Category: Health & Food

STARVING AMERICA

ABSTRACT: On November 1, federal food assistance to poor Americans was cut by $5 billion. The $78 billion Food Stamps program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), currently serves 48 million low income Americans, including 21 million children. This reduction in food assistance from the federal government is equal to the amount donated to churches, synagogues, and private food banks.

A family of four receiving the maximum amount will have their benefit fall from $668 to $632 per month. It is estimated that the typical SNAP beneficiary will receive $1.40 per meal. The Institute of Medicine found that the SNAP allotment, which is critically important for nutrition and health for both adults and children, was inadequate even before this cut.

The number of Americans receiving SNAP benefits has increased mainly due to the large number of people who lost jobs during the Great Recession. In addition, many Americans in low wage and / or part-time jobs qualify for Food Stamps.

Food, obviously, is a necessity and SNAP’s food stamps are a vital support for poor families with children, low income seniors, some people with disabilities, and some unemployed workers. Nonetheless, Congress actually wants to cut food assistance even more! This cut and the additional cuts being discussed will cause real harm to recipients by reducing a meager but essential support. There are many better and fairer ways to cut spending or increase revenue so these cuts to SNAP can be avoided.

FULL POST: On November 1, federal food assistance to poor Americans was cut by $5 billion. The $78 billion Food Stamps program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), currently serves 48 million low income Americans, including 21 million children. The cut is caused by the expiration of supplemental funding from the 2009 stimulus package. Although many politicians had pledged to extend this funding if it was still needed, that has not happened. On top of the hardships of the Great Recession and a weak recovery, this is another blow to people who are already among the most vulnerable citizens in our nation. [1]

Despite its significant impact on households that struggle to put food on the table, this event received scant attention in the mainstream, corporate media. This reduction in food assistance from the federal government is equal to the amount donated to churches, synagogues, and private food banks, according to a study by the Washington-based anti-hunger advocate Bread for the World. [2]

SNAP benefits will be cut by about 5.5%. A family of four receiving the maximum amount will have their benefit fall from $668 to $632 per month. It is estimated that the typical SNAP beneficiary will receive $1.40 per meal. [3] The Institute of Medicine found that the SNAP allotment, which is critically important for nutrition and health for both adults and children, was inadequate even before this cut. The cut means that nutrition will suffer and more families will run out of food by the end of the month. And more families will be in poverty because in 2012 SNAP lifted 4 million people above the poverty line ($18,300 for a family of 3, which often is a single mother with 2 children), making it one of the most effective anti-poverty programs we have. [4]

The $5 billion SNAP cut will have an effect on the overall economy. It is projected to slightly reduce our slow economic growth (from 2.0% to 1.9%) and has retail food stores and other consumer outlets worried about reduced sales. It is estimated that every $1 of Food Stamp benefits generates $1.74 of economic activity. [5]

The number of Americans receiving SNAP benefits has increased to roughly 48 million from about 26 million in 2007. This growth is mainly due to the large number of people who lost jobs during Great Recession, and especially those who either didn’t qualify for unemployment benefits or whose benefits have run out due to long-term unemployment. (Fewer than half of unemployed workers are currently receiving unemployment benefits.) In addition, many Americans in low wage and / or part-time jobs qualify for Food Stamps, including many workers at our large fast food corporations and at Walmart. (See my post of 10/30/13, Lack of Good Jobs is our Most Urgent Problem, for more information: https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2013/10/29/lack-of-good-jobs-is-our-most-urgent-problem/.)

SNAP is a Department of Agriculture program and historically has been part of the Farm Bill. Renewal of the Farm Bill is currently stalled in Congress, in part over differences in how much more to cut SNAP. (That’s not a typo; Congress actually wants to cut food assistance even more!) House Republicans are proposing additional cuts of about $4 billion a year that would remove about 3 million people from the program, while Senate Democrats would cut one tenth of that, or $400 million a year. The Farm Bill also includes subsidies to multi-billion dollar agricultural corporations, billionaire investors in farms, and 14 members of Congress. However, these subsidies apparently won’t be cut; they will continue or increase. [6][7]

Food, obviously, is a necessity and SNAP’s food stamps are a vital support for poor families with children, low income seniors, some people with disabilities, and some unemployed workers. This cut that went into effect on November 1 and the additional cuts being discussed as part of the Farm Bill are tiny amounts in terms of the overall federal budget but will cause real harm to recipients by reducing a meager but essential support. There are many better and fairer ways to cut spending or increase revenue so these cuts to SNAP can be avoided. [8]

 

[1]       Kaufmann, G., 10/28/13, “This Week in Poverty: No Time to Wait on a Movement,” The Nation

[2]       Wallbank, D., & Bjerga, A., “Wal-Mart to widows will feel U.S. Food Stamp cuts,” Bloomberg

[3]       Dayen, D., 11/6/13, “The Democrats’ original Food-Stamp sin,” The American Prospect

[4]       Kaufmann, G., 10/28/13, see above

[5]       Rampell, C., 10/31/13, “As cuts to Food Stamps take effect, more trims to benefits are expected,” The New York Times

[6]       Alman, A., 7/23/13, “George Miller Criticizes House Republicans Over Farm Subsidies,” The Huffington Post

[7]       Nixon, R., 11/7/13, “Billionaires Received U.S. Farm Subsidies, Report Finds,” The New York Times

[8]       Weinstein, D., 11/6/13, “Time to tell the truth about Food Stamps,” The Huffington Post

“TRADE” AGREEMENTS & CORPORATE POWER

ABSTRACT: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “trade” treaty that is currently being negotiated (see post of 9/10) would give corporations the right to sue governments if their laws, regulations, or actions negatively affect current or expected future profits. Under existing trade agreements, over $380 million has already been paid to corporations by governments. Furthermore, there are 18 pending suits by corporations against governments for $14 billion. Corporations will use or set up foreign subsidiaries to file suits under investor-state dispute resolution provisions of trade treaties (corporations are referred to as “investors”), thereby avoiding a country’s legal system and relying instead on the international tribunals (i.e., courts) created by the treaties.

The TPP would require countries to allow corporations to compete for the delivery of public services. The result could well be that some people cannot afford a corporation’s fees for basic, formerly universal, public services (such as water).

If ratified, the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty would enhance the power and rights of corporations while weakening US sovereignty. Given its unlimited term and the virtual impossibility of making changes (which require the unanimous consent of the parties), it amounts to a Constitutional change that gives foreign corporations equal (if not greater) legal status and power than the US and other governments. Furthermore, it would foster a race to the bottom for public health, the environment, and workers, especially well-paid blue and white collar workers, as jobs continue to move overseas and compensation and safety are attacked as limiting profits.

The secrecy and potency of the TPP make it feel like a conspiracy among our corporate and political elite to give corporations the ultimate power in our society. I strongly urge you to call your US Senators, and your Representative as well, to ask them to oppose “fast-track” rules for consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership “Trade” Treaty and to demand full disclosure and discussion of its provisions in Congress and with the public.

FULL POST: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “trade” treaty that is currently being negotiated (see post of 9/10) would give corporations the right to sue governments if their laws, regulations, or actions negatively affect current or expected future profits. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada, and Mexico and other treaties that are already in place give corporations similar rights. Under existing trade agreements, over $380 million has already been paid to corporations by governments. Furthermore, there are 18 pending suits by corporations against governments for $14 billion. [1] For example, Chevron is suing Ecuador over its environmental laws, Eli Lilly is suing Canada over its patent laws, and European investment firms are suing Egypt over its minimum wage laws. [2]

Philip Morris is suing Australia over its cigarette labeling laws. However, because the US – Australia trade agreement doesn’t include investor-state dispute resolution provisions (corporations are referred to as “investors”) that allow such suits, Philip Morris is using other trade treaties and its Swiss and Hong Kong subsidiaries to file its suits. [3] Corporations will use or set up foreign subsidiaries to file suits under investor-state dispute resolution provisions of trade treaties, thereby avoiding a country’s legal system and relying instead on the international tribunals created by the treaties.

Other examples of corporations suing governments include:

  • Under NAFTA, a US corporation sued and received $13 million from Canada, which then reversed its ban on a gasoline additive that contains a known human neurotoxin.
  • Another US corporation has filed a $250 million investor-state suit against Canada under NAFTA because of its ban on fracking.
  • A French and a US company have succeeded in separate suits totaling close to $300 million against Argentina because its federal government failed to override 2 provinces’ limits on water rate increases after water systems were privatized in a period of economic distress, even though it would have been an unconstitutional intervention in provincial affairs for the federal government to do so. [4]
  • (There are many more examples and much more information on the TPP at www.citizen.org/TPP.)

