From the Friday, December 21, Daily Green, an article about Monsanto wanting Ohio to get rid of hormone-free milk labels:
MONSANTO URGES OHIO TO BAN HORMONE-FREE MILK LABELS
Let There Be Controversy: A Label Never Hurt Anyone
Whether or not there's any discernible difference in the milk produced by cows on recombinant bovine growth hormones and those not, many consumers look for the rBGH-free or rbST-free labels as a window on the farm that produced their milk.
It tells them whether cows are being forced to produce milk at unusual rates.
Whatever choice the "hormone-free" label helps them make, they may be denied access to that information if Ohio follows the advice of Monsanto, the chemical giant that introduced the artificial growth hormone to the market in 1994. Pennsylvania is the only other state to make such a move, but New Jersey is considering it, too. The Ohio Department of Agriculture's Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee is meeting today to discuss, and will decide within weeks what to do.
"If the state decides to outlaw labels on milk and other dairy products, they take away Ohio consumers' right to know about the foods they eat," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director at the Washington D.C.-based Center for Food Safety. "Labeling gives consumers access to information on nutrition, freshness, and safety. How is it possibly in the public interest to take away their rights by keeping important dietary information from them?"
Ohio officials are hearing from consumers, however. Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, has raised objections, along with a group 70 strong of farmers, food makers, retailers, consumers, advocates and others.
The group has complained that the deck is stacked against them: Of 20 people on Ohio's advisory committee, six are farmers who use hormones to boost milk production and one is a former area market manager for Monsanto.
The Food and Drug Administration has decided the hormones pose no serious risk to humans or cows, and Monsanto objects to having its product maligned. But some people doubt the wisdom of using artificial hormones to produce milk.
Let there be controversy. The issue is simple: A label never hurt anyone.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Chemical in Popcorn Linked to Lung Problems
From the September 6, 2007, Toronto Star, page unknown, is an article about diacetyl in popcorn:
POPCORN FIRM DUMPSDIACETYL
ConAgra will replace chemical that's linked to workers' lung ailment
Josh Funk
Associated Press
Omaha, Neb. - ConAgra Foods Inc., the largest microwave popcorn maker in the United States, will change the recipe for its Orville Redenbacher and Act II brands over the next year to remove a flavouring chemical linked to a lung ailment in popcorn plant workers, the company said yesterday.
The announcement comes a day after a doctor at a leading lung research hospital warned in a letter to federal regulators that consumers, not just factory workers, may be in danger from fumes from buttery flavouring in microwave popcorn.
ConAgra spokesperson Stephanie Childs said the company decided in recent months to remove the butter flavouring diacetyl from its popcorn because of the risk to workers who handle large quantities.
The chemical diacetyl has been linked to cases of bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare life-threatening disease often called popcorn lung.
ConAgra's announcement comes a week after Weaver Popcorn Co. of Indianapolis said it would replace its butter flavouring ingredient because of consumer concern.
ConAgra's change from diacetyl to another butter flavouring will be made sometime over the next year.
"We've made that decision based on the knowledge for the potential risk to our employees," Childs said.
The Omaha-based company has been making changes at its popcorn plants over the past few years to reduce employee exposure to diacetyl, Childs said, but doesn't believe diacetyl in popcorn represents a safety risk to consumers. "We're fully confident microwave popcorn is safe for consumers in the home."
On Tuesday, it was reported that pulmonary specialist Dr. Cecile Rose of Denver's National Jewish Medical and Research Center had written to federal agencies in July to say doctors there believe they have the first case of a consumer who developed lung disease from the fumes of microwaving popcorn several times a day for years.
A government study looking at what fumes are produced by microwaving popcorn at home is due to be published as soon as his month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday.
The two-year study by EPA researchers was completed in late 2005 and has been under wraps since then, prompting critics in charge the agency was protecting industry interests. But an EPA spokesperson said the delay was due to a string of requirements including scientific review, submitting the report to industry and the time it took to get into a scientific journal, which it didn't name.
The spokesperson confirmed the study was submitted to popcorn manufacturers ahead of its release, but said that was done to let companies make sure there were no competitive secrets in the report.
The Flavour and Extract Manufacturers Association said diacetyl occurs naturally in foods such as butter, cheese and fruits, and has FDA approval for use as flavouring.
POPCORN FIRM DUMPSDIACETYL
ConAgra will replace chemical that's linked to workers' lung ailment
Josh Funk
Associated Press
Omaha, Neb. - ConAgra Foods Inc., the largest microwave popcorn maker in the United States, will change the recipe for its Orville Redenbacher and Act II brands over the next year to remove a flavouring chemical linked to a lung ailment in popcorn plant workers, the company said yesterday.
The announcement comes a day after a doctor at a leading lung research hospital warned in a letter to federal regulators that consumers, not just factory workers, may be in danger from fumes from buttery flavouring in microwave popcorn.
ConAgra spokesperson Stephanie Childs said the company decided in recent months to remove the butter flavouring diacetyl from its popcorn because of the risk to workers who handle large quantities.
The chemical diacetyl has been linked to cases of bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare life-threatening disease often called popcorn lung.
ConAgra's announcement comes a week after Weaver Popcorn Co. of Indianapolis said it would replace its butter flavouring ingredient because of consumer concern.
ConAgra's change from diacetyl to another butter flavouring will be made sometime over the next year.
"We've made that decision based on the knowledge for the potential risk to our employees," Childs said.
The Omaha-based company has been making changes at its popcorn plants over the past few years to reduce employee exposure to diacetyl, Childs said, but doesn't believe diacetyl in popcorn represents a safety risk to consumers. "We're fully confident microwave popcorn is safe for consumers in the home."
On Tuesday, it was reported that pulmonary specialist Dr. Cecile Rose of Denver's National Jewish Medical and Research Center had written to federal agencies in July to say doctors there believe they have the first case of a consumer who developed lung disease from the fumes of microwaving popcorn several times a day for years.
A government study looking at what fumes are produced by microwaving popcorn at home is due to be published as soon as his month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday.
The two-year study by EPA researchers was completed in late 2005 and has been under wraps since then, prompting critics in charge the agency was protecting industry interests. But an EPA spokesperson said the delay was due to a string of requirements including scientific review, submitting the report to industry and the time it took to get into a scientific journal, which it didn't name.
The spokesperson confirmed the study was submitted to popcorn manufacturers ahead of its release, but said that was done to let companies make sure there were no competitive secrets in the report.
The Flavour and Extract Manufacturers Association said diacetyl occurs naturally in foods such as butter, cheese and fruits, and has FDA approval for use as flavouring.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Superbug on the Loose in U.S. Jails
From AlterNet: Headlines Newsletter, December 4th, 2007, an article about the superbug infection which thrives in overcrowded, deplorable jail conditions:
DEADLY STAPH INFECTION 'SUPERBUG' HAS A DANGEROUS FOOTHOLD IN U.S. JAILS
By Silja J.A. Talvi, AlterNet. Posted December 4, 2007.
With 19,000 deaths attributed to staph infections annually, there's cause for serious alarm. So why aren't we talking about our nightmarish prison system, the biggest incubator of them all?
Dr. Jeff Duchin, the communicable diseases chief for Seattle/King County Department of Public Health holds his soap-lathered hands in an attention-grabbing newspaper cover photo. Above his dignified image is a highly magnified picture of fuzzy bacterium. The bacterium doesn't appear to be particularly frightening, but it is. This "superbug," known as methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), has the power to disable, disfigure and kill the people who come into contact with it.
Like so many other regional and national newspaper and magazine stories about MRSA's creeping presence in the nation, this feature in the Nov. 26, 2007, issue of the Seattle Times was chock-full of useful, preventative information. Among the key, common sense suggestions were for readers to remember that MRSA isn't limited to the transfer of blood or bodily fluids. While not airborne in the way that tuberculosis is (although MRSA has been known to be transmitted by sneezing), the bacterium spreads with tremendous ease by way of skin-to-germ contact. The article advised people to remember to wash their hands regularly; to avoid unbleached public washing facilities; not to share towels, razors, or any kind of shared drug paraphernalia; and to have the "courage" to be willing to ask medical personnel if they've washed their hands before touching you.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC has rightfully called MRSA (pronounced mer-sa) the "cockroach of bacteria." It spreads silently and stealthily, and moves quickly from one location to the next. Once it's around, it's also incredibly difficult to get rid of because this virulent mutation of staph is resistant to all but the most rare and expensive antibiotics. Sometimes, even the super drugs don't work against this superbug, resulting in some 19,000 deaths in 2005, amounting to more than one in five of the estimated 94,000 Americans walking around MRSA lurking on skin surfaces and in nasal cavities.
