Best evidence yet of caffeine-miscarriage link (Erin Allday, Chronicle Staff Writer, 1/20/08)
Tue, Jan 22 2008 04:41
| How to stay healthy?, Toxicology
| Permalink
Women in early pregnancy who drink a cup and a half of coffee every day - or even one Starbucks mocha or a couple of sodas - are at greater risk of miscarriage than those who stay away from caffeine, according to a Kaiser Permanente study out of Oakland.
The study, published today in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, is one of the largest to look at the connection between caffeine and miscarriage, and the first to interview women about their caffeine habits before they've actually suffered a miscarriage.
While there has been much research into caffeine and miscarriage - some of it dating back to the 1960s - no studies have been definitive, and the effect of caffeine, and coffee in particular, on miscarriage has been controversial.
But the Kaiser study, said doctors who were not involved in the research, makes a fairly solid case against drinking coffee, or any kind of caffeinated beverage, early in pregnancy.
"I would probably not even recommend a cup a day, based on this. It's not a huge risk, but it's a real effect," said Dr. Aaron Caughey, a perinatologist at UCSF.
Despite the new findings, Caughey said it's important to note that the majority of miscarriages - up to 80 percent - happen due to chromosomal abnormalities that have nothing to do with the mother's behavior. The last thing women who have had miscarriages need to do is blame themselves, he said.
Researchers interviewed 1,063 pregnant women; 16 percent of the women had miscarriages. Women who had 200 mg of caffeine a day - roughly equivalent to a cup and a half of coffee - were twice as likely to have a miscarriage as those who had less than 200 mg or those who had no caffeine at all.
The difference in risk was most noticeable in miscarriages that happened after eight weeks of pregnancy. The study did not look at the effects of caffeine on pregnancies past 20 weeks.
Even when researchers took into account age, alcohol consumption, smoking and other factors related to miscarriage, the risk remained.
"The data has been consistent, but the question has been whether this is a real effect or not," said De-Kun Li, a research scientist in Kaiser's Northern California division and an author of the paper. "Our study has addressed that issue. Hopefully that relationship is much more firmly established now."
Doctors have long theorized that caffeine is not healthy for fetuses - a dilemma for pregnant women who may be suffering from fatigue and hate to give up the energy boost from caffeine. But because it is considered unethical in most cases to do randomized studies of pregnant women, it's been difficult to research just how unhealthy caffeine is.
The theory is that caffeine passes easily from the mother through the placenta and into the fetus, which is unable to metabolize the drug in a healthy way. Some doctors think that later in the pregnancy, as the baby's metabolic system matures, caffeine is safe.
Even now, no one knows for sure how much caffeine is too much. The Kaiser study showed a small and statistically insignificant increase in risk for women who had less than 200 mg of caffeine every day. But that includes a wide group of caffeine drinkers, doctors noted, and it's possible the women who drink, say, a cup of coffee - with roughly 150 mg of caffeine - increase their risk of miscarriage while those who drink one soda - with 30 to 50 mg of caffeine - do not. "This is a little bit like the alcohol studies, where we are unable to say that any alcohol is safe," Caughey said.
Tammy Plotkin-Oren of El Cerrito suffered a miscarriage during her first pregnancy, even after she took every precaution she could think of to protect herself and her child, including quitting caffeine. She's since had three children and continued to cut out caffeine during all of her pregnancies, even if her doctor wasn't insisting on it.
"This isn't a willpower thing. It's not like saying you're going to exercise more. This is more the guilt. I know I have a baby growing inside me, so it's affecting someone other than myself," Plotkin-Oren said. "The mornings are the hardest, and midday, when you start to get tired. I drank a ton of herbal tea through my pregnancies."
What the study found
-- Women in early pregnancy who drank 200 mg or more of caffeine every day - the equivalent of about 1 1/2 cups of coffee - had roughly twice the risk of miscarriage as women who drank less caffeine or none at all.
-- The greatest risk from caffeine was in the second eight weeks of pregnancy.
-- Where the caffeine came from - coffee, tea, soda or some other beverage - did not make a difference in the risk.
E-mail Erin Allday at eallday@sfchronicle.com.
The study, published today in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, is one of the largest to look at the connection between caffeine and miscarriage, and the first to interview women about their caffeine habits before they've actually suffered a miscarriage.
While there has been much research into caffeine and miscarriage - some of it dating back to the 1960s - no studies have been definitive, and the effect of caffeine, and coffee in particular, on miscarriage has been controversial.
But the Kaiser study, said doctors who were not involved in the research, makes a fairly solid case against drinking coffee, or any kind of caffeinated beverage, early in pregnancy.
"I would probably not even recommend a cup a day, based on this. It's not a huge risk, but it's a real effect," said Dr. Aaron Caughey, a perinatologist at UCSF.
Despite the new findings, Caughey said it's important to note that the majority of miscarriages - up to 80 percent - happen due to chromosomal abnormalities that have nothing to do with the mother's behavior. The last thing women who have had miscarriages need to do is blame themselves, he said.
Researchers interviewed 1,063 pregnant women; 16 percent of the women had miscarriages. Women who had 200 mg of caffeine a day - roughly equivalent to a cup and a half of coffee - were twice as likely to have a miscarriage as those who had less than 200 mg or those who had no caffeine at all.
The difference in risk was most noticeable in miscarriages that happened after eight weeks of pregnancy. The study did not look at the effects of caffeine on pregnancies past 20 weeks.
Even when researchers took into account age, alcohol consumption, smoking and other factors related to miscarriage, the risk remained.
"The data has been consistent, but the question has been whether this is a real effect or not," said De-Kun Li, a research scientist in Kaiser's Northern California division and an author of the paper. "Our study has addressed that issue. Hopefully that relationship is much more firmly established now."
Doctors have long theorized that caffeine is not healthy for fetuses - a dilemma for pregnant women who may be suffering from fatigue and hate to give up the energy boost from caffeine. But because it is considered unethical in most cases to do randomized studies of pregnant women, it's been difficult to research just how unhealthy caffeine is.
The theory is that caffeine passes easily from the mother through the placenta and into the fetus, which is unable to metabolize the drug in a healthy way. Some doctors think that later in the pregnancy, as the baby's metabolic system matures, caffeine is safe.
Even now, no one knows for sure how much caffeine is too much. The Kaiser study showed a small and statistically insignificant increase in risk for women who had less than 200 mg of caffeine every day. But that includes a wide group of caffeine drinkers, doctors noted, and it's possible the women who drink, say, a cup of coffee - with roughly 150 mg of caffeine - increase their risk of miscarriage while those who drink one soda - with 30 to 50 mg of caffeine - do not. "This is a little bit like the alcohol studies, where we are unable to say that any alcohol is safe," Caughey said.
Tammy Plotkin-Oren of El Cerrito suffered a miscarriage during her first pregnancy, even after she took every precaution she could think of to protect herself and her child, including quitting caffeine. She's since had three children and continued to cut out caffeine during all of her pregnancies, even if her doctor wasn't insisting on it.
"This isn't a willpower thing. It's not like saying you're going to exercise more. This is more the guilt. I know I have a baby growing inside me, so it's affecting someone other than myself," Plotkin-Oren said. "The mornings are the hardest, and midday, when you start to get tired. I drank a ton of herbal tea through my pregnancies."
What the study found
-- Women in early pregnancy who drank 200 mg or more of caffeine every day - the equivalent of about 1 1/2 cups of coffee - had roughly twice the risk of miscarriage as women who drank less caffeine or none at all.
-- The greatest risk from caffeine was in the second eight weeks of pregnancy.
-- Where the caffeine came from - coffee, tea, soda or some other beverage - did not make a difference in the risk.
E-mail Erin Allday at eallday@sfchronicle.com.
Comments
MOST FLU VACCINES CONTAIN MERCURY (ORGANIC BYTES #122, 11/15/2007 by Craig Minowa and Ronnie Cummins)
Fri, Nov 16 2007 06:21
| Vaccination, Toxicology
| Permalink
Flu season is right around the corner. Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that almost everyone, including pregnant women, get flu vaccinations, few of the 130 million people receiving this vaccination each year realize that most flu shots contain harmful dosages of mercury. About 80% of all flu shots distributed in the United States contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal. According to health officials, people getting flu-shots need to request a thimerosal-free vaccination. These vaccines cost roughly $4 more to manufacture and distribute.
FACT: A typical flu shot contains 50,000 parts per billion of mercury.
FACT: The EPA classifies a liquid with 200 parts per billion of mercury as hazardous waste.
FACT: The legal "safe" limit for mercury in drinking water is 2 parts per billion
FACT: For each flu-shot, a 22-pound baby gets more than 25 times the amount of mercury considered safe. And doctors are recommending that many babies and children get two flu shots this season.
FACT: A material safety data sheet from Eli Lilly and Co., a former producer of flu vaccines, says exposure to thimerosal may include "fetal changes, decreased offspring survival and lung tissue changes. Exposure in utero and in children may cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment."
FACT: A typical flu shot contains 50,000 parts per billion of mercury.
FACT: The EPA classifies a liquid with 200 parts per billion of mercury as hazardous waste.
FACT: The legal "safe" limit for mercury in drinking water is 2 parts per billion
FACT: For each flu-shot, a 22-pound baby gets more than 25 times the amount of mercury considered safe. And doctors are recommending that many babies and children get two flu shots this season.
FACT: A material safety data sheet from Eli Lilly and Co., a former producer of flu vaccines, says exposure to thimerosal may include "fetal changes, decreased offspring survival and lung tissue changes. Exposure in utero and in children may cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment."
Comments (1)
MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
Sun, Apr 1 2007 01:58
| Toxicology
| Permalink
More than one third of the U.S. population suffers from chronic diseases including cancers, asthma, learning and developmental disabilities, birth defects, diabetes, ALS and Parkinson’s disease. Scientific evidence increasingly uncovers links between toxic chemicals and higher rates of these diseases and disorders. Children are especially vulnerable. Cases of asthma, cancer and learning disabilities are on the rise, especially in Massachusetts.
How you can help?
Urge your Legislator to support the Safer Cleaning Products bill to protect the health of cleaning workers and schoolchildren exposed to harmful toxins on a daily basis in public schools, daycare centers, hospitals and public housing. The health of citizens of the commonwealth must be a government priority.
Toxics are prevalent in our lives; they are in the products we use, the water we drink and the air we breathe. We have a right to live in a healthy environment, which sustains life and protects us from unnecessary harms. We must correct flaws in current practice and policy that allow toxic chemicals to pervade our environment causing serious harm to our health and environment. The protection of our health and the health of our environment must be the first priority of government policy and regulation.
To better protect our health, we are calling for:
1. No new chemicals 2. Suspending existing chemical use: 3. Adopting a preventative approach to toxic chemical exposure rather than a wait and see approach. 4. Promoting safer alternatives to toxic chemicals. 5. Informing the public about toxic chemical use and the availability of safer alternatives. 6. Requiring manufacturers of toxic products to be responsible for the collection and recycling of those products to ensure proper disposal and minimize risks.