The TPP language would require countries to allow corporations to compete for the delivery of public services, such as water and sewer, electricity, education, and transportation services. The result could well be, as has occurred in Argentina and other South American countries, that some people cannot afford a corporation’s fees for basic, formerly universal, public services (such as water), or that a distinctly two-tiered system emerges with high quality services for those who can afford to pay and poorer quality services for those who can’t. [5]

If the TPP is ratified by the US, it would, for example, undermine efforts to make the giant international mining corporation Rio Tinto abide by the Clean Air Act at its massive copper mine west of Salt Lake City. [6] Under the TPP, US and local regulations could be nullified or forced to change in areas such as:

  • Worker safety and the minimum wage
  • Importation of food and food labeling
  • Fracking for and exportation of natural gas
  • The length of patent protection on drugs (which could raise drug prices by delaying availability of generic versions of drugs)
  • The separation of banking from financial speculation that has been proposed as part of the answer to the 2008 financial collapse (i.e., reinstating Glass-Steagall provisions). Furthermore, TPP would prohibit a transaction tax on the buying and selling of securities, derivatives, and other financial instruments (as has been proposed in the US and as is being implemented in Europe).

If ratified, the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty would enhance the power and rights of corporations while weakening US sovereignty. Given its unlimited term and the virtual impossibility of making changes (which require the unanimous consent of the parties), it amounts to a Constitutional change that gives foreign corporations equal (if not greater) legal status and power than the US and other governments. This is in total contradiction to the design of US democracy where there is a balance of power, checks and balances, elections every two years, and law making that can change policies and the course of the country on a regular basis.

Furthermore, it would foster a race to the bottom for public health and the environment by giving corporations the right to challenge health and environmental laws and regulations in pursuit of ever higher profits. Similarly, it would foster a race to the bottom for workers, especially well-paid blue and white collar workers, as jobs continue to move overseas (as they have done under NAFTA), and compensation and safety are attacked as limiting profits.

I’m not one who generally buys conspiracy theories, but the secrecy and potency of the TPP make it feel like a conspiracy among our corporate and political elite to give corporations, which are totally focused on maximizing profits, the ultimate power in our society. Therefore, corporations, not our governments or other civic organizations, would determine our well-being as individuals, communities, and nations, as well as, ultimately, the well-being of our planet. I strongly urge you to call your US Senators, and your Representative as well, to ask them to oppose “fast-track” rules for consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership “Trade” Treaty and to demand full disclosure and discussion of its provisions in Congress and with the public.

(You can find out who your Congress people are and get their contact information at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm for your Senators and http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ for your Representative.)

[1]       Public Citizen, retrieved 9/9/13, “TPP’s investment rules harm public access to essential services,” www.citizen.org/TPP

[2]       Hightower, J., August 2013, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not about free trade. It’s a corporate coup d’état – against us!” The Hightower Lowdown

[3]       Public Citizen, retrieved 9/9/13, “TPP’s investment rules harm public health,” www.citizen.org/TPP

[4]       Public Citizen, retrieved 9/9/13, “TPP’s investment rules harm the environment,” www.citizen.org/TPP

[5]       Hightower, J., August 2013, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not about free trade. It’s a corporate coup d’état – against us!” The Hightower Lowdown

[6]       Moench, B., 6/25/12, “America: A fire sale to foreign corporations,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/25-0)

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PART II

ABSTRACT: Other than the individual mandate (see 8/19 post), the biggest focus of resistance to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been the expansion of Medicaid, the health insurance program for low income individuals. If all states implement the Medicaid expansion called for by the ACA, over 21 million individuals, including 4.5 million children, who don’t have health insurance will gain coverage.

The resistance has been based on the assertion that the expansion will cost states money. However, for the first three years, the federal government will pay 100% of the cost and at least 90% thereafter. Because the newly covered individuals would have cost the states about $18 billion for uninsured, uncompensated care, overall the states will save $10 billion.

Republican Governors and state legislators, looking for a symbolic and substantive way to express their opposition to the ACA, have taken steps to refuse to participate in the Medicaid expansion, refusing significant federal funding. As a result, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of low-income residents will not receive health insurance.

Although it is too soon to know for certain, the bottom line is likely to be that the Affordable Care Act will provide very significant benefits to those who don’t have health insurance and get it, and that there are likely to be real benefits for those who already have health insurance as well. States that are focused on making the ACA work will see good results; states that work to undermine the law will not see good results. The sad thing about this self-fulfilling prophecy is that it will be the residents of those states who will suffer with no, or less effective, health insurance and probably worse health.

FULL POST: Other than the individual mandate (see 8/19 post), the biggest focus of resistance to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been the expansion of Medicaid, the health insurance program for low income individuals paid for jointly by the states and the federal government. If all states implement the Medicaid expansion called for by the ACA, over the next 10 years over 21 million individuals, including 4.5 million children, who don’t have health insurance will gain coverage. But when the Supreme Court upheld the overall ACA, it ruled that states couldn’t be required to participate in the expansion of Medicaid included in the law.

Aside from the political opposition, the resistance has been based on the assertion that the expansion will cost states money. However, for the first three years the federal government will pay 100% of the cost and at least 90% thereafter. Over 10 years, it is estimated that if all states implement the expansion, they would spend an additional $8 billion, which would be a 0.3% increase over their spending without the expansion. Furthermore, because the newly covered individuals would have cost the states about $18 billion for uninsured, uncompensated care, overall the states will save $10 billion. There may be other savings to states from the implementation of the ACA as well, although the impact will vary by state. [1]

Republican Governors and state legislators, looking for a symbolic and substantive way to express their opposition to the ACA, with encouragement from the Tea Party and other staunch Obama opponents, have taken steps to refuse to participate in the Medicaid expansion, refusing significant federal funding. As a result, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of low-income residents will not receive health insurance, despite the fact that there would be no cost to the states for 3 years and a 10% maximum share of the cost after that. In some states, such as Florida, after a hard look at the numbers and some grassroots activism, Republican elected officials have reversed their original stand and have decided to participate. However, New Hampshire, for example, currently is refusing to participate. This means that 58,000 low-income residents will not receive health insurance and, for many of them, it will likely mean they don’t get care they need. [2]

Republicans, and especially Tea Partiers, are making wild claims about how Obama Care will hurt small businesses and the economy. These claims have been soundly refuted as false by independent groups such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com. The latter notes that economists generally believe that the federal budget cuts due to the sequester have done much more harm to the economy.

Undoubtedly, there will be bumps in the road during implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There always are challenges in implementing complex legislation, and the ACA was made more complex by the compromises Obama made in trying to get Republican support, which they then never gave to him or to the law.

Although it is too soon to know for certain, the bottom line is likely to be that the Affordable Care Act will provide very significant benefits to those who don’t have health insurance and get it, and that there are likely to be real benefits for those who already have health insurance as well. Most experts believe that states that are focused on making the ACA work will see good results. But that in states that work to undermine the law the results will not be good. [3] For example, some states are refusing to set up the exchanges to help the uninsured buy coverage and some are refusing to provide information to help residents make informed decisions on which plan to buy. Elected officials in these states are likely to then say, “See it doesn’t work!” The sad thing about this self-fulfilling prophecy is that it will be the residents of those states who will suffer with no, or less effective, health insurance and probably worse health.

[1]       Holahan, J., Buettgens, M., Carroll, C., & Dorn, S., 11/1/12, “The cost and coverage implications of the ACA Medicaid expansion: National and state-by-state analysis,” The Urban Institute and the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8384_es.pdf)

[2]       Editorial, 8/7/13, “GOP stance against Obamacare hurts thousands of NH families,” The Boston Globe

[3]       Lehigh, S., 8/14/13, “The GOP’s Obamacare whale hunt,” The Boston Globe

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PART I

ABSTRACT: As implementation of another key piece of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (also known as Obama Care) approaches, the information and disinformation in the media and from the opposition builds. On January 1, 2014, the “exchanges” – where individuals can purchase health insurance if they don’t have it – will begin operation. On October 1, 2013, individuals can beginning selecting the health insurance plans they want to enroll in.

No one disputes that if the ACA is implemented as intended roughly 30 million Americans will have health insurance who don’t have it now. From a worldwide perspective, the US has the most expensive health care system but ranks 37th in overall health outcomes. Nearly 45,000 deaths annually are associated with not having health insurance.