Media headlines have emphasized the existing or potential presence of MRSA in hospitals and schools: at least three students are known to have died from the bacteria. "[D]rug-resistant strains of the bacteria are finding new homes in the community -- particularly among kids," as a recent Time article, "Staph on the March," warned readers.
Given this level of justifiable media and public attention to the dangers of MRSA, it's remarkable to note how little attention is being paid to the kinds of facilities where the superbug thrives and spreads the fastest: poorly ventilated living and sleeping quarters; overcrowded rooms; shared mattresses, toilets and showers; and a preponderance of people who arrive with poor health, drug problems and severely compromised immune systems. Homeless shelters and emergency rooms serving indigent populations are among them, but there is no question that the biggest incubators of all are the nation's 5,000-plus prisons and jails.
"MRSA is running rampant through prisons and jails in the country," says Paul Wright, editor of Prison Legal News and co-editor of the newly published book Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration. "Prisons and jails have historically been the incubators of disease, and that trend continues today. A disproportionate number of people with infectious diseases, including MRSA, will cycle through jails and prisons each year."
The exact number of people entering the criminal justice system with either the regular or superbug version of staph is unknown, owing to a combination of factors. For one, not all people who harbor the bacterium present symptoms. For another, most jails and prisons do not regularly test for or report it.
It would be easy to dismiss the prevalence of MRSA in jails and prisons as something that happens to people who are so irresponsible that they don't take the time to clean themselves or their cells. But stereotypes like these don't hold true once prisoners are actually given the opportunity to explain or demonstrate what their living conditions are like. Yes, many men and women enter the criminal justice system out of unstable, impoverished environments that have already put them at risk because of behaviors attendant to high-risk lifestyles. Like most Americans, people who end up behind bars don't actually know much of anything about how MRSA is spread, what signs of infection to look for -- or even, for that matter, that the bacterium exists.
Even those prisoners who understand how MRSA is transmitted and who seek the proper precautions tend to find that they cannot. Prisoners with obvious signs of infection are rarely separated from the general population and are commonly told that they are simply dealing with pimples or spider bites when they complain about sores or boils on their body that do not seem to heal.
Such was the case when I traveled to the state women's prison in Grants, N.M., in 2005. The prison, run since the early 1980s by the Corrections Corporation of America, had a veritable epidemic on their hands, something that even some staff admitted to me under the condition that I not publish their names. Many women called me over to so that I could witness the jarring sight of large, oozing, open sores, usually on their upper legs. None of the women with whom I spoke were receiving medical treatment; all had been told that their sores were the result of insect bites or their own unwillingness to stay clean. The women complained, in hushed tones, that the prison had yet to put an emphasis on providing enough soap and sanitary conditions to stem the spread of the bacteria.
Prisoners across the nation echo these concerns. It is not unusual for me to hear (or notice) that low-quality soap is doled out in very limited amounts; prisoners routinely complain about not having enough to last them through the week. Even having access to soap isn't a guarantee of being able to wash one's hands to get rid of surface germs, because the tap water made available to prisoners is often lukewarm or cold. The same is true for the availability of bleach to clean showers, toilets, as well as antiseptic cleanser for shared gym equipment. Antibacterial hand cleansers are so rare in prisons and jails as to be notable when they are available.
In Washington state prisons, prominent signs have been placed to warn correctional employees and visitors alike of the dangers of MRSA infection in the facilities, yet prisoners must grow accustomed to lack of soap, hot water, and unclean showers and other shared areas. (Worse yet, the possession of unauthorized, "contraband" antibacterial gel or antiseptic hand wipes is actually a punishable offense!)
In most jails and prisons, topical salves, gauze and bandages are rarely provided to prisoners with boils or sores that could well indicate MRSA infections. Many jail and prison employees are overworked and delay and deny prisoner requests to be seen and treated for even the most obvious health problems. Medical co-pays of $5 to $10 are yet another common barrier, because many prisoners simply don't have the means to afford what might seem to be a nominal amount in the "free world." Add to all of this the endless recycling of prison mattresses and poorly cleaned bedding and clothing, and it's easy to see why jail and prison environments are ripe for the spread of MRSA.
States known to have particularly serious outbreaks of MRSA in detention facilities include Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Mississippi, Ohio and California. (The latter lays claim to unbearably overcrowded jails and prisons in which two-person cells are sometimes packed with eight people and in which dayrooms or gyms have been converted into a crazy jumble of bunk bed "housing" areas.)
When I traveled in early 2007 to research the women's jail in Los Angeles County, I entered the Lynwood facility with full knowledge of the reoccurring problem of large-scale MRSA infections in what has become the nation's largest jail system. One of the primary reasons for the frequency of outbreaks of MRSA in the Los Angeles County jail system has unquestionably had to do with severe population overcrowding.
When New York Times reporter Brent Staples visited the Los Angeles County Jail system in 2004, he noted that staph infections were "raging through the cellblocks." Inmates crowded at the bars, Staples wrote, to show him their lesions, not unlike what I had witnessed in the women's prison in New Mexico. "[J]ails that cannot organize themselves well enough to provide clean sheets stand little chance of success against heavyweight infectious diseases that have become endemic behind bars today."
Widespread staph infections in Los Angeles County jails didn't just happen to coincide with Staples' visit. In 2003, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services investigated an outbreak among inmates, citing at least 1,000 cases of either the "regular" kind of staph infection or MRSA when they began their research. The department documented hundreds of new cases each month after the original investigation was under way. Less than ten percent of the infected inmates were believed to have entered the jail system with the staph bacterium, which meant that nine out of ten acquired staph within the jail setting.
During my visit to the Lynwood facility, I walked into the area containing what are known as "in-transit" holding cells, where inmates are placed when they are en route to, or returning from, court hearings in various parts of the county. These women had already been booked into the jail and could have been promptly returned to their housing units, but staffing constraints mandated a "holding" period. I was especially alarmed to see that more than 20 women were constrained in one small cell. Although at least a half-dozen adjacent cells sat empty, these women had been crammed into a space that had probably designed to hold six to eight inmates, at most. There were no bars, only something that looked like a Plexiglas window with a small vent on the bottom half. Several women crammed around it, trying to get gulps of fresh air -- or the closest thing approximating it inside this jail. These utterly miserable-looking women had squeezed themselves into every nook and cranny of the cell, which held one toilet in the back and a single pay phone. There were no towels, linens, mattresses or antibacterial gel in this cell.
If even one of those women entered that cell harboring tuberculosis or MRSA, it would be more than likely that at least one other person would acquire an infection, something that almost never makes the news until a full-blown epidemic is under way or a major lawsuit threatens to cost a government agency a pretty penny.
The notable exception where media exposure is concerned has been the spread of MRSA to guards and healthcare workers. Among many other similar situations in local jails and state prisons, prison employees have sued over unchecked and unaddressed MRSA infections that spread to spouses, children and acquaintances. Lawsuits across the country have emphasized that the top-level brass have shown disregard for educating frontline prison staff about MRSA, including information about symptom identification or simple prevention strategies -- even in the midst of what were later disclosed to be outbreaks in the captive population.
There have been many outrageous cases along these lines, including that of prison employees hospitalized for long periods of time because of resulting disabilities. One of those cases included a nurse in the Calhoun County Jail in Michigan who acquired MRSA from two prisoners who both died within the space of 13 hours. One of those prisoners had sneezed on the nurse in March 2005, and she developed such severe complications from the ensuing infection that part of her foot was amputated. In West Palm Beach, Fla., an assistant public defender almost lost an arm to MRSA when he contracted the disease from a client in a severely overcrowded, unsanitary jail in which 200 prisoners contracted the superbug within just a three-month span in early 2004. More recently, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was fined $21,000 for failing to take appropriate measures to prevent employees at the massive Folsom State Prison from acquiring MRSA infections. Many guards were hospitalized before the prison administration admitted that they had an outbreak on their hands.
From 2005 to 2006, the nonpartisan Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons looked at a multitude of issues and crises facing the American prison system, including the prevalence of untreated infectious diseases. The resulting June 2006 report, "Confronting Confinement," strongly recommended that prison and jail systems should join public health providers in "the common project of delivering high-quality healthcare that protects prisoners and the public."
The commission went further to insist that every detention facility in the United States should "screen, test and treat for infectious diseases under the oversight of public health authorities ... and ensure continuity of care upon release."
There have been a few moves toward that end that deserve recognition, including the Broward County jail system in Florida, which developed a program in 2004 to identify and treat each infection in order to stave off a larger outbreak. Each housing unit has information about MRSA, including color photos of common symptoms related to the infection. Staff education is an integral part of this program, and cultures are taken immediately of any prisoner or jail employee suspected of harboring staph. If cost-saving is the ostensible reason behind the lack of intervention in most jails and prisons, Broward County's model highlights the opposite. Rather than deal with sky-high medical costs, the very real risk of serious illness or death, lawsuits, prison and community outbreaks, jail administrators and medical personnel have opted for a much more logical and humane approach.