The Safer Alternatives campaign focuses on substitution, highlighting what can be done to make our lives safer, instead of what cannot. The reduction and replacement of chemicals with known safer alternatives should occur alongside risk, needs and alternative assessments of chemicals currently without known alternatives. We are pushing four bills to solve our current toxics problem and issuing an executive order to put pressure on the administration –
1. SAFER Massachusetts
MASSPIRG, in conjunction with the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow has issued an Executive Order. This Executive Order:
• Mandates that state agency decision-making surrounding toxic chemicals analyze the potential impacts on consumers, employees and economy and that the most impacted constituencies have a seat at the table in leading these programs. • Calls for substitution policies to be implemented in the following areas: • Consumer products, such as cosmetics, pesticide products, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products, through DPH regulations • Industry through full implementation and enforcement of the TURA to reduce or eliminate the use of five high hazard chemicals - hexavalent chromium, formaldehyde, lead, trichloroethylene (TCE) and Perchloroethylene (Perc). • State agency purchasing standards for healthier cleaning products and pesticides • Adoption of integrated pest management to eliminate the use of pesticides by state agencies.
2. An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals Representative Jay Kaufman and Senator Steven Tolman (HB1286 & SB553)
An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals This bill:
• Highlights ten priority toxic chemicals used in common goods and services, are potential contributors to the incidence of cancer, asthma, birth defects, reproductive disorders, or learning disabilities, and that have reasonable and safer alternatives that in some cases are already used by industry. • Requires Massachusetts industries to replace ten priority toxic chemicals with readily available, proven alternatives. • Establishes the first step of eliminating toxic chemicals by outlining a process through which chemicals can be evaluated and enforceable plans created to reduce or eliminate their use through substitution. Status: Was heard before the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on June 27, 2005 and is pending a vote by the committee.
3. An Act to Reduce Asthma by Using Safer Alternatives to Cleaning Products Representative Frank Smizik and Senator Diane Wilkerson (HB 5018)
An Act to Reduce Asthma by Using Safer Alternatives to Cleaning Products. This bill would: • Require that all cleaning products used in schools, day care centers, public buildings, and common areas of public housing must be included on the “Safer Cleaning Products” list established by DPH. • Establish a training program to train cleaning personnel in the use of healthy cleaning products. • Establish a fee on manufacturers of cleaning products to cover the costs of this program.
Status: Has gotten a favorable report from the Public Health Committee, was referred to the Health Care Financing Committee, got a favorable report from Health Care Financing and is now pending in House Ways and Means as of June 1, 2006.
4. An Act Relative to Mercury Reduction and Education Representative Doug Petersen and Senator Susan Tucker (HB4319)
An Act Relative to Mercury Reduction and Education. This bill would: • Replace certain high priority mercury-added products. These products account for about 67% of the mercury in products and all have safer available alternatives. • Prohibit the sale of certain mercury-containing products such as toys/novelties. • Prohibit the sale of mercury to schools. • Require manufacturers of mercury-added products to take responsibility for the collection and recycling of those products. • Require labeling of mercury-containing products.
Status: Victory! Signed into law by Governor Romney on Friday July 28, 2006.
5. An Act to Prevent Use of the Most Dangerous Pesticides Representative Jay Kaufman (HB1287)
An Act to Prevent Use of the Most Dangerous Pesticides This bill would: • Require DPH to compile a list of pesticides known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to development or reproduction. • Limit the use of these pesticides by the state, municipal government, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, health care facilities, public housing or grounds and by licensed pesticide applicators. • Require retailers of pesticides to post the health effects of the pesticides they sell. • Require the DAR to collect data on pesticide use to develop better information on pesticide use. • Create a hotline for question and violation reporting.
Status: Won passage from the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on December 12, 2005.
6. An Act to Promote Sustainable Agriculture and the Use of Integrated Pest Management Senator Pam Resor (SB 2309, formerly SB 778)
An Act to Promote Sustainable Agriculture and the Use of Integrated Pest Management This bill would: • Close a loophole in the Massachusetts tax code, which exempts pesticides from the state sales tax and devote the revenue to promoting integrated pest management.
Status: Won passage from the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on December 12, 2005.
Brief Summary Toxic chemicals are everywhere. They are in products we buy and use in our homes and in our yards; they contaminate our air, our water, our food and our bodies. The good news is that safer alternatives to many toxic chemicals already exist and that innovation to implement safer alternatives can make our workplaces and communities safer, can create savings in health care and special education costs, and strengthen the competitiveness of our economy all at the same time. As a result of widespread use, toxic chemicals end up in our bodies without our knowledge or consent and have grave effects on human health. Exposure to toxic chemicals has been linked to asthma; cancers and learning, developmental and behavioral disorders – all of which, are affecting citizens of the Commonwealth.
Asthma. In Massachusetts 12.3% of children have been diagnosed as asthmatic. About 9.5% of all adults in Massachusetts suffer from asthma, the highest percentage in New England and above the national average.
Learning, developmental and behavioral disorders. Approximately 17% of children in the US suffer from one or more learning, developmental or behavioral disorder. ADHD now affects about 3-5% of schoolchildren. The number of children in special education has increased by 191% between 1977 and 1994.
Mercury, a powerful neurotoxin, has been linked to the development of learning disabilities in children. When Mercury-containing products like car switches, thermostats and fluorescent bulbs are disposed of they emit mercury into the air, which later lands in our waters. It is now unsafe to eat many types of freshwater and ocean fish due to mercury contamination. Women of childbearing age and small children have been warned to avoid eating tuna steaks, shark, swordfish or any fish from Massachusetts ponds and rivers due to the risk of permanent harm to a developing fetus or young child. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, 1 out of 10 women of childbearing age have mercury levels higher than the advised safe limit putting future children at risk of serious health issues.
Cancer. In Massachusetts, childhood cancer rates have increased. The overall rate of childhood cancer in Massachusetts is slightly higher than the national average—16.7 new cases versus 16.1 per 100,000 per year.
An expert panel convened by Mt. Sinai Hospital recently concluded that genetic predisposition accounts for no more than 20% of all childhood cancers and that the environmental attributable fraction of childhood cancer could be between 5% and 90%, depending on the type of cancer. This means that a potentially large percentage of childhood cancers is preventable. One study of pesticide exposures testifies to the detrimental effects of toxic chemicals on children’s health, specifically in relation to cancers. In this study, children with leukemia were 4 to 7 times as likely to have been exposed to pesticides used in the yard or garden compared to children without the disease. Another study found that children with leukemia were 11 times as likely to have mothers who were exposed to pesticide sprays or foggers during pregnancy compared to healthy children. A report released by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production concluded that instituting measures to reduce parental and childhood exposures to these and other substances suspected of causing cancer, including development of safer substitutes, should play an important role in a cancer prevention strategy.
While there is more than ample evidence to suggest links between toxic chemicals and many disorders and diseases, there is inevitably a lot we don’t know. There are many unknowns surrounding uses of many toxic chemicals and the effect of a combination of chemicals at the same time.
We must protect our health, the health our children and our environment from toxic chemicals, especially those with safer alternatives. There is absolutely no reason for industry to continue using toxic chemicals if safer substitutes exist. Through the passage of the four “Safer Alternatives” bills, we will ensure that certain toxic chemicals with viable alternatives are removed from the market, disposed of and recycled properly and replaced with safer alternatives. For those without safer alternatives, we should establish a process to study alternatives for future substitutions. We must take this important step toward protecting public health and the environment in Massachusetts.
Resources:
Statement of Jen Baker, MASSPIRG Environmental Advocate, on the CAI, Inc. Chemical Explosion in Danvers 11/22/06 Unnecessary Harms: The Availability of Safer Alternatives to the “Toxic Ten” Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow SAFER Massachusetts Fact Sheet An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts Fact Sheet An Act to Reduce Asthma by Using Safer Alternatives to Cleaning Products Fact Sheet An Act Relative to Mercury Reduction and Education Fact Sheet Report: Unnecessary Harms: The Availability of Safer Alternatives to the “Toxic Ten”
How you can help?
Urge your Legislator to support the Safer Cleaning Products bill to protect the health of cleaning workers and schoolchildren exposed to harmful toxins on a daily basis in public schools, daycare centers, hospitals and public housing. The health of citizens of the commonwealth must be a government priority.
Toxics are prevalent in our lives; they are in the products we use, the water we drink and the air we breathe. We have a right to live in a healthy environment, which sustains life and protects us from unnecessary harms. We must correct flaws in current practice and policy that allow toxic chemicals to pervade our environment causing serious harm to our health and environment. The protection of our health and the health of our environment must be the first priority of government policy and regulation.
To better protect our health, we are calling for:
1. No new chemicals 2. Suspending existing chemical use: 3. Adopting a preventative approach to toxic chemical exposure rather than a wait and see approach. 4. Promoting safer alternatives to toxic chemicals. 5. Informing the public about toxic chemical use and the availability of safer alternatives. 6. Requiring manufacturers of toxic products to be responsible for the collection and recycling of those products to ensure proper disposal and minimize risks.
The Safer Alternatives campaign focuses on substitution, highlighting what can be done to make our lives safer, instead of what cannot. The reduction and replacement of chemicals with known safer alternatives should occur alongside risk, needs and alternative assessments of chemicals currently without known alternatives. We are pushing four bills to solve our current toxics problem and issuing an executive order to put pressure on the administration –
1. SAFER Massachusetts
MASSPIRG, in conjunction with the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow has issued an Executive Order. This Executive Order:
• Mandates that state agency decision-making surrounding toxic chemicals analyze the potential impacts on consumers, employees and economy and that the most impacted constituencies have a seat at the table in leading these programs. • Calls for substitution policies to be implemented in the following areas: • Consumer products, such as cosmetics, pesticide products, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products, through DPH regulations • Industry through full implementation and enforcement of the TURA to reduce or eliminate the use of five high hazard chemicals - hexavalent chromium, formaldehyde, lead, trichloroethylene (TCE) and Perchloroethylene (Perc). • State agency purchasing standards for healthier cleaning products and pesticides • Adoption of integrated pest management to eliminate the use of pesticides by state agencies.
2. An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals Representative Jay Kaufman and Senator Steven Tolman (HB1286 & SB553)
An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals This bill:
• Highlights ten priority toxic chemicals used in common goods and services, are potential contributors to the incidence of cancer, asthma, birth defects, reproductive disorders, or learning disabilities, and that have reasonable and safer alternatives that in some cases are already used by industry. • Requires Massachusetts industries to replace ten priority toxic chemicals with readily available, proven alternatives. • Establishes the first step of eliminating toxic chemicals by outlining a process through which chemicals can be evaluated and enforceable plans created to reduce or eliminate their use through substitution. Status: Was heard before the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on June 27, 2005 and is pending a vote by the committee.
3. An Act to Reduce Asthma by Using Safer Alternatives to Cleaning Products Representative Frank Smizik and Senator Diane Wilkerson (HB 5018)
An Act to Reduce Asthma by Using Safer Alternatives to Cleaning Products. This bill would: • Require that all cleaning products used in schools, day care centers, public buildings, and common areas of public housing must be included on the “Safer Cleaning Products” list established by DPH. • Establish a training program to train cleaning personnel in the use of healthy cleaning products. • Establish a fee on manufacturers of cleaning products to cover the costs of this program.
Status: Has gotten a favorable report from the Public Health Committee, was referred to the Health Care Financing Committee, got a favorable report from Health Care Financing and is now pending in House Ways and Means as of June 1, 2006.