From the first days of the Congressional debate on the ACA, its supporters have done a horrible job of presenting its benefits: millions already have better health insurance, $7 billion has been saved by those with health insurance, lifetime caps on benefits are prohibited, and denying coverage for pre-existing conditions will be banned.

The primary target of the opposition has been the individual mandate, which originally was promoted by the conservative Heritage Foundation and Republicans as part of personal responsibility. However, once Obama adopted the individual mandate as part of the ACA, it became anathema to Republicans. The Republicans’ focus on repealing, obstructing, and undermining the ACA has been described by Norm Ornstein, a long-time political scientist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, as “monomaniacal.” He went on to write, “What is going on now to sabotage Obamacare is not treasonous – just sharply beneath any reasonable standards of elected officials with the fiduciary responsibility of governing.”

FULL POST: As implementation of another key piece of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (also known as Obama Care) approaches, the information and disinformation in the media and from the opposition builds. On January 1, 2014, the “exchanges” – where individuals can purchase health insurance if they don’t have it – will begin operation. On October 1, 2013, individuals can beginning selecting the health insurance plans they want to enroll in.

There has been good news on the cost of the new plans to be offered through the exchanges: so far 5 states’ plans will cost less than expected. Where the plans cost more than current options, it is often because they provide more comprehensive coverage than current insurance, where coverage has often been narrowed to reduce costs and increase profits.

To put all of this in some context, no one disputes that if the ACA is implemented as intended roughly 30 million Americans will have health insurance who don’t have it now. Further, many of us who have health insurance will get better and, in many cases, more affordable coverage. From a worldwide perspective, the US has the most expensive health care system (at over $8,300 per person) but ranks 37th in overall health outcomes, and worse for infant mortality and life expectancy. And we have the most people without health insurance. In the US, nearly 45,000 deaths annually are associated with not having health insurance. [This estimate takes into account the effects of the education level, income, health behaviors (for example smoking and drinking), and baseline health (for example, obesity) of those who don’t have insurance.] [1]

From the first days of the Congressional debate on the ACA, its supporters have done a horrible job of presenting its benefits, including: [2]

  • 3 million young adults up to age 26 have had health insurance because they could continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance
  • 13 million Americans with insurance have received $1 billion in rebates because their insurance companies spent more than is allowed under the ACA on expenses other than health care (for example, administration and advertising)
  • 54 million Americans have gotten free access to preventive services, such as checkups and cancer screenings
  • 6 million seniors have saved over $6 billion on their prescription drugs
  • Lifetime caps on benefits are prohibited (Isn’t the whole purpose of insurance to cover catastrophic losses? At least that used to be the case before the profit motive took over.)
  • Denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or denying renewal of an insurance policy when a health condition or accident occurs will be banned

The primary target of the opposition, particularly from the Tea Party types, has been the individual mandate – the requirement that everyone have health insurance or pay a penalty. Historically, the individual mandate was promoted by the conservative Heritage Foundation and Republicans as part of personal responsibility, i.e., being self-reliant and not depending on government or others for support. Democrats and progressives were cool to the idea because they were concerned that it would pose a burden on lower income families and individuals. The individual mandate was a centerpiece of the Republican alternative to the universal health care proposed by President and Hillary Clinton. And it was the centerpiece of Massachusetts’ universal health care law that Republican Governor Mitt Romney spearheaded and was so proud of (when he was Governor).

However, once Obama adopted the individual mandate as part of the ACA, it became anathema to Republicans. Ironically, as the Tea Party holds town hall forums and rallies today, the headline speaker against the ACA and the individual mandate is often Jim DeMint, the President of the Heritage Foundation, despite it having been the original promoter of the individual mandate. [3]

The Republicans’ focus on repealing, obstructing, and undermining the ACA has been described by Norm Ornstein, a long-time political scientist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, as “monomaniacal.” The US House has voted 40 times to cut funding or repeal all or part of the ACA, knowing full well that it was a waste of time and effort given that the Senate would never pass such legislation and that the President would veto it and there weren’t the votes to override a veto. (This is one reason why Congress over the last 2 ½ years has been the least productive it’s been in the 75 years that records have been kept.)

Ornstein notes the contrast with President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan. The Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy, negotiated a compromise bill with the President. (Something Republicans refused to do with Obama on the ACA.) Then Republicans in Congress removed all of the provisions Kennedy and the Democrats had negotiated for and passed the stripped down legislation. Nonetheless, Democrats worked with Republicans and the Bush administration to make the law work.

In contrast, to undermine the ACA, Republicans refused for 3 years to confirm anyone to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which was responsible for implementing the ACA, as it had been for the Bush Medicare drug plan. In addition, they have worked to discourage states from participating in the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges where the uninsured would obtain insurance. They are now threatening to shut down the entire government on September 30 when the fiscal year ends unless Obama stops all implementation of the ACA.

Ornstein went on to write, “What is going on now to sabotage Obamacare is not treasonous – just sharply beneath any reasonable standards of elected officials with the fiduciary responsibility of governing.” [4]

[1]       Cecere, D., 9/17/09, “Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts,” Harvard Gazette

[3]       Lehigh, S., 8/14/13, “The GOP’s Obamacare whale hunt,” The Boston Globe

[4]       Light, J., 7/25/13, “Obstructionism for the recordbooks,” Moyers & company (billmoyers.com/2013/07/25/obstructionism-for-the-recordbooks)

BANNING BEE KILLING PESTICIDES

ABSTRACT: Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are ubiquitous in our environment and even in our blood. Regulation of them is weak. One of the unintended consequences of widespread pesticide use is the harming or killing of animals, other than those targeted. Last month, 50,000 bumblebees died after a spraying of the pesticide dinotefuran. The class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, of which dinotefuran is one, is the likely culprit in a broad decline in bee populations. Europe has already implemented restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids.

A bill has been introduced in the US House to restrict the use of these chemicals until we can be sure that they are safe and being used properly. The bill is H.R. 2692, the “Save America’s Pollinators Act”.

I urge you to join me as a citizen co-sponsor of this important legislation by signing the petition at: http://org.credoaction.com/petitions/tell-congress-stop-the-pesticide-that-is-killing-bees?akid=8530.653385.cfRZJV&rd=1&t=5.

FULL POST: Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are ubiquitous in our environment and even in our blood. Regulation of them is weak at best because the chemical corporations are very active in lobbying, making campaign contributions, and using the revolving door to move personnel between the industry and government regulatory agencies. (See posts of 6/29, 6/21, and 6/10/13 for more information.) One of the unintended consequences of widespread pesticide use is the harming or killing of animals, other than those targeted. Birds were the victims of DDT 50 years ago and today bees appear to be a victim.

Last month, 50,000 bumblebees died after trees in Wilsonville, Oregon were sprayed with the chemical dinotefuran, the key ingredient in Safari pesticide. This was the largest bee die-off ever recorded. Bee populations are declining across the country at an alarming rate, and a class of pesticides, called neonicotinoids, of which dinotefuran is one, is the likely culprit.

Both our environment and food supply are inextricably tied to the welfare of bees, making the decrease in bee populations a cause for alarm. Many crops, including fruit trees, rely on bees for pollination. The Oregon Department of Agriculture is investigating the die-off and is temporarily restricting the use of 18 pesticide products containing dinotefuran and the Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. However, that review is not scheduled to be completed for another five years. Europe has already implemented restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids.

A bill has been introduced in the US House of Representatives by Congressmen Earl Blumenauer and John Conyers to restrict the use of these chemicals until we can be sure that they are safe and being used properly. The bill, H.R. 2692, the “Save America’s Pollinators Act”, would suspend certain uses of neonicotinoids until the Environmental Protection Agency reviews these chemicals and makes a new determination about their proper application and safe use. This will increase pressure on the EPA to speed its review before another mass bee die-off occurs. One strategy for getting the bill passed is to include it in the reauthorization of the Farm Bill, which is currently under active consideration.

I urge you to join me as a citizen co-sponsor of this important legislation by signing the petition linked to below. You can also contact your Representative and urge him or her to support this legislation.

Will you join me and add your name to this petition to the United States Congress asking it to pass legislation suspending use of the pesticides that are killing bees?
This petition was created on org.credoaction.com, a new people-powered platform that allows activists to start and run petition campaigns. org.credoaction.com helps activists like you make progressive change and fight regressive policies by creating online petitions.

