scent as a hunting aid, so synthetic fragrances mask natural pheromones in people. Burger King has actually leapt into the fray with a new fragrance that smells like meat. That is downright comical, except for the fact that fragrance chemicals mimic estrogen with hormone-disrupting chemicals that are implicated in early puberty, reproductive birth defects and infertility.

Note: I neglected to add a link on Monday’s story to Leslie’s post on her door project. My apologies for the omission.

Thanks, Linda, for sending the second two stories my way! You find the best stuff on the Interwebs.

Canary’s Cry for Wednesday, Dec. 31

Bloomberg.com reports that a “Coal Ash Spill Leads to Arsenic Warnings for Tennessee Wells” :

Water samples near a billion-gallon spill of coal ash in eastern Tennessee have found levels of arsenic and other heavy metals higher than drinking-water standards, prompting a warning against using private wells in the area.

Samples taken at the site of the spill in Harriman, 35 miles southwest of Knoxville, “slightly exceed” the standards for some metals, according to a statement from the Tennessee Valley Authority, owner of the coal power plant where the Dec. 22 accident occurred. Results from well-water and air tests won’t be known until later this week, the utility said.

The spill at the utility’s Harriman Fossil Plant deluged more than 300 acres of rural Roane County, destroying three homes and damaging 42 other properties. In nearby Kingston, that raised fears of fouled water and air, while 13 families wait to see if their homes can be salvaged, said Carolyn Brewer, finance director for the city of 5,300.

“Some of them are staying with families; some are working with real estate agents, leasing homes, buying homes,” Brewer said in a telephone interview today. “There’s two or three that will just never be able to get back in their homes. They’re just destroyed.”

The sludge-like spill, a mixture of water and residue from burned coal, escaped from a 40-acre holding pond after a retaining wall burst last week. After repeatedly saying the spilled material isn’t toxic, the TVA cautioned residents in its latest statement against touching or stirring up the material.

Leslie at The Oko Box Blog says the same coal ash spill, which happened “just around the bend” from where she lives, is polluting the air in her neighborhood to the point of making her “nauseous, lethargic, and seizure prone.” Take care, Leslie!

On the same topic, the New York Times reports “At Plant in Coal Ash Spill, Toxic Deposits by the Ton.” NYT says, “The spill has reignited a debate over whether coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous waste. In 2000, the E.P.A. backed away from its recommendation to do so in the face of industry opposition, promising instead to issue national guidelines for proper ash disposal, though it never did.”

In other disturbing news, Utne Reader reports about the consequences from marketing chemical-laden cosmetics to younger and younger consumers. In “Not So Pretty in Pink: Marketing Toxic Makeup to Young Girls,” Utne notes, “This rush to cosmetic beauty also represents increased exposure to toxic chemicals. Scientists now suspect that chemicals found in many of the cosmetics for which young girls clamor contribute to a disturbing trend. Girls in the United States, especially African American girls, are entering puberty earlier than their grandmothers did. Half of all American girls now show signs of breast development by age 10—one to two years earlier than 40 years ago—and a significant number show signs as early as 8 or 9.” Take a look at the article to find out why.

Thanks, Leslie and Linda!

Air freshener manufacturers disclose product ingredients

Manufacturers disclose a plethora of chemicals in air fresheners including formaldehyde, benzene compounds and naphthalene.

We knew that crap was poison, didn’t we?

From The Alliance for Healthy Homes:

Under pressure from a coalition of environment and health groups, the seven largest air freshener manufacturers have disclosed their products’ ingredients to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The coalition of groups dropped a legal case regarding the issue against the EPA on December 11 and now plan to pressure the agency to evaluate the safety of the ingredients individually and in combination with each other.

The Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned EPA in September 2007 to learn the risks of air fresheners and to require that manufacturers list ingredients on labels. In December 2007, EPA denied the petition but sent letters to the top seven air freshener manufacturers, asking them to voluntarily submit the ingredients in their products and the quantities used annually. The seven companies are Blythe, Dial, Lancaster Colony, Procter & Gamble, Redkitt Benckiser, S.C. Johnson and Shell. The petitioners sued EPA in April 2008 to help ensure that the companies actually provided ingredient information to EPA – which they did in two stages. In May, EPA received data about the non-fragrance ingredients and in October the agency obtained fragrance ingredient data.

EPA now has data for all ingredients present in 0.1% concentration or greater in air freshener products made by these seven companies. This is the first time that EPA has known the main chemical ingredients in a wide number of air fresheners, the function of each ingredient, and the aggregate amount of each chemical present in the products. The agency is now in a position to assess the risks posed by those chemicals and to take appropriate regulatory action. The organizations will continue to request that ingredients present below 0.1% concentration be disclosed to the agency, too.

While EPA received the complete list of ingredients, public versions contained many redactions under company confidential business information claims. Even with the redacted version of the data, however, several hazardous chemicals are listed as air freshener ingredients. These chemicals include formaldehyde (a carcinogen and irritant deliberately generated as preservative), benzene compounds (benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen), naphthalene (a carcinogen), and other chemicals whose safety is questionable.

Because of the redactions in the public data, only EPA and the companies presently know what amounts of these chemicals are used. The coalition of groups is now attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act to challenge the companies’ confidentiality claims and hope to make more ingredient information available publicly. Industry groups are also planning a new ingredient disclosure program for 2010, but say they will continue to keep many ingredients secret including those in their dyes, preservatives and fragrances.

The original petition, EPA’s response, as well as all other public submissions from the Air Freshener Manufacturers

The submission from the fragrance houses

Photo by Crazy Wanda

Thanks, Linda!

Sixth grader proposes Earth-friendly homes

“Eco-friendly homes are designed for creating a healthy indoor air environment and adequate ventilation in a natural way.”

