TIP TALKS

 

The Newsletter of the Toxics Information Project (TIP)

 

  AUTUMN 2007

*********************************************************************************************************

 

COOPERATION WITH OTHERS - KEY TO PROGRESS

 

LEGISLATIVE FOLLOW-UP:  It is regrettable that we did not get the strong RI legislation we sought on indoor air quality requirements or school lawn pesticide restrictions in 2006-2007.  Nevertheless, we are taking the opportunity to follow up on the small steps that were taken, providing information and suggestions to those carrying out the following:

 

2006 Senate Resolution on Green Cleaning.  Bev Migliore at RI DEM, is seeking less toxic cleaning in public buildings, including the State House.  She is also working with the RI Chemical Safe Schools Committee.  Since 2005, the group has seen 400 chemicals successfully banned, and held a seminar for the schools.  Recently, they’ve begun a project to implement green cleaning in RI schools.  I will attend their next meeting, and hope to help with this goal.  I have already been sharing green resources and information through Bev.  Assistance has been provided by Jim Woulfe of Simplex Janitorial Services and Carol Westinghouse, whose Vermont-based Cleaning for Health unit of Inform, Inc. has a grant to do some work in RI in the coming year. 

 

2007 School Lawn Pesticide Bill, S560 Sub A3.  Liz Lopes Duguay, RIDEM Dept. of Agriculture pesticide specialist, is pulling together a group to work on the bill’s required school pesticide report, including a representative from DOH, pediatrician, and others, to meet in a few weeks.  Stay tuned for developments

 

IN THE WORKS FOR 2008:  A newly renewed focus on children and such conditions as asthma and autism.

A continuation of our successful Less Toxic Landscaping Campaign.

 

Kids & Toxics Information Exchange.  We will be starting this out with a major outreach effort, talking and listening to people, including health care and school professionals, parents and others, then will craft our actions and activities to answer the questions and needs we find.  This will help us to learn how folks are thinking and what they already know about toxics in everyday life.  Although we feel we have some wonderful informational materials, both on our website and as other handouts, the idea is to focus more effectively on the specific kind of approach and topics that will speak to individuals with different concerns and knowledge.

 

Less Toxic Landscaping Campaign -

 

A.   LTL Resource Directory.  We are hoping to produce an updated 2008 Directory with additional listings.  We’ll be sending out a survey to currently listed resources, and seeking more  - please let us know of any good, organic-friendly landscaping or gardening people in RI or nearby!

 

B.   Workshop Plans:  Inspired by the solar greenhouse design of my husband, Paul Klinkman, (patent in process, working on getting an experimental model up by mid-November), I am considering having one 2008 LTL workshop in two parts:

 

1.  For homeowners and gardeners:  Focus on winter gardening, including house plants and early starters for later outside planting.  (Organic, of course).

2.  For commercial and professional nursery  people and farmers:  Greenhouse gardening organically.

 

2007 FINALES:  Our long-awaited presentation on Environmental Factors & Breast Cancer Risk is scheduled Oct. 29 - see flyer next page to copy and distribute widely.   We are seeking a place to hold a TIP 5th Anniversary Party in November for members and supporters, at which we can also offer the opportunity for renewals and donations!  We need your encouragement and assistance to do our important work!

 

Blessings,

 

Liberty Goodwin, TIP Director

 

SAVE THE DATE:  MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2007

 

An Ounce of Prevention Could Help Save Your Health & Life

 

                                                                         

 

ERIN BOLES, MSW, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

MASSACHUSETTS BREAST CANCER COALITION (MBCC)

 

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

& BREAST CANCER RISK:


Are Chemicals in Common, Everyday Products Linked to Breast Cancer?

 

Monday, October 29, 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

University of Rhode Island. Kingston Campus

Memorial Union, Atrium One

 

A presentation provided by the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition (MBCC), in partnership with the Rhode Island Breast Cancer Coalition (RIBCC).   Co-Sponsors of the event include:  Toxics Information Project (TIP), URI Women's Center and URI Women’s Studies Department.   A reception will follow the talk, with further opportunity for questions/discussion.