NOTE: Please let me know by submitting a comment on this post if you would like me to continue sharing links to on-line petitions on issues I have written about. These petitions are an easy way to express your opinion and increase its weight by combining it with that of others. The effectiveness of these petitions varies greatly based on a wide range of factors, but there’s little downside given how quick and easy it is to do. Each petition also will give you a link to the advocacy organization sponsoring it. If it’s an issue you are particularly interested in, you may want to engage directly with the organization. One forewarning: in many cases when you sign a petition the sponsoring organization will put you on their email list. In some cases, there is a check box on the petition that you can uncheck if you don’t want the organization to start sending you information. You can, of course, always unsubscribe via any email you get from such an organization

OUR TOXIC ENVIRONMENT AND WHAT YOU CAN DO

ABSTRACT: On a societal level, a disproportionate burden of toxic pollution is borne by Americans of color. At the specific level, every day skin care products contain toxic chemicals. Many contain formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), phthalates (linked to hormonal disruption and birth defects), and/or parabens (which mimic the hormone estrogen and have been linked to breast cancer). Lead (a neurotoxin so damaging to young children that it is banned from house paint and gasoline) is present in lipstick.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does NOT have the authority to test cosmetic ingredients before they are marketed or to order recalls. Regulation is in the hands of the industry itself, which to-date has found only 11 chemicals to be unsafe for use. In contrast, in Europe, 1,400 chemicals have been banned from personal care products. The chemical and cosmetics corporations spend millions of dollars every year on lobbying and other efforts to influence US policy.

Atrazine is a weed killer, widely used in the US but banned in the European Union. As an example of the lengths the chemical industry and its allies in Congress will go to stop any momentum to regulate toxins, they blocked a resolution honoring Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring 50 years ago, which established a clear link between DDT and other pesticide use and the widespread deaths of birds, as well as reproductive, birth, and developmental abnormalities in mammals.

Options for what you can do at home and politically are included in the full post below.

FULL POST: Before sharing some specific examples of toxic chemicals in our everyday lives and some things you can do about them, here’s an important societal perspective. A disproportionate burden of toxic pollution is borne by Americans of color. The environmental justice movement has documented the disproportionate presence of pollution sources in and near communities with high percentages of people of color. Prominent examples are in Louisiana and Detroit. The stretch along the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans is dotted with oil refineries that belch a variety of toxins into the air of the surrounding, largely minority, communities. This area is known as “Cancer Alley.” Detroit’s zip code 48217 is 85% African American and is know as Michigan’s most polluted area. It is adjacent to a steel plant, a coal-fired power plant, a salt mine, and a huge oil refinery. The refinery alone emits close to 4 tons of toxins per year. Virtually every household in the area has at least one member who suffers from asthma, leukemia, cancer, or sarcoidosis (a disease in which inflammation occurs in the lymph nodes, lungs, liver, eyes, skin, or other tissues). After some homes in the area tested positive for up to 20 toxic gases, the refinery offered to buy the homes in an effort to reduce its liability. [1]

At the specific level, every day skin care products, including cosmetics, contain toxic chemicals. Many of these products, from suntan oil to makeup to hair spray to perfumes and colognes, contain formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), phthalates (linked to hormonal disruption and birth defects), and/or parabens (which mimic the hormone estrogen and have been linked to breast cancer). Lead (a neurotoxin so damaging to young children that it is banned from house paint and gasoline) is present in lipstick at concentrations 30 times higher than what the FDA allows in candy bars. Our skin is our largest organ and readily absorbs these products’ ingredients. Some of the chemicals absorbed accumulate over time because our bodies do not eliminate them or break them down. [2]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), created by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, does NOT have the authority to test cosmetic ingredients before they are marketed or to order recalls – as it does for drugs and medical devices. Regulation is in the hands of the industry itself, which to-date has found only 11 chemicals to be unsafe for use in its products, including for use by women of child bearing age. In contrast, in Europe, 1,400 chemicals have been banned from personal care products because they are carcinogenic, mutagenic*, or toxic to reproduction.

The chemical and cosmetics corporations spend millions of dollars every year on lobbying and other efforts to influence US policy. In 2012, they blocked federal legislation that would have required complete ingredient labels on fragrances and hair sprays, as well as banned the use in cosmetics of carcinogens and chemicals linked to reproductive disorders. In addition, these corporations attempted to pass legislation that would block state regulation, such as that in California. If you would like more information and to take action, you can go to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at http://safecosmetics.org.

Home cleaning products are another example of every day items that contain toxic chemicals. For information on how to keep your home clean and shiny without using products with toxic chemicals go to http://www.bostonhealthcoach.com/oilrecordings.html and select the teleclass entitled “Chemical-Free Home.”

Atrazine is a weed killer, widely used in the US but banned in the European Union. In the human body, it mimics hormones and has what are referred to as endocrine system disrupting effects. It has been shown to disrupt the reproduction and immune systems in a wide range of animals, including mammals. It is present in water everywhere, including in rain water. It can actually turn male frogs into functioning females. [3]

As an example of the lengths the chemical industry and its allies in Congress will go to stop any momentum to regulate toxins, they blocked a resolution honoring Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, on its 50th anniversary and what would have been her 100th birthday. They attacked her as having made “junk-science claims about DDT” and accuse her and her supporters of being responsible for the deaths of “millions of people … particularly children” because supposedly the lack of use of DDT led to deaths from malaria and other diseases. The facts are that the EPA never banned DDT for use against malaria and Carson did not support a universal ban on pesticides but advocated for use of as little as possible. In Silent Spring, Carson established a clear link between DDT and other pesticide use and the widespread deaths of birds, as well as reproductive, birth, and developmental abnormalities in mammals. DDT, other pesticides, and some of the tens of thousands of chemicals in use today will be part of the environment and in our bodies for decades to come because they decompose or are eliminated very slowly. [4]

I urge you to contact your US Representative and Senators (and your state ones too) and to ask them to support the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act (H.R. 1385) and the Safe Chemicals Act (S. 696). (Find your Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.)

[1]       Brune, M., July / August 2013, “And justice for all,” Sierra Club magazine

[2]       Wasik, J.F., May / June 2013, “Beauty tips for the FDA: Did my wife’s cosmetics give her breast cancer?” The Washington Monthly

*       Mutagenic chemicals cause changes in the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism and thus increase the frequency of mutations. As many mutations cause cancer, mutagenic chemicals are therefore also likely to be carcinogens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen

[3]       Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, “Sandra Steingraber’s war on toxic trespassers,” Bill Moyers public TV show, available at BillMoyers.com. Note: Steingraber has written multiple books including “Having faith: An ecologist’s journey to motherhood” and “Raising Elijah: Protecting our children in an age of environmental crisis.”

[4]       Mangano, J.J., & Sherman, J.D., 10/1/12, “Rachel Carson’s brave, groundbreaking ‘Silent Spring’ at 50 years,” The Washington Spectator

CHILDREN AND TOXINS

ABSTRACT: Children are continuously exposed to many toxic chemicals. None of the over 75,000 synthetic chemicals in use in the US are regulated based on their potential to affect children. Chemicals in a mother’s blood can cause a preterm birth or even a miscarriage, and do get into her fetus’s blood. After birth, breast milk can be harmful as it is the most highly chemical-contaminated of any food.

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its report America’s Children and the Environment. While there is some good news on air quality, blood lead levels, and tobacco smoke, it finds that children may be exposed to relatively higher amounts of chemicals than adults and have higher blood levels of toxins. Although definite cause and effect is hard to establish with current knowledge and data, and because of multiple risk factors, respiratory diseases, childhood and adult cancers, neuro-developmental disorders, obesity, and adverse birth outcomes are some of the negative health outcomes for which there is evidence of a link to environmental factors. The report finds, among other things, that 1) air pollution and exposure to lead are still problems; 2) mercury in women of child bearing age has not declined over the last 10 years; 3) phthalate blood levels were 10% to 33% higher in children than in women and were detected in all samples of indoor air and dust at child care centers; 4) pesticides were detected in all samples of indoor air and dust at child care centers; 5) asthma rates are up to one in 11 children and the rate for Black children is nearly double that of White children; 6) childhood cancer rates have increased over 10% over the last 15 years; 7) attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses have increased by 50%; 8) one in 100 children now exhibits autism symptoms, a ten-fold increase. Puberty is occurring about a year and a half earlier, with one in 10 girls going into puberty before age 8.

Despite the very high economic and human costs of exposure to toxins, we do not have an effective regulatory system in place to protect us – not even our children.