Take a look at this letter to the editor in The Greenwich Time (Connecticut), written by a sixth grader. If these are the thoughts of sixth graders these days, there’s great hope for a brighter, less toxic future. Imagine what will happen if this young scholar decides to be an engineer or architect or community organizer, or maybe even a lawmaker. To understand, as this bright student does, that the building of eco-friendly, nontoxic homes strengthens communities and the economy is the type of progressive thinking that will get us out of this toxic mess, the mess that impacts those of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity so seriously.

Green Homes are Good for our Community

To the editor:

As a sixth-grader at Eastern Middle School, I am concerned about the energy being carelessly wasted and the growing pollution around the town. To improve this, I support the modus operandi of “green building” and modifying homes to be more Earth friendly.

Increasing green homes will have remarkably positive effects.

The town’s picturesque parks and landscapes are extremely valuable. The streets are lined with scenic houses and even some historical sites. If we don’t put a stop to the constant release of fumes and greenhouse gases, the exquisite reputation of this community may collapse dramatically. Installing more energy-efficient and solar-powered homes will secure a prosperous and efficient status. Also, green homes are becoming quite luxurious, and such additions would be a notable avowal for Greenwich.

Standard houses have negative effects on the environment. Air pollution, water pollution, indoor pollution and stormwater runoff are all harmful to the Earth. Eco-friendly homes are designed for creating a healthy indoor air environment and adequate ventilation in a natural way, and use heavy insulation to reduce rising energy usage within the house.

These houses have very efficient appliances and construction. For instance, there are triple-pane windows, low-energy lighting, ground-source heat pumps, solar panels and de-chlorinating shower filters. These elements together guarantee a healthy lifestyle for the average Greenwich household.

An ecological house would be well adapted to the community and very beneficial to the economy. Those houses specialize in carefully making the best of all resources and avoiding waste. By switching to this type of houses, you’re helping all parts of the world.

I’ve lived in Greenwich long enough to appreciate its outstanding reputation. I am certain that expanding the quantity of energy-efficient homes would be extremely advantageous to the economy, households and the dazzling image of Greenwich.

Eco-friendly homes are the way of a cleaner, greener future. So I urge the people of this town to use green building technology when building or renovating their homes.

Thank you for reading my letter.

Gianna DeMasi

Greenwich

Link

Photo of a LEED house by Sarah Leeab

FYI: LEED for Homes is a rating system that promotes the design and construction of high-performance green homes. A green home uses less energy, water and natural resources; creates less waste; and is healthier and more comfortable for the occupants. Benefits of a LEED home include lower energy and water bills; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; and less exposure to mold, mildew and other indoor toxins. The net cost of owning a LEED home is comparable to that of owning a conventional home.

President-Elect Obama: Reform chemical policy

In this letter to president-elect Barack Obama, U.S. chemicals policy activists say, “U.S. chemical regulatory policy must understand and implement the Precautionary Principle so that we may finally join the modern chemical policies of other countries around the world.”

Rachel’s Precaution Reporter #172, December 10, 2008

LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM

To the Obama transition government

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your victory in the election for president of the United States. We look forward to the positive changes you plan on making, and send you this letter to offer our support in that endeavor, especially for the urgently needed reform of our chemical regulatory policy.

Recent reports about industry influence and possible interference with our chemical regulatory policy on chemicals at the FDA, EPA and other agencies threaten the confidence of all consumers about American products, and about our government’s role in protecting health. As we are sure you know, storms of controversy over chemicals in everything from shower curtains and lipstick, to baby bottles, infant formula, canned food, cars, toys and even pet food have increasingly unnerved parents and anyone concerned about public health.

Though its effects may not be as obvious, the deregulation of the chemical industry has hurt the United States just as much as the deregulation of Wall Street, with effects likely to last generations. Scientists, physicians, health advocates, worker organizations, parent groups, health-affected groups and many others view fundamental reform to current chemical laws as urgent and necessary to protect children, workers, communities, and the environment now and in the future.

The economic costs of current levels of chemical contamination are often hidden, though they contribute significantly to reduced worker productivity, increased hospital costs, more expensive health insurance, and greater burdens on businesses for hazardous waste storage, disposal, and clean-up fees. Uncounted in the conventional cost-benefit analysis of our chemical regulatory policies is the price we pay for children with developmental disabilities or the toll on families with chemical exposure-linked illness, not to mention eco- system impacts, made worse by global warming.

Mounting scientific studies link chemical exposure to human illness and unnecessary disabilities and chronic conditions. The most vulnerable include children, women, and communities of color and those already stressed by depressed economic conditions and diminished access to health care and information. Spikes in rates of illness linked to chemical exposure include: obesity, diabetes, thyroid disease, childhood cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, asthma, neurodevelopmental problems, learning disabilities in children that persist throughout life and other effects. Although chemical exposure knows no boundaries, communities of color located around chemical manufacturing areas and whose geographic location receives chemical drift from applications elsewhere are at particular risk.

Tragically, these preventable illnesses and health effects linked to chemical exposure are on the rise, and the effects of some chemical exposure effects can last for generations. Scientists, physicians, health advocates, worker organizations, parent groups, health-affected groups and many others view fundamental reform to current chemical laws as urgent and necessary to protect children, workers, communities, and the environment now and in the future.

People all over the United States, including Mossville, Louisiana, Glynn County, Georgia, Dixon, Tennessee, Port Arthur and Corpus Christie, Texas, agricultural communities in California, North Carolina, Washington, and Florida and elsewhere are suffering from chemical contamination. Arctic Indigenous communities are among the most highly exposed populations in the world. The Arctic has become a hemispheric sink for long-lasting chemical contaminants that travel long distances on oceanic and atmospheric currents. These chemicals accumulate up the food chain in fish, wildlife and peoples of the north.