4. An Act Relative to Mercury Reduction and Education Representative Doug Petersen and Senator Susan Tucker (HB4319)
An Act Relative to Mercury Reduction and Education. This bill would: • Replace certain high priority mercury-added products. These products account for about 67% of the mercury in products and all have safer available alternatives. • Prohibit the sale of certain mercury-containing products such as toys/novelties. • Prohibit the sale of mercury to schools. • Require manufacturers of mercury-added products to take responsibility for the collection and recycling of those products. • Require labeling of mercury-containing products.
Status: Victory! Signed into law by Governor Romney on Friday July 28, 2006.
5. An Act to Prevent Use of the Most Dangerous Pesticides Representative Jay Kaufman (HB1287)
An Act to Prevent Use of the Most Dangerous Pesticides This bill would: • Require DPH to compile a list of pesticides known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to development or reproduction. • Limit the use of these pesticides by the state, municipal government, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, health care facilities, public housing or grounds and by licensed pesticide applicators. • Require retailers of pesticides to post the health effects of the pesticides they sell. • Require the DAR to collect data on pesticide use to develop better information on pesticide use. • Create a hotline for question and violation reporting.
Status: Won passage from the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on December 12, 2005.
6. An Act to Promote Sustainable Agriculture and the Use of Integrated Pest Management Senator Pam Resor (SB 2309, formerly SB 778)
An Act to Promote Sustainable Agriculture and the Use of Integrated Pest Management This bill would: • Close a loophole in the Massachusetts tax code, which exempts pesticides from the state sales tax and devote the revenue to promoting integrated pest management.
Status: Won passage from the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on December 12, 2005.
Brief Summary Toxic chemicals are everywhere. They are in products we buy and use in our homes and in our yards; they contaminate our air, our water, our food and our bodies. The good news is that safer alternatives to many toxic chemicals already exist and that innovation to implement safer alternatives can make our workplaces and communities safer, can create savings in health care and special education costs, and strengthen the competitiveness of our economy all at the same time. As a result of widespread use, toxic chemicals end up in our bodies without our knowledge or consent and have grave effects on human health. Exposure to toxic chemicals has been linked to asthma; cancers and learning, developmental and behavioral disorders – all of which, are affecting citizens of the Commonwealth.
Asthma. In Massachusetts 12.3% of children have been diagnosed as asthmatic. About 9.5% of all adults in Massachusetts suffer from asthma, the highest percentage in New England and above the national average.
Learning, developmental and behavioral disorders. Approximately 17% of children in the US suffer from one or more learning, developmental or behavioral disorder. ADHD now affects about 3-5% of schoolchildren. The number of children in special education has increased by 191% between 1977 and 1994.
Mercury, a powerful neurotoxin, has been linked to the development of learning disabilities in children. When Mercury-containing products like car switches, thermostats and fluorescent bulbs are disposed of they emit mercury into the air, which later lands in our waters. It is now unsafe to eat many types of freshwater and ocean fish due to mercury contamination. Women of childbearing age and small children have been warned to avoid eating tuna steaks, shark, swordfish or any fish from Massachusetts ponds and rivers due to the risk of permanent harm to a developing fetus or young child. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, 1 out of 10 women of childbearing age have mercury levels higher than the advised safe limit putting future children at risk of serious health issues.
Cancer. In Massachusetts, childhood cancer rates have increased. The overall rate of childhood cancer in Massachusetts is slightly higher than the national average—16.7 new cases versus 16.1 per 100,000 per year.
An expert panel convened by Mt. Sinai Hospital recently concluded that genetic predisposition accounts for no more than 20% of all childhood cancers and that the environmental attributable fraction of childhood cancer could be between 5% and 90%, depending on the type of cancer. This means that a potentially large percentage of childhood cancers is preventable. One study of pesticide exposures testifies to the detrimental effects of toxic chemicals on children’s health, specifically in relation to cancers. In this study, children with leukemia were 4 to 7 times as likely to have been exposed to pesticides used in the yard or garden compared to children without the disease. Another study found that children with leukemia were 11 times as likely to have mothers who were exposed to pesticide sprays or foggers during pregnancy compared to healthy children. A report released by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production concluded that instituting measures to reduce parental and childhood exposures to these and other substances suspected of causing cancer, including development of safer substitutes, should play an important role in a cancer prevention strategy.
While there is more than ample evidence to suggest links between toxic chemicals and many disorders and diseases, there is inevitably a lot we don’t know. There are many unknowns surrounding uses of many toxic chemicals and the effect of a combination of chemicals at the same time.
We must protect our health, the health our children and our environment from toxic chemicals, especially those with safer alternatives. There is absolutely no reason for industry to continue using toxic chemicals if safer substitutes exist. Through the passage of the four “Safer Alternatives” bills, we will ensure that certain toxic chemicals with viable alternatives are removed from the market, disposed of and recycled properly and replaced with safer alternatives. For those without safer alternatives, we should establish a process to study alternatives for future substitutions. We must take this important step toward protecting public health and the environment in Massachusetts.
Resources:
Statement of Jen Baker, MASSPIRG Environmental Advocate, on the CAI, Inc. Chemical Explosion in Danvers 11/22/06 Unnecessary Harms: The Availability of Safer Alternatives to the “Toxic Ten” Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow SAFER Massachusetts Fact Sheet An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts Fact Sheet An Act to Reduce Asthma by Using Safer Alternatives to Cleaning Products Fact Sheet An Act Relative to Mercury Reduction and Education Fact Sheet Report: Unnecessary Harms: The Availability of Safer Alternatives to the “Toxic Ten”
NON-TOXIC PEST - MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOLS (by Steve Tvedten)
Mon, Mar 26 2007 02:40
| Toxicology
| Permalink
Safe, alternative pest control that is already effective in over 350 schools
Summary
We can control insects, e.g., ants (including fire ants), mites, lice, pantry pests, crickets, fleas, roaches, spiders, termites, wasps, insects and arachnids, etc., inside and outside your school without the use of any dangerous, volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons, e.g., organophosphates, pyrethroids and/or carbamates. This will be done through educational in-service training on simple pest control techniques, cleaning tips and materials, placement of ionized plates, installation of IPM manual “The Best Control” and follow-up.
We can:
a) Replace all highly toxic pesticides with safe alternatives
b) Eliminate staff and student exposure to pesticides
c) Remove all head lice from the district without using poisons.
d) To clearly show better, safe pest control without using any volatile, synthetic pesticides poisons.
We will:
1. Use safe alternatives to Organophosphates and carbamates for pest control practices in a school setting;
2. Use safe alternatives to category I products used for pest control in a school setting;
3. Use safe alternatives to restricted use materials for pest control in a school setting.
We Promise:
• All pest control alternatives and techniques that will be utilized can be easily taken to the participants’ home and used successfully and safely;
• We will develop any and all necessary Alternative to new or secondary pest problems arising after implementation of reduced-risk approaches.
Control methods that might be used in our IPM program include:
air
temperature changes
dehumidifiers
traps
soap and water
dusts
colors
caulking
fragrances
essential oils
Vaseline
laxatives
carbon dioxide
food dyes
vacuums
exclusion
enzyme cleaners
pest proofing
sanitation
screening
colloidal solutions
salt
pepper
baking soda
bubble gum
aluminum foil
adhesives
vinegar
baits
black plastic bags
boiling water
hot water
cages
calcium carbonate
card board
coca cola
coffee
combs
peppermint soap
corn starch
detergents
devices (i.e. fly swatters
hair dryers
negative ion plates
pressure washers
eggs
fabric softener sheets
film capsules
aerosol foam
freezing
inspection
lights
microwaves
mineral oil
mint
beer
molasses
music
painted surfaces
yeast
temperature changes
habitat reduction
biological control
modifying conditions eliminating conditions
containers
mechanical barriers
cat litter
cat nip
citrus peels
dried peas
peladowr
polyethylene
defecation
netting
rhubarb
sand
sawdust
grits
hair
urine
repellents
seltzer water
shoes
smelly sneakers
sodium bicarbonate
steel wool
sticky tape
spraying
sugar
the sun
squirt guns
talcum powder
honey
teflon
tennis balls
tide soap
vinegar
wood ashes
wool
urea
steam
ventilation
And, only if absolutely necessary, a spot application of the least-toxic pesticide possible.
The more commonly used equipment includes:
Vacuums
Fans
Rinse and Vacs
2 liter buckets,
pails,
garbage cans
Negative ion pages
Hand held compressed air sprayers
Dusters
Bait Stations
Traps
monitoring devices etc.
Caulking controls pests by removing or eliminating harborages and access.
Cleaning controls pests by removing food sources.
Integration into system.
This program will “revolutionize” the current IPM methodology. There are attempts at removing pesticides from schools but nowhere is there not only a step-by-step written manual for non-toxic pest management that is easily followed nor are there any companies or individuals who can even claim to be able to address every pest control issue without resorting to volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons in “emergencies”.
How we do it!
We will implement an IPM program utilizing the proven non-toxic IPM methods as described in “The Best Control”. This program is designed to make the school district self sufficient in controlling pests by using its available staff during their normal work routines.
Our goal is to prove that all of the insects, e.g., ants, mites, lice, pantry pests, crickets, fleas, roaches, spiders, termites, wasps, etc., inside and outside your school schools can safely be controlled without the use of any dangerous, volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons, e.g., organophosphates, pyrethroids and/or carbamates.
Specific Tasks
We will spend 3 hours or more putting on an initial in-service program to train unionized maintenance, dietary and custodial staff on how they personally can use simple non-toxic controls (e.g., vacuums, enzymes, habitat reduction, baby powder, sanitation, caulk, etc.) to control any pest problems at school and at their homes.
After conducting an in-service program with maintenance, custodial, grounds and dietary, we properly install negative ion plates and/or install any number of various combinations of the safer, alternative IPM controls to replace the dangerous use of volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons in the schools to eliminate or significantly reduce the incidence of all insect infestations. We will work throughout the project with custodians and staff on any remaining problem areas.
We install a master IPM planner (CD-ROM) called “The Best Control” in the principal’s office and/or head custodian's office, and school library and carefully instruct all the responsible person on its use. In addition, we will be in constant phone contact with all of in-house people, personally directing them as they perform any non-toxic control programs, inspections, etc. via our toll free line. This CD-ROM may be used by anyone in the Community to solve their own pest problems.
We can also conduct in-service programs for the principals, teachers and staff explaining how and why the school to protect the students and staff without using any dangerous, volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons.
We will visit the site to solve any "unsolvable" insect problems that the district may have with non-toxic or least-toxic controls.
Personal Time spent at each school will include:
Description of the site
A. Identifying potential problem areas and recommendations to correct these areas (i.e., exclusion, cleaning, baited traps, etc.)
B. Identify all sensitive areas associated with site as defined in any State regulation. (i.e., kitchen, food storage.) Inspection of site
A. Number of pests found or reported.
B. Identification of pest.
C. Conditions that are conducive to pest establishment. Monitoring of site
A. All problem sites are to be closely monitored on a weekly basis by the District's maintenance staff.
B. Any additional or routine monitoring is to be done at least on a monthly basis by the District's custodial/grounds staff.
THRESHOLD LEVEL Threshold level is defined by the District as the level at which a least-toxic, non-volatile pesticide application by the PCO under the guidelines of the project may be necessary to manage the pest. This level cannot be reached without the District first exhausting all of the alternative solutions to the pest problem found in “The Best Control Master IPM Planning Manual.