The jail system spends just $28 for each staph culture taken and to treat any infection aggressively by means of medication and the separation of an infected person from the general jail population until the person has recovered.
As noteworthy as it is, the Broward County model is exceptionally rare in our prison-crazed nation, which already bears a crown of shame for the incarceration of more people per capita than any other country in the world. Mass incarceration is a foolish and primitive approach to "public safety," and the most common underlying factors in prisoners' lives: mental illness, poverty, drug addiction, histories of trauma, unemployment, unstable housing or homelessness, and other damaging variables. Unfortunately for all of us, the overpopulation of jails and prisons is widely predicted to worsen over the next several years, at great, multitudinous cost to our society.
People deprived of their liberty as punishment should not be sentenced to suffer needlessly. While genuine prison depopulation and meaningful criminal justice reform will take untold years or decades to accomplish, we have the opportunity to reconceptualize at least this one aspect of incarceration -- and, hopefully, to move forward from there. Namely, jails and prisons should be viewed as an opportune setting in which trained professionals could address high-risk behavior, intervention and the effective treatment of health and medical problems (most notably in the prevalence of drug addiction, mental illness and infectious disease).
Considering that at least 95 percent of American prisoners will eventually be released -- at over 650,000 people per year -- local governments and jail/prison administrations should be setting their sights on the value of educating prisoners so as to prevent dangerous epidemics from raging behind prison walls and beyond. Moreover, improving and sanitizing living conditions in jails and prisons should be seen an absolute imperative for the sake of public health and human dignity.
The way in which the MRSA superbug in prisons continues to be treated (or untreated, as is usually the case) is a direct and ugly consequence of the dehumanization of men, women and youth locked away from our collective consciousness. Indeed, a "don't ask, don't tell" approach toward the deadly MRSA infection among our captive populations is ignorant and baffling at best, callous and sadistic at worst.
DEADLY STAPH INFECTION 'SUPERBUG' HAS A DANGEROUS FOOTHOLD IN U.S. JAILS
By Silja J.A. Talvi, AlterNet. Posted December 4, 2007.
With 19,000 deaths attributed to staph infections annually, there's cause for serious alarm. So why aren't we talking about our nightmarish prison system, the biggest incubator of them all?
Dr. Jeff Duchin, the communicable diseases chief for Seattle/King County Department of Public Health holds his soap-lathered hands in an attention-grabbing newspaper cover photo. Above his dignified image is a highly magnified picture of fuzzy bacterium. The bacterium doesn't appear to be particularly frightening, but it is. This "superbug," known as methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), has the power to disable, disfigure and kill the people who come into contact with it.
Like so many other regional and national newspaper and magazine stories about MRSA's creeping presence in the nation, this feature in the Nov. 26, 2007, issue of the Seattle Times was chock-full of useful, preventative information. Among the key, common sense suggestions were for readers to remember that MRSA isn't limited to the transfer of blood or bodily fluids. While not airborne in the way that tuberculosis is (although MRSA has been known to be transmitted by sneezing), the bacterium spreads with tremendous ease by way of skin-to-germ contact. The article advised people to remember to wash their hands regularly; to avoid unbleached public washing facilities; not to share towels, razors, or any kind of shared drug paraphernalia; and to have the "courage" to be willing to ask medical personnel if they've washed their hands before touching you.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC has rightfully called MRSA (pronounced mer-sa) the "cockroach of bacteria." It spreads silently and stealthily, and moves quickly from one location to the next. Once it's around, it's also incredibly difficult to get rid of because this virulent mutation of staph is resistant to all but the most rare and expensive antibiotics. Sometimes, even the super drugs don't work against this superbug, resulting in some 19,000 deaths in 2005, amounting to more than one in five of the estimated 94,000 Americans walking around MRSA lurking on skin surfaces and in nasal cavities.
Media headlines have emphasized the existing or potential presence of MRSA in hospitals and schools: at least three students are known to have died from the bacteria. "[D]rug-resistant strains of the bacteria are finding new homes in the community -- particularly among kids," as a recent Time article, "Staph on the March," warned readers.
Given this level of justifiable media and public attention to the dangers of MRSA, it's remarkable to note how little attention is being paid to the kinds of facilities where the superbug thrives and spreads the fastest: poorly ventilated living and sleeping quarters; overcrowded rooms; shared mattresses, toilets and showers; and a preponderance of people who arrive with poor health, drug problems and severely compromised immune systems. Homeless shelters and emergency rooms serving indigent populations are among them, but there is no question that the biggest incubators of all are the nation's 5,000-plus prisons and jails.
"MRSA is running rampant through prisons and jails in the country," says Paul Wright, editor of Prison Legal News and co-editor of the newly published book Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration. "Prisons and jails have historically been the incubators of disease, and that trend continues today. A disproportionate number of people with infectious diseases, including MRSA, will cycle through jails and prisons each year."
The exact number of people entering the criminal justice system with either the regular or superbug version of staph is unknown, owing to a combination of factors. For one, not all people who harbor the bacterium present symptoms. For another, most jails and prisons do not regularly test for or report it.
It would be easy to dismiss the prevalence of MRSA in jails and prisons as something that happens to people who are so irresponsible that they don't take the time to clean themselves or their cells. But stereotypes like these don't hold true once prisoners are actually given the opportunity to explain or demonstrate what their living conditions are like. Yes, many men and women enter the criminal justice system out of unstable, impoverished environments that have already put them at risk because of behaviors attendant to high-risk lifestyles. Like most Americans, people who end up behind bars don't actually know much of anything about how MRSA is spread, what signs of infection to look for -- or even, for that matter, that the bacterium exists.
Even those prisoners who understand how MRSA is transmitted and who seek the proper precautions tend to find that they cannot. Prisoners with obvious signs of infection are rarely separated from the general population and are commonly told that they are simply dealing with pimples or spider bites when they complain about sores or boils on their body that do not seem to heal.
Such was the case when I traveled to the state women's prison in Grants, N.M., in 2005. The prison, run since the early 1980s by the Corrections Corporation of America, had a veritable epidemic on their hands, something that even some staff admitted to me under the condition that I not publish their names. Many women called me over to so that I could witness the jarring sight of large, oozing, open sores, usually on their upper legs. None of the women with whom I spoke were receiving medical treatment; all had been told that their sores were the result of insect bites or their own unwillingness to stay clean. The women complained, in hushed tones, that the prison had yet to put an emphasis on providing enough soap and sanitary conditions to stem the spread of the bacteria.
Prisoners across the nation echo these concerns. It is not unusual for me to hear (or notice) that low-quality soap is doled out in very limited amounts; prisoners routinely complain about not having enough to last them through the week. Even having access to soap isn't a guarantee of being able to wash one's hands to get rid of surface germs, because the tap water made available to prisoners is often lukewarm or cold. The same is true for the availability of bleach to clean showers, toilets, as well as antiseptic cleanser for shared gym equipment. Antibacterial hand cleansers are so rare in prisons and jails as to be notable when they are available.
In Washington state prisons, prominent signs have been placed to warn correctional employees and visitors alike of the dangers of MRSA infection in the facilities, yet prisoners must grow accustomed to lack of soap, hot water, and unclean showers and other shared areas. (Worse yet, the possession of unauthorized, "contraband" antibacterial gel or antiseptic hand wipes is actually a punishable offense!)
In most jails and prisons, topical salves, gauze and bandages are rarely provided to prisoners with boils or sores that could well indicate MRSA infections. Many jail and prison employees are overworked and delay and deny prisoner requests to be seen and treated for even the most obvious health problems. Medical co-pays of $5 to $10 are yet another common barrier, because many prisoners simply don't have the means to afford what might seem to be a nominal amount in the "free world." Add to all of this the endless recycling of prison mattresses and poorly cleaned bedding and clothing, and it's easy to see why jail and prison environments are ripe for the spread of MRSA.
States known to have particularly serious outbreaks of MRSA in detention facilities include Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Mississippi, Ohio and California. (The latter lays claim to unbearably overcrowded jails and prisons in which two-person cells are sometimes packed with eight people and in which dayrooms or gyms have been converted into a crazy jumble of bunk bed "housing" areas.)
When I traveled in early 2007 to research the women's jail in Los Angeles County, I entered the Lynwood facility with full knowledge of the reoccurring problem of large-scale MRSA infections in what has become the nation's largest jail system. One of the primary reasons for the frequency of outbreaks of MRSA in the Los Angeles County jail system has unquestionably had to do with severe population overcrowding.