Harm from chemical exposure from U.S. based and other chemical corporations is not limited to the U.S. Despite efforts by the international community to identify the most dangerous chemicals and phase them out, the U.S. government has obstructed this movement and has lost credibility with an international community suffering from the health effects of insidious chemical exposure caused, significantly, by U.S. corporations and their foreign allies. Ongoing efforts of the U.S. government to impede and obstruct major international policy advances such as the Stockholm Treaty and REACH have had serious economic and political consequences.

The opportunity to eliminate toxic chemical exposure and build a new green economy that supports clean production of safe consumer goods is now at hand. By designing new, safer chemicals, products, and green production systems, American businesses will protect people’s health and create healthy, sustainable jobs, and enhance our ability to compete in the international marketplace. Some leading companies are already on this path and the workers and neighboring communities benefit. They are creating safe products and new, green jobs by using clean, innovative technologies that benefit public health, the environment and the bottom line. But transforming entire markets will require policy change.

Please consider these five steps to improve the health and well being of Americans, to protect future generations, promote industry innovation and technological superiority in designing safer chemicals, products and manufacturing processes, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reward businesses that protect workers and lead the way to a new, green energy economy that will benefit all Americans.

1. Hire and Gather the Best and the Brightest for your Toxics Regulatory Team

* Deploy thoughtful leaders on: chemical exposure and environmental health, scientific and common sense solutions to the toxic chemical contamination problem, innovations in business and industry with Green Chemistry development, and other innovative thinkers to advise the administration on toxic chemical exposure as a variable in all domestic and foreign policy as well as on new appointments to agencies and departments relevant to environmental health. One example would be forming a task force on chemical regulatory reform or some other multi-stakeholder process to help expedite immediate action. These innovative thinkers should advise the administration on toxic chemical exposure as a variable in all domestic and foreign policy as well as on new appointments to agencies and departments relevant to environmental health and have no financial conflicts of interest. It will be important for this group to see the interconnectivity of issues inherent to a healthy and prosperous future.

* Set a public interest research agenda that coordinates green chemistry with green energy and green engineering technologies being developed and supported.

* The administration should adopt the position that the right to a clean and healthy environment is an inalienable right that will be protected by the courts.

2. U.S. Chemicals Policy Must Adhere to Principles and Guidelines for Ethical Chemical Regulatory Reform

* U.S. residents and all peoples have a fundamental right to protection from exposure to toxic substances, including from chemicals and nuclear radiation, in our environment and our bodies. The purpose of the U.S. chemicals regulatory policy must be to protect us from these exposures, while preventing the export of toxic substances that could harm other countries.

* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must understand and implement the Precautionary Principle so that we may finally join the modern chemical policies of other countries around the world. The Precautionary Principle forms the foundation of the European Union’s REACH law on chemicals and international treaties such as the Stockholm Convention. This foundation for U.S. chemical policy mandates adequate scientific evidence that will help to insure that a substance is safe before it is allowed to be introduced in the marketplace.

* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must provide remedies for the injustice of unequal environmental protection based on race that has exposed communities of color to significant levels of toxic pollution. Such remedies must include a legal standard that requires a safe distance between a residential population and a chemical facility and a private right of action against a federal, state, or local regulatory agency whose decision or action results in a racially disproportionate pollution burden.

* In addition to aligning with REACH, U.S. chemical regulatory policy must regain U.S. leadership by respecting the intentions of international agreements, including Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), the Stockholm Convention, Rotterdam Convention, Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and a new global free standing legally binding agreement on mercury and other similar substances of concern.

3. Revamp the Chemical Evaluation Process

* A gross lack of knowledge currently exists in the U.S. about the data on chemical substances produced, imported, exported, and used in the U.S. This serious data deficiency demands immediate adoption of a comprehensive process of identifying and assessing critical information for all substances before they can be produced, marketed or allowed for continued use. Of utmost priority art chemicals that are suspected of being mutagens, carcinogens, reproductive or neurodevelopmental toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. Examples include: phthalates, bisphenol A, perflourinated chemicals, endosulfan, lindane, perchlorate, methyl bromide, methyl iodide, organophosphates, dioxins, furans, and brominated and chlorinated flame-retardants, and non- persistent chemicals, such as benzene, which may be difficult to detect.

* Evaluation of the chemicals must be on the basis of their inherent hazards and toxicity, including threats of harm to workers who make them, the communities where they are made, the communities where the chemicals and chemical-induced products are used, disposed or destroyed, and where there is danger for impacting the health of the general public, now and in the future, as in the case of neurotoxins and many carcinogens, which can take years to trigger or manifest effects.

* Chemical evaluation processes also must be based on complete transparency and mandated data collection from the corporations that make the chemicals, removing “business security” shields from manufacturers of suspected dangerous substances. Health and safety information should not be considered confidential business information and a “No Data, No Market” rule should be implemented and enforced.

* Suspected materials must be phased out more rapidly where safer substitutes are already available.

* No U.S. government agency should be allowed to shield chemical corporations from being mandated to provide information under the guise of “national security,” in regard to chemical production facilities or transportation of these chemicals.

* Evaluation of chemicals must be conducted by U.S. government scientists and academic colleagues in a manner that that upholds the integrity of the evaluation, with public financial support as well as political support for independent research and protection for speaking freely about their findings. Scientists must be expected to report unbiased results, free from political and industry-driven influences, with all findings subject to fully transparent, independent peer review. Scientists must have support and protections to be able to conduct independent scientific study and speak freely about their findings — the “gag order” on U.S. federal scientists must be removed immediately.