PEST MANAGEMENT METHODS The underlying principle of this plan is first for the District to use all non-toxic controls listed in The Best Control, then as a last resort for the PCO, under the guidelines, to use the least-toxic alternative possible. All methods are to be evaluated by the District and Get Set, Inc. for safety before they are implemented. The following considerations to pest management are to be used:
1) if anyone has a safer method of effectively controlling pest it will be immediately adopted;
2) we will always choose the safest method of controlling pests possible. If we have to err, we will always err on the side of safety; rather than on the side of control.
Note: This entire program is currently available to any school district. Over 350 schools are now successfully using this program.
For further information please contact:
Steve Tvedten
Get Set, Inc.
steve@getipm.com
Summary
We can control insects, e.g., ants (including fire ants), mites, lice, pantry pests, crickets, fleas, roaches, spiders, termites, wasps, insects and arachnids, etc., inside and outside your school without the use of any dangerous, volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons, e.g., organophosphates, pyrethroids and/or carbamates. This will be done through educational in-service training on simple pest control techniques, cleaning tips and materials, placement of ionized plates, installation of IPM manual “The Best Control” and follow-up.
We can:
a) Replace all highly toxic pesticides with safe alternatives
b) Eliminate staff and student exposure to pesticides
c) Remove all head lice from the district without using poisons.
d) To clearly show better, safe pest control without using any volatile, synthetic pesticides poisons.
We will:
1. Use safe alternatives to Organophosphates and carbamates for pest control practices in a school setting;
2. Use safe alternatives to category I products used for pest control in a school setting;
3. Use safe alternatives to restricted use materials for pest control in a school setting.
We Promise:
• All pest control alternatives and techniques that will be utilized can be easily taken to the participants’ home and used successfully and safely;
• We will develop any and all necessary Alternative to new or secondary pest problems arising after implementation of reduced-risk approaches.
Control methods that might be used in our IPM program include:
air
temperature changes
dehumidifiers
traps
soap and water
dusts
colors
caulking
fragrances
essential oils
Vaseline
laxatives
carbon dioxide
food dyes
vacuums
exclusion
enzyme cleaners
pest proofing
sanitation
screening
colloidal solutions
salt
pepper
baking soda
bubble gum
aluminum foil
adhesives
vinegar
baits
black plastic bags
boiling water
hot water
cages
calcium carbonate
card board
coca cola
coffee
combs
peppermint soap
corn starch
detergents
devices (i.e. fly swatters
hair dryers
negative ion plates
pressure washers
eggs
fabric softener sheets
film capsules
aerosol foam
freezing
inspection
lights
microwaves
mineral oil
mint
beer
molasses
music
painted surfaces
yeast
temperature changes
habitat reduction
biological control
modifying conditions eliminating conditions
containers
mechanical barriers
cat litter
cat nip
citrus peels
dried peas
peladowr
polyethylene
defecation
netting
rhubarb
sand
sawdust
grits
hair
urine
repellents
seltzer water
shoes
smelly sneakers
sodium bicarbonate
steel wool
sticky tape
spraying
sugar
the sun
squirt guns
talcum powder
honey
teflon
tennis balls
tide soap
vinegar
wood ashes
wool
urea
steam
ventilation
And, only if absolutely necessary, a spot application of the least-toxic pesticide possible.
The more commonly used equipment includes:
Vacuums
Fans
Rinse and Vacs
2 liter buckets,
pails,
garbage cans
Negative ion pages
Hand held compressed air sprayers
Dusters
Bait Stations
Traps
monitoring devices etc.
Caulking controls pests by removing or eliminating harborages and access.
Cleaning controls pests by removing food sources.
Integration into system.
This program will “revolutionize” the current IPM methodology. There are attempts at removing pesticides from schools but nowhere is there not only a step-by-step written manual for non-toxic pest management that is easily followed nor are there any companies or individuals who can even claim to be able to address every pest control issue without resorting to volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons in “emergencies”.
How we do it!
We will implement an IPM program utilizing the proven non-toxic IPM methods as described in “The Best Control”. This program is designed to make the school district self sufficient in controlling pests by using its available staff during their normal work routines.
Our goal is to prove that all of the insects, e.g., ants, mites, lice, pantry pests, crickets, fleas, roaches, spiders, termites, wasps, etc., inside and outside your school schools can safely be controlled without the use of any dangerous, volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons, e.g., organophosphates, pyrethroids and/or carbamates.
Specific Tasks
We will spend 3 hours or more putting on an initial in-service program to train unionized maintenance, dietary and custodial staff on how they personally can use simple non-toxic controls (e.g., vacuums, enzymes, habitat reduction, baby powder, sanitation, caulk, etc.) to control any pest problems at school and at their homes.
After conducting an in-service program with maintenance, custodial, grounds and dietary, we properly install negative ion plates and/or install any number of various combinations of the safer, alternative IPM controls to replace the dangerous use of volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons in the schools to eliminate or significantly reduce the incidence of all insect infestations. We will work throughout the project with custodians and staff on any remaining problem areas.
We install a master IPM planner (CD-ROM) called “The Best Control” in the principal’s office and/or head custodian's office, and school library and carefully instruct all the responsible person on its use. In addition, we will be in constant phone contact with all of in-house people, personally directing them as they perform any non-toxic control programs, inspections, etc. via our toll free line. This CD-ROM may be used by anyone in the Community to solve their own pest problems.
We can also conduct in-service programs for the principals, teachers and staff explaining how and why the school to protect the students and staff without using any dangerous, volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons.
We will visit the site to solve any "unsolvable" insect problems that the district may have with non-toxic or least-toxic controls.
Personal Time spent at each school will include:
Description of the site
A. Identifying potential problem areas and recommendations to correct these areas (i.e., exclusion, cleaning, baited traps, etc.)
B. Identify all sensitive areas associated with site as defined in any State regulation. (i.e., kitchen, food storage.) Inspection of site
A. Number of pests found or reported.
B. Identification of pest.
C. Conditions that are conducive to pest establishment. Monitoring of site
A. All problem sites are to be closely monitored on a weekly basis by the District's maintenance staff.
B. Any additional or routine monitoring is to be done at least on a monthly basis by the District's custodial/grounds staff.
THRESHOLD LEVEL Threshold level is defined by the District as the level at which a least-toxic, non-volatile pesticide application by the PCO under the guidelines of the project may be necessary to manage the pest. This level cannot be reached without the District first exhausting all of the alternative solutions to the pest problem found in “The Best Control Master IPM Planning Manual.
PEST MANAGEMENT METHODS The underlying principle of this plan is first for the District to use all non-toxic controls listed in The Best Control, then as a last resort for the PCO, under the guidelines, to use the least-toxic alternative possible. All methods are to be evaluated by the District and Get Set, Inc. for safety before they are implemented. The following considerations to pest management are to be used:
1) if anyone has a safer method of effectively controlling pest it will be immediately adopted;
2) we will always choose the safest method of controlling pests possible. If we have to err, we will always err on the side of safety; rather than on the side of control.
Note: This entire program is currently available to any school district. Over 350 schools are now successfully using this program.
For further information please contact:
Steve Tvedten
Get Set, Inc.
steve@getipm.com
A major manufacturer of dog and cat food is recalling 60 million containers of wet food
Mon, Mar 19 2007 10:16
| Other, Toxicology
| Permalink
Lets keep this companies in mind they seem to get some of their ingredients form the same supplier and be part of a industrial supply chain. Hopefully there will be more and more companies who do local and organic pet food soon.
The news said that reports of dogs and cats suffering kidney failure after eating the food. At least 10 animals have died. Check the list below before feeding your animals.
Recalled Cat Product Information
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
List of cat and dog foods affected:
1. Americas Choice, Preferred Pets
2. Authority
3. Best Choice
4. Companion
5. Compliments
6. Demoulas Market Basket
7. Fine Feline Cat, Shep Dog
8. Food Lion
9. Foodtown
10. Giant Companion
11. Good n Meaty
12. Hannaford
13. Hill Country Fare
14. Hy-Vee
15. Key Food
16. Laura Lynn
17. Li'l Red
18. Loving Meals
19. Main Choice
20. Nutriplan
21. Nutro Max Gourmet Classics
22. Nutro Natural Choice
23. Paws
24. Presidents Choice
25. Price Chopper
26. Priority
27. Save-A-Lot
28. Schnucks
29. Sophistacat
30. Special Kitty
31. Springfield Pride
32. Sprout
33. Total Pet, My True Friend
34. Wegmans
35. Western Family
36. White Rose
37. Winn Dixie
Recalled Dog Product Information
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
1. Americas Choice, Preferred Pets
2. Authority
3. Award
4. Best Choice
5. Big Bet
6. Big Red
7. Bloom
8. Bruiser
9. Cadillac
10. Companion
11. Demoulas Market Basket
12. Fine Feline Cat, Shep Dog
13. Food Lion
14. Giant Companion
15. Great Choice
16. Hannaford
17. Hill Country Fare
18. Hy-Vee
19. Key Food
20. Laura Lynn
21. Loving Meals
22. Main Choice
23. Mixables
24. Nutriplan
25. Nutro Max
26. Nutro Natural Choice
27. Nutro
28. Ol'Roy
29. Paws
30. Pet Essentials
31. Pet Pride
32. Presidents Choice
33. Price Chopper
34. Priority
35. Publix
36. Roche Bros
37. Save-A-Lot
38. Schnucks
39. Springsfield Pride
40. Sprout
41. Stater Bros
42. Total Pet, My True Friend
43. Western Family
44. White Rose
45. Winn Dixie
46. Your Pet
The news said that reports of dogs and cats suffering kidney failure after eating the food. At least 10 animals have died. Check the list below before feeding your animals.
Recalled Cat Product Information
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
List of cat and dog foods affected:
1. Americas Choice, Preferred Pets
2. Authority
3. Best Choice
4. Companion
5. Compliments
6. Demoulas Market Basket
7. Fine Feline Cat, Shep Dog
8. Food Lion
9. Foodtown
10. Giant Companion
11. Good n Meaty
12. Hannaford
13. Hill Country Fare
14. Hy-Vee
15. Key Food
16. Laura Lynn
17. Li'l Red
18. Loving Meals
19. Main Choice
20. Nutriplan
21. Nutro Max Gourmet Classics
22. Nutro Natural Choice
23. Paws
24. Presidents Choice
25. Price Chopper
26. Priority
27. Save-A-Lot
28. Schnucks
29. Sophistacat
30. Special Kitty
31. Springfield Pride
32. Sprout
33. Total Pet, My True Friend
34. Wegmans
35. Western Family
36. White Rose
37. Winn Dixie
Recalled Dog Product Information
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
1. Americas Choice, Preferred Pets
2. Authority
3. Award
4. Best Choice
5. Big Bet
6. Big Red
7. Bloom
8. Bruiser
9. Cadillac
10. Companion
11. Demoulas Market Basket
12. Fine Feline Cat, Shep Dog
13. Food Lion
14. Giant Companion
15. Great Choice
16. Hannaford
17. Hill Country Fare
18. Hy-Vee
19. Key Food
20. Laura Lynn
21. Loving Meals
22. Main Choice
23. Mixables
24. Nutriplan
25. Nutro Max
26. Nutro Natural Choice
27. Nutro
28. Ol'Roy
29. Paws
30. Pet Essentials
31. Pet Pride
32. Presidents Choice
33. Price Chopper
34. Priority
35. Publix
36. Roche Bros
37. Save-A-Lot
38. Schnucks
39. Springsfield Pride
40. Sprout
41. Stater Bros
42. Total Pet, My True Friend
43. Western Family
44. White Rose
45. Winn Dixie
46. Your Pet
HAVE YOU SUFFERED A NEGATIVE REACTION FROM SPLENDA? REPORT IT HERE!