FULL POST: Children are continuously exposed to many toxic chemicals in the air, dust, water, and everyday items that surround them with no regulation and no evaluation of possible negative effects. None of the over 75,000 synthetic chemicals in use in the US are regulated based on their potential to affect children. The science about how chemicals can affect growth and development in children and fetuses has advanced tremendously in the last 40 years, but our laws regulating toxic substances have not changed. The chemical industry, and related industries, has blocked regulation under existing law, as well as improvements to the current law. (See post of 6/10/13 for more detail.) [1]

Thousands of consumer products for children, such as toys, car seats, bedding, and clothes, contain toxic chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, developmental problems, and reproduction and immune system problems. Yet there is no national requirement to regulate, disclose, or label such products. Washington State in 2008 became the first state to require manufacturers to report the presence of toxic chemicals in their products. [2]

Chemicals in a mother’s blood can also be harmful to children. During pregnancy, toxins can cause a preterm birth or even a miscarriage, and do cross the placenta and get into her fetus’s blood, with unknown effects on her yet to be born baby. After birth, breast milk can be harmful as it is the most highly chemical-contaminated of any food. It contains dioxins, pesticides, PCBs, and the range of other chemicals that are found in human blood. (See posts of 5/22/13 and 6/2/13 for more detail.) These are examples of toxic trespass: toxic chemicals in our bodies that got there without our consent or control. [3]

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its report America’s Children and the Environment. The good news is that it finds that air quality has improved, children’s blood lead levels have declined, and children’s exposure to second hand tobacco smoke has decreased. However, it states that research is need on the causes of increased asthma rates, the potential impacts of early life exposure to chemicals, and the higher incidences of diseases in children in minority and low income families than in other families. It notes that children may be exposed to relatively higher amounts of chemicals than adults because they eat, drink, and breathe more relative to their size. Furthermore, they may be exposed to chemicals that adults are not because they play on the ground or floor and more frequently put their hands to their mouths. And children in minority and low income families generally have higher body burdens of toxic chemicals. [4]

It is often difficult to determine the impact of chemicals and the cause of adverse health outcomes because of the presence and interaction of multiple factors. For many environmental exposures, there is very little information on the potential health consequences of exposure levels typically experienced by US children. Furthermore, the impact on children of a given exposure can vary widely due to genetics; the length, avenue, and magnitude of exposure; age and developmental stage; concurrent or prior exposure to other contaminants; and the presence of other, non-chemical stressors. The prenatal period is the most sensitive, generally. Respiratory diseases, childhood and adult cancers, neuro-developmental disorders, obesity, and adverse birth outcomes are some of the negative health outcomes for which there is evidence of a link to environmental factors. The effects of harmful exposure may not be evident until years later and may contribute to the onset of chronic diseases in adulthood.

Specific findings of the EPA report, based on the most recent data available, include:

  • Virtually all children experienced hazardous air pollutant concentrations above the cancer risk benchmark in 2005. 56% experienced one pollutant over the safe level standard for health effects other than cancer, (e.g., asthma).
  • Despite the reductions in blood lead levels, 15% of children birth to age 5 still lived in homes with a lead hazard in 2005-2006. The median lead blood level of Black children was one-third higher than for other children.
  • The median concentration of mercury in the blood of women ages 16 to 49 (i.e., child-bearing age) is unchanged over the last 10 years. Hopefully, the recent regulation of mercury emissions for electric power generating plants will improve this in the future. In recent years, while mercury regulation was blocked by the electric power industry, we advised women of child-bearing age to limit their intake of certain fish to avoid excessive mercury, which is a known neurotoxin for fetuses and young children.
  • The concentrations of phthalates (which have been linked to hormonal changes and birth defects in animals) were 10% to 33% higher in children than in women, with no clear trend up or down. Phthalates were detected in all samples of indoor air and dust at child care centers.
  • Pesticides were detected in all samples of indoor air and dust at child care centers.

The EPA report also found that chronic illnesses and childhood disabilities have risen dramatically in recent years. Although some of this may be due to improved diagnosis, there clearly has been an increase in incidence. While no clear cause has been established, increased exposure to toxic chemicals is very likely to be at least a contributing cause. For example:

  • Asthma rates are up to one in 11 children, increasing from 8.7% in 2001 to 9.4% in 2010. The rate (16.0%) for Black children is nearly double that of White children.
  • Childhood cancer rates have increased over 10%, from 157 cases per million children to 173.5, over the last 15 years.
  • Attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses have increased by 50%, from 6.3% to 9.5% of children over the last 13 years.
  • One in 100 children now exhibits autism symptoms, a ten-fold increase over 13 years.
  • The child obesity rate has risen from 5% to 17% over the last 30 years, but seems to have stabilized. This is due to multiple causes, but chemical exposure is likely to be a factor.
  • One in eight births occurs prematurely, increasing from 11.0% to 12.8% over the last 15 years.
  • A sampling of birth defects has shown an increase over the last 8 years.

Puberty is occurring about a year and a half earlier, with one in 10 girls going into puberty before age 8. Early puberty raises the risk of breast cancer. Puberty marks a broad range of changes in one’s body, including brain structure and functioning. No one knows what the impacts of early puberty overall might be. But we do know that the same chemicals that can cause early sexual maturation in animals in the lab are in the bodies of our children. So it seems likely that these chemicals are at least contributing to the early puberty that is being observed in our children. [5]

We know there are very high economic and human costs to these medical problems and chronic illnesses. Despite this, we do not have an effective regulatory system in place to protect us – not even our children.

 

[1]       Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, “Sandra Steingraber’s war on toxic trespassers,” Bill Moyers public TV show, available at BillMoyers.com. Note: Steingraber has written multiple books including “Having faith: An ecologist’s journey to motherhood” and “Raising Elijah: Protecting our children in an age of environmental crisis.”

[2]       McCauley, L., 5/1/13, “Report: Toxic chemicals found in thousands of children’s products,” Common Dreams. The report cited is at http://watoxics.org/chemicalsrevealed.

[3]       Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, see above

[4]       Environmental Protection Agency, Jan. 2013, “America’s Children and the environment,” http://www.epa.gov/ace

[5]       Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, see above

BLOCKING REGULATION OF TOXINS

ABSTRACT: Corporations with a financial interest in the use and sale of toxic chemicals are engaged in a major, multi-faceted effort to prevent, weaken, and delay regulation. They work to prevent clear, unbiased, scientific information from being available to our policy makers and the public. They engage in efforts to affect the regulatory process – from the enactment of laws to the implementation of regulations – in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. They work to make the whole process as long and complicated as possible. This gives them many opportunities to block, weaken, and delay the actual regulation of a toxic chemical.

The chemical industry works to limit the effectiveness of any regulations eventually implemented and of the agency enforcing them.

It achieves results by using the standard tactics of 1) Campaign contributions, 2) Lobbying, and 3) The revolving door of personnel moving between the industry and legislative and executive branch staff positions, which result in personal relationships (and potential conflicts of interest) that can benefit the chemical industry.

Given that corporations typically have more resources, a more singular focus, and greater longevity for waging the battle against regulation than those working to regulate a toxic chemical, dragging out the process and making it costly generally works to their advantage.

FULL POST: Corporations with a financial interest in the use and sale of toxic chemicals are engaged in a major, multi-faceted effort to prevent, weaken, and delay regulation, despite threats to public health and safety, as well as to the environment. These corporations work to prevent clear, unbiased, scientific information from being available to our policy makers and the public. They engage in efforts to affect the regulatory process – from the enactment of laws to the implementation of regulations – in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. [1] The regulation of lead [2] (see post of 6/2/13 for more detail) and tobacco are classic examples. (Similar efforts are occurring in other arenas, such as climate change and regulation of the financial industry.)

The efforts of the chemical industry on the legislative front are both proactive and reactive, offensive and defensive, as well as high profile and hidden. Examples, for among many, include:

  • The fracking* industry proactively but quietly got legislation passed that exempted fracking from review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This happened in 2005 under President Bush and Vice President Cheney and is widely referred to as the “Halliburton Loophole” because a major beneficiary is Cheney’s previous employer, Halliburton Co.
  • The genetically modified organism (GMO) industry quietly attached a provision to an emergency budget bill (passed and signed into law by President Obama) that allows corporations (notably Monsanto) to sell GMO seeds for agriculture even when a federal court has ordered them not to. [3]
  • A provision in the 2013 Farm Bill, currently in the US House of Representatives, would prohibit states from enacting laws requiring the labeling of food with GMO ingredients or otherwise regulating the production of agricultural goods. [4]

The chemical industry achieves legislative results by using the standard tactics of:

  • Campaign contributions to Congress people (and state legislators) who have oversight roles,
  • Lobbying, and
  • The revolving door of personnel moving between the industry and legislative staff positions, which result in personal relationships (and potential conflicts of interest) that can benefit the chemical industry.

