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.
1) The next CHE-WA quarterly meeting is scheduled for 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. May 16, 2007, at Antioch University Seattle. The meeting will feature several presentations on pesticide research and advocacy as well as updates on the new CHE-WA Climate Change and Health Working Group. More information will be available closer to the time of the meeting.
2) Join us tonight for our final lecture of our fourth annual environmental health lecture series entitled "Our Health, Our Environment: Making the Link -- Seeking Solutions." Dr. John Robinson will speaking on Sustainable Systems. The lecture 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, please visit http://washington.chenw.org/lectures.html. Tickets are available at the door.
3) Making Change: A Workshop for People Who Want to Build a Better World
April 21, 2007
9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
at the Antioch campus, 2326 Sixth Avenue
This one-day workshop will provide participants with the time and space to think more deeply about your work and how it contributes to positive social change. This workshop is intended for people who want to build a better world and who identify themselves as social change agents. This includes people working on environmental, health or social issues in nonprofit or community-based organizations, government agencies or the private sector, as well as others interested in how to achieve positive social change. Sponsored by the Center for Creative Change at Antioch University Seattle and the Collaborative on Health and Environment -- Washington (CHE-WA).
Website: http://www.antiochsea.edu/events/makingchangeworkshop.html
Contact: Kate Davies, 206-268-4811 or kdavies@antiochseattle.edu
April 20, 20007
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
at 130 Nickerson Street, Suite 105 (location may change)
Purchasing decisions and policies have a tremendous impact on health and the environment. To help us fully understand these impacts, Carolyn Raffensperger, an engaging teacher and storyteller will demonstrate the important impacts of the precautionary principle on government policies and purchasing. Carolyn, the executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network is a leading national speaker and author on the precautionary principle. Carolyn is co-editor of Precautionary Tools for Reshaping Environmental Policy and Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Together, these texts are the most comprehensive exploration to date of the history, theory, and implementation of the precautionary principle. Workshop goals are to introduce relevant precautionary concepts, explore policy applications and opportunities and provide a common forum for collaboration. Lunch will be provided.
Contact: 206-296-3928, TTY Relay 711 or Tracee.Mayfield@metrokc.gov
April 23, 2007
1:00 - 3:00 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
at the King County Building
Scientists from Carnegie Mellon University and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have found that a rapid, environmentally friendly catalytic process involving Fe-TAML activators and hydrogen peroxide breaks down two types of estrogenic compounds. These natural and synthetic compounds can mimic or block the activities of hormones in wildlife and humans, which may disrupt the normal functions of the endocrine system and impair development. They could also contaminate drinking water. Fe-TAML (tetra-amido macrocyclic ligand) activators, which are synthetic catalysts made with elements found in nature, originated at Carnegie Mellon's Institute for Green Oxidation Chemistry under the leadership of Terry Collins, the Thomas Lord Professor of Chemistry in the Mellon College of Science. King County, in collaboration with other partners, has applied for funding to test this molecule on phthalates in both stormwater and wastewater.
Contact: Heather Trim, 206-382-7007 X215 or htrim@pugetsound.org
April 23, 2007
6:00 - 7:30 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
in Turner Auditorium in the Health Sciences Complex on the University of Washington Campus
The topic for this evening is Exporting More than Jobs: Occupational and Environmental Health and Open Borders. In this speaker series, invited guest lecturers will introduce their interdisciplinary, international perspectives and expertise on such topics as Water, Hunger, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Environmental Health. Participants will have a chance to explore these topics and develop an analysis on how our continued existence and well-being depend on the maintenance of a healthy planet. The cost for the eight-lecture series is $99. Individual lectures are $20 each in advance or $24 at the door.
Website: http://www.extension.washington.edu/ext/special/globalhealth/default.asp
Contact: 206-897-8939 or 1-800-506-1325
April 26, 2007
1:00 p.m. EDT
Washington, DC
at the Barbara Jordan Conference Center, Kaiser Family Foundation
2007 marks the 10th Anniversary of Executive Order 13045, "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." Executive Order 13045 requires each federal agency to identify and evaluate environmental health and safety risks that may hinder children's health. This year provides the children's environmental health community with an opportunity to reflect on the progress to date and to formulate a vision for the future of children's environmental health. A special 10th anniversary event is being planned. Leaders in children's environmental health will share their ideas about how to protect children over the next 10 years. This national seminar is sponsored by EPA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Speakers include Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH; William H. Sanders III, DrPH; Carol M. Browner; Edward B. Clark, MD; Susan Marmagas; and Peggy M. Shepard. You can join this interactive event via Microsoft Live Meeting. You will be able to listen in via telephone and view presentations. Participation is free, but limited. If you are interested in attending, please respond to cmckallagat@icfi.com and indicate that you would like to be a part of our efforts to mark this important anniversary and also look to the future of children's environmental health efforts. Once you have registered, a subsequent email will be sent that includes log-in and other important instructions on running Microsoft Live Meeting. If you are in the Washington, D.C. area and are able to attend in person, please register by sending an email to Carolyn Hubbard at hubbard.carolyn@epa.gov.
Contact: Christopher McKallagat, cmckallagat@icfi.com
April 28, 2007
12:00 - 6:00 p.m.
Tacoma, Washington
at the Rotunda of the University of Puget Sound, Washington
Working titles for workshops to be offered include (1) A Rights-Based Approach to International Family Planning; (2) Sustainable Agriculture, Sustainable Livelihoods: Global and Local Projects and the Future of Organics; (3) Environmental Justice and Public Health Concerns in Western Washington; (4) Informed and Cost-Effective Food Choices for Washington Consumers; (5) Feminist Perspectives on Population and the Environment and Changing Policy Paradigms; and (6) Creative Activism through the Arts. Overarching summit questions include (1) How does "sustainability" strengthen the relationships between the environmental, reproductive health, and social justice movements? (2) How can consumer choices impact the success of sustainable solutions here and abroad? (3) How can UPS and the local community work together to advance sustainability goals?
