The Canary Report

EPA to take action on chemicals used in dyes, flame retardants, and industrial detergents

Posted on Aug 19, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, Law, Susie Collins

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released action plans to address the potential health risks of benzidine dyes, hexabromocyclododecane and nonylphenol/nonylphenol ethoxylates. The efforts are to limit exposure and reduce harm to people.

8/18/10 WASHINGTON – As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s commitment to strengthen and reform chemical management, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released action plans today to address the potential health risks of benzidine dyes, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and nonylphenol (NP)/nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). The chemicals are widely used in both consumer and industrial applications, including dyes, flame retardants, and industrial laundry detergents. The plans identify a range of actions the agency is considering under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

“The action plans announced today are examples of EPA’s renewed dedication to improve chemical safety to protect the health of the American people and the environment.” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These action plans lay out concrete steps EPA intends to take to address the risks associated with chemicals commonly used in this country.”

Benzidine dyes are used in the production of consumer textiles, paints, printing inks, paper, and pharmaceuticals and may pose health problems, including cancer. HBCD is used as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam in the building and construction industry, as well as in some consumer products. HBCD has been shown to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment and may pose potential reproductive, developmental, and neurological effects in people. NP/NPEs are used in many industrial applications and consumer products such as detergents, cleaners, agricultural and indoor pesticides, as well as food packaging. These chemicals have been detected in people.

The range of actions on these chemicals include adding HBCD and NP/NPE to EPA’s new Chemicals of Concern list, issuing significant new use rules for all three chemicals, and, for HBCD and benzidine dyes, imposing new reporting requirements on EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory and potentially banning or limiting the manufacture or use of the chemicals.

In addition to EPA’s efforts, the Textile Rental Services Association, which represents 98 percent of the industrial laundry facilities in the U.S., has committed to voluntarily phase out the use of NPEs in industrial liquid detergents by Dec. 31, 2013 and industrial powder detergents by the end of 2014.

“While EPA intends to address the potential risks associated with these chemicals,” Owens stated, “we are pleased that the industrial laundry industry has decided to not wait for regulatory action to be completed by the agency and is voluntarily taking steps now to phase out the use of NPEs.”

EPA first announced that it planned to develop the Chemicals of Concern list last December, which indicates that the chemicals may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. This previously unused TSCA authority signals the agency’s commitment to fully use the tools currently available, while supporting legislative reform of TSCA.

Additional information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals.

Continue Reading

Tags: Chemicals, EPA, Law, Policy, Toxic

Hawaii governor declares July as Toxic Injury Awareness and Education Month

Posted on Jul 27, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, MCS, Susie Collins

Hawaii proclaims July as Toxic Injury and Education Month; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity activists plan sign-waving event at state capitol for July 28.

Hawaii state flag.

MCS America reports Hawaii Proclaimed July 2010 Toxic Injury Awareness and Education Month. The proclamation was signed by Governor Linda Lingle and Lieutenant Governor James R. “Duke” Aiona, Jr, on July 22.

Thanks to the hard work of Sue Quimby and help of several others, Hawaii proclaimed July Toxic Injury Awareness and Education Month!

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is mentioned in the first line as being synonymous with Toxic Injury. This is the first time in 4 years anyone has been able to have a proclamation signed in Hawaii! Thank you Governor Lingle and Lieutenant Governor Aiona for addressing toxic injuries, such as MCS, in Hawaii!

A Hawaii Citizens Conference on toxics and MCS is planned for July 28th on the island of Oahu. There will be sign waving at the capitol building, plus speakers at Ala Moana park. Please join the festivities!

Students, Parents, Teachers – Please join us!

Let’s SIGN WAVE at the Hawaii State Capitol, Beretania Sidewalk

EVENT: Hawaii Citizens Conference

SUBJECT: Toxic Awareness And Education. Let’s Keep Hawaii Clean For All Generations!

DATE: Wednesday, July 28th, 10 am to 11 am

ACTIVITY: Picnic At Ala Moana Beach Park, Magic Island Starting At 11:30 Am, “Bring Your Own Bento/Plate Lunch.” Guest Speakers Are Scheduled – Q & A, Informational Flyers, And Community Service Certificates Will Be Handed Out.

SUPPORTED BY: Sierra Club, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, MCS Hawaii.

Contact: Sue at (808) 927-1019 for more information.

Thank you for your support!

Click here for full text of proclamation.

