Please check the CHE-WA website to stay abreast of the latest postings, news and events: http://washington.chenw.org.
To join the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) and CHE-Washington, please complete the form at http://www.healthandenvironment.org/roles/register?&phase=registerform. Be sure to mark that you want to join the Washington State Regional Group at the bottom of the application.
CHE-WA's next quarterly meeting is scheduled for 2:00-5:00 p.m. Thursday, January 4, 2007, at Antioch University in Seattle. The focus of this meeting will be climate change and health, featuring presentations on the current science, health implications and policy opportunities. The formal presentations will end by 3:45 p.m., and then from 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. there will be an additional discussion among those who would like to explore developing and implementing a concrete initiative to address these issues. A more detailed agenda has been circulated. Notes and presentations from the October meeting have now been posted on our website: http://washington.chenw.org/meetings.html.
The fourth annual environmental health lecture series entitled, "Our Health, Our Environment: Making the Link -- Sustainable Solutions" starts this month at Seattle Town Hall. The series, sponsored by the Seattle Biotech Legacy Foundation and organized by the Institute for Children's Environmental Health, will include one lecture each month January through April:
All lectures will be held at Seattle Town Hall from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., preceded by a reception from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. For more information and to purchase admission, please visit http://washington.chenw.org/lectures.html.
January 6, 2007
9:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
at Seattle Pacific University, Gwinn Commons 3rd Floor (3310 Sixth Avenue West)
We'll hear from legislators, environmental lobbyists and members of the media and others regarding the community's Priorities for a Healthy Washington. These priorities include legislation for cleaning up Puget Sound, phasing out toxic chemicals that impact children's health, promoting clean air and clean fuels, and investing in Washington's wildlife and natural spaces. The workshop is $10 and includes the 2007 Environmental Agenda. If you would like lunch and the 2007 Environmental Briefing Book, the cost is $20. Space is limited, so please RSVP early.
Website: http://www.wecprotects.org/home/
Contact: Kerri Cechovic at 206-622-8103, ext. 212 or kerri@wecprotects.org
January 28 - 30, 2007
early registration has been extended through January 9th
San Francisco, California
at UCSF Mission Bay Conference Center
This groundbreaking conference will further the efforts of researchers, clinicians, policymakers and community health leaders to understand and mitigate the reproductive and developmental health impacts of exposures to environmental contaminants -- including the periconceptional and fetal origins of adult disorders. The Summit will provide overviews by leading researchers of the science on these topics and will also explore translation of this research to clinical care, medical training, and public health policy; to federal regulatory agency and research institute priorities; and to patient advocate and community health concerns, including health disparity issues. Collaborative working groups and partnerships will form to further explore and take action on these environmental health issues.
Website: http://www.ucsf.edu/coe/prhesummit.html
Contact: Mary Wade, Summit Manager, 415-476-2563 or wadem@obgyn.ucsf.edu
CHE-Washington welcomes these new members:
For a searchable database of organizations with which CHE-WA members are affiliated, please visit http://washington.chenw.org/members.html.
Washington Toxics Coalition is seeking a full-time Advocate to lead our efforts to secure reductions in pesticide use in Washington state. Job responsibilities are evenly divided into three areas: statewide pesticide advocacy, sustainable agriculture advocacy and local pesticide policy reforms. WTC is looking for somebody who takes pride and ownership over his/her job as well as somebody who can manage multiple tasks and who can set and achieve clear priorities. WTC is looking for somebody who works well in a group setting and who can incorporate feedback effectively into his/her work. Salary is dependent on experience. WTC offers a generous benefits package, including paid vacation, health care and dental coverage, a matching retirement plan, and tax-deferred savings through a 403(b) plan. To apply, send a cover letter, resume, and list of three references to Erika Schreder by January 31, 2007, to the address below, or email the above to eschreder@watoxics.org. WTC is an equal opportunity employer and strongly encourages women, glbt individuals, and people of color to apply.