When New York Times reporter Brent Staples visited the Los Angeles County Jail system in 2004, he noted that staph infections were "raging through the cellblocks." Inmates crowded at the bars, Staples wrote, to show him their lesions, not unlike what I had witnessed in the women's prison in New Mexico. "[J]ails that cannot organize themselves well enough to provide clean sheets stand little chance of success against heavyweight infectious diseases that have become endemic behind bars today."
Widespread staph infections in Los Angeles County jails didn't just happen to coincide with Staples' visit. In 2003, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services investigated an outbreak among inmates, citing at least 1,000 cases of either the "regular" kind of staph infection or MRSA when they began their research. The department documented hundreds of new cases each month after the original investigation was under way. Less than ten percent of the infected inmates were believed to have entered the jail system with the staph bacterium, which meant that nine out of ten acquired staph within the jail setting.
During my visit to the Lynwood facility, I walked into the area containing what are known as "in-transit" holding cells, where inmates are placed when they are en route to, or returning from, court hearings in various parts of the county. These women had already been booked into the jail and could have been promptly returned to their housing units, but staffing constraints mandated a "holding" period. I was especially alarmed to see that more than 20 women were constrained in one small cell. Although at least a half-dozen adjacent cells sat empty, these women had been crammed into a space that had probably designed to hold six to eight inmates, at most. There were no bars, only something that looked like a Plexiglas window with a small vent on the bottom half. Several women crammed around it, trying to get gulps of fresh air -- or the closest thing approximating it inside this jail. These utterly miserable-looking women had squeezed themselves into every nook and cranny of the cell, which held one toilet in the back and a single pay phone. There were no towels, linens, mattresses or antibacterial gel in this cell.
If even one of those women entered that cell harboring tuberculosis or MRSA, it would be more than likely that at least one other person would acquire an infection, something that almost never makes the news until a full-blown epidemic is under way or a major lawsuit threatens to cost a government agency a pretty penny.
The notable exception where media exposure is concerned has been the spread of MRSA to guards and healthcare workers. Among many other similar situations in local jails and state prisons, prison employees have sued over unchecked and unaddressed MRSA infections that spread to spouses, children and acquaintances. Lawsuits across the country have emphasized that the top-level brass have shown disregard for educating frontline prison staff about MRSA, including information about symptom identification or simple prevention strategies -- even in the midst of what were later disclosed to be outbreaks in the captive population.
There have been many outrageous cases along these lines, including that of prison employees hospitalized for long periods of time because of resulting disabilities. One of those cases included a nurse in the Calhoun County Jail in Michigan who acquired MRSA from two prisoners who both died within the space of 13 hours. One of those prisoners had sneezed on the nurse in March 2005, and she developed such severe complications from the ensuing infection that part of her foot was amputated. In West Palm Beach, Fla., an assistant public defender almost lost an arm to MRSA when he contracted the disease from a client in a severely overcrowded, unsanitary jail in which 200 prisoners contracted the superbug within just a three-month span in early 2004. More recently, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was fined $21,000 for failing to take appropriate measures to prevent employees at the massive Folsom State Prison from acquiring MRSA infections. Many guards were hospitalized before the prison administration admitted that they had an outbreak on their hands.
From 2005 to 2006, the nonpartisan Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons looked at a multitude of issues and crises facing the American prison system, including the prevalence of untreated infectious diseases. The resulting June 2006 report, "Confronting Confinement," strongly recommended that prison and jail systems should join public health providers in "the common project of delivering high-quality healthcare that protects prisoners and the public."
The commission went further to insist that every detention facility in the United States should "screen, test and treat for infectious diseases under the oversight of public health authorities ... and ensure continuity of care upon release."
There have been a few moves toward that end that deserve recognition, including the Broward County jail system in Florida, which developed a program in 2004 to identify and treat each infection in order to stave off a larger outbreak. Each housing unit has information about MRSA, including color photos of common symptoms related to the infection. Staff education is an integral part of this program, and cultures are taken immediately of any prisoner or jail employee suspected of harboring staph. If cost-saving is the ostensible reason behind the lack of intervention in most jails and prisons, Broward County's model highlights the opposite. Rather than deal with sky-high medical costs, the very real risk of serious illness or death, lawsuits, prison and community outbreaks, jail administrators and medical personnel have opted for a much more logical and humane approach.
The jail system spends just $28 for each staph culture taken and to treat any infection aggressively by means of medication and the separation of an infected person from the general jail population until the person has recovered.
As noteworthy as it is, the Broward County model is exceptionally rare in our prison-crazed nation, which already bears a crown of shame for the incarceration of more people per capita than any other country in the world. Mass incarceration is a foolish and primitive approach to "public safety," and the most common underlying factors in prisoners' lives: mental illness, poverty, drug addiction, histories of trauma, unemployment, unstable housing or homelessness, and other damaging variables. Unfortunately for all of us, the overpopulation of jails and prisons is widely predicted to worsen over the next several years, at great, multitudinous cost to our society.
People deprived of their liberty as punishment should not be sentenced to suffer needlessly. While genuine prison depopulation and meaningful criminal justice reform will take untold years or decades to accomplish, we have the opportunity to reconceptualize at least this one aspect of incarceration -- and, hopefully, to move forward from there. Namely, jails and prisons should be viewed as an opportune setting in which trained professionals could address high-risk behavior, intervention and the effective treatment of health and medical problems (most notably in the prevalence of drug addiction, mental illness and infectious disease).
Considering that at least 95 percent of American prisoners will eventually be released -- at over 650,000 people per year -- local governments and jail/prison administrations should be setting their sights on the value of educating prisoners so as to prevent dangerous epidemics from raging behind prison walls and beyond. Moreover, improving and sanitizing living conditions in jails and prisons should be seen an absolute imperative for the sake of public health and human dignity.
The way in which the MRSA superbug in prisons continues to be treated (or untreated, as is usually the case) is a direct and ugly consequence of the dehumanization of men, women and youth locked away from our collective consciousness. Indeed, a "don't ask, don't tell" approach toward the deadly MRSA infection among our captive populations is ignorant and baffling at best, callous and sadistic at worst.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Ditch Plastic Bottles for Stainless Steel Ones
From the October 15, 2007, Environment section of Maclean's magazine, an article about the move to go green and protect your health by ditching plastic water bottles for metal ones:
PLASTIC BOTTLES GET THE ECO-BOOT
In light of new research, metal bottles are the 'safer,' greener - and cooler - way to hydrate
By Nancy MacDonald
Louisa Morris, a 29-year-old Vancouver lawyer, recently ditched the Nalgene water bottle she once carried every single day to the University of Calgary law school. In July, she traded up, forking over $30 for a sexy new stainless steel version. The high-polished metal bottle looks sharp. But Morris's decision had nothing to do with style. Two years ago, the Ontario-born family lawyer was diagnosed with cancer after finding a pea-sized lump in her breast. In her final year of law school she had a full mastectomy on her right side, and endured six rounds of chemotherapy. Morris, a non-smoker, has no cancer in her family, and tested negative for the genes associated with breast cancer. Her doctors attribute the onset of cancer while in her twenties to environmental factors. Because of this, Morris tends to tune in to findings of carcinogens in consumer products. So does her boyfriend, lawyer Neil Chantler - who chucked his trusted old Nalgene bottle, too.
They're part of a growing number of consumers who are looking for alternatives after reports that a chemical in the polycarbonate plastic used in the trademark bottles may be unsafe. Polycarbonate was once considered a giant leap forward in plastics: it's sturdy, lightweight and clear - and it doesn't transfer taste, as Nalgene fanatics are quick to point out. Yet it's come under scrutiny after reports that the plastic leaches bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor currently under review by the Canadian government. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority had both concluded that the chemical is safe for food grade use. But recent controversial studies link BPA - also found in a huge range of products, including baby bottles, plastic-lined tin cans, and kids' toys - to reproductive abnormalities, neurological disorders, prostate cancer and pre-cancerous breast tissues.
Proponents like the American Chemistry Council have argued that recent, headline-grabbing reports are based on animal studies, and urge consumers to ignore the scare stories. But the mouse has always been a pretty good model for humans, says geneticist Patricia Hunt, who observed chromosomal abnormalities in lab mice exposed to BPA in 1998. Since then, the science has been "nailed down," argues Frederick vom Saal, the University of Missouri-Columbia biology professor who's leading the scientific charge against BPA. "It's just a question of whether the regulatory community acknowledges the hazards of this chemical." Rick Smith, the executive director of the Toronto-based Environmental Defence, is predicting that this will be among the dominant debates in the area of the environment in the next few years.