 


With seventy percent of breast cancer diagnoses left unexplained by family history or other lifestyle factors, this presentation explores the question, "What is fueling the breast cancer epidemic?"  The discussion will focus on whether the dramatic and unnaturally high breast cancer rate is linked to chemicals found in common, everyday products such as household cleaners, pesticides and personal care products.  A practical guide to reducing risk in your own home by selecting safer household products and remedies will conclude the presentation. 

 

CONTACTS FOR TOPIC & EVENT INFORMATION:

 

Erin Boles, MBCC, (617) 376-6222, eboles@mbcc.org, Website:  www.mbcc.org.

Liberty Goodwin, TIP Director, 401-351-9193, liberty@toxicsinfo.org, www.toxicsinfo.org 

Marlene McCarthy, Chair, RIBCC, 401-822-7984,  ribcc@aol.com

Carolyn Sovet, Director, URI Women's Center, 401-874-5412, sovet@uri.edu,

 

For an article on this subject at the TIP website, go to:

www.toxicsinfo.org/healthconnections/umassstudy.htm

 

******************************************************************************************************************************************

 

CANARY CORNER

 

CAN COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOTS BE CANARIES?

(Well, they do fly - and they are fuming!)

 

The Sunday Telegraph, UK, June 24,2007, By Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph

 

Pilots Disabled By Poisoned Air

 

Air supply in many airline cockpits and cabins is bled off from their engines, where it becomes contaminated with a cocktail of chemicals.  www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/24/nbook124.xml

 

A few years back Susan Michaelis, Tristan Loraine and John Hoyte were successful airline pilots, earning up to £100,000 a year.  Last Monday, with health and livelihood destroyed, they joined forces with some 20 other similarly disabled pilots, to launch a campaign to alert the public to what should be seen as one of the most alarming scandals of our time. Yet two days later came further evidence of how the regulatory authorities, in alliance with the airline industry itself, have stopped at nothing to cover up a health disaster whose financial costs for the industry could run to many billions.

 

The essence of the problem is that the air supply to the cockpits and  cabins of many modern airliners is bled off from their engines, where it becomes contaminated with carcinogens, immuno-suppressants and highly toxic organo-phosphorus (OP) chemicals, especially a compound known as tricresyl phosphate (TCP) used as an anti-wear additive. Both crew and passengers are thus exposed to small amounts of OPs and a cocktail of other nasties.  OPs, more commonly used as pesticides, cumulatively attack the nervous system, causing disorders ranging from nausea, headaches and dizziness to, eventually, serious mental and physical breakdown.

 

Although this problem was first identified 30 years ago, following a near-fatal incident in the US, it was kept so quiet that when hundreds of pilots in the 1980s began to experience adverse reactions they had no idea why. One of the first to track down the cause was Susan Michaelis, flying BA146s in Australia, when in 1997 she was permanently grounded by severe illness. Two years later, at her instigation, an official inquiry by the Australian Senate heard enough expert evidence to confirm that the cause of so many pilots and cabin crew suffering ill-health was contamination of cabin air by TCP and other chemicals.

 

In 2001, the cause was taken up in Britain by Captain Loraine, a senior member of the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA), who flew Boeing 757s.  But from the industry and regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), they met with a wall of denials. Although more pilots were suffering from "aerotoxic syndrome" every year, there began a cover-up which uncannily parallelled the methods used by government in the 1990s when the health of thousands of farmers was destroyed by OPs in sheep dip.

 

Ironically, in 2005, just after he had organized a BALPA conference of leading scientists and other experts from all over the world, Captain Loraine himself became seriously affected. Initially doctors for his airline saw no reason why he should not continue flying, but in 2006, following further exposure to contaminated air, he was permanently grounded by the CAA.  The career of Captain Hoyte, an experienced BA146 pilot, ended the same year for the same reason, although he was repeatedly told by doctors for his airline and the CAA that his only problem was "stress".

 

Tests run on both pilots by the leading medical experts on OP poisoning, including Professor Mohamed Abou-Donia, of Duke University, North Carolina, and neuropsychologist Dr Sarah Mackenzie-Ross of University College, London, confirmed brain cell death, cognitive problems and exposure to TCP, explaining why both had become textbook cases of OP-induced chronic neurotoxicity.