Washington Toxics Coalition
4649 Sunnyside Ave N, Ste 540E
Seattle, WA 98103
submitted to this listserv by Roger Rosenblatt, MD, MPH
"Focus the Nation" is a major educational initiative that is coordinating teams of faculty, students and staff at over a thousand colleges, universities and high schools in the United States, to collaboratively engage in a nationwide, interdisciplinary discussion centered around the theme of "Global Warming Solutions for America." The project will culminate January 31, 2008, in the form of one-day, national symposia held simultaneously on campuses across the country.
LuAnne Thompson (Oceanography) has gallantly offered to serve as the lead for pulling together the UW effort to participate in this event. We believe this project has the potential to really grab the attention and imagination of not only the campus community, but our region as well. We, as an institution, can determine what our participation will look like.
To this end, there will be an initial meeting of the minds from 3:00-4:00 on Friday, January 12, 2007, in room 425 of the Ocean Sciences Building. LuAnne will present a debrief from the workshop she attended at Lewis & Clark (home to the national effort) on December 2nd, and there will be time to start brainstorming about what the UW can/should contribute to this campaign. Following this meeting, we hope to establish a relatively small working group to hash out the details while soliciting significant input from the community at large.
by Denise Grady, New York Times
January 2, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/health/nutrition/02seco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
People in the United States have gotten used to the repulsive fact that raw chicken, meat and eggs are often contaminated with dangerous bacteria. Scrub the cutting board, we are warned, don't nibble the cookie dough, don't eat burgers rare. In other words, handle meat like a biohazard -- and then eat it. But until recently, getting sick from salad was something that most Americans didn't even think about unless they were traveling to a poor country. At home, fruits and vegetables have been regarded as clean and safe for as long as most people can remember.
Article Summary: Produce has caused a disturbing number of disease outbreaks; just since September, bacteria-tainted tomatoes, spinach and lettuce have made hundreds of people sick, and killed three. There have been 20 serious outbreaks in the past decade or so, and many have come from crops grown in California, not from imports. Fruit juices, alfalfa sprouts and almonds have also been involved. The known outbreaks are just the tip of the iceberg, health officials say; far more illness is never reported. Most people don't call the health department about a few days of gut trouble. The government estimates that over all, food-borne microbes -- not just the ones on produce -- make 76 million people a year sick, put 325,000 in the hospital and kill 5,000. While contaminants like E. coli 0157:H7 have gotten more attention this fall, outbreaks due to lettuce and other leafy greens have been happening for a long time. Over the past 30 years, diseases linked to produce have increased. Part of the increase may be due to changes in farming methods. Huge processors and distributors produce tens of thousands of pounds of a particular produce in a particular day. If something goes wrong with that produce you've got a big problem, whereas with small farmers, if there is a problem it's much more limited. Another factor may be that bagged and prewashed produce didn't exist 25 years ago, and people today eat more raw vegetables than in the past, plus we have an aging population and more people with chronic medical conditions that might make them more susceptible.
There are several ways that bacteria can contaminate lettuce, including water, whether from unsanitary irrigation/spraying or from flooding. Animals can carry bacteria onto farmland, as can sick workers who handle produce. Even dust blowing off pastures can contaminate crops. After harvest, one bad batch can spoil others when they are mixed for chopping and bagging. While scientists think most contamination lies on the surface of crops, studies have shown that it is possible for bacteria to be taken up through root systems and actually wind up inside the plants, where no amount of washing could get rid of it. The Food and Drug Administration is trying to find ways to prevent outbreaks. It announced a "lettuce safety initiative" last August in response to recurring E. coli outbreaks. It began with last fall's lettuce harvest and included visits by inspectors to farms and cooling and packing facilities. Still, two large outbreaks happened. One question the drug agency is trying to figure out is how close is too close when it comes to cattle and produce. Cow feces, naturally contaminated by E. coli 0157:H7, need to be kept from fresh produce. Answers are not known. Another approach, instead of trying to prevent contamination, is to get rid of it after the fact. Nuts can be heat-treated and juices can be pasteurized. Some experts have recommended irradiating lettuce.
by Angela Spivey, Environmental Health Perspectives
January 1, 2007
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/115-1/focus.html
Lead toxicity is not a problem of the past, nor is it the exclusive domain of children. In fact, lead continues today to pose a serious threat to the health of many U.S. adults.