* Immediate action to pursue permanent Chemical Security legislation that would require thousands of facilities, including all water treatment plants to require the use of safer chemical alternatives and processes. Millions of people inside the U.S. are at risk if an unintentional or intentional (terrorist attacks) industrial chemical accident were to occur. The framework required includes improving standards for review of safer and more secure alternatives, worker involvement, and crucial government accountability. One immediate concern is the need for a structured review of federal facilities that pose the danger of an off-site chemical emergency release. The standards for these reviews must be focused on “alternatives assessment” rather than “risk assessment.”

4. Reform “Stakeholder” Influence in Decision-Making

* U.S. chemical policy regulators, including non-scientist appointees and staff members, must be completely free of ties to the chemical industry or other entities that would attempt to influence their decisions or impact the integrity of chemical evaluations. Regulators may consult with the chemical industry, but we need a change from what has become a conventional U.S. process in which the chemical industry dictates chemical regulatory policy and writes relevant legislation. The preferred “stakeholders” in this process must be the people of the United States, not the chemical corporations.

* The people of the United States need to have access and the ability to participate in the chemical evaluation process, which requires resources for capacity building and access to expertise to represent their interests.

* The Toxic Release Inventory rule and other tools for industry transparency?must be strengthened, and the public’s right to know chemical data should be guaranteed. There must be Executive and legislative support for mandating complete transparency for all data regarding chemical exposure in communities, including pesticide use data.

* Toxic chemical exposure must also be considered an Environmental Justice issue, and previously ignored and disenfranchised communities of color and of modest economic standing must be brought into the process of identifying vulnerable populations and implementing culturally respectful policies for empowerment to become safe from chemical exposure. This can only be accomplished through dedicated resources for capacity building at the community level.

* Resources must be immediately directed toward environmental monitoring of air, water, and soil where chemical exposure is suspected in order to prevent, not just manage, exposure to workers and communities.

* When toxic chemical exposure is identified, immediate action and resources must be available to halt the exposure and protect communities, especially children, honoring the cultural integrities of each community.

* Assessment of toxic chemical exposures must be an immediate mandated component of all relief efforts for communities in times of disaster, with protection mitigations in place to prevent additional and new exposures (as in the example of the FEMA trailers) compounding existing tragedy.

5. Create Economic Strength and Strategy Via Toxic Chemical Exposure Protections

* A program of incentives must be developed to support the efforts of chemical corporations, the auto and oil industries, and other relevant industries to develop less harmful substitutions for their products. No new products should be allowed into the marketplace without adequate scientific study on health effects. The responsibility must be on the producer to demonstrate no harm. Regulatory and financial barriers for companies seeking to develop and use less toxic products, move away from reliance on petrochemicals, and reduce resource depletion in production, including use of water, should be addressed, and incentives provided for those corporations that demonstrate significant progress insuring that their workers, communities, and customers are protected.

* “Polluter pays,” reverse onus, and other precautionary policies, in addition to the Rio Principles should be adopted as a foundation for U.S. environmental protections and for restoring confidence in U.S. corporations, their standing in the community, and the products they make. Re-establish support and enforcement of Superfund policies.

* Support programs for farmers to transition to safer, less toxic means of food production must be instituted.

* Integrate Toxic Chemical Exposure Issues Throughout U.S. Government Agencies and Policies

* EPA must partner with the Centers for Disease Control and immediate resources need to be made available for biomonitoring and public health surveys of communities where chemical exposure impact is suspected. Monitoring should also include biota and human tissue contamination with the intention of tracing the sources of contamination. These agencies must develop and use a protocol for the evaluation of chemical exposure impact that is based on the Precautionary Principle

* Intentional dosing of human beings, especially children, with pesticides and other known toxic chemicals in experiments is unethical and must be prohibited.

* Chemical contamination knows no political boundaries. Testing of imported foods and other products for chemical contamination must be reinstated.

* The U.S. government must make it illegal for U.S. corporations to dump toxic waste or sell banned or restricted products outside of the country. U.S. corporations must be accountable and responsible for harm that befalls communities at home and overseas from chemical exposure caused by these corporations chemical manufacture, use (including in consumer products), and disposal. The U.S. must become a party to the Basel Treaty and uphold its principles.

* The U.S. government must define toxic substance hazard as a variable in all international trade, human rights, and other agreements and encourage and support other nations to reduce and eliminate toxic substance exposure.

* Toxic chemical exposure must be taken into account for all U.S. policies, including stimulus for the economy,?job creation, the transition away from petrochemical fuels, education, and other urgent changes in U.S. economic and social enterprises.

* A timeline must be set for putting a modern chemical regulatory process and policy in place; time is of the essence with the health of hundreds of millions of people at stake.

Thank you.

The undersigned groups are eager to assist with designing and building support for transformational change to the U.S. chemical regulatory system and offer our recommendations as enthusiastic partners of the President-Elect’s new administration to achieve necessary and timely change.