Then, once laws are in place, the chemical industry works to make the process of implementation through rules and regulations as long and complicated as possible. This gives it many additional opportunities (beyond those of the legislative process) to block, weaken, and delay the actual regulation of a toxic chemical.

The chemical industry also works to limit the effectiveness of any regulations eventually implemented and of the agency enforcing them. One way is to lobby to make the regulations as complex as possible with loopholes and details that make them difficult to enforce and open to court challenges. This can include putting the burden of proof on the agency as opposed to the corporation and setting a high standard of proof or harm. For example, the Toxic Substances Control Act gives the EPA just 90 days to find “unreasonable risk” if it wants to regulate a new chemical (see post of 6/2/13 for more detail). Another tactic is to require an extensive and often biased cost-benefit analysis of any new regulation.

The tactics of lobbying and the revolving door of personnel, in this case involving the regulatory agency in the executive branch rather than the legislative branch of government, are used to achieve these results.

A regulatory agency can also have its effectiveness hurt by budget cuts or legislative failure to confirm key agency personnel. And challenging regulations or regulatory decisions in court uses the judicial branch of government as another way to delay and drive up the costs of regulation.

Finally, the chemical industry engages in efforts to control the flow and clarity of information. Corporations with a stake in research on a potentially toxic chemical will create a false and parallel science by paying for biased research and will control, as much as possible, the dissemination of scientific information. They will attack scientists, sometimes directly and personally, including threatening them and suing them, when their research finds toxic effects from the corporation’s chemical. [5] An important goal of these efforts is to create false or exaggerated doubt in the minds of policy makers and the public about the harm that a chemical causes.

Trade associations like the American Chemical Council and public relations experts are used in efforts to manipulate public opinion and influence the media. Supposedly independent groups are created and funded specifically to promote the industry’s position. These allow the corporation with a vested interest to remain behind the scenes and apparently independent of public relations efforts to downplay evidence of dangers, exaggerate uncertainty, allege misconduct by scientists who find toxic effects, and plant inaccurate or biased stories in the media. [6][7]

To avoid having to share information with the public, corporations will claim that it represents “trade secrets” or “proprietary information”. For example, the fracking industry makes such claims when asked to reveal the chemicals it is pumping into the ground to release natural gas. This claim is also used to avoid labeling products with their chemical contents. Eastman Chemical Co. has used this claim to suppress information from a court case on the presence and effects of chemicals in its plastics. [8]

Given that corporations typically have more resources, a more singular focus, and greater longevity for waging the battle against regulation than those working to regulate a toxic chemical, dragging out the process and making it costly generally works to their advantage.

 

[1]       Union of Concerned Scientists, Feb. 2012, “Heads they win, tails we lose: How corporations corrupt science at the public’s expense,” http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html

[2]       Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G., 5/17/13, “Toxic disinformation,” Bill Moyers’ public TV show, available at billmoyers.com

*      Fracking is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing where high pressure water and other fluids, including toxic chemicals, are injected into the ground to release natural gas.

[3]       McCauley, L., 5/20/13, “Senator leads call to repeal the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’,” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013.05/20-2

[4]       Sheets, C.A., 5/17/13, “’Monsanto Protection Act 2.0’ would ban GMO-labeling laws at the state level,” International Business Times

[5]       Riley, T., 5/18/13, “Blinding us from science,” http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/18/blinding-us-from-science

[6]       Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G., 4/29/13, “You and your family are guinea pigs for the chemical corporations,” TomDispatch.com

[7]       Union of Concerned Scientists, Feb. 2012, see above

[8]       Dubose, L., 6/1/13, “Silencing science: What you may never know about plastic baby bottles,” The Washington Spectator

HOW AND WHY TOXINS ARE IN YOUR BLOOD

ABSTRACT: The dozens of toxic chemicals we all have in our blood are there because they are in the clothes we wear; the toys, furniture, fabrics, paint, and construction materials in our homes; the cleaning and personal care products we use; and the containers for our food and beverages. They are in all these places because our government regulators are failing us and the corporations that produce and use these chemicals engage in extensive efforts to block regulation.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 is the US law that regulates chemicals. Almost all of the 60,000 chemicals in use in 1976 when the law was passed were deemed safe without testing or review. Only a handful of chemicals have had their use restricted. For a new chemical, the EPA must act in just 90 days (!) and find an “unreasonable risk” or the chemical is deemed safe. In addition, the burden of proof lies on the EPA to show “unreasonable risk” rather than on the corporation to show that a chemical is safe.

There are numerous examples, historically and currently, of the difficulty of implementing regulations on chemicals, including lead, asbestos, pesticides, PCBs, formaldehyde, flame retardants, and BPA. Chemical exposure has been associated with a very wide range of health and developmental problems, including learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, developmental problems in children, cancer, obesity, and problems with the immune and reproductive systems, as well as with the brain and nervous system. The effects of long-term exposure to multiple chemicals and the impacts on fetuses and young children are unknown.

Our bodies are toxic dumps and we are the guinea pigs – without our consent and often without even our knowledge – in the largest, uncontrolled experiment that has ever occurred.

FULL POST: The dozens of toxic chemicals we all have in our blood are there because they are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. (See 5/22/13 post for more detail.) They get there from the clothes we wear; the toys, furniture, fabrics, paint, and construction materials in our homes; the cleaning and personal care products we use; and the containers for our food and beverages. They are in all these places because our government regulators are failing us and the corporations that produce and use these chemicals engage in extensive efforts to block regulation. Many of these chemicals are new, but some have been around for 100 years. [1]

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 is the US law that regulates the introduction of new chemicals and the chemicals existing when it was enacted. Almost all of the 60,000 chemicals in use in 1976 when the law was passed were deemed safe without testing or review. The TSCA is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has tested only 200 of the more than 75,000 synthetic chemicals in use in the US. In the 37 year history of the TSCA, only a handful of chemicals have had their use restricted. This is partly because the Pre-Manufacturing Notice a corporation submits for a new chemical it wants to use has only limited information (e.g., no safety information is required). Then, the EPA must act in just 90 days (!) and find an “unreasonable risk to human health or the environment” or the chemical is deemed safe for use. Even the EPA’s own Office of the Inspector General has criticized the TSCA as weak and ineffective, noting that corporations’ assertions of trade secrets prevent effective testing and that the EPA process is predisposed to protecting industry information rather than providing the public with health and safety information. [2] The Natural Resources Defense Council says that under the TSCA “it is almost impossible for the EPA to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals, even those that are known to cause cancer or other serious health effects.” One reason is that the burden of proof lies on the EPA to show “unreasonable risk” rather than on the corporation to show that a chemical is safe, as a drug company is required to do. [3]

Lead is a classic example of the difficulty of implementing regulation. The dangers of lead have been known for 100 years. Yet the lead industry engaged in a 60 year campaign to cover-up the effects of lead and to promote its use – in a campaign similar to that waged by the tobacco industry more recently. In wasn’t until 1971 that Congress passed a law to limit the use of lead paint in public housing and 1978 when the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lead paint for consumer use. During the 1980’s, the EPA issued rules that eventually eliminated the use of lead in gasoline in 1995 (although it is still used in aviation fuel).

Even today, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that children in 4 million US households are exposed to dangerous amounts of lead and that 500,000 children from birth to 5 have elevated levels of lead in their blood. No level of lead is considered safe and child exposure to lead is linked to attention and cognitive deficits, behavior problems, and learning disabilities – all of which risk putting a child on a trajectory for problems in school and later life. [4]

A similar pattern occurred with efforts to regulate asbestos. Chlorinated hydrocarbons, including pesticides such as DDT, were widely used until their detrimental effects became clear. Then they were successfully banned decades ago. However, these chemicals persist in the environment and have accumulated in our bodies. The same is true for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The non-stick coating for cookware, Teflon, is widely present in our blood and is linked to cancer.

Bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in plastics including baby bottles and water bottles, as well as the linings of food cans, has been found widely in our blood. At even very low doses, it has been shown to interact with our endocrine system and its hormones, with links to obesity, neurobehavioral problems, reproductive abnormalities, and breast and prostate cancers. Nonetheless, its regulation is being fought in the courts and elsewhere at this moment.