Website: http://events.ups.edu/index.php?view=detail&event_id=15686
Contact: Adrienne Lee, alee@ups.edu
April 30, 2007
6:00 - 7:30 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
in Turner Auditorium in the Health Sciences Complex on the University of Washington Campus
The topic for this evening is Nutrition, Agriculture and Food Security in Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities. In this speaker series, invited guest lecturers will introduce their interdisciplinary, international perspectives and expertise on such topics as Water, Hunger, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Environmental Health. Participants will have a chance to explore these topics and develop an analysis on how our continued existence and well-being depend on the maintenance of a healthy planet. The cost for the eight-lecture series is $99. Individual lectures are $20 each in advance or $24 at the door.
Website: http://www.extension.washington.edu/ext/special/globalhealth/default.asp
Contact: 206-897-8939 or 1-800-506-1325
May 5, 2007
10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
at Antioch University, 2326 6th Avenue (and Bell Street)
Strong Voices is a dynamic national community of breast cancer survivors -- and others touched by the disease -- who speak and act with conviction in support of the Breast Cancer Fund's mission to identify -- and advocate for elimination of -- the environmental and other preventable causes of the disease. We will spend the morning learning about each other, our stories and the work of the Breast Cancer Fund in Washington State and across the country. We'll then explore how we can all use our Strong Voices to advocate for breast cancer prevention. No cost for the event and lunch and snacks will be provided. Wear comfortable, casual clothing.
Contact: Pam Tazioli, 206-524-4405, or Brynn Taylor, 415-346-8223 x16
Over the past seven years the Oregon Center for Environmental Health has served as the regional coordinator for the Health Care Without Harm Campaign (HCWH), an international coalition of over 440 organizations in more than 50 countries. HCWH's mission is to transform the health care industry worldwide, without compromising patient safety or care, so that it is ecologically sustainable and no longer a source of harm to public health and the environment. In Oregon, the program has been successful in implementing a wide range of pollution prevention and sustainability initiatives, including virtually eliminating mercury in the hospital setting by promoting safer alternatives, developing recycling programs for urban and rural hospitals, replacing chlorinated plastic medical devices with safer alternatives, and engaging over 25 hospitals as partners of Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), a national movement for environmental sustainability in health care.
Over the next year the Center's HCWH Program Director will focus on the following priority areas:
The ideal candidate would have a degree in public health, environmental health, sustainability, health care or a related field. Strong and demonstrated experience can substitute. A full job announcement is available at http://www.oregon-health.org/assets/HCWH/HCWH%20Job%20Announcement%204.2007.pdf. Qualified candidates should submit a resume and cover letter by May 1, 2007.
from Lisette van Vliet, PhD, Toxics Policy Advisor, Health & Environment Alliance
http://www.wecf.org/
The HEAL member organization Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) has read about the EPA grant on building capacity to address environmental health issues during pregnancy (see http://washington.chenw.org/bulletins/CHEWAbulletin3-7-07.html#art2). WECF is interested in possibly finding a partner organization in the US for a project which they would like to propose. It involves the 'nesting phase' that expectant parents go through and the opportunities to educate parents about environmental health issues related to setting up the nursery/baby's room. If any of you are interested, please contact Sonja Haider at sonja.haider@wecf.org.
The Oregon Department of Education has released a new DVD called "Asthma Friendly Schools: A Coordinated School Health Approach." The 17-minute DVD describes Oregon's approach to asthma education in public schools ... for all students, not just asthmatics. Using interviews with teachers, nurses, students, parents and administrators, the DVD is compelling, provocative and inspirational. The DVDs are free and not copyrighted so multiple copies can be burned. Order a DVD by sending an email message with a request and address to Tamara.Kuenzi@state.or.us or order one from Tamara Kuenzi, Oregon Department of Education, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, OR 97310.
by Jane Kay, San Francisco Chronicle
April 17, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/17/MNGFCP9UL41.DTL
Higher temperatures over the coming decades are expected to cause more smoggy days and heat waves, contributing to a greater number of illnesses and deaths in the United States, according to international climate scientists. Severe heat waves -- characterized by stagnant masses of warm air and consecutive nights with high minimum temperatures -- will intensify in the United States and Canada, according to the data on North America released Monday by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Southern California, the Southwest and the upper Midwest are already experiencing drought. Late in the century, in Los Angeles, the number of heat wave days is projected to increase from 12 days a year to between 44 and 95 days, the report said. The number of heat wave days in Chicago is expected to increase by 25 percent.
Article Summary: Increased adverse health impacts may include effects from heat, storms, pollution and infectious disease, the report said. Global warming is already affecting people's health, said Kristi Ebi, an epidemiologist from Virginia and lead author of a chapter on human health written for the international science panel. The report singled out other health effects related to global warming, including more smog; the spread of illnesses, disease and allergens; and more food- and water-borne diseases.
by John Heilprin, Associated Press, WTOP News
April 15, 2007
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=1116047
WASHINGTON -- Companies that make or distribute toys, zippers and other children's products will face tougher government scrutiny to keep out any lead that could poison and kill children or harm their brain development. The Environmental Protection Agency agreed in response to legal pressure to write up to 120 importing and manufacturing companies by the end of the month, instructing them to provide health and safety studies if any lead might be found in the products they make for children.
Article Summary: The EPA letters are part of a settlement it signed Friday with the Sierra Club and another advocacy group, Improving Kids' Environment. The agency also must tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission "that information EPA has reviewed raises questions about the adequacy of quality control measures by companies importing and/or distributing children's jewelry." While the EPA can ban a substance such as lead, only the commission has the authority to ban a product. In December, the commission began taking steps to ban, rather than recall as it has been doing, children's jewelry containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight. The commission's decision came after it had recalled more than a dozen products in the past two years out of concern about lead. Nationally, inexpensive toy jewelry made with lead or painted with lead paint is sold in vending machines and stores that sell mainly to immigrant communities. Lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children. The EPA says lead emissions have dropped more than 90 percent since it was first listed as an air pollutant in 1976, mainly by removing lead from gasoline. Other sources of exposure to it include food and soil, solid waste, coal, oil, iron and steel production, lead smelters and tobacco smoke.
by Judith Duffy, Glasgow Sunday Herald
April 14, 2007
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1329753.0.increase_in_breast_cancer_linked_to_pollution_levels.php
EXPOSURE TO everyday environmental pollution could be a factor in the rising rates of breast cancer, new research suggests. A study carried out at Aberdeen University found evidence that subjecting female sheep to a "real-life" cocktail of chemicals triggered abnormalities in the mammary glands, including in some types of proteins associated with breast cancer in humans.