Sincerely,

Laura Abulafia, MHS, Director, Environmental Health Initiative, American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Formerly AAMR)

Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ruth Berlin, LCSW-C, Executive Director, Maryland Pesticide Network

Joan Blades, President and Co-founder, MomsRising.org

Arlene Blum, Executive Director, Green Science Policy Institute

Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network

Elizabeth Crowe, Director, Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Kathleen Curtis, Policy Director, Clean New York

Carol Dansereau, Executive Director, Farm Worker Pesticide Project, Washington

Joe DiGangi, International Pops Elimination Network

Tracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director, Michigan Ecology Center

Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides

Christopher Gavigan, CEO, Healthy Child, Healthy World

Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Dori Gilels, Executive Director, Women’s Voices for the Earth

Kathryn Gilje, Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network North America

Monique Harden, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights

Amanda Hawes, attorney

Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace

Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280 (EPA HQ Professionals Union), and Chemist in Residence, American University

John Kepner, Project Director, Beyond Pesticides

Bettie D. Kettell, RN Durham, Maine

Elise Miller, MEd, Executive Director, Institute for Children’s Environmental Health

Pam Miller, Biologist and Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics

Mark A. Mitchell, MD, MPH, President, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice

Peter Montague, PhD, Environmental Research Foundation

Suzanne Murphy, Executive Director, Worksafe

Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy Breast Cancer Fund

Judith Robinson, Director of Programs, Environmental Health Fund

Mike Schade, PVC Campaign Coordinator, The Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ)

Ted Shettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water Action

Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director, Washington Toxics Coalition

Nathalie Walker, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights

Kristen Welker-Hood, ScD MSN RN, Director, Environment and Health Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Charlotte Wells, Galveston BAYKEEPER®, Texas

Resources

Contaminated without Consent www.contaminatedwithoutconsent.org

Is It In Us? isitinus.org/

The Louisville Charter www.louisvillecharter.org

Principles of Environmental Justice ej4all.org/environmental.principles.php

Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders Developed by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment’s Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative February 20, 2008 (revised July 1, 2008) www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIPolicyStatement.pdf

Toxic Playroom www.toxicplayroom.org

Link

Thanks, Linda!

Warning: Avoid ozone generating air machines

While manufacturers of ozone-generating machines will tell you that the ozone is harmless and will clean the air you breathe (example of the spin here), the fact is that ozone generating machines are not only ineffective at cleaning the air, but they can be extremely harmful to your health. From the EPA website:

Manufacturers and vendors of ozone devices often use misleading terms to describe ozone. Terms such as ‘energized oxygen’ or ‘pure air’ suggest that ozone is a healthy kind of oxygen. Ozone is a toxic gas with vastly different chemical and toxicological properties from oxygen. Several federal agencies have established health standards or recommendations to limit human exposure to ozone.

Further, I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve heard about exposure to ozone from these types of machines triggering full blown Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in unsuspecting consumers. We’ve discussed ozone machines previously on The Canary Report when one of our flock was exposed in her home.

Please note that while ozone machine manufacturers will tell you that the “unused ozone always reverts back to oxygen in about an hour,” the EPA, using “sound science, only peer reviewed, scientifically supported findings and conclusions,” says, “Some of the potential by-products produced by ozone’s reactions with other chemicals are themselves very reactive and capable of producing irritating and corrosive by-products (Weschler and Shields, 1996, 1997a, 1997b).” So in reality, ozone in the home creates chemical reactions with other chemicals already in the home, and no one has ever studied the impact of that lingering toxic brew.

Here’s the astonishing thing about the regulation of these machines: The EPA has a whole page on their website dedicated to informing the public about the dangers of ozone generators that are sold as air cleaners, and yet the government still allows these machines to be manufactured, sold and used inside homes. I can’t for the life of me understand what’s going on with this. These dangerous machines should be pulled off the market NOW.

Environment News Service reports today:

The California Air Resources Board has issued a consumer alert, advising holiday shoppers not to purchase air purifiers or air cleaning devices that intentionally generate ozone.Some devices that are advertised as “air purifiers,” air cleaners, or ozone generators purposely emit large amounts of ozone, the main component of smog.

“Not only are such ozone generators ineffective at cleaning indoor air, but breathing ozone poses serious health risks,” warns the Air Resources Board, recommending that these ozone generators not be used.

“Consumers should take care when considering purchase of an air cleaning device,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols, “Beware of misleading advertisements offering air purifiers that are simply indoor smog-making machines.”

Consumers may unknowingly purchase these “ozone generators” from advertisers touting the so-called benefits of “activated oxygen” that can make the air inside your home “as fresh as the outdoors after a thunderstorm,” the board said, quoting the ads.

In fact, the board says, “Ozone generators are capable of emitting enough ozone indoors to far exceed outdoor health standards and can intentionally create the equivalent of a Stage 1 smog alert inside your home.”

These devices pump a well-known air pollutant into people’s homes putting everyone at risk, especially the most vulnerable - the young, elderly and infirm.

The devices can produce levels of ozone that can worsen asthma, cause serious lung inflammation, decrease lung function, and lead to hospitalization for respiratory conditions, emergency room visits for asthma, and increased school absences.

Link to more of the story at Environment News Service

Photo by M. Stephens

Canary’s Cry for Monday, Dec. 8

USA Today has put out an in-depth Special Report on Toxic Air and America’s Schools.

USA Today used an EPA model to track the path of industrial pollution and mapped the locations of almost 128,000 schools to determine the level of toxic chemicals outside. The potential problems that emerged were widespread, insidious and largely unaddressed.

Click here for USA Today Video by Garrett Hubbard, Steve Elfers, Denny Gainer, and Rhyne Piggott: USA TODAY examines the impact of industrial pollution outside the nation’s schools and explores how toxic chemicals shuttered one elementary school in Addyston, Ohio, three years ago. This video is Part One. Part Two is due out shortly. Click here for USA Today full report and supporting stories.

In other news, The New York Times reports that “A Problem Rises to the Surface in Greenpoint.” Residents of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, have toxic gases “rising into their homes from below, the legacy of dry-cleaning plants, foundries and other manufacturers that once operated in this hub, which has long been home to immigrants and, more recently, artists and young professionals. Such vapor intrusion — chemicals from contaminated soil and groundwater that become airborne, entering buildings through pores and cracks — has become a growing public health concern around the country in recent years. Contaminants that spread from industrial activity, or that were mistakenly believed to have been contained or eliminated in environmental cleanups, have been discovered wafting into basements.”

