TIP TALKS
The Newsletter of the
Toxics Information Project (TIP)
SUMMER
2008
WHAT’S HAPPENING, NOT HAPPENING - AND MAY HAPPEN, TIP-WISE
(For more personal
notes, see the Canary Corner)
CHILDREN’S PRODUCT SAFETY: Our bill to ban Phthalates &
Bisphenol-A, after hearings in the RI Senate HHS and House HEW committees, was
saved from a deadline for action by being moved to House Finance. It is still alive, but efforts to bring it
up there for consideration (as H7812) have not yet borne fruit. Meanwhile, our petition in support of the
bill has been collecting signatures at TIP events and online - new totals are: 604 Rhode Islanders & 179 other signers.
NEW SLANT:
Realizing that a major obstacle to protection from unhealthy products is
the shortage of resources in state agencies, TIP is now exploring a different
approach to the problem. We have begun
researching several existing efforts at cooperation between states on sharing
product testing and other information, with an eye to encouraging some sort of
Interstate Clearing House. Our thinking
is that if such a resource existed, it could pass on needed findings to the
health and environmental departments of participating states. This would avoid unnecessary duplication of
effort and expenditures, and allow meaningful enforcement. It would, of course, rely on respected and
legitimate independent research entities, such as Toxics Use Reduction Institute
(TURI) at UMASS Lowell, and the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Stay tuned for developments!
FAMILIES TODAY COLUMN: The first monthly column by yours truly
appeared in the June, 2008 issue of Families Today, a free publication
distributed each month around the area - circulation between 22,000 and 50,000
copies. The column is titled AN OUNCE
OF PREVENTION and the first article was:
“Can
Kids Play It Safe With Plastic? A Puzzle For Parents”, on avoiding endocrine
disrupting chemicals in toys, children’s and other products. It should be available in your local
library’s children’s section, if you don’t see it elsewhere. Topic for the July OOP column? Well, it is the FT Pets Issue, so…
OTHER
ACTIVITIES: Attended meetings of
Environmental Justice League of RI
(EJLRI), Environment Council of RI (ECRI), Governor’s Commission on
Disability (GCD) Legislation Committee, the Earth Day Breakfast of Champions,
RI DEM Roundtable, Lead Paint Awareness Press Conference. Received, researched and answered a growing
number of queries, online or by phone, from around the U.S. and even
abroad! Worked with activists in RI and
other states on common concerns.
Workshop on Sunday, June 8, at the RI Sustainable Living Festival: “Light & Lively Less Toxic Lifestyles”,
led by TIP Director Liberty Goodwin & Environmental Educator Dotty Stumpf
NORTH KINGSTOWN ENVIRONMENTAL FAIR
March 29, North Kingstown
H.S., N. Kingstown,
ROGER WILLIAMS PARK ZOO EARTH DAY
April 20, RWP Zoo, Providence
BROWN EARTH DAY FESTIVAL
April 22, Brown University, Providence
ECRI EARTH DAY LOBBY DAY
April 22, State House, Providence
GREEN
WEEK AT BRYANT COLLEGE
Thursday,
April 24, Rotunda, Bryant College,
Smithfield
RI DEPT. OF HEALTH- SCHOOL
NURSE TEACHER CONFERENCE, April 26, 2008, RI College, Providence
GREEN
LANDSCAPING WORKSHOP
Saturday,
April 26th, Save The Bay Center, Providence.
SHAPE UP RI 2008 CLOSING
CEREMONY
& WELLNESS FAIR. Saturday,
May 10, Bryant University Chase Wellness Center, Smithfield
EAST
FARM SPRING FESTIVAL,
Saturday,
May 10th, East Farm, URI, Kingston,
RI
SUSTAINABLE LIVING FESTIVAL
Saturday,
June 7 & Sunday, June 8, Apeiron Environmental Center for Sustainable
Living, Coventry.