Continue Reading

Tags: MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy, Support

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

CNN investigative report Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta to rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow

Posted on Jun 05, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Media/Videos, Products, Susie Collins

The two-part CNN investigation “Toxic America” with Dr. Sanjay Gupta will rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow night, Sat & Sun, June 5 & 6, at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Check listings in your area to confirm times. Don’t miss it!

I was hesitant to recommend the CNN special Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta until I saw the first airing. It’s pretty good actually, although if you look at it through the lens of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity you may feel that it falls short in many areas. Still, it’s heartening to see this topic and type of investigative reporting on mainstream media. Dr. Gupta does a good job of presenting the problems of toxic chemicals in our environment and our homes, and he shows genuine concern, repeating over and over the fact that out of the 80,000 chemicals put into consumer goods, only 200 have been tested for safety.

Click here for dates and times of ONLINE replays June 7, 8, & 9.

Also, for those of you so inclined, CNN is inviting you to “Share Your Story” through video or photos:

Put yourself on video and document conditions in your area, or take photos of what’s around you. Tell us what industrial or chemical pollution may be contributing to health problems for you and those you love, and be sure not to put yourself in a dangerous situation.

Continue Reading

Tags: Air, Asthma, Children's Health, Environment, EPA, Home, Indoor Pollution, Policy, Products, Research, Sick Building, Toxic, Video

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

ANTI-TOXIC MANIFESTO: We know they are lying to us

Posted on May 04, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Eva Caballé, Guest Bloggers, MCS, Social Justice

Although they want to make us invisible, lock us up in an illness and throw away the key, poison us and shut our mouths, kill us and then plant fake flowers on our tombs, they will not be able to lock us up, shut us up, nor make us disappear.

By guestbloggers Clara Valverde and Eva Caballé, Spain.

WE KNOW THEY ARE LYING TO US

(ANTI-TOXIC MANIFESTO)

International Day of Fibromyalgia, ME/CFS and MCS

May 12, 2010

They are lying to us. We know they are lying.

For the politicians, we are the black sheep in their controlled herd.

For the doctors who lie to us, we are the misbehaved guinea-pigs.

For the industry that lies to us, we are the non-profitable broken machines.

For the pharmaceutical companies, we are the pebble in their shoe.

The disease mongers lie to us.

Those who talk of progress with one hand on their wallet, lie to us.

But we do not believe their toxic lies.

Although they want to make us invisible, lock us up in an illness and throw away the key, poison us and shut our mouths, kill us and then plant fake flowers on our tombs, they will not be able to lock us up, shut us up, nor make us disappear.

We are out of patience and we are not good patients. We do not justify ourselves nor do we explain ourselves.

If you suffer with Fibromyalgia, survive with ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, if you are agonizing with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, you should know that you are at war. Their lies do not scare us, they are the ammunition in this war that has merely started.

Eva Caballé

If you believe that you are healthy, choose your side: get sick with them or live with us.

Now is our moment: we name, we decide, we define.

We do not believe their toxic lies.

We know they are lying.

Clara Valverde & Eva Caballé

~~~

Click here for pdf of manifesto: Sabemos Que Mienten

Eva Caballé blogs about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity at NO FUN. English section here.

Continue Reading

Tags: Activism, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy

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

Couple in New Zealand searches for safe, nontoxic housing

Posted on Apr 19, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, MCS, Social Justice, Susie Collins

Desperate for a chemical-free place to call home, Kevin and Kathryn Boyes turn to a government housing agency for help and are told: “We are unable to help you.”

Kevin Boyes

This is the story of someone in New Zealand with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who cannot find safe, nontoxic housing. After spending a winter in their van, and exhausting all other possible resources, Kevin and Kathryn Boyes turned to Housing New Zealand Corporation, a Crown agent that provides good quality, affordable rental homes for people on low incomes or with special housing needs. Evidently that does not include the needs of people who are disabled with chemical sensitivity. Here is Kevin’s email exchange with Housing NZ Corp (published with permission of Kevin Boyes, including his medical certification):

~~~

Kevin and Kathryn Boyes

To: Jan Menzies, housing manager, Housing New Zealand Corporation
From: Kevin & Kathryn Boyes

March 19, 2010
Enquiry Please Re: Possible Housing Help

Hi Jan,

Kathryn and I are still homeless and still unable to find somewhere where I can live and work without chemical exposure illness. The Westport news recently did a story on our struggle, I have attached a copy.