Meanwhile, public concern is already having an effect on the market. The plastic panic - combined with the recent backlash against wasteful bottled water, now seen as a big environmental sinner - is causing a spike in sales of metal water bottles. "We've seen sales go from zero to a hundred," says John Green, manager of Vancouver's Altus Mountain Gear. "Cost is no longer a major issue. People are saying, 'My health is worth the 35 bucks.'" Mountain Equipment Co-op began offering a $9.75 stainless-steel model three months ago, and metal bottles now account for half of the sports bottles sold at its Vancouver outlet. Nearby Valhalla Pure Outfitters, which used to seel two to three Nalgene bottles every day in summer, sold only a handful over the entire season this year. A.J. Brooks Outdoor Outfitters doesn't even stock them anymore.
Once ubiquitous on university campuses, where they emerged as the accessory of choice among young, outdoorsy types, Nalgene bottles are being displaced by metal bottles, says Valhalla sales associate - and University of British Columbia student - Aja O'Gorman. "It's like the whole 'buy green' movement: it's cool to have a conscience." Plus, she says, they look a lot nicer. Sigg, the Swiss maker of the most coveted - and priciest - products in the category, was even recognized by New York City's Museum of Modern Art for its chic shapes and design.
Morris admits her new stainless steel bottle is pricey, and it sweats a bit. Plus, it gives the water a slightly metallic taste. "Who knows?" she says,. "In a few years' time they may say there's something wrong with stainless steel."
PLASTIC BOTTLES GET THE ECO-BOOT
In light of new research, metal bottles are the 'safer,' greener - and cooler - way to hydrate
By Nancy MacDonald
Louisa Morris, a 29-year-old Vancouver lawyer, recently ditched the Nalgene water bottle she once carried every single day to the University of Calgary law school. In July, she traded up, forking over $30 for a sexy new stainless steel version. The high-polished metal bottle looks sharp. But Morris's decision had nothing to do with style. Two years ago, the Ontario-born family lawyer was diagnosed with cancer after finding a pea-sized lump in her breast. In her final year of law school she had a full mastectomy on her right side, and endured six rounds of chemotherapy. Morris, a non-smoker, has no cancer in her family, and tested negative for the genes associated with breast cancer. Her doctors attribute the onset of cancer while in her twenties to environmental factors. Because of this, Morris tends to tune in to findings of carcinogens in consumer products. So does her boyfriend, lawyer Neil Chantler - who chucked his trusted old Nalgene bottle, too.
They're part of a growing number of consumers who are looking for alternatives after reports that a chemical in the polycarbonate plastic used in the trademark bottles may be unsafe. Polycarbonate was once considered a giant leap forward in plastics: it's sturdy, lightweight and clear - and it doesn't transfer taste, as Nalgene fanatics are quick to point out. Yet it's come under scrutiny after reports that the plastic leaches bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor currently under review by the Canadian government. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority had both concluded that the chemical is safe for food grade use. But recent controversial studies link BPA - also found in a huge range of products, including baby bottles, plastic-lined tin cans, and kids' toys - to reproductive abnormalities, neurological disorders, prostate cancer and pre-cancerous breast tissues.
Proponents like the American Chemistry Council have argued that recent, headline-grabbing reports are based on animal studies, and urge consumers to ignore the scare stories. But the mouse has always been a pretty good model for humans, says geneticist Patricia Hunt, who observed chromosomal abnormalities in lab mice exposed to BPA in 1998. Since then, the science has been "nailed down," argues Frederick vom Saal, the University of Missouri-Columbia biology professor who's leading the scientific charge against BPA. "It's just a question of whether the regulatory community acknowledges the hazards of this chemical." Rick Smith, the executive director of the Toronto-based Environmental Defence, is predicting that this will be among the dominant debates in the area of the environment in the next few years.
Meanwhile, public concern is already having an effect on the market. The plastic panic - combined with the recent backlash against wasteful bottled water, now seen as a big environmental sinner - is causing a spike in sales of metal water bottles. "We've seen sales go from zero to a hundred," says John Green, manager of Vancouver's Altus Mountain Gear. "Cost is no longer a major issue. People are saying, 'My health is worth the 35 bucks.'" Mountain Equipment Co-op began offering a $9.75 stainless-steel model three months ago, and metal bottles now account for half of the sports bottles sold at its Vancouver outlet. Nearby Valhalla Pure Outfitters, which used to seel two to three Nalgene bottles every day in summer, sold only a handful over the entire season this year. A.J. Brooks Outdoor Outfitters doesn't even stock them anymore.
Once ubiquitous on university campuses, where they emerged as the accessory of choice among young, outdoorsy types, Nalgene bottles are being displaced by metal bottles, says Valhalla sales associate - and University of British Columbia student - Aja O'Gorman. "It's like the whole 'buy green' movement: it's cool to have a conscience." Plus, she says, they look a lot nicer. Sigg, the Swiss maker of the most coveted - and priciest - products in the category, was even recognized by New York City's Museum of Modern Art for its chic shapes and design.
Morris admits her new stainless steel bottle is pricey, and it sweats a bit. Plus, it gives the water a slightly metallic taste. "Who knows?" she says,. "In a few years' time they may say there's something wrong with stainless steel."
Friday, December 7, 2007
Lawsuit in Peru Against Bayer for Poisoning Kids with Pesticide
This article about pesticide poisoning of children in Peru is from the Pesticide Action Network North America, http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_200208.12.2.13.dv.html:
Bayer Found Responsible for Poisoning of Children in Peru
by Erika Rosenthal
After a nine month investigation, a Peruvian Congressional Subcommittee has found significant evidence of criminal responsibility by both the agrochemical company Bayer and the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture in the poisoning of 42 children in the remote Andean village of Tauccamarca in October 1999.
The children were stricken after eating a school breakfast contaminated with the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion. Twenty-four children died before they could reach medical treatment; 18 others survived with significant long term health and developmental consequences. The pesticide was heavily marketed under the name of Folidol to small farmers throughout the Andean region of Peru, the great majority of whom speak Quechua only and are illiterate. Bayer packaged the pesticide, a white powder that resembles powdered milk and has no strong chemical odor, in small plastic bags, labeled in Spanish and displaying a picture of vegetables. The labels provided no usable safety information, such as pictograms, for the majority of users in remote villages, and little indication of the danger of the product.
The Peruvian Congressional Report also found that Bayer should compensate the families and surviving children for the losses they have suffered. Headquartered in Germany, Bayer and its Peruvian subsidiary, Bayer Peru, have been principle exporters, importers and distributors of both methyl and ethyl parathion.
The families filed a suit against Bayer in October of 2001 asserting that the company should have taken steps to prevent the foreseeable misuse of this extremely toxic product, given the severe health risks presented by methyl parathion, and the prevalence of indigenous languages in the Peruvian countryside. Two days after the suit was filed, the judge of the Superior Court of Lima found the case inadmissible on procedural grounds, and concluded summarily--and illegally--that the plaintiffs had not adequately made out the underlying substantive case. Under Peruvian law, in the initial stage of litigation the judge is authorized only to review the completeness of the filing papers, and may not decide substantive matters of law. The families successfully appealed the illegal resolution, and are currently waiting for a hearing date to be set for later this year.
The suit seeks justice for the children that perished, guarantees of medical monitoring for the surviving children, and regulatory reforms to prevent future tragedies. It also names the Ministry of Agriculture for failure to enforce pesticide regulations; uncontrolled sales of "restricted use" pesticides including parathion are common throughout Peru.
The efforts of the Tauccamarca families and allied Peruvian non-governmental organizations have been backed by a wave of public support and have won important changes, including a ban on the sale of most formulations of methyl parathion.
As the World Summit on Sustainable Development takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa, the families have written to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan requesting that he exclude Bayer from the UN Global Compact because of Bayer's actions in Peru. The Global Compact is a UN partnership with corporations that pledge to abide by human rights and environmental principles. The letter was signed by Victoriano Huarayo Torres, representing the Village of Tauccamarca. Two of Mr. Huarayo's children were among the 24 fatally poisoned. He relates in the letter,
"In the intervening years [since the 1999 poisoning] the grieving parents in my village cannot understand how the United Nations could support a company like Bayer that has continued to sell its most toxic pesticides (classified by the WHO as extremely or highly hazardous) for many years after publicly promising to withdraw them in 1995. Nor can we understand why the United Nations would support a company that allowed methyl parathion to be sold in a region where they knew that the people would not be able to read the label instructions."
Erika Rosenthal is the Legal Advisor for Pesticide Action Network Latin America.
Sources: Peruvian Congressional Investigative Committee, Correspondence to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan from Victoriano Huarayo Torres, Aug. 27, 2002; website of the UN Global Compact, http://www.un.org/Depts/ptd/global.htm; Greenwash + 10--The UN's Global Compact, Corporate Accountability, and the Johannesburg ‘Earth Summit' by Corpwatch, http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=1348, CorpWatch, PO Box 29344, San Francisco, CA 94129 USA, phone 415-561-6568, fax 415-561-6493, email corpwatch@corpwatch.org.