MATERIALS PLACED AT EVENTS
PARENTING
MATTERS 2008: Practical Information for
Raising Children, Saturday, March 29, Crowne
Plaza Hotel, Warwick. Presented by
Bradley Hospital
TRANSITION
IN THE OCEAN STATE: Who, What, When,
How? April 10, Sheraton Airport Hotel,
Warwick,
HOPE FOR THE EARTH, Sponsored
by Miriam Hospital
April 27, 2008, Hope Street, Providence
GROW SMART’S POWER OF PLACE SUMMIT
May 2, RI Convention Ctr., Providence
CHILDREN’S GARDEN NETWORK WORKSHOP
May 5, Roger Williams Park Zoo
***********************************************************************************************************************
CANARY CORNER
CANARY LIVING CLOSE-UP (Hint - think “Perils of Pauline” )
Liberty Goodwin, TIP Director,
experiences first-hand the struggles of the environmentally sensitive in our
chemical stew of a world. How did she
become a “canary” and what is that like?
In the last issue of TIP TALKS, I shared some TIPs from the
hard-earned wisdom of human canaries, on how to live a healthier life style in
a toxic world. This time, I want to get
personal, with stories of the life of a canary - ME! Sometimes people ask me how I came to start TIP, and I honestly
don’t exactly know - except that some years back I became chemically sensitive
and more aware of issues with toxic products.
But perhaps a little on how that came about would be helpful, especially
to those of you who think of “canaries” as almost a separate species! You don’t react to that stuff, right? Well, maybe not now….
Believe it or not, as a teenager and young adult New York
City dweller, I frequented bars in Greenwich Village, drank alcoholic
beverages, used lots of makeup, and even (drum roll!) PERFUME! And, like many of you, I noticed no problem
with any of it. The change came about
in several steps. First, while married
to my second husband, I had to get off birth control pills, because I was
getting “migraine-like eye symptoms” - my vision distorted by wavy lines. A few years later, I was diagnosed with
hypoglycemia, then experienced candida (systemic yeast) symptoms, reacting to a
variety of common chemicals with headaches, exhaustion and severe digestive
problems. Nearly unable to function, I
finally pulled out of it with the help of a serious no-sugar, anti-candida
diet, given a boost by colon hydrotherapy for detox.
Now, like many “canaries”, my well-being depends on not
cheating much on diet, and avoiding chemical triggers, similar to people with
asthma. Unfortunately, threats are many
and unpredictable. Fragrance is the
usual sudden intruder - someone sits next to you in a plane, for example, and
you are in deep trouble! I have two
sons who live in California. To survive
the trip, I take Southwest Airlines, with no assigned seating. I pre-board on medical grounds, wearing a
carbon filter mask for survival.
Sitting in the front, I wait anxiously as my husband Paul plays the role
of beagle. He sniffs people for me and
if they are threateningly smelly, politely asks them to find a seat further
into the plane, because of his wife’s “allergy to perfume”. In truth, it is not an allergy - that is an
unusual reaction to something natural and non-toxic, like a peanut. The chemicals in “fragrance”, by contrast,
are known carcinogens, endocrine disrupters, etc. Anyway, if fortunate, we wind up surrounded by non-stinky people,
and when they close the door (shutting out fumes from the engine), I can remove
the mask and relax until we have to change planes and start the process again.
How else does canarydom affect my existence? Mornings are risky - freshly applied
personal care stuff! Forget any
activity involving crowds. No theatre,
night- time movies. Some activist type groups tend to be fragrance-free, so I
attempt their events - but lurking on the outside of the group, just in case… I
need my own washer and dryer - limiting my choice of habitation - a visitor to
my neighbor gave me a nasty rash and neurological symptoms by using the wrong
detergent in our shared machine.
Another unpleasant surprise, now in progress - the outside of my house
is being painted. Despite agreement to
use low-VOC paint, my husband and I will flee to a friend’s place for about
four to 6 days (estimated), until outgassing is sufficient.
It’s a rather bizarre lifestyle - always wondering, “Can I
go there, be there?” I don’t recommend
it. And I urge you, if you aren’t
already a “canary” - do whatever you can to avoid becoming one. TIP can help!
MORE
ON IDENTIFYING GENETICALLY MODIFIED PRODUCTS
Since the
U.S. does not require - in fact doesn’t wish to allow - labeling of genetically
modified produce (or dairy products with RBGH), it seemed too good to be true
when I came across the simple tip published in the last TIP TALKS about product
codes for identification of the GM crops.