Article Summary: Since was removed from gasoline, food cans, and other products in the 1970s and early 1980s, environmental lead levels have dropped, and The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys have shown that average adult blood lead levels have declined from about 15 µg/dL in the 1970s to today's 1-2 µg/dL. But there are still pockets of high exposures, such as among workers in certain industries, including lead mining, refining, and smelting; construction work involving paint removal, demolition, and maintenance of outdoor metal structures such as bridges and water towers; auto repair; and battery manufacturing and recycling. As far back as 1990, studies have suggested that significant health effects happen at levels below those allowed by OSHA. Now scientists say the evidence is overwhelming that action needs to be taken to further reduce lead exposures in both the workplace and the general environment. The most recent evidence from epidemiological and toxicological studies suggests that low levels of exposure can, over time, damage the heart, kidneys, and brain. Improvements have been made in measurements of both lead exposure and lead's health effects. Increases in both bone lead and blood lead appear to be associated with possibly dangerous increases in blood pressure, and lead is also associated with increased mortality from diseases of the heart. Kidney function may be altered at the lowest levels of blood lead studied to date in relation to renal effects, and lead's effects on the kidneys are thought to play a major role in its effect on blood pressure. Some studies of lead workers have shown associations between blood lead concentrations of 20 to 40 µg/dL and subclinical cognitive decline, including changes in memory or mental processing speed that are measurable but don't put an individual outside the normal range of function. Declines in cognitive function are more likely to be associated with lower-level environmental exposures over time, rather than recent acute exposures. A link between lead exposure and brain cancers is less clear.
Current research hasn't been able to determine a threshold for many of lead's effects, a level below which no effect occurs. Subgroups especially vulnerable to the effects of low-level lead exposure are pregnant women -- whose exposure may affect their offspring's cognitive function -- and people with metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions including obesity, high blood sugar, and high blood pressure. People with certain genetic susceptibilities might constitute another vulnerable group. Work is needed to find effective and safe interventions for lowering lead exposure at a population level for people whose blood lead levels are already below 10 µg/dL.
by Sara Shipley Hiles, Boston Globe
January 1, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/01/01/study_questions_smoke_breast_cancer_link/
Article Summary: In 2005, the well-respected state Environmental Protection Agency in California reviewed the scientific literature and decided that women were more likely to get breast cancer at a young age if they regularly inhaled someone else's cigarette smoke. But now, preliminary findings from the British Million Women Study, described as the largest study of its kind in the world, suggest there is no link. The British work looked at 1.3 million women ages 50 to 64. The preliminary results, presented at a conference in September, showed absolutely no link between secondhand smoke and breast cancer. The California study agreed that there is no association between older secondhand smokers and breast cancer. But it did find that premenopausal women exposed to secondhand smoke were at a 70 percent higher risk for developing breast cancer than those who weren't exposed. It is unknown why the finding applies only to younger women. One theory is that breast cancer in older women is caused by different factors than in younger women. Another explanation is that a woman's breast tissue is most susceptible to carcinogens from puberty until her first child is born, making younger women more vulnerable to tobacco smoke. The risk of getting breast cancer from secondhand smoke is even higher than the risk of getting lung cancer, the California report said. Toxicology studies also support the California conclusion. Scientists identified 20 chemicals in tobacco smoke that cause tumors in the breast tissue of rodents, giving the connection "biological plausibility."
by Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor
December 28, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1228/p03s03-uspo.html
Although 1 in 4 Americans lives within four miles of a designated toxic-waste site, the federal program to clean up the sites has slowed. Now, key Democrats in Congress are looking to push the program, known as Superfund, back into the spotlight. They're looking not only at its funding levels but also its funding sources. A central issue: whether to restore "polluter pay" taxes on industry to help fund cleanups.