Currently, formaldehyde is used as a fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant in plywood and many materials used in building homes and furniture. However, as it ages it evaporates and the vapors we inhale accumulate in our bodies; it is known to cause cancer. Similarly, flame retardants are found in almost everyone’s blood and have been linked to thyroid, memory, learning, cognitive, and developmental problems, as well as early onset of puberty.

These are prominent examples of our widespread exposure to a large number of toxic chemicals. This exposure has been associated with a very wide range of health and developmental problems, including learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, developmental problems in children, cancer, obesity, and problems with the immune and reproductive systems, as well as the brain and nervous system. The effects of long-term exposure to multiple chemicals are unknown.

When the TSCA passed in 1976, the scientific understanding of biochemistry was not nearly as sophisticated as it is today. The ways chemicals affect our health, their potential to accumulate in and have subtle, long-term effects on our bodies and how they function, were unknown. Even today, the effects chemicals have on fetuses and young children are largely unstudied and unknown. [5] In 1976, it was generally believed that the placenta filtered a mother’s blood and prevented dangerous chemicals from reaching the fetus. We now know that this isn’t true.

Our bodies are toxic dumps and we are the guinea pigs – without our consent and often without even our knowledge – in the largest, uncontrolled experiment that has ever occurred. The large corporations that produce and use these chemicals are using every tactic at their disposal and their huge treasuries to fight regulation and stop laws that would require testing of chemicals. My next post on this topic will focus on this battle.

[1]       Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G., 4/29/13, “You and your family are guinea pigs for the chemical corporations,” TomDispatch.com

[2]       Wikipedia, retrieved 6/1/13, “Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_of_1976

[3]       Natural Resources Defense Council, retrieved 6/1/12, “More than 80,000 chemicals permitted in the US have never been fully assessed for toxic impacts on human health and the environment,” http://www.nrdc.org/health/toxics.asp?gclid=CPjZ66CLw7cCFYii4Aod6GwAWA

[4]       Rosner & Markowitz, 4/19/13, see above

[5]       Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, “Sandra Steingraber’s war on toxic trespassers,” Bill Moyers public TV show, available at BillMoyers.com

TOXINS IN YOUR BLOOD

ABSTRACT: Did you know that there are most probably dozens of toxic chemicals in your blood? These are likely to include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and pesticides, including DDT, all of which are toxic to humans. We are all test subjects – largely unknowingly – in a huge chemical exposure experiment.

There are roughly 75,000 chemicals in use in the US and only about 500 of them have been tested for health risks. Many of the chemicals found in our blood are long-lasting in the environment and in our bodies. The impacts of the combinations of these chemicals that we all have in our blood have never been looked at.

None of us were asked if it was OK to expose us to these chemicals. Therefore, some people refer to this as “toxic trespass.” These toxins are trespassing in our bodies without our permission. From a common sense perspective, and certainly from a public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense to expose people to toxic chemicals and then engage in a debate about what level of them is safe.

Future posts will address related topics such as how we got to this point, what the possible impacts are, and what we can do about this.

FULL POST: Did you know that there are most probably dozens of toxic chemicals in your blood? These include chemicals from consumer products, plastics, pesticides, flame retardants, and non-stick coatings on cookware, as well as industrial chemicals. We are all test subjects – largely unknowingly –in a huge chemical exposure experiment. Scientists call the total amalgamation of chemicals in your body your “body burden.” [1]

Bill Moyers, as part of his documentary Trade Secrets, had his blood analyzed back in 2001. He was tested for 150 chemicals and 84 were found, including 31 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 13 dioxins, and at least two pesticides, including DDT, all of which are toxic to humans. His results are typical of what any US residents could expect to find in his or her blood. The only one of the 84 that would have been found in a person’s blood, or even anywhere in the environment, 100 years ago was lead. [2]

There are roughly 75,000 chemicals in use in the US and only about 500 of them have been tested for health risks. On average, twenty new chemicals are introduced each week, generally without testing. Many of the chemicals found in our blood are long-lasting in the environment, i.e., they don’t breakdown readily and aren’t biodegradable. Many are also long-lasting in our bodies, i.e., our bodies don’t have a mechanism for breaking them down or removing them. For example, DDT was banned in the US in 1972 and PCBs in 1979, but they were still in Bill Moyers’ blood in 2001 – and are likely to be in your blood today.

The impacts of the combinations of these chemicals that we all have in our blood have never been looked at. And only a very few of these chemicals have been investigated for their impacts children or babies in utero.

None of us were asked if it was OK to expose us to these chemical. For most of them we have no choice about introducing them to our bodies, because they are in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the consumer products we use. And although we have some control over the latter two categories, we often don’t know about the chemicals that are present or that we absorb into our bodies, let alone about any potential negative effects. We know that many of these chemicals can be toxic, but we don’t know at what levels or what the risks are of the current levels of them in our bodies.

Therefore, some people refer to this as “toxic trespass.” These toxins are trespassing in our bodies without our permission. [3]

From a common sense perspective, and certainly from a public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense to expose people to toxic chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, and then engage in a debate about what level of them is safe. We should remove them from our environment to the greatest extent possible, as we did with DDT and PCBs.

Future posts will address related topics, including:

  • How this plethora of chemicals, including toxins, got into our environment and our blood
  • How regulation is failing to protect us
  • The chemical industry’s and others’ efforts to limit regulation of these chemicals
  • The role of Genetically Modified Organisms in agriculture and food in putting toxins into our bodies
  • The body burden of chemicals in babies’ and pregnant women’s blood
  • Possible impacts of our body burden and toxic trespass, especially on children
  • What’s being done about this and what you can do

 

[1]       Barnett, S., 10/6/11, “What’s your body’s chemical burden, “ The Huffington Post

[2]       Moyers, B., retrieved 5/20/13, “Moyers moment (2001): Toxins in our blood,” http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/17/moyers-moment-2001-toxins-in-our-blood

[3]       Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, “Sandra Steingraber’s war on toxic trespassers,” Bill Moyers public TV show, available at BillMoyers.com

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS: WHY NO LABELS?

ABSTRACT: There aren’t laws in the US requiring labeling of genetically modified (GM) food (as there are in the other developed countries) because the large food and agricultural-biotechnology corporations and their trade associations have spent years working to block labeling. They’ve spent $572 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the last 10 years. In addition, the revolving door moves people back and forth between their organizations and the relevant government agencies. GM organisms are patented and provide their creators with a monopoly, significant market place power, and potentially substantial profits. Farmers are prohibited from producing their own seed for next year’s crop; they are required to buy it from the corporation.

The costs and benefits of GM foods are, at best, unclear. The large agro-biotech corporations and the related chemical corporations are working hard, through campaign contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door, to have minimal regulation and oversight, and to prevent requirements to label foods as having GM content. This is another example of corporate power riding roughshod over the public interest. Our public officials need to stand up to the corporate interests and serve the public interest and demand of over 90% of the public for GM food labeling and oversight.

FULL POST: There aren’t laws in the US requiring labeling of GM food (as there are in the other developed countries) because the large food and agricultural-biotechnology corporations and their trade associations have spent the years since 1994 (when the first GM tomatoes were marketed) working to block labeling. They’ve spent $572 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the last 10 years. In addition, the revolving door moves people back and forth between their organizations and the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – most recently President Obama appointed Michael Taylor, a former vice president and lobbyist for Monsanto, as a senior advisor to the Commissioner at the FDA – they have successful prevented federal and state efforts to require GM food labeling.

GM organisms serve corporate interests in a way that naturally occurring seeds, plants, and animals don’t. Because they are patented, they provide their creators with a monopoly, significant market place power, and potentially substantial profits. This also allows the corporations to restrict independent, objective research into the efficacy, safety, costs, and benefits of GM organisms. It gives seed corporations great power because in their contracts with farmers, the farmers are prohibited from producing their own seed for next year’s crop; they are required to buy it from the seed corporation. The large seed corporations have, through acquisition and other means, concentrated their scope and power and now four large corporations control 50% of the market. Over 200 independent seed companies have ceased to exist over the last 15 years. One of those large seed corporations, Monsanto, has gone so far as to sue thousands of individual farmers whose crops were contaminated by Monsanto’s GM crops for illegally possessing their GM plants. [1]

The costs and benefits of GM foods are, at best, unclear. The costs, beyond the immediate ones (seed, pesticides, and herbicides), are largely uncalculated, and to some extent are unknown. The benefits have not been as great as the agro-biotech corporations have claimed, for example in increased yields, reduced herbicide and pesticide use, improvement of farmers’ economic conditions, and reduction of world hunger. The large agro-biotech corporations and the chemical corporations that produce the herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers that GM crops require, have substantial market power and profit potential. They are working hard through campaign contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door of sharing personnel with government, to have minimal regulation and oversight, and to prevent requirements to label foods as having GM content. [2]

This is another example of corporate power in the US, in contrast to other countries, riding roughshod over the public interest. There is a clear public interest, as well as public desire (over 90% in multiple polls), to have foods with GM content labeled. And there is a clear need for more effective oversight of the introduction of GM organisms into the environment and our food, as well as monitoring of long term costs and benefits. Our public officials need to stand up to the corporate interests and serve the public interest on GM food labeling and oversight.