No comment

Well, one small comment. Try this: See what happens when you view this presentation through the lens of what’s known in literary criticism as “against the grain.” My red flag always goes up whenever I hear someone making an argument for something good for me as an American based on instilling the fear of losing my freedom. In this story, who are they telling me is the Bad Guy? And who are they telling me is the Good Guy? And in this particular piece of propoganda, who are the Ignorant Gullible Guys wanting some protections? But take a look for yourself and see what you think.

Dear President-Elect Obama: Health care is a right

Yesterday’s post on President-Elect Obama’s request for input on Health Care inspired many of you to write him about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Bravo! Like true canaries, you are out front sending your messages of warning and need.

I’d like to post the letters if you would like to share. If you’ve saved a copy, send to me via email to susie(at)thecanaryreport(dot)org.

Missy Gluckman (at left) wrote me this morning with a copy of her remarks. The Canary Report has been following Missy’s struggle with severe illness and MCS brought on by toxic mold exposure at her place of work. Here are Missy’s remarks to President-Elect Obama:

Dear President Elect Obama,

Thank you for asking for our input!

I would like to see ND (Natural Doctors - licensed by many states) included more regularly in health care plans. In addition, natural supplements that are prescribed by NDs are not covered by health insurance and I would like to see this change.

Why do I care about this? Well, let me clarify: I tried traditional medicine for 39 years of my 40 and switched recently to an ND after 3 years of treatment for a variety of illnesses caused by mold/toxic exposure that nearly killed me at 37.  My ND, thankfully, is covered by my insurance plan (Anthem - state of CT), but this is RARE. The ND has been the only person in 3 years who has given me ANY relief from toxic poisoning and the related illnesses (thyroid, liver and lung damage, multiple chemical sensitivity, etc). Without her unique approach to healing, I would likely be pushing for Full Disability which costs the govt a lot more than me being healthy and working (i’m categorized as Partially disabled by NY State worker’s compensation - but I choose to push through it and work bc I WANT to be productive and could not afford to live on $400 a week as granted by worker’s comp).

The natural approach would potentially improve the health and quality of life for thousands who suffer from toxic exposure, yet 99% of people will not go to this type of Dr bc of lack of insurance. An avg appt is $200 and supplements (which change each time I go  - can be as little as $12 or as much as $800).   The pharma companies are driving policy and are not always the best solution (in my case, the traditional pharma solutions resulted in a 30 pound weight gain which caused a whole new host of issues and simply did not work on any above stated conditions).

So, please help people who are suffering by giving them the option of licensed NDs and not allowing health insurance companies the right to deny a licensed dr into the network if they meet the criteria (i.e. licensed, etc - my ND was denied access into the Aetna network.)  Natural plant supplements have been used for CENTURIES in countries such as India, Brazil, etc with extremely positive effects - please fund the study and use of supplements so that they can be covered under insurance plans.

Secondly, I would like to ask for a law that requires manufacturers to state the contents of “fragrance” in their items sold (such as candles, lotions, Fabreze, etc). As a person who suffers from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), fragrances (which are toxic and some are carcinogens) are like kryptonite to me - within minutes I’m forced to go to bed due to the crippling ear pain, respiratory struggles, etc), all so someone can “smell nice”. If people and the govt understood what was actually in “Fragrance” as a category and how it can cause brain fog and behavioral issues in certain children, they would craft some meaningful laws to protect them and people like me who suffer MCS.

PREVENTION of illness is a big part of the need to restructure our health system. If daily toxins weren’t permitted - and certainly not encouraged - less people would suffer from illness and less children from asthma.

I got ill working at SUNY Rockland Cmty College - at a desk (I was a college administrator.) I was exposed to mold mycotoxins such as stachybotris and penicillium. These cause short term memory loss (brain damage) and hemorrhaging in babies. The school knew about the mold for at least a decade and did nothing to rectify it …WHY? Because our govt (unlike most industrialized countries in the world) has ZERO laws about mold.

Did you know that African American children in urban areas suffer from the HIGHEST rate of asthma in the country - why? Reports indicate that mold in public housing is one major factor - again, no one dictates that you must be permitted to live in a place that is safe from health issues.  Mold is a major cause of permanent illness which drains the economy and feed the pharma system.  This needs to change.

THANK YOU President Elect Obama for asking and for giving us a voice in our lives.  Without my health, I am nothing. Simple as that. Thankfully I am employed by the State of CT and have options - MOST DO NOT and as you said, health care is a RIGHT, not a luxury.

Good health to you all.

Toronto’s air choked with carcinogens

Toronto’s new law forcing industry to disclose chemical emissions might start to curb the toxic soup currently found in the city’s air.

This place does not pass the canary test!

Dry cleaning store on Queen East just west of Coxwell that has sign stating they don’t use toxic chemicals. COLIN MCCONNELL-TORONTO STAR

The 25 chemicals captured in Toronto’s new industry disclosure bylaw create a toxic brew of emissions that currently exceed health safety levels, Toronto Public Health says.

Almost all of the chemicals – most of them thought to be carcinogens – show up in Toronto’s air above accepted health standards. But some can surpass the best benchmarks by 25 to 30 times, making the simple act of breathing city air a risky proposition.

Those startling conclusions are part of the research that created the foundation for Toronto’s sweeping new “community right to know” bylaw, the first of its kind in Canada.

Using federal data from four Environment Canada air-monitoring stations across Toronto, public health researchers compared the figures to health measurement levels adopted in California (a rigorous standard founded on being “protective” of the public’s health) and by the Ontario Ministry of Environment.

“Most of us know that Toronto’s air is bad to breathe, especially in the summer,” said Katrina Miller, spokesperson for the Toronto Environmental Alliance, which spent years lobbying for the new bylaw. “We now know that there are certain cancer-causing chemicals in our air at levels that are absolutely unacceptable.”