 

Dr Mackenzie-Ross, who since 2003 has been carrying out an extensive study of sheep farmers and airline pilots, has estimated that, in 2004,197,000 airline passengers in Britain alone could have been exposed to contaminated fumes.  The evidence suggests that a great many people have been made ill while flying without having any idea why.  One of the scientists studying this problem, Professor Chris van Netten, a Canadian epidemiologist, has analyzed swabs taken from many different airliners, finding traces of TCP in more than 80 per cent of the aircraft tested.

 

Yet, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence, the regulators and the industry have continued to deny that the TCP problem exists.  For three years now, as with the sheep farmers before, the British Government has relied on its Committee on Toxicity (CoT) to conduct a seemingly interminable investigation into "cabin air quality", marked by a conspicuous reluctance to address the problem of TCP.

 

Last week, Michaelis, Loraine and Hoyte joined forces at Portcullis House, Westminster, to launch the Aerotoxic Association, backed by 110 MPs and many peers, including those veterans of the battle to expose the scandal of OP poisoning, the Countess of Mar and Lord (Paul) Tyler. On Wednesday, however, the CoT produced the minutes of yet another of its meetings.  As official obfuscation, they were almost self-parodic. They referred to BALPA submitting "data relating to organo-phosphates", but this was the only reference to OPs in the document.  The remaining 20 pages, dealing with anything from carbon monoxide to the need to review pilot-training procedures, showed that the committee had no interest in whether airline crews and passengers were being poisoned by TCP from engine oil.  It is high time this particular cover-up was blown wide open.

 

*****************************************************************************************

 

AFTERWORD FROM A TOXICOLOGIST

 

(Sent by Nancy Alderman of Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) North Haven, CT,

Tel. 203-248-6582 http://www.ehhi.org who provided the original article)

David Brown, Sc.D, writes in response to the article that was sent about airlines' toxic air exposures both in

the cockpit and the cabins. A quote from the article is below and David Brown's comments follow the quote.

 

        From the article:  "The essence of the problem is that the air supply to the cockpits and cabins of many modern airliners is bled off from their engines, where it becomes contaminated with carcinogens, immunosuppressants and highly toxic organo-phosphorus (OP) chemicals, especially a compound known as tricresyl phosphate (TCP)"

 

        David Brown's comments:  TCP poisoning is a classic chemical used in the education of toxicologists for the past 50 years.  It is a delayed neurotoxicant with an interesting set of actions.  It was first discovered during prohibition when a chemical called Jamaica Ginger was used to flavor bootleg whiskey.  It produced an action on the long nerves of the legs and arms called 'dying back paralysis'.  The disease started with a slow shuffling gait beginning several weeks after the exposures.  There is actually a Blues song called the "The Ginger Jake Shakes". TCP was used to extract the flavor from the ginger root.  I have a bottle, now empty, from the factory in Boston that did the extraction.

 

It next appeared when TCP interacted with some of the relatively low toxicity pesticides such as Malathion where it increased its toxicity 1000 times from roughly 140-200 mg/kg body weight to 0.5 or less. The action was detected in water Buffalo in Egypt and in farmers there.

 

The disease next appeared on the on Navy Aircraft carriers where TCP was used as a hydraulic fluid for elevators that brought the fighter airplanes up to the flight deck, because it is nonflammable. The hoses would break and the sailors became exposed to TCP from inhalation and dermal contact.

 

I am not surprised at this observation because TCP is doing what it has always done.  The question is, "How does such a chemical with well known delayed actions from chronic exposures continue to be involved in human exposures?".   I suppose that Mark Cullen can answer that for us.

 

David Brown

 

TAP WATER:  TO DRINK OR NOT TO DRINK?