We have written to every DoC office in the South Island asking if they could help us. While we have had a few suggestions and plenty of sympathy, we still have not found anywhere chemically safe.

Enquiry Please: We would please like to enquire if HNZC would help us with a suitable relocatable dwelling, if we found somewhere chemically safe?  (e.g. on a large organic farm or similar).

There are several relocatable dwelling options on the market at present. I list a few below:

Rural Portable Buildings

Cabins & Sleepouts

Sleepouts Galore

Yurts

Thanking You
Look forward to your reply

Kind Regards
Kevin and Kathryn Boyes

~~~

From: Symon Leggett
To: “Kevin & Kathryn Boyes”

March 25, 2010

Hi Kevin

I am sorry your situation has not improved…..Yes I did see the article in the Westport News and had put it on your file.

I believe HNZC have exhausted all avenues of looking at the options available to you, in order to solve your housing situation. So unfortunately I am unable to give you a positive answer to your request, at this time.

However I will forward your request onto my Manager for him to review this.

regards Jan Menzies

~~~

To: Symon Leggett, Housing Service Manager, Housing New Zealand Corporation
From: Kevin and Kathryn Boyes

March 25, 2010

Afternoon Kevin,

Regrettably I need to confirm that Jan’s email is correct.

Housing New Zealand have exhausted all possible options of assistance to help solve your unique housing situation. Unfortunately we’re unable to help you further. I wish you and Kathryn all the best.

