|
Dear
subscribers,
I thank all
who sent me information.
When you want to
unsubscribe this newsletter, please send an email to info@safer-world.org
with "unsubscribe newsletter/English" in the subject-line.
In the moment I
have some problems with my email-address, therefore I use one of the private addresses.
Best wishes and good
health
Ingrid Scherrmann
Fuchsfeldstr. 50, D-88416 Ochsenhausen, phone: + 49 7352 940529, fax: + 49 7352 4392
email: info@safer-world.org, Scherrmann@t-online.de , Scherrmann@safer-world.org web: www.safer-world.org
SAFER WORLD is a private independent international
internet-network for a safer environment.
=================================================
ACTIVE
From P A N U P S Pesticide Action
Network Updates Service.
Action Alert: Tell U.S.
EPA Testing Pesticides on People is Off Limits
July 25, 2003: U.S. EPA is now in the initial stages of
considering new regulations for testing pesticides on human subjects. Pesticide
manufacturers have moved through the courts to make their case for a process that is
unsafe and unjustified. It is important to make a strong case now and put a stop to
pesticide testing on humans. Write U.S. EPA before the comment period closes on August 5, 2003 and tell them dosing people with toxic pesticides is
unethical and must not be condoned.
In 1998 the Environmental Working
Group reported on alarming tests performed in England and Scotland and paid for by U.S. pesticide companies in which people were paid to eat and
drink pesticides, then monitored for health effects. The intentional feeding of toxic
substances to people contradicts the ethical foundation of medical testing, because the
subject will never benefit from the test and risks harm, and the payment offered,
especially in cases of extreme poverty, can be considered undue duress.
In response to growing controversy
over human testing, U.S. EPA issued a directive against such tests in 2001. But CropLife America, a trade group for chemical companies, filed suit and a
federal appeals court in June 2003 ordered U.S. EPA to accept data from human tests.
Pesticide companies have
increasingly strong incentives to use human tests to determine the acute toxicity of their
products. In 1996 the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) strengthened U.S. EPA risk
assessment by adding a third, ten-fold uncertainty factor for acceptable exposure levels
for children and pregnant woman. So-called "safe" exposure levels for adults are
based on laboratory studies, usually conducted on rats, mice or other animals to which a
ten-fold uncertainty margin has been added to account for the differences between species,
and a second ten-fold margin to account for differences within a species (e.g., some
people are much more sensitive to chemicals than others).
The FQPA also required U.S. EPA to
consider the cumulative risks of pesticides that have a common mechanism of toxicity when
setting standards for an individual pesticide. This leads to much lower acceptable
exposure levels for some individual pesticides, such as organophosphates, since they are
in widespread use and share the same toxicity mechanism. U.S. EPA has said that risk
assessments may show that some organophosphates exceed the cumulative risk level, or in U.S. EPA-speak that, “the risk-cup is full.”
For pesticide manufacturers, data
from tests on human subjects offer the possibility of circumventing the more stringent
standards of the FQPA. At stake are continued uses of organophosphate insecticides, and
possibly the carbamate class of pesticides. In recent years chemical companies have asked
U.S. EPA to allow data from a number of human studies. Eric Olson with the Natural
Resources Defense Council warned after the court’s decision, “There will be
enormous political pressure on the EPA” [to allow human testing].
In contrast to the U.S. EPA
proposal for regulation regarding testing toxic pesticides on people, the European Union
(EU) is taking a far different, safer and more ethical road. The EU is moving forward with
a chemicals policy that incorporates the Precautionary Principle, which emphasizes
reduction of harm, places the burden of proof upon the polluter (and not the regulator)
and requires an assessment of available alternatives. All of this is a far cry from
intentionally feeding toxic pesticides to people to see how much they can take.
Testing of pesticides - on animals
or humans - is a byproduct of an agricultural and pest-control system overly reliant on
chemical inputs. Alternative agricultural systems have proven effective and can be less
expensive than conventional production - particularly if the costs of chemical testing and
enforcement of regulation is factored in.
Write or Email the U.S. EPA before August 5, 2003 with your own version of the sample comment below.
Reference U.S. EPA Docket Number OPP-2003-0132 - Human Testing; Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Comment by Email: opp-docket@epa.gov ,
U.S. EPA Docket Number OPP-2003-0132
By mail:
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Human Testing; Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Program Docket
.
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460,
RE: EPA Docket Number: OPP-2003-0132
SAMPLE
LETTER
Dear Agency Officials,
I am writing in response to your request
for public comment on the issue of accepting studies that rely on exposing people to
pesticides to determine health effects. Testing pesticides on people is unethical and
unnecessary, and I urge you to develop a policy that disallows consideration of these
studies.
Please stick to tough and
appropriate standards for exposure levels for children and pregnant moms, and use the
agency's resources to promote known alternatives to reduce the need for toxic pesticides.