 

The recent DC Tap Water report revealed that tap water samples in the Washington, DC area contained toxic chlorination by-products at levels above federal health limits.  An average reader might read that and run to the local Safeway or Piggly Wiggly to stock up on bottled water. But you're smarter than that.  You probably even already know there's a cheaper, more environmentally-friendly way to dramatically lower levels of these toxic byproducts: carbon filtration. In fact, it's 10 to 20 times less expensive than bottled water ($100 vs. nearly $2,000 annually) AND it doesn't produce the waste and pollution bottled water does. Carbon filtration could be a countertop pitcher, a faucet-mount, an under-sink model, or a whole-house model.   So make the smart choice: pass up bottled water. Get a carbon filter instead.

 

Chlorine Pollutants at High Levels in DC Tap Water

 

New tests find high levels of hazardous chlorination byproducts in D.C. tap water

 

Published July 19, 2007

 

In spite of the best efforts of the Washington Aqueduct to provide quality drinking water to the District of Columbia, tap water tests from May, 2007 revealed toxic by-products of the chemicals used to purify Potomac River water, at levels above annual federal health limits.  These results illustrate the tremendous difficulties that water utilities face when trying to provide tap water that is free of potentially deadly bacteria and pathogens, yet not contaminated with toxic by-products of the chemicals used to kill these same microbes.  This problem is particularly acute when utilities draw water from poorly protected water sources like the Potomac River.  As recently reported in the Washington Post, the Potomac may not even be suitable for swimming; turning this water into safe drinking water is a serious public health challenge.

 

Based on these test results the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is recommending carbon filtration for all 1.1 million consumers of tap water from the Washington Aqueduct in Washington DC and northern Virginia. Carbon filtration of tap water will dramatically lower levels of toxic disinfection byproducts; it is also 10 to 20 times less expensive than bottled water, and does not produce the waste and pollution associated with the packaging and transport of bottled water.  EWG collected tap water samples in May, 2007, from 18 locations across Washington D.C., including the U.S. Capitol, EPA headquarters, parks, schools, and residences of pregnant women and other groups susceptible to health harms from exposures to disinfection byproducts. We commissioned tests from an accredited lab for two classes of disinfection byproducts — trihalomethanes, or THMs, and haloacetic acids, or HAAs. The laboratory analyses found:

 

 

Benefits of water disinfection come at a price. Chlorination of tap water is one of the greatest public health improvements of the last 100 years, vastly reducing deaths from water-borne diseases. But chlorination produces disinfection byproducts (DBPs) like THMs and HAAs that are themselves potentially harmful. Because of the recognized health risks of the byproducts, in particular THMs, many utilities, including the Washington Aqueduct, have switched from treatment using so-called free chlorine to compounds called chloramines, which tend to produce lower levels of the handful of disinfection byproducts for which EPA has set legal limits, including THMs and HAAs. But because chloramines are not as effective at disinfection as free chlorine, the Aqueduct, like other utilities that use chloramine, periodically switches back to chlorine.

This so-called "chlorine burn" removes sludge and sediment from the pipes, but also temporarily raises the level of disinfection byproducts. This year the utility's chlorine burn was conducted between April 7 and May 7. While chloramines appear to help lower THM levels, they also produce an entirely different set of byproducts, including the HAAs and other byproducts, for which we have less information about long-term human health effects. A recent EPA study found that water treated with chloramines had the highest levels of iodacetic acid, a byproduct that in animal studies has been found toxic to cells and DNA. In general however, the long-term public health consequences of exposure to chloramines and chloramines byproducts is poorly understood.  What is known about HAAs, however, raises concerns. EPA classifies HAAs as possible human carcinogens, and peer-reviewed studies have identified adverse reproductive and developmental effects, and the ability to damage DNA. The state of Oregon has warned that long term exposure to HAAs at levels equal to those found in DC tap water could cause injury to the brain, nervous system, the eyes, and the reproductive system.