Thu, Mar 8 2007 05:44
| Toxicology
| Permalink
In recent years, the controversial artificial sweetener Splenda, has swept over the food, beverage and pharmaceutical industry. Currently found in over 4500 products, Splenda's marketing slogan, "Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar," confuses consumers into believing that Splenda is a safe and healthy alternative to sugar, despite negative health effects detected in numerous human and animal trials. Unfortunately, the FDA and Johnson and Johnson refuse to acknowledge that these products are likely hazardous. Citizens for Health is currently collecting reports of negative effects from Splenda to present to the FDA. If you've had any bad experiences with Splenda, please contact Frank Herd at Citizens for Health with your story. Office: 612-879-7583 email: fherdjr@citizens.org
New Book: Vitamin Myth Exposed by Brian Clement, Ph.D., N.M.D.
Wed, Feb 21 2007 06:49
| Toxicology
| Permalink
VITA means life. Vita defines the difference between synthetic and what is now known as naturally-occurring. This book is about the consequences of this difference in our vitamins and nutritional supplements today, and is further dedicated to helping you understand their impact on your health and how you can become equipped to avoid unhealthful choices and benefit from healthy whole-food N.O.S. varieties.
Putting the word “Natural” on the vitamin label is deceptive. The word is constantly abused and as such its meaning has been diluted to a point where it holds little value. Many misleading labels on supplement products take advantage of the ambiguity of the word “natural” to project a wholesome marketing image – most often when the product does not merit it. Whereas the term “naturally-occurring” on a label means that a vitamin or nutrient is completely comprised of compounds from naturally-occurring sources – the plants themselves – rather than merely containing a naturally-occurring ingredient mixed with synthetic ingredients.
The best vitamin supplements are those with labeled potencies derived from naturally-occurring, full-spectrum food extracts. Naturally-occurring vitamins are obtained by taking a nutrient-rich plant, removing the water and the fibre in a chemical-free vacuum process, and packaging it for stability. The entire vitamin complex is captured intact, retaining its full-spectrum functional and nutritional integrity.
Another primary difference between real full-spectrum whole-food vitamins and synthetic vitamins is that real vitamins contain the essential trace minerals necessary for the vitamins’ synergistic operation. Synthetic vitamins contain no trace minerals and must utilize the body’s own mineral reserves. Ingesting real vitamins does not require the body to deplete its own reserves of nutrients to replace any nutrients missing from the false vitamin complex.
Mega doses of synthetic vitamins can have very serious toxic effects. Naturally-occurring whole-food vitamins are not toxic since the vitamin is complexed in its natural whole integral working form, and requires nothing from the body to “build” a vitamin. Naturally-occurring whole food vitamins are only necessary in small quantities on a daily basis.
Mainstream marketing of vitamins and minerals has created the myth that vitamins and minerals may be isolated individually and from one other, and that we can derive total benefit from taking these fractionated chemical creations. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Vitamins, minerals and enzymes work closely together as co-factors for each other's efficacy. If one part is missing, or is fractionated, or in the incorrect form or the incorrect amount, entire chains of metabolic processes cannot and will not proceed normally. Only nature can provide us with naturally-occurring vitamins as found in real, wholesome organic foods.
The overwhelming majority of vitamin products sold in groceries, drug stores or mass-marketing retailers contain synthetic ingredients. What our bodies require are supplement products made exclusively from naturally-occurring nutrients rather than toxic laboratory synthesized ones. Currently only conscious companies produce supplements with naturally-occurring ingredients. These companies should be commended and supported for offering natural health-promoting products to the consumer.
We are grateful to Amsar Pvt. Ltd., AmsarUSA and others for their efforts in establishing “Naturally Occurring” as a specific Standard of Quality. This standard should be applied for natural vitamins, ingredients and materials for the entire food, beverage, nutraceutical, and cosmetic industry, and consumer goods, including the entire SBS. The adoption of this proposed “Naturally Occurring Standard”* (NOS*) will bring a clarity to all purveyors and consumers of natural products. The NOS is an important step and regulatory guideline that has been missing from the product label information and literature since the beginning of packaged food sales. The NOS symbol on products will help to eliminate the confusion between truly natural and less than natural product ingredients.
We need more naturally-occurring vitamin supplements to counter the vast array of harmful synthetic vitamin supplements flooding our world markets. Consumers must request the production of more naturally-occurring supplements by petitioning the natural foods industry to provide us with only health-promoting products. Insisting that the designation “naturally-occurring” be put only on the labels of naturally-occurring vitamin and nutrient supplements, will allow the consumer to distinguish between what is a real vitamin supplement and what is not.
Go to http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3697.cfm if you want to read more.
Putting the word “Natural” on the vitamin label is deceptive. The word is constantly abused and as such its meaning has been diluted to a point where it holds little value. Many misleading labels on supplement products take advantage of the ambiguity of the word “natural” to project a wholesome marketing image – most often when the product does not merit it. Whereas the term “naturally-occurring” on a label means that a vitamin or nutrient is completely comprised of compounds from naturally-occurring sources – the plants themselves – rather than merely containing a naturally-occurring ingredient mixed with synthetic ingredients.
The best vitamin supplements are those with labeled potencies derived from naturally-occurring, full-spectrum food extracts. Naturally-occurring vitamins are obtained by taking a nutrient-rich plant, removing the water and the fibre in a chemical-free vacuum process, and packaging it for stability. The entire vitamin complex is captured intact, retaining its full-spectrum functional and nutritional integrity.
Another primary difference between real full-spectrum whole-food vitamins and synthetic vitamins is that real vitamins contain the essential trace minerals necessary for the vitamins’ synergistic operation. Synthetic vitamins contain no trace minerals and must utilize the body’s own mineral reserves. Ingesting real vitamins does not require the body to deplete its own reserves of nutrients to replace any nutrients missing from the false vitamin complex.
Mega doses of synthetic vitamins can have very serious toxic effects. Naturally-occurring whole-food vitamins are not toxic since the vitamin is complexed in its natural whole integral working form, and requires nothing from the body to “build” a vitamin. Naturally-occurring whole food vitamins are only necessary in small quantities on a daily basis.
Mainstream marketing of vitamins and minerals has created the myth that vitamins and minerals may be isolated individually and from one other, and that we can derive total benefit from taking these fractionated chemical creations. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Vitamins, minerals and enzymes work closely together as co-factors for each other's efficacy. If one part is missing, or is fractionated, or in the incorrect form or the incorrect amount, entire chains of metabolic processes cannot and will not proceed normally. Only nature can provide us with naturally-occurring vitamins as found in real, wholesome organic foods.
The overwhelming majority of vitamin products sold in groceries, drug stores or mass-marketing retailers contain synthetic ingredients. What our bodies require are supplement products made exclusively from naturally-occurring nutrients rather than toxic laboratory synthesized ones. Currently only conscious companies produce supplements with naturally-occurring ingredients. These companies should be commended and supported for offering natural health-promoting products to the consumer.
We are grateful to Amsar Pvt. Ltd., AmsarUSA and others for their efforts in establishing “Naturally Occurring” as a specific Standard of Quality. This standard should be applied for natural vitamins, ingredients and materials for the entire food, beverage, nutraceutical, and cosmetic industry, and consumer goods, including the entire SBS. The adoption of this proposed “Naturally Occurring Standard”* (NOS*) will bring a clarity to all purveyors and consumers of natural products. The NOS is an important step and regulatory guideline that has been missing from the product label information and literature since the beginning of packaged food sales. The NOS symbol on products will help to eliminate the confusion between truly natural and less than natural product ingredients.
We need more naturally-occurring vitamin supplements to counter the vast array of harmful synthetic vitamin supplements flooding our world markets. Consumers must request the production of more naturally-occurring supplements by petitioning the natural foods industry to provide us with only health-promoting products. Insisting that the designation “naturally-occurring” be put only on the labels of naturally-occurring vitamin and nutrient supplements, will allow the consumer to distinguish between what is a real vitamin supplement and what is not.
Go to http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3697.cfm if you want to read more.
New nationwide campaign called "Nutri-Con: The Truth About Vitamins & Supplements (Hippocrates Health Institute & OCA, Dec. 31, 2006)
Wed, Feb 21 2007 06:49
| Toxicology
| Permalink
Part of this campaign will be the implementation of a new set of Naturally Occurring Standards (NOS), certification procedures, and labels which are truly "organic and beyond," and to expose the fact that 90% or more of the vitamins and supplements now on the market labeled as "natural" or "food based" actually are spiked with synthetic chemicals. The first company to meet these new NOS strict standards in the natural supplements sector is Botani Organics http://www.alohabay.com/botani/index.html
A major underlying theme of this campaign will be to steadily inform and remind consumers that Big Pharma's prescription and over the counter drugs are generally hazardous substances offering no real solution to our health problems; while preventive health and wellness promotion, traditional holistic remedies, and complementary medicine practices represent the "organic road" to health. In terms of wellness promotion, there is no doubt that an organic whole foods-based diet and a healthy lifestyle are the "best medicine" for those of us trying to survive and keep our families healthy in the toxic soup of 100,000 synthetic chemicals that surround us everyday, polluting our food, water,medicines, homes, and environment. But as we complement our organic whole foods-based diet with herbs and supplements, we need to make sure that these vitamins and botanicals are derived from naturally occurring plant and mineral sources, and that they contain no synthetic chemicals whatsoever.
Below is the first installment of an eye-opening new book, "Vitamin Myth Exposed," by Brian Clement of the Hippocrates Health Institute, which the OCA will be publishing over the next 60 days (for brevity's sake, I'm only forwarding the prologue. Go to http://preview.tinyurl.com/y7zn8b if you want to read more - jr). This book is nothing less than the opening salvo in a campaign that OCA believes will revolutionize the $20 billion vitamin and supplements industry. OCA sees this effort as part of our ongoing efforts to establish and safeguard strict organic standards in food and farming, clothing, body care, and other important consumer sectors.
We invite you to please circulate the "Vitamin Myth Exposed," widely to friends and family, and to talk to your local natural foods store or coop about joining forces with the OCA in this important new campaign.
For Health and an Organic Future, Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
A major underlying theme of this campaign will be to steadily inform and remind consumers that Big Pharma's prescription and over the counter drugs are generally hazardous substances offering no real solution to our health problems; while preventive health and wellness promotion, traditional holistic remedies, and complementary medicine practices represent the "organic road" to health. In terms of wellness promotion, there is no doubt that an organic whole foods-based diet and a healthy lifestyle are the "best medicine" for those of us trying to survive and keep our families healthy in the toxic soup of 100,000 synthetic chemicals that surround us everyday, polluting our food, water,medicines, homes, and environment. But as we complement our organic whole foods-based diet with herbs and supplements, we need to make sure that these vitamins and botanicals are derived from naturally occurring plant and mineral sources, and that they contain no synthetic chemicals whatsoever.