Article Summary: The researchers say that further work should now be carried out to see whether environmental pollution could be a factor in the steady increase in rates of breast cancer among women in the past few decades. The research involved grazing sheep for up to five years on a field treated with processed human sewage sludge, used to represent the everyday mix of chemicals present in the environment, such as pesticides and synthetic estrogen, found in the contraceptive pill. Dr. Paul Fowler, senior lecturer in reproductive physiology at Aberdeen University, said the model of "real-life" exposure was a vital element of the work, instead of using extremely high doses of chemicals which are often used in other toxicology studies. Fowler cautioned that it still had to be established if these were long-term abnormalities. More work would also be needed to identify the potential chemicals or mix of chemicals that could be causing the changes. Environmental campaigners pointed out that previous studies had also linked the "chemical cocktail" present in modern lifestyles to diseases such as breast cancer and asthma. However, breast cancer charities cautioned that there is no "conclusive evidence" of a link between environmental pollutants and the disease.
by Margaret Philp, Toronto Globe and Mail
April 14, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070414.wcosmetics0414/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
Article Summary: While Canadians have become savvy about chemicals in their food -- scanning package labels and paying premium prices for organic produce -- little mention has been made of the chemicals that clean our hair and moisturize our skin day in and day out. Yet some of the 10,000 ingredients in beauty products are suspected or confirmed carcinogens, hormone-mimicking chemicals or substances linked to birth defects. Under new federal rules that came into force late last year, cosmetics companies selling products in Canada are compelled to list ingredients on their packages -- a move that has brought this country closer into line with Europe and the United States. In the United States, ingredients have been listed on cosmetics for years, although there are loopholes that allow companies to conceal some suspect chemicals under the vague title of "fragrance" or refuse to name ingredients that are claimed to be trade secrets. In the European Union, more than 1,100 chemicals in cosmetics have been banned outright.
Research on chemicals in cosmetics is spotty. Many compounds have never been studied. Others are linked to cancer or birth defects in animals but not people -- or show a link to cancer, but at far higher doses than the levels present in cosmetics. To the industry, these studies suggest that their products are safe. To activists, the science overlooks the fact these minute chemical exposures in cosmetics are repeated with successive products -- soap, deodorant, makeup -- every day. In the face of this, the Washington-based Environmental Working Group started an online listing called Skin Deep that ranks the safety of 14,000 cosmetics -- about half of those on the market -- according to their safety as determined by the research available. For the past four years, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the U.S. has been pushing 500 companies -- most of them small "green" producers -- to sign a pact to substitute toxic ingredients with safe alternatives.
While there is a move to list contents on packaging, many consumers are discovering that these labels leave them confused. Ingredients are listed by unfamiliar Latin names that obscure even benign substances. The Canadian Cancer Society is tossing around the idea of a color-coded logo that would flag possible carcinogens. The Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control committee also has product labeling on their agenda. Some cosmetics ingredients will go under the microscope when Ottawa begins a massive safety review of thousands of chemicals in widespread use that was announced last winter. Outside Canada, a law just passed in California placing the onus on cosmetics companies to disclose to health authorities the details of toxic ingredients linked to cancer or reproductive problems.
by Delthia Ricks, Newsday
April 14, 2007
http://www.newsday.com/ny-liendo0415,0,4791397.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
Scientists are suggesting a common cause for two seemingly unrelated events, the feminization of fish in Jamaica Bay, where the former 50-50 male-to-female ratio has all but disappeared, and enlarged breasts in young boys. The common factor: endocrine disruptors, chemicals found in detergents, cosmetics and other products of daily living that increasing numbers of scientists now believe play havoc with normal hormone activity.
Article Summary: NPEs -- chemicals found in waterways worldwide that are used in some laundry detergents and industrial cleaning agents -- are contained in the hair gels and shampoos used by the three boys featured in a study this year. After the study, the National Institutes of Health took the extraordinary step of advising doctors to ask patients what kinds of personal-care products they use at home. In humans, researchers have only tentative links, but they suggest endocrine disruptors may be associated with an elevated risk of testicular, breast and ovarian cancers. They also suggest exposure may explain puberty occurring at younger ages in girls and the underdevelopment of genitals in some boys. Research regarding the gender change in Jamaica Bay's flounder, including recreating the effect in controlled labs, is considered solid. New work shows similar changes in Atlantic silversides, which are found on the North and South shores of Long Island.
The concern about human harm already has prompted the European Union to ban NPEs, the laundry detergent additive belongs to a family of "surfactants," chemicals that lift dirt and help detergents and cleaning agents do a better job of stain removal. Studies have shown that the chemicals are not broken down by septic systems before they are released into the ground and that the compounds are seeping into groundwater. Anne McElroy, a marine scientist at Stony Brook University, said eating fish from waters tainted with NPEs probably would not pose harm. NPEs do not concentrate in the parts of the fish that make up a fillet, and researchers have shown the chemicals do not pose harm in laundry washed with detergents containing NPEs. Jeanne Rizzo, a registered nurse and executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, wants federal regulators to identify and ban questionable ingredients in household cleaning agents, cosmetics and personal care products. Toxicologist Dr. Gary Ginsburg, author of the 2006 book "What's Toxic, What's Not," said scientists and legislators should begin a policy discussion about endocrine disruptors because the number of products that contain them are increasing.
interview by Steve Curwood, Living on Earth
April 13, 2007
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00015&segmentID=3
Two new studies link diseases with exposure to low levels of chemical pollution. One study suggests the chemical Bisphenol-A, found in some plastic bottles and food cans, can promote prostate cancer. The other study finds small amounts of pesticides can stimulate allergic reactions, including asthma.