Article Summary: Sen. Barbara Boxer, incoming chairwoman of the environment and public works committee, says she's making Superfund, along with global warming, focal points of her environmental agenda. She has tapped Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) of New York to chair the Superfund subcommittee. Started in the 1970s, Superfund has seen a decline in funding and completed projects in recent years -- between 1993 and 2005, funding fell 32 percent, from $1.8 billion to $1.2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. During the same period, the number of cleanup sites earning "construction complete" status fell by more than half -- from 88 to 40 -- the lowest level in more than a decade. Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which administers the program, deny funding is an issue. Susan Bodine, assistant administrator of the EPA's office of solid waste and emergency response said early completions were the easier sites to clean up. Sites being addressed now are complex, but the EPA is still making progress. Outside observers disagree. Velma Smith, a policy analyst at the National Environmental Trust in Washington, said: "People in the agency are telling me they're giving up on assessing new sites. They may know a problem exists, but they can't get the money to even go out and assess it." The EPA once had a "trust fund" from taxes on the production of toxic chemicals by chemical and oil companies, but authorization for the tax lapsed in 1995. The fund shrank steadily from nearly $4 billion to zero by 2002, despite President Clinton's attempts to get Congress to restore it. President Bush has not asked to renew it. Funding of Superfund programs has shifted to taxpayers. Some Democrats, including Senator Boxer, want to reinstate "polluter pays" taxes. Critics of this approach argue that the tax isn't fair -- companies who don't pollute are taxed, while some polluters don't pay because they're no longer around. Current and former EPA officials don't agree as to whether there's enough money for projects, and some sites declared "clean" still cause controversy.
by Warren Cornwall, Seattle Times
December 27, 2006
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003496452_mercury27m.html
Article Summary: Even as some states go on a building binge of coal-fired power plants, Washington is considering hefty restrictions that would do the opposite, essentially allowing just one new coal plant to be built. It's part of an emerging schism over coal as a future source of energy, pitting those who see it as reliable and cheap against those who consider it the dirtiest way to make electricity. Washington voters in November endorsed a shift toward cleaner energy. They approved an initiative requiring major utilities to get 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources like wind by 2020. The latest attempts to limit mercury, a potent poison that can hurt development of children's brains, began with a federal rule issued in 2005 that set a 2018 deadline for cutting emissions. Washington is one of at least 15 states that is drafting an even tougher standard. The state also would block coal plants in Washington from participating in a federal "cap-and-trade" program that lets some plants keep puffing out more mercury. This has pitted the state Department of Ecology against the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which oversees permits for new power plants. Ecology is concerned about mercury, while the Energy Facility council sees unacceptable limits to options in the search for new electricity. Projections of electricity needs for the Northwest leave many wondering where it will come from. If the state pursues the tighter limits on mercury, only one more coal-fired plant could be built.
by Gina Kolata, New York Times
December 26, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/health/26horm.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
When researchers reported recently that a precipitous drop in breast cancer rates might be explained by a corresponding decrease in the use of hormones for menopause, women reacted with shock, anger and, in some cases, profound relief that they had never taken the drugs.