Below is the first installment of an eye-opening new book, "Vitamin Myth Exposed," by Brian Clement of the Hippocrates Health Institute, which the OCA will be publishing over the next 60 days (for brevity's sake, I'm only forwarding the prologue. Go to http://preview.tinyurl.com/y7zn8b if you want to read more - jr). This book is nothing less than the opening salvo in a campaign that OCA believes will revolutionize the $20 billion vitamin and supplements industry. OCA sees this effort as part of our ongoing efforts to establish and safeguard strict organic standards in food and farming, clothing, body care, and other important consumer sectors.
We invite you to please circulate the "Vitamin Myth Exposed," widely to friends and family, and to talk to your local natural foods store or coop about joining forces with the OCA in this important new campaign.
For Health and an Organic Future, Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
American Dental Association warned its members that fluoridated water should not be mixed into concentrated formula or foods intended for babies one year and younger!
Thu, Feb 8 2007 08:26
| Toxicology
| Permalink
Two-thirds of U.S. public water suppliers add fluoride chemicals, based on a disproved theory that fluoride ingestion prevents cavities. Bottled water with added fluoride is now sold with specific instructions to mix into infant formula.(2)
The ADA reports, "...infants could receive a greater than optimal amount of fluoride through liquid concentrate or powdered baby formula that has been mixed with water containing fluoride during a time that their developing teeth may be susceptible to enamel fluorosis."(3) The ADA recommends using fluoride-free water.
Enamel or dental fluorosis is white spotting, yellow, brown and/or pitted permanent teeth. Pictures:
http://www.fluoridation.com/teeth.htm
NYSCOF news releases in 2000 and 2004 (4,5) cited studies linking fluorosis to infant foods mixed with fluoridated water. Scientific evidence here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/
Some scientists also tried in vain to get the word out sooner as described in "Suppression by Medical Journals of a Warning about Overdosing Formula-Fed Infants with Fluoride," published in 1997 in the Journal Accountability in Research.(10)
It took until 2006 for the ADA's alert, following the Food and Drug Administration's October disapproval of fluoridated bottled water marketed to babies,(6) and after the recent National Research Council's (NRC) fluoride report indicating babies are fluoride overdosed from "optimally" fluoridated water supplies.(7)
"The ADA claims the NRC report didn't question the safety of fluoridation(8) but it did, as the ADA now admits," says Beeber.
"The NRC also revealed fluoridation's adverse effects to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others," says Beeber.
Now, the Centers for Disease Control reports that modern science shows that fluoride absorbs into enamel topically.(9) However, adverse effects occur upon ingestion. Further, the CDC admits enamel fluoride concentration is not inversely related to cavities.
The Environmental Protection Agency is required to consider the most vulnerable populations when setting allowable water fluoride levels. To protect babies, allowable water fluoride levels must be near zero.
The Environmental Working Group analyzed government data in March 2006 and found that babies are over-exposed to fluoride in most major U.S. cities.(11)
"This should end water fluoridation," says Beeber. "Fluoridation is a failed concept that must be abandoned before more Americans are harmed," says Beeber.
References:
1) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/egram_061109.pdf
2) http://www.nurserywater.com/home.html
3) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infan...
4) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3
5) http://tinyurl.com/y8czsd
6) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html
7) http://www.nap.edu/openbook/030910128X/html/44.html
8) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/fluoride_report_response.pdf
9) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
10) http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/FormulaFedBabies.pdf
11) http://ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060322/index.php
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas from Lack of Dental Care http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com
The ADA reports, "...infants could receive a greater than optimal amount of fluoride through liquid concentrate or powdered baby formula that has been mixed with water containing fluoride during a time that their developing teeth may be susceptible to enamel fluorosis."(3) The ADA recommends using fluoride-free water.
Enamel or dental fluorosis is white spotting, yellow, brown and/or pitted permanent teeth. Pictures:
http://www.fluoridation.com/teeth.htm
NYSCOF news releases in 2000 and 2004 (4,5) cited studies linking fluorosis to infant foods mixed with fluoridated water. Scientific evidence here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/
Some scientists also tried in vain to get the word out sooner as described in "Suppression by Medical Journals of a Warning about Overdosing Formula-Fed Infants with Fluoride," published in 1997 in the Journal Accountability in Research.(10)
It took until 2006 for the ADA's alert, following the Food and Drug Administration's October disapproval of fluoridated bottled water marketed to babies,(6) and after the recent National Research Council's (NRC) fluoride report indicating babies are fluoride overdosed from "optimally" fluoridated water supplies.(7)
"The ADA claims the NRC report didn't question the safety of fluoridation(8) but it did, as the ADA now admits," says Beeber.
"The NRC also revealed fluoridation's adverse effects to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others," says Beeber.
Now, the Centers for Disease Control reports that modern science shows that fluoride absorbs into enamel topically.(9) However, adverse effects occur upon ingestion. Further, the CDC admits enamel fluoride concentration is not inversely related to cavities.
The Environmental Protection Agency is required to consider the most vulnerable populations when setting allowable water fluoride levels. To protect babies, allowable water fluoride levels must be near zero.
The Environmental Working Group analyzed government data in March 2006 and found that babies are over-exposed to fluoride in most major U.S. cities.(11)
"This should end water fluoridation," says Beeber. "Fluoridation is a failed concept that must be abandoned before more Americans are harmed," says Beeber.
References:
1) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/egram_061109.pdf
2) http://www.nurserywater.com/home.html
3) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infan...
4) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3
5) http://tinyurl.com/y8czsd
6) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html
7) http://www.nap.edu/openbook/030910128X/html/44.html
8) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/fluoride_report_response.pdf
9) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
10) http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/FormulaFedBabies.pdf
11) http://ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060322/index.php
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas from Lack of Dental Care http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com
Mercury Alert For Store-Bought Fish
Mon, Feb 5 2007 07:36
| Toxicology
| Permalink
The University of North Carolina scientists collected samples of tuna and swordfish from more than 20 states and a variety of national supermarket chains, including Safeway, Albertsons and Whole Foods.
Half of the swordfish samples tested by researchers exceeded the FDA's action limit of mercury 1 parts per million (ppm). Even worse, swordfish bought in Maine and Rhode Island contained more than twice as much mercury than the FDA allows. Overall, tuna samples averaged 0.33 ppm of mercury and those analyzed from Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland and Montana exceeded .50 ppm.
Sadly, fish would be a near-perfect food, if virtually all of them weren't contaminated with mercury. And, because this toxic substance rapidly bioaccumulates in the food chain, it is commonly found in higher concentrations of larger, older fish and predatory species like shark, tuna and swordfish.
So please avoid fish. This is especially true for children and pregnant women. So get your self a coffee grinder and start graining flax seed. Keep the flax seed in the fridge and grind it frech every day. One tea spoon every day will do.
Half of the swordfish samples tested by researchers exceeded the FDA's action limit of mercury 1 parts per million (ppm). Even worse, swordfish bought in Maine and Rhode Island contained more than twice as much mercury than the FDA allows. Overall, tuna samples averaged 0.33 ppm of mercury and those analyzed from Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland and Montana exceeded .50 ppm.
Sadly, fish would be a near-perfect food, if virtually all of them weren't contaminated with mercury. And, because this toxic substance rapidly bioaccumulates in the food chain, it is commonly found in higher concentrations of larger, older fish and predatory species like shark, tuna and swordfish.
So please avoid fish. This is especially true for children and pregnant women. So get your self a coffee grinder and start graining flax seed. Keep the flax seed in the fridge and grind it frech every day. One tea spoon every day will do.
Healthy Building News - The Label Game (Bill Walsh, National Coordinator Healthy Building Network, June 29, 2006)
Fri, Jun 30 2006 12:59
| Toxicology
| Permalink
For manufacturers the object of the game is the marketing edge conferred by a label "certifying" that products meet a selective industry standard of sustainability. For consumers the challenge is sorting the green from the greenwash among the bewildering array of eco-labels.
The first thing you need to know to play the label game is that not all labels are alike.
Consensus Based Eco-Labeling Programs
The most reliable eco-labels for green building products are those that are developed through a consensus negotiation process: LEED for buildings; [2] Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) [3] for wood products; and, EneryStar® [4] for energy efficiency. These programs offer a seat at the table for all stakeholders. The time consuming consensus process may lag behind the leading edge of technology, and some of the least cooperative industrial players often dominate the process in terms of financial and human resources. But, the results represent progress.
Trade Association Greenwash Labels
The worst of the self-styled eco-labels and certifications are those promulgated by industry trade associations, such as the timber industry's SFI, the Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label and Green Label Plus, [5] and the Resilient Flooring Council's FloorScore. The selective "standards" represented by these labels are not negotiated in the public interest with legitimate stakeholders. They are one dimensional or least- common-denominator standards at best, and in some cases they undermine superior consensus standards.
Take the SFI label for wood. On the one hand the timber industry negotiates compromise standards with environmentalists during the FSC consensus process. But it also promotes a competing certification, SFI, which rewards some of the very practices not accepted by the FSC.
The industry sponsored labels are primarily marketing tools, heavily promoted and financed by marketing budgets of both trade associations and product manufacturers. These labels confuse consumers. In the label game, this is called a greenwash maneuver.
"Independent" Certification Labels
Adding to the confusion are the so-called independent certification organizations. To the pioneers in the certification industry, the green building movement owes a debt of gratitude for providing reliable information about products where none previously existed.
But times are changing. In a time of proliferating eco-labels, independent certifications such as GreenSeal, [6] GreenGuard, [7] and the Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) [8] are adding to market confusion by competing with each other in some areas, such as indoor air quality, while ignoring important concerns that industry resists. Many people assume that the "independents" establish high standards independently, triggering a race to the top for manufacturers. Wrong. Manufacturers play a critical role in establishing the standards used by these "independents," who are often financially dependent upon manufacturer revenues from product testing. Some manufacturers even have suggested that independent standards can be skewed to favor larger or long established clients.
Who Will Win the Label Game?
If current trends hold, consumers can expect to be confused by a bewildering array of industry sponsored eco-labels and certifications. This will stifle innovation and inhibit market transformation. If organizations like the USGBC hold the line and restrict LEED credits to truly independent standards or highly credible consensus-based certification standards, such as the FSC, the market will receive clear signals about future trends in green building and industry leaders will be rewarded. Then, we will all come out winners.
HEALTHY BUILDING NEWS SOURCES
[1] "The FloorScore program, developed by the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI) in conjunction with Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), tests and certifies flooring products for compliance with indoor air quality emission requirements adopted in California." http://www.rfci.com/int_FloorScore.htm
[2] "The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings." http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19
[3] "FSC is an international not-for-profit membership-based organization that brings people together to find solutions to the problems created by bad forestry practices and to reward good forest management." http://www.fsc.org/en/
[4] "ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices." http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index
[5] "The CRI Indoor Air Quality Carpet Testing Program green and white logo displayed on carpet samples in showrooms informs the consumer that the product type has been tested by an independent laboratory and has met the criteria for very low emissions." http://www.carpet-rug.com/drill_down_2.cfm?page=8⊂=6
[6] "Green Seal is an independent non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding the environment and transforming the marketplace by promoting the manufacture, purchase, ad use of environmentally responsible products and services." http://www.greenseal.org/
[7] "GEI [Greenguard Environmental Institute] is an industry independent, non-profit organization with mission to improve public health and the quality of life through programs that improve indoor air." http://www.greenguard.org/DesktopDefault.aspx
[8] "SCS is an internationally recognized independent certifier of environmental and food safety claims. Over two decades, SCS has developed standards and offered certification programs spanning a wide cross-section of the economy including agricultural production, forestry, fisheries, energy, consumer products, manufacturing and retailing, and the home improvement and construction sectors." http://www.scscertified.com
The first thing you need to know to play the label game is that not all labels are alike.