Article Summary: Provocative new studies link prostate cancer and asthma to exposure to tiny amounts of pollutants. One study finds that low-level exposure to the chemical bisphenol A found in some plastic bottles and some food cans can promote certain prostate cancers. The other study indicates tiny amounts of pesticides and PCBs that mimic estrogen can stimulate the process of allergic reactions, most notably asthma. Dr. Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences, states that we're in an epidemic of allergic disease, and scientists have been looking for clues about what could be driving this. The human immune system depends upon estrogen signals to adjust how sensitive it is. Researchers in the asthma study recognize that there are actually chemicals in the environment that behave like estrogen, and so they began to perform a series of experiments where they took cells from mice and from people and they looked at the effective exposure to these estrogenic chemicals on the sensitivity of the cells immune systems. They found a very strong effect with contaminants that are a series of persistent organic pollutants: old pesticides, DDT, DDE. They've also discovered that really low doses ratchet up immune system sensitivity but that higher doses shut it down. While this study is not conclusive, there are a couple of important clues. One is that the biggest source of exposure to these things is dietary. Diets that are high in fat are more likely to expose you to some of the persistent contaminants that this study focused on. The other thing that science is pointing toward is the fact that cheaper grade construction materials often contain compounds that the science links to increased immune system sensitivity.
The other new study links prostate cancer to bisphenol A, showing that tiny amounts of the toxin can interfere with a common treatment for prostate cancer. Normally, prostate tumors need testosterone to divide and grow. If a physician can either lower the circulating testosterone levels or somehow make him less sensitive to testosterone using pharmaceuticals, they can keep the tumor under control. If the tumor is exposed to bisphenol A, it shifts -- it's no longer dependent on testosterone to proliferate. Avoiding canned foods and polycarbonate plastic bottles will decrease their exposures to bisphenol A. The science is telling us that if we pay attention and start making individual choices and societal choices about how we manage these chemicals and how we work to avoid exposures we can probably prevent some of the diseases that here to for we hadn't thought were preventable.
by Janet Wilson, Los Angeles Times
April 12, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toxic12apr12,0,4408158.story?coll=la-home-headlines
California has the nation's highest concentration of minorities living near hazardous waste facilities, according to a newly released study. Greater Los Angeles tops the nation with 1.2 million people living less than two miles from 17 such facilities, and 91% of them, or 1.1 million, are minorities. Statewide the figure was 81%. The study, conducted by researchers at four universities for the United Church of Christ, examined census data for neighborhoods adjacent to 413 facilities nationwide that process or store hazardous chemical waste produced by refineries, metal plating shops, drycleaners and battery recyclers, among others. Though about one-third of U.S. residents are nonwhite, more than half of the people living near such facilities were Latino, African American or Asian American, according to the report.
Article Summary: According to Robert Bullard, a sociologist at Clark Atlanta University in Georgia and lead author of the study, the most potent predictor of where these facilities are sited is not how much income you have; it's race." Although low-income neighborhoods were much more likely to have hazardous waste facilities, some of the areas examined were quite affluent, including one in Seattle that is predominantly Asian, said study coauthor Robin Saha, a sociologist with the University of Montana. The study also found that hazardous waste facilities were often clustered with other potentially dangerous industries, and that the rate of minority residents in areas with multiple hazards was even higher. Sue Briggum, vice president of federal public affairs for Waste Management, which operates several of the facilities examined in the study, acknowledged the problems highlighted by the study. "There's no disputing the facts," she said. But, she added, the industry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have done a great deal in recent years to try to reduce emissions, beef up safety and address other concerns in affected neighborhoods. The study took EPA officials to task for failing to implement an executive order by President Clinton requiring that environmental justice issues and the cumulative effects of clustering such facilities in some neighborhoods be a mandatory part of environmental reviews. EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the EPA attempts to address environmental justice concerns in its planning and budgeting. But Bullard said the EPA's inspector general and the U.S. General Accountability Office have chastised the agency for its handling of environmental justice issues. President Bush's 2008 budget recommends a 28% cut in funds for such programs, he said.
The report can be accessed online at http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/TWARTreport.htm.
by Leslie Land, New York Times
April 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/garden/12lawn.html
Article Summary: Organic lawn care companies and organic lawn care products have begun to enter the mainstream, part of the same wave that has people buying organic food and hybrid cars. Lawn fertilizers can be made to meet the organic labeling requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and still deliver the bounce expected of synthetic equivalents. But pesticides are a different story. Organic insect-killers like B.t. and neem can be lethal, but seldom instantly. Organic herbicides can also be a disappointment to people used to instant action. The acid-based herbicides certified for organic growing are less powerful than glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Todd Harrington, owner of Harrington's Organicare, an organic landscape management company in Windsor, Conn., concedes that transitioning a lawn to organic is a slow process that does not show results until the second year, at the earliest. Lawns that have been treated chemically are addicted to chemicals, he said, and must go through a kind of withdrawal. The transition to organic health takes time. Paul Tukey, author of "The Organic Lawn Care Manual" said that lawns can be organic and still be 90 to 95 percent weed-free.
by Marilyn Gardner, Christian Science Monitor
April 12, 2007
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p13s02-sten.html
Article Summary: A national campaign and a website, BigGreenPurse.com, is urging women to shift at least $1,000 of their annual household spending to green products. On average, people spend $18,000 a year on groceries and household goods. For many people, the marketplace question becomes: What should I buy? BigGreenPurse.com founder and CEO Diane MacEachern advises: "You start with the products that make the most difference to you. You also try to focus on the product that has the biggest impact in protecting the planet." Her recommendations include purchasing organic, locally grown food; energy-efficient appliances; fuel-efficient cars; nontoxic cleansers; shade-grown coffee; and phthalate-free cosmetics. MacEachern acknowledges that both time and money are issues for busy women, but she finds that women are willing to spend between 5 and 20 percent more for environmentally friendly products. However, they need information. MacEachern urges women to be more assertive in asking store managers to provide more environmentally friendly products.
from BBC News
April 12, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6544709.stm
More evidence has emerged suggesting a link between pollutants found in oily fish and type two diabetes. An international team found high levels of persistent organic pesticides (POPs) in the blood correlated to insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes. POPs are stored in fatty tissues -- the study suggested this may be why obese people are more vulnerable to diabetes. However, experts have said that the study published in Diabetes Care is far from conclusive.