Bayer Found Responsible for Poisoning of Children in Peru
by Erika Rosenthal
After a nine month investigation, a Peruvian Congressional Subcommittee has found significant evidence of criminal responsibility by both the agrochemical company Bayer and the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture in the poisoning of 42 children in the remote Andean village of Tauccamarca in October 1999.
The children were stricken after eating a school breakfast contaminated with the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion. Twenty-four children died before they could reach medical treatment; 18 others survived with significant long term health and developmental consequences. The pesticide was heavily marketed under the name of Folidol to small farmers throughout the Andean region of Peru, the great majority of whom speak Quechua only and are illiterate. Bayer packaged the pesticide, a white powder that resembles powdered milk and has no strong chemical odor, in small plastic bags, labeled in Spanish and displaying a picture of vegetables. The labels provided no usable safety information, such as pictograms, for the majority of users in remote villages, and little indication of the danger of the product.
The Peruvian Congressional Report also found that Bayer should compensate the families and surviving children for the losses they have suffered. Headquartered in Germany, Bayer and its Peruvian subsidiary, Bayer Peru, have been principle exporters, importers and distributors of both methyl and ethyl parathion.
The families filed a suit against Bayer in October of 2001 asserting that the company should have taken steps to prevent the foreseeable misuse of this extremely toxic product, given the severe health risks presented by methyl parathion, and the prevalence of indigenous languages in the Peruvian countryside. Two days after the suit was filed, the judge of the Superior Court of Lima found the case inadmissible on procedural grounds, and concluded summarily--and illegally--that the plaintiffs had not adequately made out the underlying substantive case. Under Peruvian law, in the initial stage of litigation the judge is authorized only to review the completeness of the filing papers, and may not decide substantive matters of law. The families successfully appealed the illegal resolution, and are currently waiting for a hearing date to be set for later this year.
The suit seeks justice for the children that perished, guarantees of medical monitoring for the surviving children, and regulatory reforms to prevent future tragedies. It also names the Ministry of Agriculture for failure to enforce pesticide regulations; uncontrolled sales of "restricted use" pesticides including parathion are common throughout Peru.
The efforts of the Tauccamarca families and allied Peruvian non-governmental organizations have been backed by a wave of public support and have won important changes, including a ban on the sale of most formulations of methyl parathion.
As the World Summit on Sustainable Development takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa, the families have written to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan requesting that he exclude Bayer from the UN Global Compact because of Bayer's actions in Peru. The Global Compact is a UN partnership with corporations that pledge to abide by human rights and environmental principles. The letter was signed by Victoriano Huarayo Torres, representing the Village of Tauccamarca. Two of Mr. Huarayo's children were among the 24 fatally poisoned. He relates in the letter,
"In the intervening years [since the 1999 poisoning] the grieving parents in my village cannot understand how the United Nations could support a company like Bayer that has continued to sell its most toxic pesticides (classified by the WHO as extremely or highly hazardous) for many years after publicly promising to withdraw them in 1995. Nor can we understand why the United Nations would support a company that allowed methyl parathion to be sold in a region where they knew that the people would not be able to read the label instructions."
Erika Rosenthal is the Legal Advisor for Pesticide Action Network Latin America.
Sources: Peruvian Congressional Investigative Committee, Correspondence to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan from Victoriano Huarayo Torres, Aug. 27, 2002; website of the UN Global Compact, http://www.un.org/Depts/ptd/global.htm; Greenwash + 10--The UN's Global Compact, Corporate Accountability, and the Johannesburg ‘Earth Summit' by Corpwatch, http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=1348, CorpWatch, PO Box 29344, San Francisco, CA 94129 USA, phone 415-561-6568, fax 415-561-6493, email corpwatch@corpwatch.org.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Phthalates - Comment by Alix Clyburn from The Green Guide
I was looking at the web links on the Our Stolen Futuresite, http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Sources/enviro.htm, and clicked on The Green Guide link. What I found was an article called "Alix in Wonderland," by Alix Clyburn:
ALIX IN WONDERLAND
Alix Clyburn
Phear of Pthlatates
Filed under: Children's safety and health, Toys and gifts, Phthalates
3:42 pm: November 28, 2007
As I write this, I'm listening to "Fresh Air" on NPR and learning that nearly every single thing in my life is leaking out questionable chemicals called phthalates (thay-lates).
My cosmetics, the dashboard of my car, nearly anything plastic . . . apparently these phthalates are in them all and slowly leak out into the atmosphere and will, I don't know, turn us into hermaphrodites?
The worst of it is not the phthalates in my mascara or my shampoo. It's in children's toys. My sons' toys are filled with phthalates. Apparently, studies have shown that these chemicals have an impact on the testosterone development in children. They call the plastics "hormone disrupters." Not good. Too much testosterone? Too little testosterone? Who cares? Either way, not so good.
Mark Schapiro is an investigative reporter who wrote a book about this called Exposed and was interviewed by Terry Gross. His book is excerpted in the article "Toxic Toys" on the website of The Nation.
In Europe, they have banned phthalates from children's toys. Those Eurokids still have lots of fun toys. The Chinese factories still make them, in fact. According to Schapiro, the Chinese factories literally make a phthalate-free version for Europe and a phthalate-laden version of the same toy for lucky American boys and girls. This is ludicrous. In October, California mandated that their toys be phthalate-free too. If Ahnold can make it happen, why can't the rest of us?
I don't even know that much about it, but a little bit of reading online can make you want to toss every toy in your house. Our host here, The Green Guide, has been talking about the dangers of phthalates since 1997, and more recently covered a CDC report that does not fill me with confidence. That said, the updated Toy Product Report is filled with better options. Maybe I should read more but when?? How are we parents supposed to stay on top of all of this, to protect our children from their own toys? When are we supposed to do that while we're also trying to actually care for our children, work and manage our own lives? If it's easy enough for moms and dads in Denmark and Spain to rely on their government to prevent these hormone disrupting chemicals from seeping into their babies' bodies, why can't we rely on Uncle Sam?
Our Stolen Future: Effect of DDT on Human Intelligence
The book that I am reading now, Safe Trip to Eden by David Steinman talks about the effect of synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides on animals such as rats, frogs and people.
The news is definitely not good. Here is an excerpt:
Although DDT is banned in the United States, there are other synthetic chemcials in our food and personal care products. If you want to protect yourself and your family from further contamination from these chemicals, buy organic food and buy personal care products (shampoo, deodorant, suntan lotion, moisturizer, cosmetics, etc.). Educate yourself about the effects of some of these chemicals by reading Our Stolen Future or Safe Strip to Eden or Diet for a Poisoned Planet or looking at websites listed on this blog. I hope to add more books and websites to this blog, as I learn about them myself.
The news is definitely not good. Here is an excerpt:
Scientists measured levels of DDT in 360 pregnant women now living in the Salinas Valley, but almost all of whom had come to the United States from Mexico in the last five years. In Mexico, chemicals banned in the United States are used for crop production, and I detailed the extensive contamination of Mexican produce with chemicals banned in the United States in Diet for a Poisoned Planet. Marla Cone reports in the Los Angeles Times most of these women were exposed to DDT through recent applications of the compound, noting that DDT was used on farms until 1995 and for mosquito control until 2000. DDT continues to be used worldwide today as protection against malaria.
According to the study results as reported in a Los Angeles Time article, for every tenfold rise in DDT exposure, the children's scores on mental tests dropped 2 to 3 points. Their motor skills were also reduced. In the worst cases, the highest DDT doses were associated with a 7- to 10- point drop in the mental scores of 24-month-old children compared with those who were not exposed.
Making these declines in intelligence more notable is that the average score in the study was only 86. Yet scores below 85 are strongly linked with developmental delays and learning disabilities. These children will find it difficult if not impossible to learn how to think and to solve problems. In addition, one of the key indicators of a breakdown in problem-solving skills is violence, whether it is in the neighbor hood or around the globe. If problems-solving skills are being impaired in America and Mexico, they are certainly also being impaired in society today. Maybe a little dust doesn't gum up the clockworks, but too much will. If we're busy dusting the IQ off our kids for a few dollars more and they can't apply intelligence to solving tomorrow's problems, then what's the point of having kids? It is likely that more violence will be substituted instead, thanks to the chemical dusting." (pages 205-206)
Although DDT is banned in the United States, there are other synthetic chemcials in our food and personal care products. If you want to protect yourself and your family from further contamination from these chemicals, buy organic food and buy personal care products (shampoo, deodorant, suntan lotion, moisturizer, cosmetics, etc.). Educate yourself about the effects of some of these chemicals by reading Our Stolen Future or Safe Strip to Eden or Diet for a Poisoned Planet or looking at websites listed on this blog. I hope to add more books and websites to this blog, as I learn about them myself.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Toxic Flame Retardants
From the Protecting Human Health section of The David Suzuki Foundation website, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/health/toxics/default.asp, an article about flame retardants. Although I've only excerpted the article below, on the site you can find resources for the article, links and press releases.