Link to full story at HealthZone.ca

Thanks, Linda!

Guardsmen sue over chemical exposure in Iraq

Sixteen Indiana National Guard soldiers have sued the Houston-based defense contractor KBR, saying the company knowingly allowed them to be exposed to a toxic chemical in Iraq in 2003.

From Democracy Now!:

The soldiers were providing security for KBR during repairs of a water treatment plant in southern Iraq shortly after the US invasion. The suit claims the site was contaminated for six months by hexavalent chromium, “one of the most potent carcinogens” known to man. It alleges that KBR knew the plant was contaminated but concealed the danger from civilian workers and soldiers. We speak with one of the soldiers and with the lead attorney in the case.

Link here to full story, which includes a rush transcript of interview with Michael Doyle, lead counsel for the Guardsmen in the litigation, and Jody Aistrop, former member of the Indiana National Guard and one of the sixteen soldiers suing KBR.

Excerpt:

JODY AISTROP: Good morning. Well, my time in Iraq, we just spent at different sites every day, just basically getting KBR in, getting them out and guarding them while they were doing their job, just protecting them. Specifically, the water plant, we would go there, you know, every third day. And if the contractors really liked you, liked the job you were doing, you could go for a week for two weeks straight.

And, I mean, I believe that we were contaminated, because I, myself, seen the stuff on the ground. I was in the pump room, where the Iraqis were down working on the pumps. And the whole place was just covered, the pump room was. [cough] Excuse me.

I really don’t know what else to say. We basically just went in, did our job. And I feel that they knew. A report had came out that KBR knew that the ground was contaminated. And we were just told it was a mild irritant, don’t worry about it. The bloody noses are from the dry air, the sand. And we just continued to do our job, like it was nothing.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Jody, what were some of the symptoms that you and the others, beside the bloody noses that you mentioned, that you started to experience? And did you—what kind of complaints did you lodge to them, to the company officially?

JODY AISTROP: The main one was the bloody nose. Your eyes would burn. You would get a rash, like on your arms or your legs. And actually, my rash just cleared up like three months ago. And it turned into lesions once I got home.

Link to full story at Democracy Now!

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

Read the lawsuit against KBR

Canary’s Cry for Wednesday, Dec. 3

CNNMoney.com reports that one in three toys tested is toxic with chemicals such as lead, flame retardants and arsenic, according to a report issued Wednesday by an environmental group. Researchers for the Michigan-based Ecology Center tested more than 1,500 popular toys for lead, cadmium, arsenic, PVC and other harmful chemicals. They said they found that one-third of the toys contain “medium” or “high” levels of chemicals of concern. “Our hope is that by empowering consumers with this information, manufacturers and lawmakers will feel the pressure to start phasing out the most harmful substances immediately, and to change the nation’s laws to protect children from highly toxic chemicals,” said Ecology Center’s Jeff Gearhart, who led the research.

Related: From U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, which stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public and their health and well-being:

Trouble in Toyland: The 23rd annual survey of toy safety

The recall of 45 million toys and other children’s products in 2007 and continued recalls in 2008 reminded Americans that no government agency tests toys before they are put on the shelves. Specifically, the wave of recalls focused attention on the fact that the agency charged with protecting Americans from unsafe products—the Consumer Product Safety Commission—is a little agency with a very big job to do.

Congress responded by passing the first major overhaul of the CPSC since it was established during the Nixon administration, when it passed the landmark Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in August 2008. In addition to expanding the agency’s budget, Congress gave the CPSC more tools to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable and speed recalls, moved toward banning toxic lead and phthalates except in trace amounts and greatly improved import surveillance.

While the new law strengthens the CPSC and contains tough new protections against toxic chemicals like lead and phthalates, these protections have not yet gone into effect. As parents and other toygivers venture into crowded malls this holiday season, they should remain vigilant about often hidden hazards posed by toys on store shelves.

The 2008 “Trouble in Toyland” report is the 23rd annual Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) survey of toy safety. This report provides safety guidelines for parents when purchasing toys for small children and provides examples of toys currently on store shelves that may pose potential safety hazards. We visited numerous toy stores and other retailers to find potentially dangerous toys and identify trends in toy safety. This year, we focused specifically on toys that contain lead and phthalates in our research.

We also produced a shopping guide, which you can download here.

And for the adults: The New York Times reported last week that Bush Aides Rush To Enact A Rule Obama Opposes on worker safety. NYT says the Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job. The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health. Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

Thanks, Missy and Linda!

Rachel Carson, mother of environmental movement

Okay, here’s your antidote for the last post. I was just messin’ with you again.

Judge says woman can sue over co-worker’s perfume

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Mike Adams at Natural News has an excellent critique of a recent court case where an employee is suing the City of Detroit over a perfume drenched co-worker whom the employee says caused her serious respiratory problems.

Adams has a theory that the chemicals in perfume do much more than damage lungs. He says synthetic perfume “literally affects brain function, causing the brain to recede from sensory reality by decoupling neurons, thus making those people cognitively impaired.” Sound familiar?

I’m not sure if I go along with his assertion that the “dumbest people” wear perfume; I guess you have to define your terms. But his feeling about “dumbed-down” consumers getting poisoned in their homes makes a lot of sense to me.

A Judge has ruled that a lawsuit over workplace perfume filed by a Detroit city planner can proceed. The lawsuit alleges that perfume from a co-worker made Susan McBride unable to properly breathe, creating a hazardous work environment and making it difficult for her to complete her work.

The city of Detroit sought to have the lawsuit dismissed in court, but the Judge agreed with McBride that her difficulty in breathing with the excessive perfume did, indeed, qualify for protection under federal laws that protect the disabled from workplace discrimination.