 

Disinfection byproducts are a bigger problem than these tests show.  EPA scientists have identified a total of 600 disinfection byproducts in tap water but EPA has set legal limits in tap water for only 11.  And these legal limits, such as those for HAAs and THMs, are established as a balance between health, treatment cost and feasibility.  This is a critical point for most consumers:  The legal limit, or MCL, is not intended to be a true safe exposure level.  For almost all contaminants in tap water, including those identified in this analysis, the MCL allows far more contamination than the truly safe level, or what EPA refers to as the public health goal.  In 1999, EPA strengthened the legal limit for THMs in tap water and set a first-time standard for HAAs due to these chemicals' potential links to cancer, birth defects, and other adverse health outcomes.  To comply with these tighter standards, DC Water and Sewer Authority began using chloramine as a disinfectant because of its known capacity to lower levels of the regulated byproducts.  This switch, which the utilities' water quality test reports show did indeed lower THM and HAA levels, also spurred some significant negative consequences: it likely created a complex, new suite of disinfection byproducts that are neither defined nor studied; and it contributed to elevated lead levels in tap water across the District, a problem that prompted additional manipulations in water chemistry by the utility that are still under study.

 

Protecting tap water at the source.   If the Potomac River were less polluted as it flowed into the utility's intake pipe, less chlorine and chloramines would be needed, and levels of disinfection byproducts would be lower as a result.  But government policies, in general, do little to advance this goal.  Instead, taxpayers pour billions of dollars into federal programs like farm subsidy payments that actually exacerbate pollution problems, and then pile on additional billions for water treatment facilities that try to clean it up. Very little is spent on more effective and efficient measures to protect rivers and streams from pollution in the first place.  Agriculture is the top source of pollution in the Potomac River watershed, but efforts to control agricultural pollution remain largely unfunded.  From 1999 through 2005, taxpayers spent five times more money subsidizing farmers in the Potomac River basin as they did on programs to control agricultural pollution - $287 million on subsidies compared to $57 million on conservation and pollution control.  Many farmers received no money at all.  In an era of tight federal budgets, political pressure to fully fund farmer subsidies almost always trumps whatever concerns might exist about controlling agricultural pollution.  In 2004 and 2005, 4,155 farmers in the Potomac watershed were denied funding for conservation and water quality projects due to lack of available funds.

 

Recommendations.  The findings presented here make a strong case for keeping sources of tap water clean before they require expensive and potentially harmful treatment with chlorine or chloramines.  But until such measures are in place and contaminant levels are dramatically reduced from current levels, EWG recommends that anyone drinking DC tap water use some form of carbon filtration designed to reduce levels of THM and HAAs.  In addition:

 

Source URL:  http://www.ewg.org/reports/dctapwater   Links:  [1] http://www.drinktap.org

MORE ON THE QUESTION OF PESKY LITTLE MICROBES FROM

OUR FRIENDS AT E/THE ENVIRONMENTAL MAGAZINE

*****************************************************************************

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that anti-bacterial soaps are no better at preventing infections than plain soaps and that they are actually harmful to the environment?

 

-- Avery Bicks, New York, NY

******************************************************************************************

 

University of Michigan researchers reviewed numerous studies conducted between 1980 and 2006 and concluded that antibacterial soaps that contain triclosan as the main active ingredient are no better at preventing infections than plain soaps. Further, the team argued that these antibacterial soaps could actually pose a health risk, because they may kill beneficial bacteria and also reduce the effectiveness of some common antibiotics, such as amoxicillin. 

 

The study was published in the August 2007 issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases.  These findings concur with earlier research conducted by Tufts University’s Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics.  The Tufts study concluded that overuse of triclosan could cause new strains of bacteria to develop, thus “changing the kind of bacteria in our houses to those that may actually be harmful or resistant to antibiotics…” said Tufts’ Dr. Stuart Levy.

 

According to the non-profit group Beyond Pesticides, laboratory studies have found a number of different strains of mutated bacteria that are resistant to triclosan and to certain antibiotics. The organization also cites reports of triclosan converting into a carcinogenic class of chemicals known as dioxins when exposed to water and ultraviolet radiation. Besides cancer, dioxins have been linked to weakening of the human immune system, decreased fertility, altered sex hormones and birth defects.