TOXIC FLAME RETARDENTS
A Burning Issue
If you're like most people, you’ve probably never heard of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). But along with virtually every Canadian, you are surrounded by these chemicals.
These chemicals are used as flame retardants in a wide-range of consumer products, including TVs, computers, electronics, motor vehicles, carpets, and furniture.
Health effects of PBDE exposure include damage to the neurological, reproductive, immune, and hormonal systems. The most widely used chemical in this group, decaBDE, is also a suspected carcinogen. These toxic chemicals are released into the environment during manufacturing, and end up in household dust as products containing them degrade.
The discovery that PBDEs are rapidly accumulating in humans and the environment has raised serious concerns. Sweden has banned all these chemicals for health and environmental reasons. Many U.S. states are following suit. Legislation to ban decaBDE has been introduced in Washington, California, Maine, and Illinois.
There are currently no restrictions on the manufacture, import, sale, or use of PBDEs in Canada, despite the fact that Canadian women and killer whales have some of the world’s highest concentrations of PBDEs. PBDEs found in marine mammals increased by 7,000 per cent from 1984-2003 and continue to double every 3.5 to four years.
Many firefighters' organizations in the United States strongly support motions to ban PBDEs, because of the occupational health hazards they present to these frontline workers. Firefighters are keenly aware of the dangers of highly flammable consumer products, but they also know many alternatives to PBDEs are available today.
The good news is that the federal government is currently developing a PBDE risk management strategy. The bad news is that proposed regulations announced last December would exempt the most commonly used PBDE: decaBDE.
The David Suzuki Foundation has formally objected to the proposed regulations and advocates a ban on all PBDEs.
TOXIC FLAME RETARDENTS
A Burning Issue
If you're like most people, you’ve probably never heard of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). But along with virtually every Canadian, you are surrounded by these chemicals.
These chemicals are used as flame retardants in a wide-range of consumer products, including TVs, computers, electronics, motor vehicles, carpets, and furniture.
Health effects of PBDE exposure include damage to the neurological, reproductive, immune, and hormonal systems. The most widely used chemical in this group, decaBDE, is also a suspected carcinogen. These toxic chemicals are released into the environment during manufacturing, and end up in household dust as products containing them degrade.
The discovery that PBDEs are rapidly accumulating in humans and the environment has raised serious concerns. Sweden has banned all these chemicals for health and environmental reasons. Many U.S. states are following suit. Legislation to ban decaBDE has been introduced in Washington, California, Maine, and Illinois.
There are currently no restrictions on the manufacture, import, sale, or use of PBDEs in Canada, despite the fact that Canadian women and killer whales have some of the world’s highest concentrations of PBDEs. PBDEs found in marine mammals increased by 7,000 per cent from 1984-2003 and continue to double every 3.5 to four years.
Many firefighters' organizations in the United States strongly support motions to ban PBDEs, because of the occupational health hazards they present to these frontline workers. Firefighters are keenly aware of the dangers of highly flammable consumer products, but they also know many alternatives to PBDEs are available today.
The good news is that the federal government is currently developing a PBDE risk management strategy. The bad news is that proposed regulations announced last December would exempt the most commonly used PBDE: decaBDE.
The David Suzuki Foundation has formally objected to the proposed regulations and advocates a ban on all PBDEs.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Healthy Home; Detoxing Your House
From the Spring & Summer 2007, greenliving magazine, pages 73, 75, here is an article about how to improve the air quality in your home:
HOME, SAFE HOME
Detoxing Your Digs
by Jennifer O'Connor
Sure, you eat organic and do Bikram yoga, but how healthy is your home? Things like cooking smoke, cleaning chemicals and common mould all hamper indoor air quality. Fortunately, there are some simple things you can do to breathe more easily.
To find out what I could do to improve my home environment, I decided to go to a specialist. When Art Robinson, president of Sick Building Solutions, and field manager Al McLaren arrived, the first thing they did was check the air's carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels, as well as the temperature and humidity. The carbon dioxide level in my living room came in at 800 parts per million (500 to 800 is acceptable), which I was told is normal for three people breathing in an enclosed, relatively small space. Radiators heat my apartment, so there's no air exchange, but it's an old house, so there are cracks that let fresh air in. Symptoms of too much carbon dioxide include headaches and sleepiness, so it's important to keep air flowing. Open your windows or balance the need for fresh air with energy efficiency by using a heat-recovery ventilator, which draws new air indoors and pushes the old outside ($1,000 and up, plus installation).
Robinson and McLaren didn't find carbon monoxide (but then, I don't have oil or gas powered appliance's a working fireplace or any of the other monoxide-makers. However, this colourless, odourless gas can cause numerous ailments, including nausea, headaches and dizziness, so Robinson suggests getting a carbon-monoxide detector, which costs $35 to $45 and lasts about five years. During an inspection, Robinson will also interview clients to find out if they have specific complaints and concerns - he is able to test for more than 1,000 different substances.
Of course, it didn't require an expert to find the mould in my loo. "We get calls for this," he said, recommending I leave the window open after a shower to let the mould-fostering moisture exit the building. Other household threats are radon and formaldehyde. Radon is naturally occurring radioactive gas found underground that can get into the home through cracks in concrete, dirt floors and under the furnace base and may increase your risk of lung cancer. Health Canada suggests sealing basement walls and floors with a polyurethane caulking compound. Formaldehyde is released by many items in the home such as carpet cleaners, particleboard and dishwashing liquids. Exposure to too much of it can cause everything from sore throats and burning eyes to, in extreme cases, cancer of the nasal cavity.
If sealing your basement or replacing your cabinets isn't high on your to-do list, never fear. Here are some tips for getting your quick detox fix.
1. Take off your shoes when you come in. There can be substances in soil you don't want to track through the house.
2. Ditch household hazardous waste such as old paint and batteries (contact your municipality for a safe disposal site near you).
3. Use eco-friendly cleaners such as baking soda and vinegar, and replace abrasive cleansers with steel wool.
4. Keep your house smoke-free. That includes smoke not just from cigarettes but from anything you burn indoors, such as candles.
5. Fight the good fight against dust, which can absorb and distribute toxic particles through the air. That means limiting rungs and curtains; they attract dust and are difficult to clean.
6. Take The Lung Association's virtual tour of air-quality hot-spots in your home at www.yourhealthhome.ca.
7. Consider consulting a pro. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), 1-800-668-2642, or your provincial lung association, 1-888-566-5864, can provide referrals. Or check the Yellow Pages under "indoor air consultant" or "building consultant." Ensure whoever you hire CMHC trained and expect to pay anywhere from $250 to $700.
HOME, SAFE HOME
Detoxing Your Digs
by Jennifer O'Connor
Sure, you eat organic and do Bikram yoga, but how healthy is your home? Things like cooking smoke, cleaning chemicals and common mould all hamper indoor air quality. Fortunately, there are some simple things you can do to breathe more easily.
To find out what I could do to improve my home environment, I decided to go to a specialist. When Art Robinson, president of Sick Building Solutions, and field manager Al McLaren arrived, the first thing they did was check the air's carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels, as well as the temperature and humidity. The carbon dioxide level in my living room came in at 800 parts per million (500 to 800 is acceptable), which I was told is normal for three people breathing in an enclosed, relatively small space. Radiators heat my apartment, so there's no air exchange, but it's an old house, so there are cracks that let fresh air in. Symptoms of too much carbon dioxide include headaches and sleepiness, so it's important to keep air flowing. Open your windows or balance the need for fresh air with energy efficiency by using a heat-recovery ventilator, which draws new air indoors and pushes the old outside ($1,000 and up, plus installation).
Robinson and McLaren didn't find carbon monoxide (but then, I don't have oil or gas powered appliance's a working fireplace or any of the other monoxide-makers. However, this colourless, odourless gas can cause numerous ailments, including nausea, headaches and dizziness, so Robinson suggests getting a carbon-monoxide detector, which costs $35 to $45 and lasts about five years. During an inspection, Robinson will also interview clients to find out if they have specific complaints and concerns - he is able to test for more than 1,000 different substances.
Of course, it didn't require an expert to find the mould in my loo. "We get calls for this," he said, recommending I leave the window open after a shower to let the mould-fostering moisture exit the building. Other household threats are radon and formaldehyde. Radon is naturally occurring radioactive gas found underground that can get into the home through cracks in concrete, dirt floors and under the furnace base and may increase your risk of lung cancer. Health Canada suggests sealing basement walls and floors with a polyurethane caulking compound. Formaldehyde is released by many items in the home such as carpet cleaners, particleboard and dishwashing liquids. Exposure to too much of it can cause everything from sore throats and burning eyes to, in extreme cases, cancer of the nasal cavity.