Consensus Based Eco-Labeling Programs
The most reliable eco-labels for green building products are those that are developed through a consensus negotiation process: LEED for buildings; [2] Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) [3] for wood products; and, EneryStar® [4] for energy efficiency. These programs offer a seat at the table for all stakeholders. The time consuming consensus process may lag behind the leading edge of technology, and some of the least cooperative industrial players often dominate the process in terms of financial and human resources. But, the results represent progress.
Trade Association Greenwash Labels
The worst of the self-styled eco-labels and certifications are those promulgated by industry trade associations, such as the timber industry's SFI, the Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label and Green Label Plus, [5] and the Resilient Flooring Council's FloorScore. The selective "standards" represented by these labels are not negotiated in the public interest with legitimate stakeholders. They are one dimensional or least- common-denominator standards at best, and in some cases they undermine superior consensus standards.
Take the SFI label for wood. On the one hand the timber industry negotiates compromise standards with environmentalists during the FSC consensus process. But it also promotes a competing certification, SFI, which rewards some of the very practices not accepted by the FSC.
The industry sponsored labels are primarily marketing tools, heavily promoted and financed by marketing budgets of both trade associations and product manufacturers. These labels confuse consumers. In the label game, this is called a greenwash maneuver.
"Independent" Certification Labels
Adding to the confusion are the so-called independent certification organizations. To the pioneers in the certification industry, the green building movement owes a debt of gratitude for providing reliable information about products where none previously existed.
But times are changing. In a time of proliferating eco-labels, independent certifications such as GreenSeal, [6] GreenGuard, [7] and the Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) [8] are adding to market confusion by competing with each other in some areas, such as indoor air quality, while ignoring important concerns that industry resists. Many people assume that the "independents" establish high standards independently, triggering a race to the top for manufacturers. Wrong. Manufacturers play a critical role in establishing the standards used by these "independents," who are often financially dependent upon manufacturer revenues from product testing. Some manufacturers even have suggested that independent standards can be skewed to favor larger or long established clients.
Who Will Win the Label Game?
If current trends hold, consumers can expect to be confused by a bewildering array of industry sponsored eco-labels and certifications. This will stifle innovation and inhibit market transformation. If organizations like the USGBC hold the line and restrict LEED credits to truly independent standards or highly credible consensus-based certification standards, such as the FSC, the market will receive clear signals about future trends in green building and industry leaders will be rewarded. Then, we will all come out winners.
HEALTHY BUILDING NEWS SOURCES
[1] "The FloorScore program, developed by the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI) in conjunction with Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), tests and certifies flooring products for compliance with indoor air quality emission requirements adopted in California." http://www.rfci.com/int_FloorScore.htm
[2] "The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings." http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19
[3] "FSC is an international not-for-profit membership-based organization that brings people together to find solutions to the problems created by bad forestry practices and to reward good forest management." http://www.fsc.org/en/
[4] "ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices." http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index
[5] "The CRI Indoor Air Quality Carpet Testing Program green and white logo displayed on carpet samples in showrooms informs the consumer that the product type has been tested by an independent laboratory and has met the criteria for very low emissions." http://www.carpet-rug.com/drill_down_2.cfm?page=8⊂=6
[6] "Green Seal is an independent non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding the environment and transforming the marketplace by promoting the manufacture, purchase, ad use of environmentally responsible products and services." http://www.greenseal.org/
[7] "GEI [Greenguard Environmental Institute] is an industry independent, non-profit organization with mission to improve public health and the quality of life through programs that improve indoor air." http://www.greenguard.org/DesktopDefault.aspx
[8] "SCS is an internationally recognized independent certifier of environmental and food safety claims. Over two decades, SCS has developed standards and offered certification programs spanning a wide cross-section of the economy including agricultural production, forestry, fisheries, energy, consumer products, manufacturing and retailing, and the home improvement and construction sectors." http://www.scscertified.com
Acrylamides in chips, fries pies, breads, pizza, cookies and other foods which have been heated or rosted till brown
Thu, Jun 22 2006 05:08
| Toxicology
| Permalink
The problem was traced back to chemical run off from a tunnel construction site that had contaminated the water they were drinking with an obscure chemical called acrylamide. Worried health officials tested the construction workers to make sure they hadn’t been poisoned as well. Not knowing what ‘normal levels’ of acrylamide were they also tested a control group of unexposed individuals.
They thought the control group was unexposed to this poison but testing turned up substantial amounts of acrylamide in their blood. Careful detective work showed that they were consuming acrylamide in their food, not as a contaminant, but as a natural product formed during cooking. This is what Swedish researchers told the world four years ago.
When food is cooked it turns brown; food science buffs will explain to you that the browning is caused by chemical reactions called Maillard Browning Reactions. Various amino acids combine with the sugars and starches in the food when heated can produce brown colors and release flavors. This is why cooked, and especially baked or fried starches taste more interesting than boiled starches. One particular browning reaction, one in which the amino acid asparagine combines with glucose or fructose happens to produce acrylamide. This is common. Think any baked pastry: pies, breads, pizza, cookies. Think any fried starch: battered foods, chips and especially fries. Think foods roasted till brown: chocolate, teas and coffee. Think about just any food that’s heated to develop flavors and you’ve identified a dietary source of acrylamides.
This is bad news because acrylamide is a neurotoxin and carcinogen; it causes a list of nasty cancers at least in lab animals. Exactly how toxic it is we don’t know: the studies are still being done. Up until the Swedish announcement no one worried much about acrylamide; it was just another nasty industrial chemical that we dumped in the world but which people weren’t heavily exposed to.
Now that we know that we are all eating it daily, scientists are trying to figure out just how bad it is. Studies should be completed in the next few years. People eat 1 microgram of acrylamide per kilo bodyweight per day on average. In a rat, 300 times that dose will cause a 10% increase in breast cancer. Above average eaters can easily eat 1/75th of the carcinogenic dose. In the world of food safety, that is a narrow safety margin. Scientists worry a lot about eating barbecued meats but most people eat only 1/10,000th and 1/25,000th of the carcinogenic dose of polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
If acrylamides turn about to be as toxic as early estimates suggest, we are cutting it real close.
Acrylamide depletes glutathione from the body. Glutathione is the chemical the body makes in order to protect our cells from oxidative damage caused by free radical molecules. Without glutathione we have no way to protect our cells and especially their DNA.
So one reason to eat less processed foods and more foods in its natural form.
They thought the control group was unexposed to this poison but testing turned up substantial amounts of acrylamide in their blood. Careful detective work showed that they were consuming acrylamide in their food, not as a contaminant, but as a natural product formed during cooking. This is what Swedish researchers told the world four years ago.
When food is cooked it turns brown; food science buffs will explain to you that the browning is caused by chemical reactions called Maillard Browning Reactions. Various amino acids combine with the sugars and starches in the food when heated can produce brown colors and release flavors. This is why cooked, and especially baked or fried starches taste more interesting than boiled starches. One particular browning reaction, one in which the amino acid asparagine combines with glucose or fructose happens to produce acrylamide. This is common. Think any baked pastry: pies, breads, pizza, cookies. Think any fried starch: battered foods, chips and especially fries. Think foods roasted till brown: chocolate, teas and coffee. Think about just any food that’s heated to develop flavors and you’ve identified a dietary source of acrylamides.
This is bad news because acrylamide is a neurotoxin and carcinogen; it causes a list of nasty cancers at least in lab animals. Exactly how toxic it is we don’t know: the studies are still being done. Up until the Swedish announcement no one worried much about acrylamide; it was just another nasty industrial chemical that we dumped in the world but which people weren’t heavily exposed to.
Now that we know that we are all eating it daily, scientists are trying to figure out just how bad it is. Studies should be completed in the next few years. People eat 1 microgram of acrylamide per kilo bodyweight per day on average. In a rat, 300 times that dose will cause a 10% increase in breast cancer. Above average eaters can easily eat 1/75th of the carcinogenic dose. In the world of food safety, that is a narrow safety margin. Scientists worry a lot about eating barbecued meats but most people eat only 1/10,000th and 1/25,000th of the carcinogenic dose of polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
If acrylamides turn about to be as toxic as early estimates suggest, we are cutting it real close.
Acrylamide depletes glutathione from the body. Glutathione is the chemical the body makes in order to protect our cells from oxidative damage caused by free radical molecules. Without glutathione we have no way to protect our cells and especially their DNA.
So one reason to eat less processed foods and more foods in its natural form.
Manufactured Housing: Blessing or Curse For Katrina Survivors? (Jim Vallette, for the Healthy Building Network, January 23, 2006)
Thu, Jan 26 2006 12:52
| Toxicology
| Permalink
In 2003, billionaire Warren Buffett paid $1.7 billion for Clayton Homes, the nation's largest manufactured and modular home producer. [3] After Katrina hit, Clayton Homes landed $69 million in FEMA contracts and ramped up production at its 36 plants across the country. [4] By the end of 2006, the manufactured housing industry projects it could deliver up to 90,000 buildings to the region, totaling nearly one-third of projected single family home construction, worth about $3 billion in sales. [5]
The efficiencies offered by factory construction carry high potential for manufactured homes to be green buildings. Green Tech Housing, based in Worcester, Massachusetts, is committed to sustainable design, offering modular homes that boast: 60 percent less energy use, 50 percent fewer air pollutants, 40 percent improved indoor air quality, and 10 percent less water use. [6] Regional innovators have developed sustainable models for both temporary and permanent manufactured structures in the Gulf States, such as the GoHomes and GroHomes design by Pliny Fisk of the Austin-based Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems [7], and the GreenMobile, by architect Michael Berk of Mississippi State University. [8]
Run-of-the-mill manufactured houses rarely employ green building principles, and have a greater likelihood of becoming sick buildings. Despite regulatory restrictions imposed in the 80s on formaldehyde content in building materials, unsafe levels of formaldehyde, a respiratory irritant and probable human carcinogen, continue to be a hazard in manufactured housing due to its use in particleboard, vinyl flooring, fiberglass, insulation and paint. [9]
According to a respected federal lab, vinyl poses particular problems in the hot, humid South related to moisture damage, which causes mold and mildew growth. [10] One survey estimates that 61 percent of manufactured houses have vinyl exterior siding, compared to 22 percent of conventional homes. [11]
Clayton Homes lists among its suppliers Shaw Contract, whose EcoWorx carpet is the industry's first PVC-free product and Johns-Manville, which phased-out formaldehyde from its insulation products in 2002. [12] Those companies along with Benjamin Moore & Co, whose respected Eco-Spec line of paints earns the Green Seal and GreenGuard certification, are all owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway.
The pieces may be falling into place for a green transformation of the manufactured housing market. Berkshire Hathaway has green-lighted investments in green building materials. The economies of scale provided by post-hurricane reconstruction provide an unprecedented opportunity to finance the necessary retooling. Clayton Homes' Vice President of Marketing, Chris Nicely, told HBN that he would welcome a dialogue with the green building community, finding it to be consistent with a corporate culture that is always looking for new ways to improve environmental quality of their product.