However, some recent research turned up some information on the
International Federation for Food Standards site, a seemingly weighty source,
confirming the codes. So, I’m sharing
details from that below, along with an Alternet article on this important concern
about where our food comes from, what is in it and how is it produced.
*************************************************************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR PRODUCE STANDARDS
www.plucodes.com/docs/IFPS-plu_codes_users_guide.pdf
Scope of the
System
IFPS Purpose: This document outlines the
rules associated with assigning PLU codes to loose produce for international
use and with information to enable introduction and use of PLUs in the supply
chain. For the purposes of PLU
application consideration and recommendations to the IFPS, applications may be
vetted through a national or regional review.
Although all IFPS members will vote on new PLU applications, a review
body may be used as a forum for additional industry input when considering
applications and the criteria by which they are evaluated. New PLU codes shall be considered for
assignment by the IFPS following the rules defined in this document. Candidates for Global PLU codes will be put
forward to the IFPS by the Secretary General within a time frame which allows
for regional input as determined.
Candidates rejected for Global codes can use “Retailer Assigned” codes. Once final acceptance is made by the IFPS,
the Secretary General will assign a new PLU code, within two weeks of IFPS
approval.
Basic Scope: The PLU scheme shall apply to loose produce, with the
following qualifiers.
• Produce is defined as: fruits, vegetables, dried fruit,
herbs and flavourings, and nuts.
• Most sealed, containerized or packaged produce falls
outside of the scope of the PLU scheme as they use a GTIN (barcode). There are
some exceptions such as the example of grapes which are often packaged in a
plastic bag with the PLU code clearly indicated on the bag. (The item is still
sold as a variable weight item.)
• Excluded from the scheme is produce that has been
additionally processed (e.g. stuffed vegetables, juices, purées, portioned
product, etc). The main criteria for deciding exclusions are:
o additional foods, other than
produce, are added to the basic item of loose produce.
o additional processes require
techniques other than minimal cutting to create the finished food product.
This is because, in some
countries, such processes are treated differently for food hygiene and labeling
regulation compliance.
o the IFPS needs to agree, on a
case-by-case basis, on the amount of processing that is done in order to assign
a PLU code (versus preparation).
o grade, quality or regional
variation shall not be an attribute which justifies a different PLU code.
o geographic identification of
growing region shall not be a justification for a Global PLU.
o produce that is identified by
a trademark is not eligible for a unique PLU number.
Range of PLU
Codes: The IFPS shall be responsible for determining
the range of numbers that are allocated to the PLU scheme. This range will be sub-divided into two
parts.
• Those
codes which are applicable to the Global PLU list.
• Those codes which are applicable only in the Restricted Use
PLU list for historical purposes. The
block of codes allocated for Global use need not be in a contiguous block. It
shall also be possible to re-define a previous Restricted Use PLU code to be a
Global PLU code. This will simply mean that the PLU code will not change, and
that the other three regions need to accept the code into their listings as
part of the Global list.
Fifth (Leading) Digit Qualifier: The
IFPS shall be responsible for deciding the assignment and definition of
qualifying prefix digits for international recognition. At present, only three
digits have been allocated:
0 Applies to all non-qualified produce and is generally presented
without the leading "zero" digit.
8 Genetically modified
9 Organic
Retailer Assigned Codes: Blocks of numbers have been left unassigned and are
designated for use/assignment by individual retailers. These codes allow retail
introduction of new products which do not meet the criteria for assignment of a
Global Use code. The assignment and management of these codes is left entirely
to the discretion of individual retailers and it is strongly recommended that
suppliers using these codes ensure coordination in the event of more than one
retail customer selling their new product.
(Please see When are “Retailer Assigned” numbers used? in the
section “Frequently Asked Questions”.)
N.B. – Countries or regions may choose to coordinate usage of Retailer
Assigned codes at a national/regional level. This decision is left to the
discretion of the IFPS National or Regional Review Group.
As victims of uninformed consent,
we have much to decipher in how our food is produced. It's sad that we often know more about where our clothes come
from than where our food originated.