If sealing your basement or replacing your cabinets isn't high on your to-do list, never fear. Here are some tips for getting your quick detox fix.
1. Take off your shoes when you come in. There can be substances in soil you don't want to track through the house.
2. Ditch household hazardous waste such as old paint and batteries (contact your municipality for a safe disposal site near you).
3. Use eco-friendly cleaners such as baking soda and vinegar, and replace abrasive cleansers with steel wool.
4. Keep your house smoke-free. That includes smoke not just from cigarettes but from anything you burn indoors, such as candles.
5. Fight the good fight against dust, which can absorb and distribute toxic particles through the air. That means limiting rungs and curtains; they attract dust and are difficult to clean.
6. Take The Lung Association's virtual tour of air-quality hot-spots in your home at www.yourhealthhome.ca.
7. Consider consulting a pro. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), 1-800-668-2642, or your provincial lung association, 1-888-566-5864, can provide referrals. Or check the Yellow Pages under "indoor air consultant" or "building consultant." Ensure whoever you hire CMHC trained and expect to pay anywhere from $250 to $700.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Chemicals on Food Wrappers
From the Autumn 2007 issue of the University of Toronto Magazine, page 10, an article about the chmicals applied to food wrappers:
A BAD WRAP?
A study by two University of Toronto chemists has shown that potentially harmful chemicals commonly applied to food wrappers can make their way into the bloodstream.
Earlier research has found that perfluorinated chemicals can migrate from wrappers into food. The new study, by environmental chemists, Scott abury and Jessica D'eon, establishes that the wrappers are a potential source of these chemicals in human blood.
Professor Mabury, chair of the department of chemistry, and D'eon, a doctoral student, fed the chmicals to rats, whose blood was monitored daily. The chemicals appeared in the rodents' bloodstream within four hours, which suggests a similar process could occur in humans.
Researchers have not yet determined the impact of the chmicals on human health, but Mabury says the findings suggest more research is warranted. "I think our results do indicate that a broader look is necessary," he says, "especially when it comes to the potential for toxicity."
"I think [regulators] have made three assumptions," says Mabury. "That the chemicals wouldn't move off paper into food, they wouldn't become available to the body and the body wouldn't process them. They were wrong on all three counts." -Sarah Treeleaven
A BAD WRAP?
A study by two University of Toronto chemists has shown that potentially harmful chemicals commonly applied to food wrappers can make their way into the bloodstream.
Earlier research has found that perfluorinated chemicals can migrate from wrappers into food. The new study, by environmental chemists, Scott abury and Jessica D'eon, establishes that the wrappers are a potential source of these chemicals in human blood.
Professor Mabury, chair of the department of chemistry, and D'eon, a doctoral student, fed the chmicals to rats, whose blood was monitored daily. The chemicals appeared in the rodents' bloodstream within four hours, which suggests a similar process could occur in humans.
Researchers have not yet determined the impact of the chmicals on human health, but Mabury says the findings suggest more research is warranted. "I think our results do indicate that a broader look is necessary," he says, "especially when it comes to the potential for toxicity."
"I think [regulators] have made three assumptions," says Mabury. "That the chemicals wouldn't move off paper into food, they wouldn't become available to the body and the body wouldn't process them. They were wrong on all three counts." -Sarah Treeleaven
How You Can Stop Pesticide Poisonings
From a David Suzuki foundation newsletter,2007:
7 Ways to Stop Pesticide Poisonings
1. Use non-toxic alternatives instead of chemical pesticides.
2. Store pesticides in locked cabinets that are inaccessible to children.
3. Keep pesticides in their original containers to prevent misidentification.
4. Avoid using pesticides when children are nearby.
5. Find out from your local poison-control centre how to safely dispose of pesticides.
6. Vote for politicians who support tighter restrictions on pesticides in Canada.
7. Keep the number for your regional poison information centre near the phone.
7 Ways to Stop Pesticide Poisonings
1. Use non-toxic alternatives instead of chemical pesticides.
2. Store pesticides in locked cabinets that are inaccessible to children.
3. Keep pesticides in their original containers to prevent misidentification.
4. Avoid using pesticides when children are nearby.
5. Find out from your local poison-control centre how to safely dispose of pesticides.
6. Vote for politicians who support tighter restrictions on pesticides in Canada.
7. Keep the number for your regional poison information centre near the phone.
Safety Issues Regarding Pesticides
From a 2007 newsletter by the David Suzuki Foundation, an article about the safety issues regarding pesticides:
New report says children under six most at risk
PESTICIDE POISONING
By Dominic Ali
Those herbicides and insecticides in our tool sheds and garages seem harmless enough, even after we spray them in the summer to kill bugs and weeds. But these chemicals are actually sinister villains.
A new report by the David Suzuki Foundation, "Northern Exposure: Acute Pesticide Poisonings in Canada", reveals the surprisingly high numbers of pesticide poisonings in Canada, especially among children under age six.
Authored by Canadian environmental policy expert David Boyd, the report garnered national headlines when it was released. It is the sixth report in a series showing how environmental policies should be strengthened to protect the health of all Canadians.
In an earlier report, "The Food We East," Boyd found that approximately 1,000 commercial pesticides products for sale in Canada can't be sold in other countries because of health and environmental concerns. "To make matters worse," Boyd writes in "Northern Exposure," "negotiations are underway to further weaken pesticide residue limits in order to harmonize Canadian standards with American standards."
Mr. Boyd also found that although children under age six represent only 6.4 per cent of the total Canadian population, they experience as much as 64.5 per cent of acute pesticide poisonings. "Thousands of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, our children, are being needlessly poisoned. If that's not a wake-up call about the dangers of pesticides, I don't know what is," Mr. Boyd says.
Anti-pesticide bylaws have been passed in more than 125 municipalities across Canada because of the health risks involved. But, as Mr. Boyd, points out, more could be done to protect Canadians from unintentional pesticide poisoning.
Aside from the health costs of pesticide poisonings, there are also economic costs as well. In 1995, Health Canada estimated that four per cent of reported poisonings of Canadian children each year were due to accidental pesticide exposure. "Northern Exposure" estimates that these acute pesticide poisonings cost roughly $16 million each year.
So what can the government do to prevent future pesticide poisonings? Quite a lot, actually. For starters, different levels of government could enact legislation requiring all products in Canada to be sold in child-resistant containers, ban pesticides for cosmetic purposes, and increase funding to Canada's poison-control centres.
This report was funded by the Lefebvre Charitable Foundation and can be downloaded from www.davidsuzuki.org/publications.
New report says children under six most at risk
PESTICIDE POISONING
By Dominic Ali
Those herbicides and insecticides in our tool sheds and garages seem harmless enough, even after we spray them in the summer to kill bugs and weeds. But these chemicals are actually sinister villains.
A new report by the David Suzuki Foundation, "Northern Exposure: Acute Pesticide Poisonings in Canada", reveals the surprisingly high numbers of pesticide poisonings in Canada, especially among children under age six.
Authored by Canadian environmental policy expert David Boyd, the report garnered national headlines when it was released. It is the sixth report in a series showing how environmental policies should be strengthened to protect the health of all Canadians.
In an earlier report, "The Food We East," Boyd found that approximately 1,000 commercial pesticides products for sale in Canada can't be sold in other countries because of health and environmental concerns. "To make matters worse," Boyd writes in "Northern Exposure," "negotiations are underway to further weaken pesticide residue limits in order to harmonize Canadian standards with American standards."
Mr. Boyd also found that although children under age six represent only 6.4 per cent of the total Canadian population, they experience as much as 64.5 per cent of acute pesticide poisonings. "Thousands of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, our children, are being needlessly poisoned. If that's not a wake-up call about the dangers of pesticides, I don't know what is," Mr. Boyd says.
Anti-pesticide bylaws have been passed in more than 125 municipalities across Canada because of the health risks involved. But, as Mr. Boyd, points out, more could be done to protect Canadians from unintentional pesticide poisoning.
Aside from the health costs of pesticide poisonings, there are also economic costs as well. In 1995, Health Canada estimated that four per cent of reported poisonings of Canadian children each year were due to accidental pesticide exposure. "Northern Exposure" estimates that these acute pesticide poisonings cost roughly $16 million each year.
So what can the government do to prevent future pesticide poisonings? Quite a lot, actually. For starters, different levels of government could enact legislation requiring all products in Canada to be sold in child-resistant containers, ban pesticides for cosmetic purposes, and increase funding to Canada's poison-control centres.
This report was funded by the Lefebvre Charitable Foundation and can be downloaded from www.davidsuzuki.org/publications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)