Article Summary: In 2003, after climbing for almost seven decades, the breast cancer rate fell for the first time in the United States, and it fell sharply. Over all, the incidence of newly diagnosed breast cancer dropped 7 percent, and it dropped 15 percent among women with cancers whose growth is fueled by estrogen. Just before that, in July 2002, the Women's Health Initiative concluded that a popular hormone therapy for menopause, Prempro, slightly increased the risk of breast cancer. Within the next six months, prescriptions for Prempro dropped by half. The article includes answers to questions about the roles of estrogen and progesterone on tumors, whether breast cancer could be declining because so many women stopped taking Prempro and other menopausal hormones, whether birth control pills have the same impact as menopausal hormones, whether estrogen-mimicking chemicals like DDT or some plastics could be having an effect on breast cancer, and whether women should ever take menopausal hormones.
by John Lantigua And Christine Stapleton, Palm Beach Post
December 25, 2006
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/12/25/m1a_pesticides_1225.html
A study by Columbia University scientists has established a link between learning disorders in children and a pesticide that has been used extensively on sweet corn, one of Palm Beach County's major crops. But local and state agricultural officials say the insecticide, chlorpyrifos, does not pose a threat to consumers because it does not leave dangerous levels of residue on the corn. The principal danger may be to families living and working around where the corn is grown who could be affected when the insecticide is applied or the corn picked.
Article Summary: The chemical, marketed as Lorsban, can be sprayed from the air or the ground or applied in granular form. A recent study in Washington state near apple orchards where chlorpyrifos was used found unsafe levels of the chemical in the air in yards near the orchards, according to the Pesticide Action Network, a nonprofit group that collaborated in the study. Sale of chlorpyrifos for residential pesticide use was banned by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as of Dec. 31, 2001, except for childproof containers such as roach traps. The ban followed tests that showed adverse effects on lab animals and other tests that found traces of the chemical in children's blood samples. The insecticide also has been outlawed for use on certain fruits and vegetables, including tomatoes. In fields of sweet corn, it is used to kill worms that attack the crop. The study, published this month in Pediatrics, says that unsafe levels of the chemical cause delays in learning rates and obstruct physical coordination in some children up to age 3. The scientists said children exposed to the pesticide, prenatally or in their first years, also are more likely to incur behavioral problems, specifically attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
by Judith Graham, Chicago Tribune
December 25, 2006
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0612250095dec25,1,4828842.story?page=2
In private conversations across the country this holiday break, pediatricians are buttonholing their congressmen and making a heartfelt plea: Save the National Children's Study. This is the latest attempt to rescue the most important study of children's health and the environment in the United States.
Article Summary: The project, planned since 2000, has enormous scope: Researchers are set to track 100,000 children from birth to age 21, collecting genetic material and blood samples and recording kids' exposure to everything from pesticides to chemicals and air pollution. Enrollment activities were scheduled to begin in 2007, but President Bush's proposed budget called for terminating the $2.7 billion study instead of allocating the $69 million requested for fiscal 2007. The House and Senate appropriations committees responded by affirming strong support, but neither committee set aside new funding for the study. Now a push is on to convince the new, Democrat-controlled Congress that the study needs to go forward and that new funding should be allocated. With chronic conditions such as asthma, autism, diabetes and obesity on the rise in youngsters and definitive scientific explanations lacking, this study could yield enormous financial benefits -- as much as $6 billion in health-care cost savings a year, according to some estimates.
by Susan Palmer, Eugene [Oregon] Register-Guard
December 23, 2006
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/12/23/d1.cr.pesticides.1223.p1.php?section=cityregion
Are pesticides pollutants? That's the question at the heart of a flurry of lawsuits filed against the Environmental Protection Agency this month. The EPA is being sued both by the pesticide industry and environmental activists over a new rule it will adopt in January governing pesticide use in or near water. As of Monday, lawsuits had been filed in 11 of the nation's 13 circuit courts, including the 9th Circuit, which serves Oregon.