During my last trip down the grocery freezer aisle, I chose the Breyers
Low Fat Double-Churned, Extra Creamy Chocolate ice cream. I avoided the calorie
count, but checked the ingredients, which included “genetically modified fish
‘antifreeze’ proteins from the blood of ocean pout.” Suddenly, I wasn't so hungry.
In truth, food
labels in the United States are not this transparent -- these details were not
provided on the Breyers’ label. But you
will see “ice structuring protein” (ISP).
Produced with genetically modified yeast, ISP creates the desired creamy
effect without the extra calories.
While this ingredient is found in some Breyers ice cream, and albeit at
less than 1 percent of the final product, the devil is in the details. In this case and many others, the details
aren’t even on the label. It can be an
exhaustive marathon to read every label to ensure we are feeding our families
healthful, edible substances that won’t cause us future harm. To be sure, the path from farm to fork
guarantees food safety and quality we need effective legislation as well as
transparency and honesty from food companies.
It’s a given
that every family wants to eat the most nutritious and tasty meals for the
least cost to achieve that quality. How
do we get there? As victims of
uninformed consent, we have much to decipher in how our food is produced
through various means: genetically modified organisms, preservatives,
pesticides, cloned animals, rBGH or bovine growth hormone, etc.
For example, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) is considering changing "irradiated" on food labels to simply
“pasteurized.” If my leg of lamb is
given shock waves of gamma rays, x-rays or electron beams to kill bacteria, I
consider that a long way from pasteurization.
Recent studies have shown that irradiating food may promote cancer
development, cause genetic damage and deplete vitamins. Irradiating food masks the core problem of
poor sanitation in slaughterhouses and processing plants, which causes
food-borne illness.
Even simple, common-sense
solutions, like knowing where my food came from -- China, California, Cuyahoga
County or Calico Cow Farm just down the road -- have been hijacked by
agribusiness. The origin of one’s food
should not be considered a complex question.
Yet Congress had to pass a law just to protect the consumer’s right to
know what country our food originated from -- and it hasn’t been
implemented. Federal farm policy theoretically
requires labeling the origin of meat, peanuts, seafood, and fresh and frozen
fruits and vegetables sold in retail stores.
Called Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), it was written in the 2002
Farm Bill and was to go into effect in September of 2004.
Deep pockets
influenced Washington as industry lobbyists blocked COOL with the exception of
seafood. Lobbying expenditures by
groups that opposed COOL between 2000 and 2004 include American Farm Bureau
Federation spending $11,840,000 and Wal-Mart doling out $2,760,000. The
Goliaths of Agribusiness undercut our right to know where our food comes from
despite 82 percent consumer support for mandatory COOL. Along with over 200 organizations, the
National Family Farm Coalition sent a letter to Congress urging our elected
officials to finally implement COOL as of September 2007 and end the backdoor
delays. So while my T-shirt tag informs
me it was made in Bangladesh, darn if I can place where the hamburger meat came
from that is sizzling on my grill.
Of course, the
best way to avoid the entire labeling dilemma is by eating all whole foods straight
from a local family farm source. No
labeling need be required when you pick up your vegetables from a farmers'
market or your pork from Curly Tail Farm the next county over. But for many busy families, reality sets
in. Between two working parents and
kids with more activities than they have years, schedules demand
convenience. And this convenience plays
out in the form of trips to the grocery store, where we should have all the
information to make an informed choice.
To keep us sanely and safely fueled in our hectic lives, the very least
that we deserve is to know what is in our food and what country the food came
from … is that really too much to ask?
See more stories tagged with: uninformed consent,
genetically
modified food, food
labels, breyers
Debra
Eschmeyer is the project director of the National
Family Farm Coalition, a nonprofit that provides a voice for grassroots
groups on farm, food, trade and rural economic issues to ensure fair prices for
family farmers,
safe and healthy food, and vibrant, environmentally sound rural communities
here and around the world.
**************************************************************************************************
ANOTHER
FOOD-RELATED CODE CONCERN
Are Any Plastics Safe For Use With Food?