[1]       Farm Aid, see above

[2]       Moyers, B., with Shiva, V., 7/13/12, “The problem with genetically modified seeds,” Moyers & Company

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS: REASONS AND RISKS

ABSTRACT: Genetically modified (GM) foods have been developed to resist herbicides or pesticides, to resist pests or viruses, and for other reasons. Large portions of common crops in the US are GM, such as sugar beets (95%), soybeans (93%), cotton including for cottonseed oil (93%), canola (93%), and corn and maize (86%). As with any new technology, all the risks associated with genetically modified organisms have almost certainly not yet been identified. Known risks include Allergic reactions, Antibiotic resistance, Toxicity, Decreased biodiversity, Undesired spreading, Resistant weeds and pests, and Poisoning wildlife. In addition, once GM genes are out in the environment, it is impossible to recall them. Furthermore, there is no way to assess, in advance, their full, long term impact and there is no monitoring system in place.

FULL POST: Genetically modified (GM) foods have been developed to resist herbicides or pesticides (so the herbicides can be used to kill weeds or the pesticides to kill pests without harming the desired crop), to resist pests or viruses, and for other reasons. Large portions of common crops in the US are GM, such as sugar beets (95%), soybeans (93%), cotton including for cottonseed oil (93%), canola (93%), and corn and maize (86%). [1]

The known risks of GM foods include those listed below. However, as with any new technology, all the risks associated with genetically modified organisms have almost certainly not yet been identified. Clear risk assessment procedures for known risks are not yet in place, let alone attempts to uncover and analyze currently unknown risks. Some of the risks, such as health issues such as cancer, are long term and possibly cumulative, so risk assessment is challenging. From a scientific perspective, this should put a substantial burden on those who wish to use the new technology to clearly demonstrate its benefits. [2]

  • Allergic reactions: GM foods routinely contain new proteins, including ones that have never been in any food before. Proteins are the basis of most food allergies. Examples of GM foods where new proteins cause allergic reactions include soybeans with Brazil nut proteins (which trigger Brazil nut allergies) and vegetables with milk proteins (which trigger milk allergies).
  • Antibiotic resistance: The genetic modification process often brings new genes that produce antibiotic resistance into a GM product. These can reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics in a person eating such a GM product and can also accelerate the development of antibiotic resistant diseases. Because of the widespread presence of antibiotic genes in GM foods, this impact needs to be analyzed cumulatively across the whole food supply.
  • Toxicity: a) Some GM plants concentrate toxins (such as heavy metals like mercury) from the soil in the non-edible parts of the plant. However, there is a risk that toxins could also be concentrated in the edible part of the plant or that contamination of the edible part of the plant could occur. b) All organisms produce toxic substance to defend themselves against diseases and predators. GM foods could have increased levels of these toxins that could be harmful to humans.
  • Decreased biodiversity: The push to use GM plants reduces the biodiversity of crops. The resulting monoculture of a single or a few varieties of a crop tends to require increased herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer use, increasing costs for farmers and likely harm to the environment.
  • Undesired spreading (specific examples below): GM plants (or animals) can spread in undesired ways. Notably, when insects pollinate GM plants they carry GM genes in the pollen they pick up and do not stay within prescribed boundaries. When they carry the pollen to non-GM plants, they can create seeds for undesired GM plants. This is a particular concern for organic farmers who do not want GM genes in their crops but whose fields are within the range of pollinating insects.
  • Resistant weeds and pests: The herbicide or pesticide resistant genes in GM organisms or the changed usage patterns of herbicides and pesticides with GM crops may result in weeds, pests, and viruses that are resistant to current herbicides and pesticides. At least 10 species of herbicide resistant weeds have been identified.
  • Poisoning wildlife: GM organisms may poison wildlife that feeds on them.

Examples of undesired spreading are well documented. Canada’s organic canola industry is basically extinct due to contamination from GM canola. In the US, in 2000, GM corn that represented only 1% of planted acreage contaminated at least 25% of the harvest that year. The GM corn was not approved for human consumption. The result was the recall of over 300 food products, export markets rejecting US corn, and corn prices plummeting for all US corn farmers. A class action suit against the GM corn creator, Aventis, led to a $112 million settlement for corn farmers. Corn farmers and users are concerned that a similar incident could occur with a new GM corn intended for biofuel production. [3]

In addition to the risks identified above, once GM genes are out in the environment, it is impossible to recall them. And because of the complexity of natural ecology, there is no way to assess, in advance, the full, long term impact of these genes. Moreover, there is no monitoring system in place to even look for such effects.

The next post will wrap up this discussion of GM foods by taking a look at what’s behind the lack of GM food labeling in the US.

[1]       Wikipedia, retrieved 8/16/12, “Genetically modified food,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

[2]       Union of Concerned Scientists, retrieved 8/16/12, “Risks of genetic engineering,” http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering

[3]       Farm Aid, retrieved 8/16/12, “New GE crops on the market,” http://www.farmaid.org/site/apps/n1net/content2.aspx

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS AREN’T LABELED

ABSTRACT: Federal regulators are allowing a growing number of genetically modified (GM) agricultural products into our food. What is surprising is that these foods are not labeled. This is the result of a powerful and concerted effort by big corporations in the GM business. Over 90% of the American public in multiple polls supports GM labeling and forty-nine countries, including Russia and even China, require labeling. From a public health perspective, labeling is the only way to track unintended health effects.

FULL POST: Federal regulators are allowing a growing number of genetically modified (GM) agricultural products into our food [1]. What is surprising is that these foods are not labeled as being or containing GM products. In general, foods are required to be labeled with their ingredients so consumers can know what they are eating. The lack of GM labeling is the result of a powerful and concerted effort by big corporations who make significant profits from the raising and selling of GM products.

This lack of labeling flies in the face of the economic theory of free markets, which requires consumers to have full information and make knowledgeable decisions when purchasing goods and services. It also contradicts a basic premise of democracy – that citizens are informed.

Over 90% of the American public in multiple polls supports labeling of food to indicate GM content. Forty-nine countries, including Russia and even China, require the labeling of food that contains GM ingredients. The United Nations (UN) food safety organization supports labeling. Furthermore, the US is the only developed country that does not require safety testing of GM plants, which also is supported by the UN. The lack of testing and labeling creates the risk that other countries will block the importation of US agricultural products.

The US Senate in June 2012 voted 73 – 26 against an amendment to the 2012 Farm Bill that would have allowed states to require GM labeling of food. At least 19 states have introduced legislation on GM labeling of food. A bill in Vermont died this year after Monsanto, a dominant player in the GM field, threatened to sue the state if the bill passed.

From a public health perspective, labeling is the only way to track unintended effects. Neither you as an individual nor public health officials can know that a GM food triggers allergic reactions or other health problems if you don’t know the food that’s being eaten contains GM content. [2] For these reasons, the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association, among others, have called for labeling GM foods. [3]

In California, there will be a ballot question this November known as the California Right to Know if Your Food has Been Genetically Engineered Act (Proposition 37). It would require food manufacturers and retailers to label GM foods. Over 1 million people signed the petition to get this measure on the ballot. The opposition includes the big agro-biotech and herbicide / pesticide corporations such as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow Chemical, as well as big food manufacturers such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and Kellogg, which are some of the biggest users of high-fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, and sugar beets, commonly used GM ingredients. [4]

The next two posts will also be on GM foods. The next one will examine the reasons for GM organisms and foods along with the risks they present. The subsequent post will look at what’s behind the lack of GM food labeling in the US.

[1]       GM foods are also referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), Genetically Engineered (GE) foods, and biotech foods.

[2]       Silver, C., 6/26/12, “How Monsanto is sabotaging efforts to label genetically modified food,” Inter Press Service

[3]       Sanders, B., 6/19/12, “Label genetically engineered food,” The Huffington Post

[4]       Sauve, C., retrieved 8/16/12, “This is the food fight California cannot afford to lose,” San Jose Mercury News