Article Summary: In 2005 researchers in Sweden found people exposed to high levels of POPs were more at risk of developing type two diabetes. The new research suggests that POPs act critically at a very early stage in the development of diabetes. Patients resistant to the hormone insulin are unable to remove excess glucose from their blood, and this is normally an important step in the onset of type two diabetes. The work does not confirm a causal link -- it is possible that that having insulin resistance could reduce people's ability to clear POPs from their system, thus explaining the association. Matt Hunt, Head of Science Information at Diabetes UK, said the current research was very complex and still speculative and did not provide a mechanism by the which the POPs could cause insulin resistance. He said, "At the moment we would not conclude that the rise of obesity can be attributed to pesticide use, and should still be put down to increasingly unhealthy diets and lack of exercise."
by Kristen Millares Bolt, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
April 11, 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/311157_emissions11.html
To prepare the Puget Sound region for the immense amount of trade thought to be coming this way from Asia, the local ports and their private industry partners are planning to reduce the amount of toxins the ships, trucks and other transport devices pump into the air. To do that effectively, they had to know just how much of that stuff the maritime industry was producing. On Tuesday, they got what they needed: the fullest account of a year's worth of maritime air emissions ever produced here. The results weren't pretty, but they are a start. The Puget Sound Air Emissions Inventory measured air pollution created in 2005 by oceangoing vessels, cargo-handling equipment, trucks, rail and harbor craft such as ferries. The area studied extends from the Strait of Juan de Fuca east to the Cascades, north to the Canadian border and just south of Olympia. In 2005, maritime activities produced more than 1,444 gross tons of diesel particulate matter -- more than half of the studied area's total -- and an additional 3,109 gross tons of fine particulate matter such as dust, dirt, soot and smoke. The study also measured nitrogen and sulfur-containing compounds, volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide.
Article Summary: The port, private industry and state environmental regulators formed the Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum, which sponsored the comprehensive study. Although maritime activities were found to be major contributors to each pollutant category, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Executive Director Dennis McLerran said the port should focus on reducing the particulate matter in diesel exhaust, as well as lowering particulates such as smoke, soot, dirt and dust. Such particles are a concern because their small size allows them direct access to the lungs; exposure can lead to respiratory disease, asthma attacks, heart attacks and premature death. Bruce Anderson, principal of the Starcrest Consulting Group which conducted the inventory, said the quantity of pollutants emitted must be balanced against the amount of people nearby to inhale them. "You have to look at mass emissions versus risk." Risk is where the people are, which is why McLerran supports the Port of Seattle's strategies for focusing on the place where it has the most influence: the docks. Living near a major port such as the Port of Seattle, which handles 7.9 percent of all port cargo on the West Coast and was ranked in 2005 as the seventh-largest U.S. container port by the U.S. Department of Transportation, poses a health risk that cannot be ignored, health advocates say. The Puget Sound region is in the top 5 percent of the nation for potential cancer risk from air toxics, according a major national study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.
by David Peterson, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
April 9, 2007
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1110460.html
Article Summary: Autism, usually evident before age 3, is a treatable but incurable brain disorder described by the Mayo Clinic as "associated with a range of developmental problems, mainly in communication and social interaction." The number of kids classed as autistic is exploding. A recent study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that autism is found in one in 150 children -- and researchers involved in the study say that may be an understatement. In Minnesota schools, the state's Department of Education reports, the number of students identified as autistic jumped from fewer than 1,000 students a decade ago to nearly 10,000 today.
Autism intervention is costly. According to the United States Government Office of Accountability, programs for a school-aged child with autism costs $18,800 per year compared with $12,500 for average special education per pupil expenditures. In months, three committees of the Minnesota Legislature will hold hearings to explore the reasons why. A debate simmers over what's behind the increase. "Herbicides, pesticides, various pollutants can cause brain disorders in fetuses and babies, and we want to look at that, not only to save costs but save the human costs of these tragedies," said Roseville DFL Rep. Mindy Greiling, who chairs the K-12 division of the Minnesota House Finance Committee. The Combating Autism Act of 2006, which President Bush signed in December, authorizes nearly $1 billion over the next five years to combat autism through research, screening, early detection and early intervention.
by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News
April 9, 2007
http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html/040907093531.html
FOR ENVIRONMENTALISTS and some public health experts, one of the most puzzling practices of modern agriculture is the addition of arsenic-based compounds to most chicken feed. The point of the practice is to promote growth, kill parasites that cause diarrhea, and improve pigmentation of chicken meat. But Tyson Foods, the U.S.'s largest poultry producer, stopped using arsenic compounds in 2004, and many high-end and organic growers raise chickens quite successfully without them. What's more, McDonald's has asked its suppliers not to use arsenic additives, and the European Union banned them in 1999.