Organic
Consumers Association, May 23, 2008, Organic Bytes Readers Talk Back:
READER'S
QUESTION: In the last issue of Organic Bytes, we published a "Users
Guide to Plastics" to help consumers understand what those little numbers
on the bottom of plastic products mean. Here is what one reader had to say: "My
comment was to the list of plastics published in your last bulletin. You say
that PET (#1) "poses low risk of leaching breakdown products". But
one of the substances of the PET is phthalates, which is a hormone disruptor.
It leaches into the liquid and poses a health risk."
OCA RESPONSE: Yes, you are correct. As a note, the posted plastics guide is relative.
We always recommend consumers look for glass, aluminum or tin as an option over
any plastic packaged product. If you need to buy plastic, PET (#1) is one of
the safest options over some of the other plastics, but all plastics
demonstrate varying levels of leaching, particularly when heated. Avoid hot
liquids in plastic containers. Also avoid microwaving plastics or placing them
in dishwashers.
#1
= PETE(polyethylene terephthalate)
#2
= HDPE (high density polyethylene)
#3
= V (Vinyl or PVC)
#4
= LDPE (low density polyethylene)
#5
= PP (polypropylene)
#6
= PS (polystyrene)
#7 = OTHER (Miscellaneous
plastic, including polycarbonate)
(TIP HANDOUTS ARE AVAILABLE WITH FURTHER INFORMATION ON
VARIOUS PLASTICS)
******************************************************************************************
BOOK REVIEW: PESTICIDES:
A TOXIC TIME BOMB IN OUR MIDST
By Marvin J. Levine (264 pp, $49.95;
Westport, CT, Praeger Press, 2007)
JAMA Review, by Arnold Schechter,
April 2, 2008: (JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, is a
highly cited weekly medical journal that publishes peer-reviewed original
medical research ) jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/13/1613 -
Rachel's News Letter says about the book: Levine has written a
pragmatic book for physicians, health workers, and the general public.... His
own perspective as a health professional with a concern for the public health
and a fondness for the "precautionary
principle,"
which assumes that a chemical is harmful unless there is good evidence to the
contrary, is not hidden.
This is a well-written and informative book about a relatively little
known area of expertise for most physicians -- chemicals in the environment and
their impact on health. The book
is devoted to pesticides, which includes herbicides, insecticides, weed
killers, rodenticides, bacteriocides, fungicides, and other chemicals
frequently called "pesticides." It is reasonably well-referenced
text. However, some statements regarding health damage could benefit from more
textual references to justify the statements presented.
Levine has written a pragmatic book for physicians, health workers, and
the general public. It is relatively easy reading for physicians but demands a
bit more attention than a vacation book intended for beach reading. His own
perspective as a health professional with a concern for the public health and a
fondness for the "precautionary principle," which assumes that a
chemical is harmful unless there is good evidence to the contrary, is not
hidden. Frequently and throughout this volume, the author attempts to balance
industry and environmental points of view and actions. And he notes the eternal
conflict between the need for economic productivity and reasonably priced food,
with the possible short- and long-term damage to human health from the use or
misuse of various chemicals. He favors "integrated pest management,"
a balanced method of control using far less pesticides than is common at this
time.
The
book emphasizes farm workers, children, pregnant women, individuals with
asthma, and elderly individuals as being more sensitive than the general
population to the effects of pesticides. The book also discusses policy issues
and political actions sometimes based on lobbying, as well as specific
scientific and biological aspects of pesticides. Chapters include those on the
presence of pesticides in foods, schools, homes, air, water, and soil; the
international trade in pesticides; and suggested remedies. A number of case
studies relate to health damage from pesticides or, in one case, to fear of
potential but not actual chemical exposure and damage.
The past 60 years are characterized as those when use of synthetic
pesticides became common in agriculture, providing a means of producing more
crops on a given plot of land than had previously been possible. The author
notes that there are more than 17 000 pesticides currently registered in the
United States, with more than 800 active ingredients that have contributed to
acute and chronic health problems. However, as resistance to pesticides and
damage to wildlife and humans was noted, the public and Congress, stimulated by
Rachel Carson's book, Silent
Spring, began to see the need for laws and regulations to protect the
public and wildlife. Many of these laws
are described in some detail and illustrated with respect to a variety of
chemicals and a number of US government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
While
cancer was once the major focus of government regulatory agencies, endocrine
disruption -- especially from fetal and nursing exposure -- as well as
reproductive and developmental alterations have recently become areas of
concern. Brain damage has also been described from in utero exposure to some
pesticides, especially the "persistent organic pollutants" (POPs).