Kind Regards,
Symon

Symon Leggett
Housing Service Manager
Housing New Zealand Corporation

~~~

To: Symon Leggett, Housing Service Manager, Housing New Zealand Corporation
From: Kevin and Kathryn Boyes, Homeless for 10 months due to illness from chemical exposure.

April 13, 2010

Attached: Newspaper article about our Homelessness – A refugee in my own town

Attached: Medical Certificates Attached of Kevin Boyes for Severe Illness from Exposure to Common Legal Chemicals

Dear Symon,

We have received your reply, thank you for your time.

Please in case you have the opportunity in the future to discuss our homelessness due to chemical exposure illness, with those who could possibly bring about positive change, I would please like to share the following note.

Chemical induced illness is a global concern with so many chemicals being used. Today we have babies being born loaded with toxic chemicals, this to me is sadly a powerfull focus of the current chemicalisation.  Please see:

Babies being poisoned in the womb

Chemical induced toxicity illness is becoming the biggest health issue of the modern world. Please see: Pesticides, how am I exposed

Toxic Chemicals in Our Bodies

A very good little clip on the chemicals children are exposed to from Healthy Child healthy World called A wake up story.

Our Homelessness due to my illness from common legal chemicals: As you may be aware we are still homeless, with all our through and detailed safe-land research showing up a great culture of toxic chemical use. Please see our homeless news paper article: A refugee in my own town.

I have also attached a PDF of this for reference.

We have written to and emailed our Prime Minister, John Key about our plight, with the only response to refer use to Housing Corp, NZ.

“Housing New Zealand have exhausted all possible options of assistance to help solve your unique housing situation. Unfortunately we’re unable to help you further. I wish you and Kathryn all the best.”

Having suffered and continuing to suffer untold illness from chemical exposure, over which I have absolutely no control, I can not find a place where I will not be exposed to legal commonly used chemicals.

We feel that it is totally wrong in the begining for any goverment to allow the use of toxic chemicals which are called toxic for that is what they are to life, and then to offer no option to live a normal life, for those who can no longer tolerate all the continuing toxic chemical exposure.

Once again please, if you, or any whom you pass this plea for help letter on to, or any other whom read it, can offer any help, Kathryn and I are about to face a second winter in a van totally unsuited for living out of.

I can not use any public toilets because of the chemical air fresheners used in them, (please see: what chemicals are in air fresheners)  and I have no ready access to water for washing myself or my clothes, as I can not tolerate chlorinated water at all.

I have severe multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and having been exposed to many chemicals, as we all are, I have lost all tolerance to toxic chemicals and am now made very ill from even very low levels of chemical exposure. Herbicide, pesticide and chemically fragranced products are the most common exposures, resulting in illness, that I am unable to avoid.

Multiple chemical sensitivity description:

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), is an epidemic caused by toxic chemicals. A major peer-reviewed paper on multiple chemical sensitivity by Professor Martin L. Pall, published October 23, 2009 as chapter XX in  “General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition” (John Wiley & Sons).  I have attached a copy of this detailed press release for information.

Please Please Help Us. We need a piece of land where I will not be made ill from exposure to chemicals from the surrounding properties.

Due to the fact that chemical herbicide spray drift, the residue and residue releases, from herbicide and pesticides, will travel for a long way with wind and atmospheric air currents, the buffer needed can be 1 – 3km, depending on the amount of herbicide/pesticide use that must be buffered for.

These chemical applications will all make me ill, for up to 4 months after their use.

We desperately look forward to your replies PLEASE.

Thank You again for your time,
Kindest Regards

Kevin and Kathryn Boyes – Homeless and ill in New Zealand

Continue Reading

Tags: Environment, Home, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Pesticides, Policy, Support

Linda Sepp faces eviction any day now with no safe place to go

Posted on Apr 13, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, Linda Sepp, MCS, Susie Collins

How does a disabled person with acute chemical sensitivity, who’s dependent on government assistance, prepare to move?

This photo is one of Linda's submissions for The Canary Report's 2010 calendar, expressing her despair at her unsafe housing, the toxic air, and lack of safe, nontoxic clothing. ©2009 The Canary Report, may not be republished without permission.

Those of you who follow The Canary Report know how important Linda Sepp is to our Canary Community. She’s a wealth of information about chemical and environmental sensitivities, and shares her knowledge freely through blogging, comments, posts on our forum, email, facebook, and her blog.

Linda carries the title of research assistant here at TCR, but in reality, she’s been my mentor for the past two years. TCR would not be half the blog and community it is without her. Linda is relentless in holding us all to the highest standard when it comes to dealing with toxic chemicals; she will not let anyone get away with skimming by an important issue or settling for a product that might be “okay” but in reality isn’t nontoxic. She makes us all better in our cause for toxic chemical policy reform, better in our cause for human rights as disabled people, and she helps us live safer, more productive lives.

But she does all this while being completely disabled by chemical sensitivities, fibromyalgia, and electro hypersensitivity, and living in a precarious, unsafe housing situation herself.

For years, she’s been the last resident in an Ontario neighborhood slated for demolition by a landlord wanting to raze the area to build new. The place is decaying, crumbling and frequently vandalized. Linda’s house has a leaky roof and basement, problems with mold, a contaminated water pipeline, and a leaky gas stove (now disconnected). She doesn’t want to be there, but where is she to go?

The problem is, how does a disabled person with acute chemical sensitivity, who’s dependent on government assistance, prepare to move? How does a disabled person with acute chemical sensitivity secure and install a whole house water filtration system so she can bathe and wash clothes properly (not just for everyday health but also in preparation for a move); secure safe clothing and a washing machine in the first place (there is a reason why she’s naked in the photo, she only has about five articles of safe, uncontaminated clothing to her name); conduct a housing search and then properly prepare that house for an uber sensitive person? How does she do that? And if she can’t do it herself, how does she find a knowledgeable advocate to help navigate the entire process?

On Linda’s blog, she writes eloquently about her dependence on government aid from a social service system that refuses to understand the complexity of chemical sensitivity. She describes the evidence she has from an environmental physician who declared her medical needs to include a nontoxic home with clean air and water (a simple, basic need you’d think, no?), and yet neither the medical nor government systems seem equipped to assist Linda in accessing the solutions to those needs. Once again, someone with chemical sensitivity is slipping through the cracks.

So here’s the kicker: Linda’s eviction date was April 4. Aside from a couple of valiant last minute efforts (which have failed to yield anything feasible), all the agencies and people you’d think should be there to assist—social workers, physicians, elected officials, the landlord—have all receded like water before the coming of a tidal wave.

Given that the April 4 eviction date was set by the court, the landlord has the power to put in motion the sheriff’s removal of Linda from her home. And should that happen, then what? The injustice of this situation is staggering.

###

04/24/10 UPDATE:

Last week, Linda’s Member of Parliament contacted her current landlord to see if a new deal could be reached on securing Linda a safe home, but the landlord declined, saying the April 4 eviction deadline was past so all offers were off the table. (As background, Linda’s landlord had offered to buy and renovate a rental home for Linda at a total cap of $200K, including the consultation of an eco-builder, but none of the homes found on the market met Linda’s criteria.)

Linda’s physician is in phone contact with her and has asked for more tests, which Linda has scheduled for next week.

Toronto Community Housing, which provides housing for low and moderate income households, prepared an apartment for Linda this past week. Linda says it won’t work because it does not meet her criteria; she has declined the offer.

Continue Reading

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

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