Article Summary: According to the Environmental Protection Agency, long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic can cause bladder, lung, skin, kidney, and colon cancer, as well as deleterious immunological, neurological, and endocrine effects. Low-level exposures can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes. Roxarsone is mixed in the diet of about 70% of the 9 billion broiler chickens produced annually in the U.S. In its original organic form, roxarsone is relatively benign, but some of the 2.2 million pounds of roxarsone mixed in the nation's chicken feed each year converts into inorganic arsenic within the bird, and the rest is transformed into inorganic forms after the bird excretes it. Three different pathways exist by which roxarsone in chicken feed can contribute to human arsenic exposure. Roxarsone, or its breakdown products, ends up in chicken meat and adds to the dietary intake of arsenic; roxarsone excreted in chicken litter contaminates land and groundwater after the manure is spread on cropland; and the large amounts of poultry litter made into fertilizer pellets for home gardens and lawns contaminate homegrown produce with arsenic and expose the consumer to arsenic dust. Higher levels of arsenic have been found on the Delmarva peninsula in areas where chicken litter is spread on fields and lower levels in areas where chicken manure is not spread. Banning roxarsone in chicken feed would not eliminate all arsenic from chickens or the environment. Some poultry consume water from wells contaminated with natural arsenic. Some are raised on soil contaminated from heavy use of arsenical pesticides in past cotton cultivation. Arsenic also is released from coal-fired power plants. But banning the additive in feed would eliminate a substantial portion of arsenic from the human food chain and some of the arsenic in drinking water.
by Janine DeFao, San Francisco Chronicle
April 9, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/09/BOTTLES.TMP
Glass baby bottles, replaced decades ago by unbreakable plastic, are making such a comeback that parents can't get their hands on them. Online and brick-and-mortar retailers report a run on glass baby bottles in recent weeks that they say was spurred by reports that the most common type of plastic in baby bottles may leach a toxic chemical.
Article summary: Independent tests reported in November found bisphenol A, a chemical that mimics estrogen, in a baby bottle and several toys. Bisphenol A is also found in the lining of food cans, some anticavity sealants for teeth and electronics. Then, in late February, Environment California, an advocacy group, released a report titled "Toxic Baby Bottles" that drew intense national media coverage. When heated, five of the most popular brands of polycarbonate -- the clear, shatterproof plastic used in baby bottles -- leached bisphenol A at levels that have been found to cause harm in laboratory animals, Environment California found. Even at low levels, bisphenol A has been linked to abnormalities in the mammary and prostate glands and the eggs of laboratory animals, scientists say. Animal tests also show bisphenol A can speed up puberty and add to weight gain and may cause changes that can lead to breast and prostate cancer. Makers of polycarbonate bottles and industry representatives say parents have been alarmed unnecessarily about a product that meets federal standards and has been in widespread use for more than 25 years. And some questioned using glass bottles that can shatter. San Francisco recently approved a ban on children's products containing bisphenol A and certain phthalates, the chemicals that soften polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. Animal studies also have shown that phthalates interfere with sex hormones. Manufacturers and retailers have sued the city over the ban, which has yet to be implemented.
by Marie Woolf, London Independent
April 8, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2432470.ece
Parents who are smokers when they conceive a child are far more likely to have girls than boys, an extensive study by paediatricians has found. The chance of having a male baby drops by almost half if both parents smoke during early pregnancy, amid fresh evidence that smoking could "kill" male foetuses in the womb. Smoking not only reduces the chances of conceiving a male child, but could stop male embryos implanting in the womb and cause miscarriages.
Article Summary: The study into 9,000 pregnancies in Liverpool found a startling imbalance in the number of girl babies among parents who smoke. Mothers who smoked during pregnancy were one-third less likely to have male children than mothers who did not smoke. If the father also smoked, and if factors such as the health and age of the mother were accounted for, the chances of having a male child reduces by almost half. Mothers who do not smoke but are exposed to cigarettes from partners are less likely to have boys. The research, by a team of pediatricians led by Professor Bernard Brabin, found that substances contained in cigarettes, such as nicotine, inhibit sperm carrying male chromosomes from fertilizing eggs. The hypothesis is that sperm cells carrying the Y chromosome which are responsible for male children are more sensitive to unfavorable smoking related changes in the mother. Smoking reduces estrogen and causes changes to the mother's cervix.
[Editor's note: See a related article about declines in birth rates of males at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07100/776561-114.stm.]
by T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times
April 8, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-amvac8apr08,0,3553877.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Article Summary: Amvac Chemical Corp. has fueled double-digit revenue growth through an unusual business practice: It has bought from larger companies the rights to older pesticides, many of them at risk of being banned or restricted because of safety concerns. While profitable, Amvac's focus on older pesticides has come at a cost to human health and the environment, according to EPA and state records, regulatory investigations and a string of lawsuits. Accidents involving the company's pesticides have led to the evacuation of neighborhoods and the poisoning of scores of field workers in California and elsewhere. One organophosphate, mevinphos, was banned in the U.S. in 1994 after a study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that it was responsible for poisoning more field workers in California than any other agricultural chemical. Amvac continues selling the product overseas, including in Latin America, South Africa and Australia. Eric G. Wintemute, Amvac's chief executive, defended the company's record. In a series of interviews, he said Amvac's chemicals give farmers the tools to protect crops that feed people throughout the world. He said that in most poisoning cases involving Amvac products, regulators found that the pesticides were used improperly. Environmental groups contend that Amvac has used stalling tactics and legal threats to blunt EPA efforts to restrict its pesticides.
In 1993, a National Academy of Sciences report raised concerns that organophosphates might affect children's neurological development. A few years later, the EPA launched a decade-long review that would ultimately impose bans and tighter restrictions on the compounds. Keeping old chemicals on the market, says Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center, a nonprofit group in Rhode Island that promotes organic farming, has "perpetuated completely unnecessary, high-risk exposures for both farm workers and the environment." The pesticide in pest strips, DDVP, has also come under fire. In 1988, the EPA placed DDVP under special review, requiring manufacturers to prove the chemical's safety or face a ban on the product. In 1995, the EPA proposed to prohibit all residential uses. Then, in April 2006, the EPA relaxed its safety standards after new Amvac tests showed that young lab animals were not more vulnerable to the gas. Still, the agency required the company to reduce the size of the strips and place new cautionary language on labels warning against using the strips in enclosed spaces. Environmental groups are suing the EPA, contending that the decision was based on incomplete data and that the new labels are confusing. They contend that Amvac wore down agency officials with legal threats and sheer determination. Amvac's latest battle is over one of its biggest sellers: metam sodium, the third most widely used pesticide in the country. Once in the soil, the compound gives off a gas that kills bugs and bacteria, and since the late 1980s, the chemical has been linked to several mass poisonings. The result is similar to a tear gas attack — victims suffer watery eyes, constricted throats and difficulty breathing, followed by vomiting and dizziness. In 2003, the EPA reported that metam sodium played a role in one-fifth of all poisoning incidents in California affecting 10 or more people. A preliminary EPA analysis in 2004 suggested that the safe use of metam sodium required buffer zones as large as a mile between fields and population centers. The EPA and California are expected to announce new restrictions on the use of metam sodium and other soil fumigants this year.