These include dichloro-diphenyl- trichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and other chemicals. Although the author does not
make note of them, some brominated flame retardants are considered POPs with
persistence, bioconcentration, and deleterious health effects similar to those
of other POPs, especially PCBs, at least in laboratory animals.
Levine
states that annual pesticide use in the United States is approximately 8.8
pounds per capita, or 2.2 billion pounds of active ingredients (if wood
preservatives and disinfectants are also considered). He notes that some of the
chlorinated hydrocarbons or organochlorines such as diledrin, chlordane,
aldrin, and heptachlor break down very slowly and can remain in the environment
for years or decades. Organophosphates, now common in agriculture, on the other
hand, break down much more rapidly but also are more toxic to humans.
Levine also notes that because agricultural workers, including
children, are heavily exposed to pesticides and usually have little knowledge
of their dangers as well as of how to protect themselves, they are at
particularly high risk. Lack of good sanitary conditions and health care
likewise contributes to this public health problem. Schoolchildren are also a
special group at risk because of the lack of knowledge on the part of those
applying pesticides, frequently untrained school employees rather than
certified pesticide workers.
State laws and regulations are sometimes more stringent than federal
laws, although state laws must set standards at least at the level set by the
federal government. With constant lobbying on both sides of the issue, the
"how safe is safe" frequently changes over time.
The author notes the high industry costs of bringing a product to
market and the myriad regulations that must be followed. But he also points out
that just because a product is being produced and sold, it does not necessarily
follow that it has been tested sufficiently for possible serious health
effects. Also, while the term "inert ingredients" was once commonly
used, it simply identified ingredients not meant to do what the product was
sold to do, and did not indicate that they were not toxic. This term is no
longer considered appropriate, and "other ingredients" is now the
preferred term.
This book is an interesting and well-written volume that should be
useful in providing an up-to-date introduction to pesticides from a variety of
aspects, ranging from objective scientific principles to subjective policy
directives. Despite some repetition and the occasional need for more extensive
scientific citations, it was enjoyable and informative. Arnold
Schecter, MD, MPH, Reviewer University of Texas School of Public Health Dallas arnold.schecter@utsouthwestern.edu Copyright
2008 American Medical Association.
*****************************************************************************************************************************
NEW BOOKS AVAILABLE FROM TIP
FERTILIZERS FOR NATURAL LAWN CARE
Tips given the Pesticide-Free
Lawns Coalition by Steve Pincuspy, Senior Program
Associate, Safer Pest Control Project, Chicago, IL, 773-878-7378 x.203, spincuspy@spcpweb.org,
www.spcpweb.org
Benefits Of Natural Fertilizers
- Contain organic matter which acts as a soil
conditioner – enriches and loosens soil, absorbs water in sandy soils,
improves drainage in clay soils, provides favorable habitat for earthworms
and microbes….nature’s natural aerators.
- Slowly releases nutrients – more consistent
food source over time, won’t burn out lawn, reduces fertilizer run-off
into local waterways.
- Encourages soil microbes that feed the lawn.
Types of Fertilizers – look for
fertilizers with Nitrogen (N) at or below 10%, little to no Phosphorus (P), and
low Potassium (K). Calcium is another common nutrient used by grass, but not
often the focus of many lawn care programs. Always get a soil test first to
determine what your soil has and what the lawn needs to thrive.
- Plant-based
a.
Alfalfa Meal – grass based
product. Contains 3% N
b.
Corn Gluten – by-product of
corn syrup production, and an effective pre-emergent weed control. Contains 9% N.
c.
Cottonseed Meal – Potential
issues with pesticide residues since cotton is often treated with pesticides.
Contains 7% N.
d.