If, as one industry spokesman insists, manufacturers are "not focusing on the economic impact … from the perspective of a boon for the industry" and are prepared to "[do] what they can to help," [13] then there is no reason not to help resettle Katrina victims into healthier homes.
The efficiencies offered by factory construction carry high potential for manufactured homes to be green buildings. Green Tech Housing, based in Worcester, Massachusetts, is committed to sustainable design, offering modular homes that boast: 60 percent less energy use, 50 percent fewer air pollutants, 40 percent improved indoor air quality, and 10 percent less water use. [6] Regional innovators have developed sustainable models for both temporary and permanent manufactured structures in the Gulf States, such as the GoHomes and GroHomes design by Pliny Fisk of the Austin-based Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems [7], and the GreenMobile, by architect Michael Berk of Mississippi State University. [8]
Run-of-the-mill manufactured houses rarely employ green building principles, and have a greater likelihood of becoming sick buildings. Despite regulatory restrictions imposed in the 80s on formaldehyde content in building materials, unsafe levels of formaldehyde, a respiratory irritant and probable human carcinogen, continue to be a hazard in manufactured housing due to its use in particleboard, vinyl flooring, fiberglass, insulation and paint. [9]
According to a respected federal lab, vinyl poses particular problems in the hot, humid South related to moisture damage, which causes mold and mildew growth. [10] One survey estimates that 61 percent of manufactured houses have vinyl exterior siding, compared to 22 percent of conventional homes. [11]
Clayton Homes lists among its suppliers Shaw Contract, whose EcoWorx carpet is the industry's first PVC-free product and Johns-Manville, which phased-out formaldehyde from its insulation products in 2002. [12] Those companies along with Benjamin Moore & Co, whose respected Eco-Spec line of paints earns the Green Seal and GreenGuard certification, are all owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway.
The pieces may be falling into place for a green transformation of the manufactured housing market. Berkshire Hathaway has green-lighted investments in green building materials. The economies of scale provided by post-hurricane reconstruction provide an unprecedented opportunity to finance the necessary retooling. Clayton Homes' Vice President of Marketing, Chris Nicely, told HBN that he would welcome a dialogue with the green building community, finding it to be consistent with a corporate culture that is always looking for new ways to improve environmental quality of their product.
If, as one industry spokesman insists, manufacturers are "not focusing on the economic impact … from the perspective of a boon for the industry" and are prepared to "[do] what they can to help," [13] then there is no reason not to help resettle Katrina victims into healthier homes.
E.P.A. Seeks to Phase Out a Toxic Chemical (MICHAEL JANOFSKY, January 26, 2006)
Thu, Jan 26 2006 12:42
| Toxicology
| Permalink
DuPont immediately pledged to join the program, saying it had already reduced its PFOA manufacturing emissions by 94 percent and had developed new technologies that could reduce PFOA content in products by more than 97 percent. The other companies are expected to commit to the program as well. They are 3M/Dyneon, Arkema, Asahi, Ciba, Clariant, Daikin and Solvay Solexis.
PFOA makes high-performance plastics resistant to fire, grease and stains. Its presence may be best known in Teflon, made by DuPont, but it is also found in fabrics, leather, automobile parts, wire insulation and microwave popcorn bags.
Uncertainties still surround the way PFOA exposure affects humans, and as part of the new program, the companies will provide test data so that those questions can be explored.
"The science is still coming in, but the concern is there, so acting now to minimize future releases of PFOA is the right thing to do," said Susan B. Hazen, acting assistant administrator of the agency's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
PFOA makes high-performance plastics resistant to fire, grease and stains. Its presence may be best known in Teflon, made by DuPont, but it is also found in fabrics, leather, automobile parts, wire insulation and microwave popcorn bags.
Uncertainties still surround the way PFOA exposure affects humans, and as part of the new program, the companies will provide test data so that those questions can be explored.
"The science is still coming in, but the concern is there, so acting now to minimize future releases of PFOA is the right thing to do," said Susan B. Hazen, acting assistant administrator of the agency's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Dementia associated with toxic causes and autoimmune disease (Schofield P.)
Tue, Jan 17 2006 05:05
| Toxicology
| Permalink
Toxic causes of dementia include exposure to heavy metals such as lead, mercury and aluminum as well as to carbon monoxide and solvents. Autoimmune conditions include such entities as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behcet's disease and Sjogren's syndrome. These conditions share broadly similar cognitive effects giving rise to impairments with subcortical features. Individuals are often affected at a relatively young age. Optimal preventative strategies include avoidance of toxic substances. Comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is valuable not only diagnostically and for monitoring but also to identify the patients' strengths and weaknesses, so that compensatory strategies can be recommended.
Neuropsychiatry Service, Hunter Area Health and University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Peter.Schofield@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
Neuropsychiatry Service, Hunter Area Health and University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Peter.Schofield@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
Finding the source of mold requires meticulous search (Jay Romano, 11/23/05)
Wed, Nov 23 2005 07:10
| Toxicology
| Permalink
So how do you know if you have mold in your house, and what do you do if you do? "Not all mold is the same, and different people respond to mold differently," said Dr. Eckhardt Johanning, an occupational and environmental physician with offices in Albany, N.Y., and Manhattan.
Johanning said that while some people may have no reaction to mold spores inside a home, those who are sensitive to mold can have allergic reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening. "People with asthma, allergies, lung problems and immune-system dysfunction are usually more inclined to experience problems when they're exposed to mold," he said.
Jeffrey C. May, principal scientist for May Indoor Air Investigations in Cambridge, Mass., said that a first sign of mold is an allergic reaction that occurs only inside the house. "If someone feels better when they're away from the house, there's probably something wrong with the house," May said. "If you smell a musty odor, you probably have mold."
Another way to determine the presence of mold is to use a home-test kit sold in stores and on the Internet for less than $50. Most kits designed for homeowners, May said, use petri dishes with a growing medium to capture mold spores. After being exposed to air inside the home for a period of time, the petri dish is returned to the manufacturer, which then determines the type and quantity of any mold spores present.
"Home test kits might be good for preliminary screening," May said. "But they can't tell you the source of the mold."
Since mold often grows in areas that make visual inspection impossible, he said, other strategies must be used. "One way to find out if mold is growing inside a wall is to make some kind of hole," he said, adding that in many cases, he will test for mold spores by pulling air out of electrical switches and outlet boxes.
"I'll collect the dust particles on sticky tape and examine it under a microscope," May said. Another way is to pinpoint the source of any musty odor. "Ordinarily, it's impossible to tell where a musty odor is coming from," he said. "But I use a simple trick. I put a fan in a window to pull air out of the room; I seal up the room and then I crawl around on my hands and knees and sniff at every crack I can find."
Edward Olmsted, an industrial hygienist in Garrison, N.Y., said that while taking air samples is one way to address the problem, he uses another technique. "For me, the best way is to look for moisture," he said, explaining that he uses a moisture meter and visual inspection to detect the presence of moisture in walls, floors and ceilings. "Once I've found a place that looks like it has had some water damage, that's where I'll look for mold."
Olmsted noted that identifying the location is only the first step. In most cases, he said, it is necessary to open the area and remove and replace any wallboard or insulation that has mold.
And while it is often said that washing down a moldy surface with a bleach solution will remove the mold, doing so typically will not work on porous surfaces like wallboard and wood. "You might be killing the spores that are there," he said, "but in most cases the mold will grow right back."
In fact, he said, the only sure way to eliminate a mold problem is to eliminate the moisture causing it.
"Mold is like a factory that produces billions of spores," he said.
"The factory runs only when moisture is available. Eliminate the moisture, and you shut down the factory."
Johanning said that while some people may have no reaction to mold spores inside a home, those who are sensitive to mold can have allergic reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening. "People with asthma, allergies, lung problems and immune-system dysfunction are usually more inclined to experience problems when they're exposed to mold," he said.
Jeffrey C. May, principal scientist for May Indoor Air Investigations in Cambridge, Mass., said that a first sign of mold is an allergic reaction that occurs only inside the house. "If someone feels better when they're away from the house, there's probably something wrong with the house," May said. "If you smell a musty odor, you probably have mold."
Another way to determine the presence of mold is to use a home-test kit sold in stores and on the Internet for less than $50. Most kits designed for homeowners, May said, use petri dishes with a growing medium to capture mold spores. After being exposed to air inside the home for a period of time, the petri dish is returned to the manufacturer, which then determines the type and quantity of any mold spores present.
"Home test kits might be good for preliminary screening," May said. "But they can't tell you the source of the mold."
Since mold often grows in areas that make visual inspection impossible, he said, other strategies must be used. "One way to find out if mold is growing inside a wall is to make some kind of hole," he said, adding that in many cases, he will test for mold spores by pulling air out of electrical switches and outlet boxes.
"I'll collect the dust particles on sticky tape and examine it under a microscope," May said. Another way is to pinpoint the source of any musty odor. "Ordinarily, it's impossible to tell where a musty odor is coming from," he said. "But I use a simple trick. I put a fan in a window to pull air out of the room; I seal up the room and then I crawl around on my hands and knees and sniff at every crack I can find."
Edward Olmsted, an industrial hygienist in Garrison, N.Y., said that while taking air samples is one way to address the problem, he uses another technique. "For me, the best way is to look for moisture," he said, explaining that he uses a moisture meter and visual inspection to detect the presence of moisture in walls, floors and ceilings. "Once I've found a place that looks like it has had some water damage, that's where I'll look for mold."
Olmsted noted that identifying the location is only the first step. In most cases, he said, it is necessary to open the area and remove and replace any wallboard or insulation that has mold.
And while it is often said that washing down a moldy surface with a bleach solution will remove the mold, doing so typically will not work on porous surfaces like wallboard and wood. "You might be killing the spores that are there," he said, "but in most cases the mold will grow right back."
In fact, he said, the only sure way to eliminate a mold problem is to eliminate the moisture causing it.
"Mold is like a factory that produces billions of spores," he said.
"The factory runs only when moisture is available. Eliminate the moisture, and you shut down the factory."
Leukemia risks for children living near power lines increased
Sun, Sep 18 2005 03:07
| Toxicology
| Permalink
Researchers compared more than 29,000 cases of cancer in children -- about a third of whom had leukemia -- with a group of healthy kids in England and Wales. Measuring the distance from power lines -- not magnetic fields emitted from power lines or other sources -- the potential odds of your youngster being stricken with leukemia is indeed astonishing:
• Kids living with 200 meters (some 650 feet) of power lines were some 70 percent more likely to develop leukemia than those living beyond 600 meters (almost 2,000 feet).
• Children who live anywhere between 200-600 meters away from power lines increased their odds of succumbing to leukemia by about 20 percent.
The lead researcher pointed out, based on previous studies, he would be leery of moving into a home where there were electromagnetic field exposures at or higher than 0.4 µT (Micro Tesla, the unit of measurement used to calculate magnetic fields, µT).
• Kids living with 200 meters (some 650 feet) of power lines were some 70 percent more likely to develop leukemia than those living beyond 600 meters (almost 2,000 feet).
• Children who live anywhere between 200-600 meters away from power lines increased their odds of succumbing to leukemia by about 20 percent.
The lead researcher pointed out, based on previous studies, he would be leery of moving into a home where there were electromagnetic field exposures at or higher than 0.4 µT (Micro Tesla, the unit of measurement used to calculate magnetic fields, µT).