[Editor's note: See a related article about a lawsuit involving Amvac at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-amvac16apr16,1,4694403.story?ctrack=3&cset=true.]
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail
April 7, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070407.CHEMICAL07/TPStory/Environment
Bisphenol A is ingested by practically everyone in Canada who eats canned foods or drinks from a can or hard plastic water bottles. Now a controversy is raging over the safety of widespread public exposure to the chemical, which is known to act like a synthetic female sex hormone.
Article Summary: Derived from petroleum, bisphenol A is the chief ingredient in polycarbonate, the rigid, translucent hard plastic used in water bottles and many baby bottles. It's also used to make the resins that line most tin cans, dental sealants, car parts, microwaveable plastics, sports helmets and CDs. It is one of the highest-volume manufactured chemicals in the world. The intense debate over bisphenol A is that it challenges the main tenet of modern toxicology that the dose makes the poison. The belief that rising doses make a substance more dangerous is the basis of all government regulations that seek to set safe exposures for harmful chemicals. Bisphenol A doesn't follow this seemingly common-sense rule. Researchers say bisphenol A isn't a conventional harmful agent, such as cigarette smoke, but behaves in the unconventional way typical of hormones, where even vanishingly small exposures can be harmful. In living things, hormones latch onto receptors in cells, turning vital biological processes on or off much like a switch controls a light. When cells are exposed to low doses of hormones, whatever activity they control is stimulated, but at higher doses these receptors are overwhelmed and stop their activity. That is why a hormonally active compound may have one effect at a low dose and no effect at a higher exposure.
Bisphenol A leaches in trace amounts from food and beverage packaging. Scientists suspect bisphenol A has its fingerprints all over the unexplained human health trends emerging in recent decades hinting at something going haywire with sex hormones, including the early onset of puberty, declining sperm counts and the huge increase in breast and prostate cancer, among other ailments. Manufacturers -- which include some of the world's biggest chemical companies -- insist bisphenol A is harmless. To date, international regulatory bodies, most recently the European Food Safety Authority in an assessment issued this year, have given the benefit of the doubt to the industry on these disputes. Last year, Environment Canada and Health Canada classified bisphenol A as "inherently toxic," and companies making it will be challenged by the assessment to prove that continued use is safe. Currently, there are no regulations limiting bisphenol A leakage from consumer products. In March, the first U.S. class action lawsuit alleging harm from bisphenol A was launched against five makers of baby bottles. It was filed in Los Angeles shortly after a U.S. environmental group found the hormone mimic leaching from the bottles when they are heated, something many parents do to formula or milk.
by Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times
April 4, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-na-chemicals4apr04,1,7111569.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
The National Institutes of Health has temporarily suspended a federal contractor that had been reviewing the health dangers of chemicals for the government while also working for the chemical industry. In addition, the NIH will convene a new advisory panel to investigate all toxicology program contracts for conflicts of interest and report back by July 1.
Article Summary: Sciences International, an Alexandria, Va., consulting firm, played a major management and scientific role at the federal Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, which is responsible for deciding which chemicals harm human reproduction. The company prepared the center's preliminary reports on the risks of about 20 chemicals. In response to recent revelations of the firm's financial ties to more than 50 chemical companies and groups, the NIH told Sciences International to conduct its own internal investigation. Sciences International reported that it was paid by three industry associations to perform consulting work on three chemicals that it also reviewed for the government reproductive health center -- styrene, ethylene glycol and soy formula. Sciences International also in recent years worked for BASF and Dow Chemical, two manufacturers of bisphenol A. The company wrote the health center's draft report on the chemical, which is found in polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and other containers. Bisphenol A mimics estrogen and has been linked in animal studies to prostate and breast cancer and reduced fertility. Sciences International asserted that "no conflicts existed that impaired judgments or objectivity" were present because employees who conduct the government reviews "have historically been insulated" from the firm's other work and were unaware that other employees were working for the industry associations. He also outlined steps the firm would take to find and report potential conflicts. Critics of Sciences International assert that a self audit is not very credible and focuses on narrow conceptions of conflict of interest. Sciences International said in promotional material for clients in 1999 that its role as a federal contractor would be beneficial to regulated industries, an implication labeled as "inappropriate" by David Schwartz, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
[Editor's note: See a follow-up story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301979.html.]
by Matt McKinney, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
April 4, 2007
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1101536.html
Article Summary: A controversy has been brewing in which some are accusing farms of endangering human health. The issue is cefquinome (pronounced "sef-kwi-nome"), a new antibiotic from a class considered the most powerful known to science. Cefquinome works by blowing apart invasive bacterial cell walls to make sick cows healthy again. And yet, like many antibiotics, it could become less effective over time if nature develops microbes capable of defeating it. That's the process that has steadily weakened the power of penicillin, which 40 years ago was a cure-all for meningitis and middle-ear infections. Today, doctors use other antibiotics because penicillin no longer is effective against either illness.