Soybean Meal – Contains 7% N.
e.
Seaweed/Kelp – Provides many
vital elements and often natural plant growth hormones. 1% N, 1% P, 5% K.
f.
Wood Ash – Raises soil pH.
High in calcium, so use with care. 2%
P, 6% K.
g.
Grass Clippings – Lawns can
get between 30-40% of their total nutrient needs from clippings. A great way to
recycle and lower your costs.
- Animal-based
a.
Blood Meal – Dried slaughter
house waste that is ideal for establishing new lawns or lawn renovations . 12%
N, 3% P.
b.
Bone Meal – Another
by-product of meat production, this product is also ideal for establishing new
lawns and gardening soils. Very high in phosphorous and calcium, this product
should not be used on established grass. 22% P.
c.
Feather Meal – Provides a
good, very slow releasing source of nitrogen. 8 – 15% N.
d.
Fish Products/Liquid Fish
Fertilizer – Rapidly becoming popular. Contains high levels of N, P and micronutrients.
Fast nutrient release than other organic products. Might temporarily cause a
very mild fish smell that will disappear with a couple of days. 10% N, 6% P.
- Compost – Partially decayed plant or
animal materials, copmost is the ultimate boost for a stressed lawn. It
contains all of the essential ingredients a lawn needs: organic matter,
nutrients and microbes. Quality between products varies greatly. Ideally,
compost should be finished, meaning properly aged. It should smell earthy
and sweet, not pungent, and should be cool to the touch. Loaded with
micronutrients. Contains 1% N, P and K.
- Minerals – mined stones used on lawns for
their nutrient properties. Make take sometime for these products to become
available to the lawn.
a.
Granite Dust – Inexpensive
slow release potassium. 3-5% K.
b.
Greensand (glauconite) – Very
expensive, but high in potassium. 8-10% K.
c.
Gypsum (calcium sulfate) –
Mined from ancient saltwater deposits. Helps improve clay soils. 22% calcium.
d.
Limestone (lime) – Raises pH
levels and adds calcium and magnesium to the soil. 30 % calcium and possibly
high levels of magnesium.
e.
Sulfur – Lowers pH levels.
Some products like langbeinite, or potassium sulfate, contain both potassium
and magnesium.
ASTHMA RISK HIGHER FOR INFANTS WHO SWIM INDOORS
HealthDay
(This information can be found by going to http://allergy.health.ivillage.com)
NOTE: This article focuses only on
chlorine-treated pools. There are
alternative pool disinfection systems being used in some facilities. TIP will be looking into these as time
permits.
June 5
(HealthDay News) -- If taking your infant to swim class seems like a fun way of
bonding-with-baby, you might want to think twice about the idea. That's because a new European study has
found that infants who were regularly exposed to the chlorinated air of indoor
swimming pools were more at risk for developing asthma than were infants who
didn't swim indoors. "Our data
suggest that infant swimming practice in chlorinated indoor swimming pools is
associated with airway changes that, along with other factors, seem to
predispose children to the development of asthma and recurrent
bronchitis," wrote the Belgian researchers. They also found the effect was stronger for babies who swam
indoors and were also exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. The findings appear in the June issue of Pediatrics. The researchers surveyed 341 schoolchildren
from Brussels and their parents.
At the
time the study began, the youngsters were between the ages of 10 and 13. The children and their parents were asked
about their asthma status, other environmental exposures, and whether or not
they had gone to indoor swimming pools as infants. Forty-three children from
that group had regularly been to indoor swimming pools in their infancy,
according to the study. The children
had to have had at least 2.5 cumulative hours on indoor pool exposure to be
included in this smaller group. Blood
samples were taken from the children to measure markers of lung health, and
average air sample tests were obtained from the pools the youngsters visited. The researchers found that
children who went swimming indoors as infants were 50 percent more likely to
report wheezing, almost four times as likely to experience chest tightness, and
had more than double the risk of experiencing shortness of breath, compared to
the children who hadn't been regular swimmers as infants. The study also found that exposure to passive
smoke alone didn't seem to increase a child's risk of asthma, but when coupled
with indoor swimming, the risk of developing lung problems was even
higher. The study authors suggest that
the risk might be higher because exposure to chemicals, such as chlorine, may
alter the lining of the lungs, predisposing youngsters to airway disease.