 

If antibacterial hand soap is not effective at reducing infections, consumers may wonder about whether alcohol-based hand sanitizers may do a better job. Combing through different studies on the topic yields mixed conclusions. According to one study conducted at Colorado State University, alcohol-based hand sanitizers were as much as twice as effective as either regular soap or antibacterial soap at reducing germs on human hands.  A Purdue University study, however, contradicts these findings, concluding that while alcohol-based hand sanitizers may kill more germs than plain or triclosan-based soaps, they do not prevent more infections that make people sick. Instead they may kill the human body’s own beneficial bacteria by stripping the skin of its outer layer of oil.

 

The best advice might just come from a study published in the journal Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation back in 1998, which concluded that washing hands thoroughly for 20 seconds or more with plain soap and warm water is by far the most effective way to reduce harmful bacteria, and as such remains our best defense against getting sick.

 

CONTACTS: Clinical Infectious Diseases; Tufts’ Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics; Beyond Pesticides

 

******************************************************************************************

 

FROM OUR GOOD FRIENDS AT ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP (EWG) -

HELP MAKE THEIR GREAT PERSONAL CARE PRODUCT DATABASE EVEN BETTER!

 

New Skin Deep Features:
User Reviews & Share a Product 

 

Now you can tell people what you think about your favorite -- and least favorite -- products in Skin Deep! Find your top lipstick or sunscreen, click "User Reviews and Comments," and log in to leave a review. You can also share products with friends by going to a product and clicking "Send This To A Friend" in the left-hand column.

 

Check it out in Skin Deep at: www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/index.php?nothanks=1


Leaf Blower Facts

www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/leafblow.htm#air

(Citizens for a Quieter Sacramento)

 

(TIP is most concerned with the fumes from these machines - see excerpt below)

 

Air Pollution From Leaf Blowers

 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) says air pollution costs our state billions of dollars annually in health care and crop and building damage. It irritates eyes and throats, harms lungs, and causes cancer and premature death (1), including sudden death from heart attacks. Ozone*, a gas, is Sacramento's worst air pollution problem (2), and we also have unhealthy levels of liquid and solid particulate matter (PM**) (3). Blowers, especially gasoline-powered, contribute to both of these. Emissions from the two-stroke combustion engine include PM as well as gaseous carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons (CO, NOx, and HC). Leaf blowers also raise (entrain) dust from the ground. And evaporative emissions of fuel occur during the refueling process, which sometimes spills gas on the operators, and from the fuel tank. Comparisons that exclude some of these could understate the problem.

 

Fine PM2.5 particles, which are man-made and do not occur in nature, evade the body's defense systems. According to the EPA and ARB they can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis or other lung disease, and reduce our ability to fight infections (4).  Leaf blower motors are inordinately large emitters of CO, NOx, HC, and PM according to a study conducted for the ARB (5). Two-stroke engine fuel is a gasoline-oil mixture, thus especially toxic. Particles from combustion are virtually all smaller than PM2.5. According to the Lung Association, a leaf blower causes as much smog as 17 cars.

 

 

Excerpts from “A Green Back To School”

By Tom Watson , Seattle Times, August 22, 2007 -

 

One way to reduce the environmental impact from back-to-school purchases is to buy less.  Last year's supplies, or a sibling's old supplies, will often do just fine.  When you do buy new back-to-school supplies, seek out safe, eco-friendly products. Here's an item-by-item guide:

 

Backpacks:  Many children's backpacks are made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC, or vinyl). Production and disposal of vinyl have been linked to cancer and reproductive disorders. Consider instead backpacks made from polyester or nylon. REI has a large selection.  To make even more of a green statement, try a hemp backpack. Now more widely available, these can easily be found by searching online.

 

Lunchboxes:  Vinyl also shows up in most soft insulated lunch boxes for kids. Two years ago, independent tests of vinyl lunch boxes found that a number of them contained high levels of lead. As a result, many manufacturers now have their products tested. If your child must have a vinyl lunchbox, buy only those labeled "lead-safe" or "lead-free."  The greenest approach: Avoid vinyl all together. Lunchboxes.com carries dozens of metal lunch boxes, including some you may remember fondly from your youth. Reusablebags.com stocks a number of alternative lunch totes and bags, including a few made from recycled plastic soda bottles.