That may seem like an odd law to invoke in this case (is McBride really “disabled” due to her difficulty in breathing?) but at least it is recognizing the reality of perfume toxicity.

Let’s get straight to the real story here, folks: Perfume-wearing people are toxic to the world, and they create a toxic workplace filled with poisonous, cancer-promoting chemicals that cause healthy people to gasp for breath.

[...]

Synthetic perfume chemicals cause cancer

These people also remain oblivious to the fact that perfumes contain cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed right through the skin. These chemicals enter the blood where they poison the liver and other organs, causing cancer and cellular toxicity throughout the body.

I also have a theory that this onslaught of chemicals literally affects brain function, causing the brain to recede from sensory reality by decoupling neurons, thus making those people cognitively impaired. You can observe this in the real world, too: Have you ever noticed it’s the dumbest people who wear the most perfume or cologne? I do not believe that is by chance: It could very well be a cause-effect relationship between perfume chemicals and brain function.

Keep in mind, too, that dumbed-down mainstream consumers use a lot of perfume-laced products throughout their homes: Laundry detergent, dryer sheets, air fresheners, carpet cleaners, shampoo, shower soap and other products laced with the same toxic fragrance chemicals found in perfumes. This creates a toxic environment in which cancer is accelerated and brain development is retarded.

NaturalNews supports a nationwide ban on perfumes in the workplace.

Link

Nestle says melamine in milk is from animal feed

I’ve been following the melamine debacle mainly because I’m astonished at the incompetence of the government in its handling of the mess.

Melamine is a toxic chemical used in fertilizer and plastics. It’s been showing up in a variety of products from pet food to milk meant for human consumption. At first the Food and Drug Administration said that melamine may be harmful in infant formula in any amount but that there is no known threat in American milk products for children and infants. But then when melamine showed up in American products meant for babies, they said the levels were low enough not to cause concern.

While all this was going on, the “experts” said that it was unlikely the contamination’s source was cattle feed because the melamine would have been excreted in the animal’s waste. Now the wonderful folks at Nestle are saying that contaminated feed is the source of the chemical in their baby milk sold in South Africa.

Huh?

28 Nov, 2008 - Nestle has said that contaminated animal feed was responsible for levels of melamine discovered in two brands of its formula milk in South Africa - giving credence to the possibility that the industrial chemical may be able to cross from the feed to the food chain.

The statement by Nestle, the world’s largest food and nutrition company, runs against the belief held by many experts and food safety bodies that melamine ingested by animals does not pass into the food chain, as reported exclusively by Feedinfo News Service. It challenges the perception that the industrial chemical is either excreted by the animal or is diluted to such an extent that any remaining traces are practically undetectable in human food.

The announcement by Nestle South Africa comes after a batch of the company’s Nido Growing up Milk for one-year-olds and a consignment of Lactogen Starter Infant Formula with iron were recalled by the KwaZulu-Natal health department earlier this week.

A Nestle statement said: “Testing led to the discovery of melamine in a number of samples of cattle feed which is predominantly used in winter, which explains the presence of melamine traces in these batches. Consequently, Nestlé has also taken steps to ensure that the cattle feed used by its South African milk producers is melamine free.”

Link

Photo by P1r

Thanks, Dan!

11/29 UPDATE: FDA sets limit for baby formula

Thanks, Linda!

Obama on green energy and affordable health care

Here’s President-Elect Obama’s first YouTube weekly address, just released. He includes as part of his agenda, “to build an American green energy economy… while freeing our country from the tyranny of foreign oil and saving our planet for our children.” He also includes, “making health care affordable for anyone who has it, [and] accessible for anyone who wants it.” This is music to the ears of anyone suffering from Environmental Illness: the hemorrhage of policy protecting the health, safety and welfare of the American people, the bad policy that perpetuated a filthy environment coupled with a broken health insurance system, will be stemmed.

Aerial spraying in California put public at risk

In the Open Forum at SF Gate, Mike Lynberg writes that “Aerial pesticide spraying put people at risk.”

Lynberg is referring to the spraying that occured in the fall of 2007 when the State of California sprayed pesticides over Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties to control the potentially invasive Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). Thousands of Californians participated in a grass roots effort called Stop the Spray, and asked Governor Schwarzenegger to investigate the health complaints and end the LBAM Eradication Program. And in June 2008, the State announced a moratorium on aerial spray of urban areas. However, according to the Stop the Spray website, the LBAM Eradication Program still continues with the use of controversial toxic ground treatments and aerial pesticide spray of rural/mountainous areas.

Writes Lynberg:

The state’s long-awaited report on the human health risks of aerial pesticide spraying for the light brown apple moth was released last week. The report says what thousands of outraged people from Monterey to Marin County had feared: the product sprayed put some people at risk.

“We cannot exclude the possibility that one or more ingredients in the LBAM product could cause an allergic response in sensitive individuals,” reads the report, issued by the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Department of Public Health.

The report acknowledges that some of the ailments suffered by people in the Monterey and Santa Cruz areas - namely asthma and reactive airway disease - “may be associated with exposure to a sensitizer or allergen.”

[...]

Seventy-four doctors filed pesticide illness reports. Several people ended up in emergency rooms.

There is more in the new report to validate the outrage many people felt about aerial spraying. State agencies now say there is a “paucity of data” on long-term exposure to the pesticides. Lab animals were tested for very short periods of time, whereas people in the Monterey and Santa Cruz areas were exposed to chemicals that persisted in the air for 30 to 60 days.

The report also admits that laboratory tests on a small number of animals might not be an adequate predictor of human health effects when large numbers of people - with different levels of sensitivity - are exposed to a pesticide.

Link

Photo from VeganReader.com.