Does that
mean you can't ever take your baby swimming?
"It certainly makes us reconsider taking these young kids swimming
if it may be detrimental to lung development," said Dr. Alan Khadavi, a
pediatric asthma specialist at New York University Medical Center in New York
City. "But it's a small study, so
I think it's too soon to tell parents that they can't take kids swimming. It's something to think about, but there's
no direct link at this point."
While disinfection
of swimming pools with chlorine is essential for safe swimming, study author
Alfred Bernard, the research director of the National Fund for Scientific
Research in Belgium, said that parents and pool managers should be aware that
chlorine-based disinfectants can be used safely only if their levels are
maintained in an optimal range which allows the chlorine to minimize infections
without increasing the risk of toxicity.
"If levels are too low, infectious risks can increase, and if
levels are too high, it is the toxic risks that can increase. Hence, the importance of hygiene and of
carefully controlling the pH of the water to minimize the amount of chlorine
needed for disinfection. Chlorine
should not replace water filtration and hygiene to achieve a clear and blue
water.
Chlorine
should only be used as a disinfectant and not a cleaning agent," advised
Bernard. "If [swimming] is a
regular activity, I can only recommend parents don't take their baby in poorly
managed pools where water and air contain excessive levels of chlorine. Such pools can be identified by the very
strong chlorine smell in the air or at their surface as well as by the
irritating effects on the eyes or upper respiratory tract that one may feel
after swimming. If it is [your] own
pool, parents should avoid over-chlorinating the water," he added. "It is important to realize that
studies on the safety of these chemicals for young children have started only
recently. Thus, another cautious
attitude for babies is not to leave them too much time in the water,"
Bernard said. He also recommended that
kids should swim no more than 20 minutes and that parents should discourage
infants and young children from drinking pool water.
SOURCES: Alfred Bernard,
Ph.D., professor, Catholic University Louvain, and research director, National
Fund for Scientific Research, Brussels, Belgium; Alan Khadavi, M.D., pediatric
asthma specialist, New York University Medical Center, New York City; June 2007
Pediatrics Publish Date: June
05, 2007
ONLINE
RESOURCES FOR HEALTHIER LIVING INFORMATION
CARE-2 HEALTHY & GREEN
LIVING -
More
than 4,000 ways to enhance your life.
www.care2.com/greenliving
www.care2.com/greenliving/10039.html
(Ask Annie - Annie B. Bond)
****************************************************************************************************************************
HEALTH/TOXICS: PET HEALTH
0
***************************************************************************************
PETS
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WEBSITE
EDDIE’S HEALTHY PET TIPS: Our advice is always evolving as we research
pet health, products, and toxic chemicals, so sign up today to
be sure you get the latest updates and alerts.
PET FOOD: Eddie wants to test pet food for toxic industrial chemicals! You
can help by donating,
or click here tell him
which pet food he should test.
******************************************************************************************
FISCAL
NOTE: THE TOPIC WE’RE RELUCTANT TO
RAISE,
BUT
PRACTICALITIES REQUIRE!
Consider
that we are so busy providing information to the public through events, working
with activists, legislators, agency people to build a safer world, and
responding to queries about specifics of healthier living - we rarely send out
an appeal for monetary help! Yet, we
are small and struggling, financially, while putting in hours of time and much
energy to our mission.
PLEASE! EVEN A SMALL DONATION MEANS SO MUCH TO
US! MAKE OUR DAY!
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 made out to Toxics
Information Project are also gratefully accepted. SEND CHECKS TO: TOXICS
INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP), P.O. Box 40572, Providence, RI 02940.
WATCH FOR OUR UPCOMING “LESS TOXIC LIVING
GUIDE” FOR MORE ADVICE
& LOCAL SOURCES FOR HEALTHIER
PRODUCTS!
Don’t forget to seek that canary wisdom - contact us at TIP@toxicsinfo.org or 401-351-9193 with
queries. Also, visit the
TIP website: www.toxicsinfo.org