Water bottles:  Unfortunately, many attractive, colored, reusable water bottles are made of polycarbonate plastic (most of these have the #7 recycling symbol on the bottom).  Bisphenol-A, a chemical that may disrupt behavioral development, could leach into liquids in polycarbonate bottles, says the Institute for Children's Environmental Health.  Select a reusable water bottle made of metal, or non-leaching plastics such as high density polyethylene (HDPE, #2) or low density polyethylene (LDPE, #4).  REI and Reusablebags.com offer many choices.

 

Binders and folders:  The vast majority of binders have covers made from  - guess what? - vinyl.  If possible, select polyethylene binders instead.  Often referred to on the label as "poly" binders, these usually weigh a little less and have no cover.  Also consider the Rebinder, an uncovered cardboard binder made from recycled paper by Sustainable Group, a Seattle company

 
******************************************************************************************************************************

USDA Pesticides in Food Report - Which Best to Buy Organic?

 

 

Pesticide Residues in Food: USDA Pesticide Data Program 2005

 

Healthier Homes and  Gardens May 2007 - Eating and Drinking Pesticides
 USDA's Annual Summary of Pesticides in Food and Water

 

 

The food we eat and the water we drink is often contaminated with pesticides. With a system of agriculture that relies heavily on the use of pesticides – herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides – it's not surprising that residues of these chemicals turn up in our food and water.  The most recent data released by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture  (USDA) provides a picture of the extent of pesticide contamination.  The 2005 Annual Summary of the Pesticide Data Program covers a variety of food, plus drinking water and, for the first time, bottled water.

 

 Fresh Fruits & Vegetables:  Insecticides, followed by fungicides, are the most common contaminants on fresh fruits and vegetables.  Apples had the highest rate of contamination with pesticides (or their breakdown products) detected in 98% of the samples.  Thirty-six different pesticides were detected on apples.  Lettuce came in second with a 94% contamination rate. Tests found 43 different pesticides on lettuce with up to 9 different pesticides being found on a single sample.  Among the other fruits and vegetables tested, it was common to find samples that contained three different pesticides: 11% of grapes, 24% of green beans, 14% of oranges, 13% of pears, and 22% of strawberries.  Although the insecticide DDT was banned in 1972, 1.2% of the total fruit and vegetable samples tested contained DDE, a DDT metabolite.  In fact, this residue of DDT was found in 14.7% of lettuce samples. Similarly, dieldrin – cancelled in 1974  – was found in 6.6% of winter squash samples and 1.3% of cantaloupe samples.  DDT and related insecticides persist a long  time in the environment and there is no way to control their presence in the soil. This USDA report accurately characterized these long-lasting chemicals as "environmental contaminants."

 

 Wheat & Soybeans:  The annual report also looked at wheat and soybeans.  Pesticides were detected in 22% of soybeans. The major contaminant was the insecticide chlorpyrifos, found on 15% of the samples.  For wheat samples, 75% were contaminated.  The standouts for wheat were the insecticides malathion found in 70% of the samples, and chlorpyrifos found in 23% of the samples.


Drinking Water:  The USDA tested drinking water from community water systems in 10 states.  All of these systems relied on surface water such as rivers and lakes.  Almost all of the detected chemicals were herbicides. The top two herbicides were atrazine and 2,4-D with atrazine found in 74% of drinking water samples and 2,4-D in 58% of the samples.   Unlike food, where pesticides are deliberately applied, water is contaminated indirectly from pesticide residues found in runoff, rain, and even air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the herbicide atrazine is the most frequently detected contaminant in both urban and agricultural streams across America, even though it is primarily used in agriculture.  Additionally, 2,4-D is widely used on both farms and lawns, and it is frequently detected in both agricultural and urban waterways.

 

Bottled Water:  For the first time, the USDA sampled bottled water, an increasingly popular beverage.  Pesticides were found in 16% percent of the samples.  Six different herbicides made up the bulk of those detections, with a single sample showing a fungicide.  Ninety different brands of bottled water were tested. The bottled water samples represented various sources of water: artesian, glacier, groundwater (wells), purified drinking water, and spring water.  At least one sample from each of these categories had a pesticide detection.