Article Summary: This dispute first erupted in Oregon in 2001 when activists filed suit against an irrigation district because of dead fish in a nearby creek that had been poisoned by an herbicide put in the water to control weeds in the irrigation ditches. Environmentalists have argued that pesticides applied directly to water should be subject to Clean Water Act regulations. The 9th Circuit Court concluded that even though the irrigation district followed the label directions of the pesticide, it was discharging a pollutant into a waterway, and therefore needed a special permit. The decision sent tremors through the pesticide realm, from manufacturers to users. Obtaining the Clean Water permits would be an expensive bureaucratic burden on organizations that already comply with EPA pesticide regulations, said Chris West, spokesman for the American Forest Resource Council. More lawsuits followed and the EPA began crafting a rule that would more clearly spell out their requirements for pesticide use. Published in the Federal Register in November and due to take effect in January, it ignores the 9th Circuit Court decision. It says that as long as pesticides are used according to manufacturer instructions they may be applied directly to water, over water or near water by aerial spraying. A decade-long survey of the nation's rivers by the U.S. Geological Survey found pesticides or their components in 90 percent of the 4,380 samples taken from 186 streams and rivers. While the levels rarely exceeded those known to harm people, the concentrations frequently surpassed amounts known to harm fish or fish-eating wildlife. In Washington, requiring users who put the chemical directly into water to have permits already has had an impact: Those who have a permit must monitor the water to make sure their discharges don't exceed concentration levels set by the permit.
by Rosslyn Beeby, Canberra Times
December 21, 2006
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?story_id=542116
Article Summary: There's a battle being waged over the environmental and health impacts of synthetic chemicals used in beauty products and toiletries. Scientists, health lobbyists and environmental campaigners argue that the cosmetics industry is among the world's least regulated, using thousands of chemicals that have not been subject to adequate assessment. In the United States, studies by the Environment Protection Authority have linked endocrine disrupters used in toiletries and household cleaners to hormone disruption in wildlife, possibly caused by water pollution from urban wastewater. Phthalates are synthetic chemicals linked to decreased fertility and reproductive defects and now one of the most abundant industrial pollutants in the environment. A recent report by global lobby group Health Care Without Harm and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation tested 34 leading-brand cosmetics and found phthalates in 80 per cent of products, with more than 50 per cent containing more than one type of phthalate. According to the report, "none of the products listed phthalates as an ingredient on the label." The United States Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep personal product care safety guide reports on the safety of cosmetics. On its website Skin Deep offers comprehensive assessments of almost 15,000 skin and hair care products, cosmetics, sunscreens and toothpastes, providing safety ratings based on toxicity tests and regulatory databases. The organization claims more than one-third of all personal care products contain at least one ingredient linked to cancer; 57 per cent of all products contain "penetration enhancer" chemicals that can drive other ingredients faster and deeper into the skin to the blood vessels below; and 79 per cent of all products contain ingredients that may contain harmful impurities. The United States Geological Survey recently released a study revealing triclosan, a chemical that mimics the thyroid hormone and is commonly added to soaps, toothpaste, deodorant and dog shampoos, is present in 60 percent of the nation's rivers and lakes. It's bioaccumulative, building up in fatty tissue and has been found in human breast milk and fish. Hundreds of ethical cosmetics companies throughout the world have signed the compact for safe health and beauty products from the global Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, pledging not to use chemicals known or strongly suspected of causing cancer, mutation or birth defects in their products and to develop substitution plans replacing environmentally hazardous materials with safer alternatives.
by Jenny Hope, London Daily Mail
December 20, 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=424017&in_page_id=1774
Women who take high doses of fish oils during pregnancy could dramatically boost their children's coordination, say researchers. A new study reveals the benefits of using so-called "clever capsules" to help develop the full potential of babies while still in the womb. It found a significant advance in hand-eye coordination among toddlers whose mothers took fish oil supplements during the second half of pregnancy compared with those who did not. There was also improvement in brainpower and vocabulary among children exposed to fish oil supplements in the womb, says the study published on Thursday online in the medical journal Archives of Disease in Childhood.