It soon may win federal approval for use in cows. The drug has been assailed by medical doctors and by a panel that advised the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) against approving the drug. They say it may encourage creation of a supermicrobe that could pose a threat to people by advancing a biological race between bacteria and antibiotics, a race that bacteria eventually would win. If cefquinome is approved, veterinarians would use it against a pneumonia-like illness known as shipping fever commonly found in cows. Other antibiotics work against the illness, said large animal veterinarian Kevin Funk. He said vets "don't really need" cefquinome, but in general, they need more approved antibiotics to fight the sicknesses they see on farms. Some are concerned that if cefquinome were approved for use on shipping fever, it eventually would be used for other things in an off-label fashion. The FDA's advisory committee on cefquinome last September urged the agency to reject the antibiotic. The American Medical Association (AMA), the Infectious Disease Society of America and the Union of Concerned Scientists all have warned against animal use of cefquinome. Cefquinome resistance has developed in Spain and England where the drug has been legal for a decade.
by Emily Bazar, USA TODAY
April 4, 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-04-public-housing-smoking_N.htm
Tenants in some public housing complexes can no longer light up in the one place that seemed safe from smoking bans: their own homes. From California to Maine, at least 36 public housing authorities have made their apartments smoke-free, says Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project. Such policies are not unusual in private dwellings. The trend has accelerated in government-subsidized rentals in the past year. Housing officials say they made the change to protect non-smoking tenants from secondhand smoke, prevent cigarette fires and reduce the cost of rehabbing smokers' apartments.
Article Summary: Secondhand smoke is a concern because air is recirculated and smoke travels into other units in some projects. All bans forbid new tenants smoking indoors, Bergman says. Some forbid current residents smoking in their apartments, some allow them to smoke until they move out, and some set a deadline for quitting. Some ban outdoor smoking near the building. Smokers' rights groups and fair-housing advocates say the bans are hard on the poor, who don't have many housing options.
by Bruce Mohl, Boston Globe
April 4, 2007
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/04/04/monsanto_hits_dairy_ads_on_hormones/
Monsanto Corp. yesterday asked two federal regulatory agencies to investigate what it alleges are false and misleading advertising claims made by many dairies, including some of the biggest in New England. Many dairies, such as H.P. Hood LLC in Chelsea and Garelick Farms in Franklin, now say their milk comes from cows not treated with the artificial growth hormone recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST, which is manufactured by St. Louis-based Monsanto. Hood and Garelick made the shift last year to better compete against organic milk producers, which have seen their sales rise sharply. Monsanto, in letters to the US Federal Trade Commission and the US Food and Drug Administration, said the advertising of some dairies falsely suggests that there are health and safety risks associated with milk from cows treated with the artificial growth hormones.
Article Summary: The FDA approved the use of the synthetic hormone in 1993. Some consumers fear the synthetic hormones cause cancer or premature development in children. Some countries have banned the use of such hormones, but primarily because of its effect on cows. The synthetic hormone boosts a typical cow's milk production by about 10 pounds per day. According to Monsanto, a lab analysis it conducted in January of 95 different brands of milk purchased in 48 states found no differences, whether the cows that produced the milk were treated with the synthetic hormone or not. Officials at Hood and at Dean Foods Co. in Dallas, which owns Garelick, said their dairies are using milk from cows not treated with the artificial growth hormone because their customers want it. Hood and Garelick milk bottles carry labels saying their farmers pledge not to use artificial growth hormones. Monsanto said even these seemingly factual statements are misleading because they imply that the milk is safer or higher quality than milk coming from cows treated with the synthetic hormones. Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine in 2003 after it put labels on its milk saying its farmers pledged not to use artificial growth hormones. The case was settled when Oakhurst added a statement to its labels saying the FDA says there is no significant difference in milk from cows treated with the synthetic hormones.
by Andrew Bridges, Associated Press, Houston Chronicle
April 3, 2007
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4685318.html
WASHINGTON -- The government proposed Tuesday relaxing its rules on labeling of irradiated foods and suggested it may allow some products zapped with radiation to be called "pasteurized." The Food and Drug Administration said the proposed rule would require companies to label irradiated food only when the radiation treatment causes a material change to the product. Examples includes changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life of a food, which would be flagged in the new labeling. The technique kills bacteria but does not cause food to become radioactive. Recent outbreaks of foodborne illness have revived interest in irradiation, even though it is not suitable for all food products.
Article Summary: The FDA also proposed letting companies use the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods. To do so, they would have to show the FDA that the radiation kills germs as well as the pasteurization process does. Pasteurization typically involves heating a product to a high temperature and then cooling it rapidly. In addition, the proposal would let companies petition the agency to use additional alternate terms other than "irradiated," something already allowed by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 but that no firms have pursued, according to the FDA. FDA will accept public comments on the proposal for 90 days. Consumer group Food & Water Watch immediately urged the FDA to drop the idea because allowing alternative ways of describing irradiation could confuse consumers. Jeff Barach, vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association, an industry group, defended the proposal as helping food industry efforts to provide consumers with safe and wholesome foods with reduced risk of foodborne pathogens but without the negative impact on the consumer that the term irradiation or radiation has. Foods still require FDA approval before they can be irradiated. Examples currently radiated include a small number of fruits, vegetables, spices and eggs. The proposed rule would apply only to foods regulated by the FDA. However, if and when the rule is finalized, the Department of Agriculture could undergo a similar process to change the irradiation labeling requirements for the foods it regulates, including meat and poultry, said Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.
by David C. Bellinger, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine
March-April 2007
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17405692&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Abstract: The potential exists for developmental exposure of children to myriad chemicals, many of which are known to be neurotoxic. Some, such as the organophosphate pesticides, are specifically designed to attack the central nervous system. Despite the known and suspected risks associated with such exposures, critical aspects of the dose-response relationships are unknown or, at best, poorly characterized for the overwhelming majority of chemicals. Among the major knowledge gaps for most chemicals are the critical window(s) of vulnerability, the threshold or "no observed adverse effect level," and the host/environmental characteristics that modify individual vulnerability. Investigation of the role of genetic polymorphisms in determining vulnerability has barely begun. In the real-world, children are not exposed to a single chemical at a time but to complex mixtures of chemicals, and we have only a minimal understanding of the way in which exposures might interact with one another. Effective medical/environmental treatments for the adverse effects associated with chemical exposures are largely unknown, rendering primary prevention of exposure the most effective strategy for protecting children.