Milk & Cream:  Testing showed that 99% of both milk and heavy cream samples contained pesticide residues.  These dairy residues were all insecticides except for one fungicide.  Of current-use pesticides, the most frequently detected were the fungicide diphenylamine (92% milk/83% cream) and the insecticide cyhalothrin (21% milk/23% cream). Milk and cream were also contaminated with the long-banned insecticides DDT [DDE] (85% milk/87% cream) and dieldrin (23% milk/33% cream).

 

Cleaner Food And Water:  Reliance on pesticides to grow crops directly results in pesticide contamination on our food.  Pesticide use in both urban and agricultural areas results in pesticide contamination of drinking water sources. Instead, we should promote and support organic farming by pushing for funding to go towards research on organic methods and by buying organic food when we can. In our own homes and communities, we should work to reduce our reliance on pesticides. Fewer chemicals will mean less-contaminated food and cleaner water for all of us.                      

REFERENCES


U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service.  2006. Pesticide Data Program. Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2005. [174  pages]  http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/Summary2005.pdf


Gilliom, RJ et al. 2006.  The Quality of Our Nation's Waters – Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001.   U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291. [172 pages]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/pdf/circ1291.pdf

RELATED RESOURCES:  Environmental Working Group. 2006.  Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce. http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php  

AND
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, PO Box 1393, Eugene OR 97440-1393  

Ph. 541-344-5044 Fax 541-344-6923  info@pesticide.org

 

******************************************************************************************
BENEFITS OF GRASS-FED BEEF AND DAIRY
 
* Animals raised on factory farms are routinely fed genetically modified grains, slaughterhouse waste, chicken manure, and municipal garbage.
* Because ruminants have evolved to eat fibrous grasses (not starchy low fiber grain) they are more prone to disease when they are reared on a diet of grains rather than pasture and pasture forage.
* Compared to corn and grain-fed cattle, beef and dairy products from grass-fed animals have higher levels of vitamin E, beta-carotene, vitamin C, andomega-3 fatty acids
* The manure from pasture-fed animals is easily taken up by the soil as natural fertilizer. In factory farm feedlots, the animals are confined to such a small space, the manure collects and runs-off into area waterways, increasing algae and bacteria levels.

 

********************************************************************************************

FACTORY FARMS BLAMED FOR SPREAD OF BIRD FLU

  

Sunday 26 February 2006, by Geoffrey Lean, The Independent, UK

 

Factory farming and the international poultry trade are largely responsible for the spread of bird flu, and wild birds are being unfairly blamed for the disease, a new report says.  The report says the deadly H5N1 virus developed inside intensive poultry units in Asia and has proliferated through exports of live birds and the use of chicken droppings as fertilizer. Its publication by Grain, an agricultural pressure group, follows an announcement that the virus has been found in a turkey farm in eastern France. Though the farm was close to where two infected wild ducks were found, all its 11,000 turkeys were kept indoors with no contact with wild birds.

Dissident scientists accept that the flu began in wild birds, but say it developed in the cramped conditions of Asian factory farms.  Research published in the official journal of the US National Academy of Sciences blames the poultry trade for the virus spreading from China to Vietnam.  BirdLife, a charity, says the virus's spread across Russia last summer - widely attributed to migrating birds - took place when birds were molting and unable to fly. It adds that an outbreak in Nigeria took place on a factory farm far from migratory routes.

********************************************************************************************

TIP TALKS - AUTUMN ISSUE, 2007
 

MEMBERSHIPS/DONATIONS

 

IF YOUR MEMBERSHIP IS UP FOR RENEWAL OR YOU WISH TO GIVE TIP SOME CHEER AND SUPPORT, CONSIDER USING OUR ONLINE CREDIT CARD OPTION!  JUST GO TO: http://www.toxicsinfo.org/subscribe.htm   (Old-fashioned checks to Toxics Information Project are also gratefully accepted.)

 

TOXICS INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP), P.O. Box 40572, Providence, RI 02940

Telephone (401) 351-9193, E-Mail:  TIPTALKS@toxicinfo.org,

 Website:    www.toxicsinfo.org