Article Summary: Fish oil is high in Omega 3 fatty acids, which play an important part in the development of the central nervous system. The last three months of pregnancy are thought to be a key time for intake of fish oil because there is a growth spurt in the human brain during this time, which carries on into the first few months of a baby's life. The study looked at 98 pregnant women, who were either given 4g of fish oil supplements or 4g of olive oil supplements daily from 20 weeks of pregnancy to the birth of their babies. When the children reached the age of two and a half, they were given various tests measuring growth and development. Children whose mothers had taken fish oil supplements scored significantly higher in hand-eye coordination than those whose mothers had taken olive oil supplements. Fish oil children also scored more highly on comprehension, phrase length and vocabulary. Concern over the mercury content in certain types of fish has made high quality fish oil supplements increasingly popular.
Fish oils can also help pregnant women in a number of ways, including reducing high blood pressure and easing postnatal depression. There is international evidence of the benefits of omega 3 for people with heart conditions, and evidence is mounting in studies on children's learning and behavior.
[Editor's note: Two related articles from the journal Pediatrics can be found as follows (submitted by Larry Rosen, MD).]
by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times
December 20, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pain20dec20,1,4258994.story?track=rss
WASHINGTON -- The government Tuesday proposed stronger safety warnings for nonprescription painkillers found in most family medicine cabinets -- as well as many an office drawer and gym bag -- including aspirin, Tylenol, Advil, Motrin and Aleve. The Food and Drug Administration said it was concerned that consumers were poorly informed about serious and potentially fatal complications from misusing the medications, although the risks are well-known to healthcare professionals.
Article Summary: Overdoses of acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol and its generic equivalents, as well as many other painkillers and cold remedies, has been linked to more than 56,000 emergency room visits a year and 26,000 hospitalizations, including some requiring liver transplants. The FDA estimates that 200 people a year die from acetaminophen overdoses, although others have put the figure at more than 450. The other painkillers covered by the warning -- NSAIDs, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs -- can cause bleeding in the stomach. NSAIDs include ibuprofen, which is sold as a generic and under the brand names Advil and Motrin; naproxen, the active ingredient in Aleve; and aspirin. Use of both acetaminophen and NSAIDs is widespread. The FDA's proposal -- under consideration for more than four years and to be published in Tuesday's Federal Register -- is to make the current warning information clearer and more forceful. A key element would require standard language for all medications containing the drugs. Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Tylenol and Motrin, said Tuesday it would work with the FDA to improve safety information for consumers, but stopped short of saying it would quickly adopt the proposal. The FDA also said it was considering whether to limit the number of acetaminophen pills in a single package. After British regulators imposed such a restriction, the number of suicides dropped.
by Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor
December 20, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1220/p02s01-usgn.html
In a bid to trim the regulatory burden on small businesses, the Environmental Protection Agency is set to relax the rules on what toxic chemicals they have to report. But in a twist, the EPA's newly revised Toxics Release Inventory rule will also make it possible for hundreds of large corporations to avoid reporting specific amounts of toxic chemicals they release into the air, land, or water, environmentalists warn. The rule change has cheered small-business groups, generated widespread public opposition, and caught the eye of some Democratic congressmen, who will take control of Congress next month. It takes effect immediately.
Article Summary: Companies that release into the environment relatively small amounts of toxic materials -- no more than 2,000 pounds of a given chemical, such as toluene -- can complete a simpler form that omits reporting the amount of toxic chemicals. Another class of even more dangerous toxins can qualify for similar streamlined reporting if the waste was less than 500 pounds, entirely recycled, and not released at all. The rules apply only if the company created less than 5,000 pounds of a chemical in a year. Of 24,000 facilities currently reporting TRI data, about one-third could be eligible to fill out a short form that simply lists the chemical.
This change will make it more difficult for neighborhoods, researchers or others to find out how much of a toxic chemical a nearby factory is emitting. Federal officials contend that such limits spur business to reduce their toxic waste and will save $6 million annually in unnecessary paperwork. Business groups applaud the change, but critics say the move seems to be an effort to weaken a reporting law that has empowered community activists with details about some 650 industrial chemicals that the TRI tracks. Critics also argue that, although this is being touted as a boon to small business, big companies will be among the largest beneficiaries. It also leaves room for emissions to rise without data being made public.