EPA's approach to regulating
pesticides should be based on the precautionary principle, an approach that will protect
public health much more effectively. Encouraging intentional dosing of people with toxic
pesticides by accepting these studies would be irresponsible, and I urge you not to
support such a move. Sincerely,
- signature -
Sources: The 1998 Science Advisory
Board/Scientific Advisory Panel (SAB/SAP), http://www.epa.gov/science1/pdf/ec0017.pdf
; U.S. Court Lifts Ban on Human Testing of Pesticides, Planet Ark, June 5, 2003, http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21051/story.htm
; The English Patients: Human Experiments and Pesticide Policy, a report by the
Environmental Working Group, http://www.ewg.org/reports/english/englishpr.html
; EPA Opens the Door to Testing Bug Killers on People, Village Voice, July 9-25, 2003, http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0328/tracy.php
.
Contact: William Jordan, Mail Code
(7506C) Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA Docket Number:
OPP-2003-0132, Human Testing; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Program Docket , 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: U.S. EPA (703) 305-1049.
Back issues of PANUPS are available
online at:
http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html
To comment, send an email to: panna@panna.org
To subscribe, send a blank email to: PANUPS-subscribe@topica.email-publisher.com
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA,
Email: panna@panna.org
Web: http://www.panna.org
=================================================
CHEMICALS – ARSENIC
Induction of
chromosomal aberrations in cultured human fibroblasts by inorganic and organic arsenic
compounds and the different roles of glutathione in such induction.
Oya-Ohta Y, Kaise T, Ochi T.
Department of Pathology, Kanagawa
Prefectural College of Nursing and Medical Technology,
Yokohama, Japan.
Clastogenic effects of a variety of
arsenic compounds were examined on cultured human fibroblasts. The following compounds
were tested: inorganic arsenicals (arsenite and arsenate), the major metabolites of
inorganic arsenicals in human and experimental animals [methylarsonic acid (MAA),
dimethylarsinic acid (DMAA) and trimethylarsine oxide (TMAO)], and water-soluble
organoarsenic derivatives [2',
3'-dihydroxypropyl-5-deoxy-5-dimethylarsinoyl-beta-D-riboside (arsenosugar),
arsenocholine, arsenobetaine and tetramethylarsonium iodide] found in marine organisms.
Arsenic compounds induced mainly chromatid gaps and chromatid breaks. The rank order of
compounds in terms of clastogenic potency was arsenite > arsenate > DMAA > MAA
> TMAO. DMAA was very potent and caused chromosome pulverizations in most metaphases
when present at doses higher than 7 x 10(-3) M. Arsenosugar, arsenocholine, arsenobetaine
and tetramethylarsonium iodide were less effective. Depletion of cellular glutathione
(GSH) with L-buthionine-SR-sulfoximine (BSO), increased the incidence of chromosomal
aberrations induced by arsenite, arsenate and MAA, and markedly suppressed the clastogenic
effects of DMAA. DMAA was highly clastogenic even in GSH-depleted cells when the cells
were incubated with DMAA in the presence of GSH (5 and 10 mM). These results suggest that
GSH might play a role in protecting cells against the clastogenic effects of arsenite,
arsenate and MAA. GSH might be involved in the expression of clastogenic actions of DMAA.
PMID: 8876688 [PubMed - indexed for
MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8876688&dopt=Abstract
More about arsenic: http://www.noccawood.ca
=================================================
CHEMICALS–TABACCO
The Freedom to Breathe vs.
The Freedom to Pollute
New York State Set to Go Smokefree on Thursday, July 24
NEW YORK, July 22... Tobacco interests are
fighting New York State over smokefree workplace legislation. They say they
are fighting for freedom. Indeed, they are fighting for the freedom to
pollute. Specifically they want the freedom to pollute other people's lungs.
More and more jurisdictions, including New York, are saying NO. You have the right to pollute your
own lungs, but you don't have the right to pollute the lungs of others.
We are fighting for
freedom too. We are fighting for the freedom to breathe.
"ALL workers
(including office, restaurant, bar, bingo, bowling, casino, tavern, pub, and nightclub
workers) deserve a safe, healthy, smokefree work environment," says Joe Cherner,
founder of B.R.E.A.T.H.E (Bar and Restaurant Employees Advocating Together for a Healthy
Environment). "Laws should treat the health of all workers EQUALLY. No
one should have to breathe tobacco smoke pollution to hold a job, because it causes
cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease."
On Thursday, July
24, ALL New York workplaces (including offices, restaurants,
bars, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, and bowling alleys) will become smokefree. It's
about time! For years, doctors, nurses, bankers, lawyers, flight
attendants, store clerks, politicians, and others have had a smokefree workplace.
Now everyone else will be entitled to the same clean air.
As one pregnant
cocktail waitress who needs her job to survive says, "I am choking from
secondhand smoke and my clothes and hair are permeated with the putrid smell of
cigarettes. This is particularly disturbing
for me as I am pregnant. Exposure to
secondhand smoke during pregnancy is known to cause serious risks to the survival and
health of the fetus and the newborn baby. This
is not fair. Others’ freedom to smoke is infringing on my freedom to work in a healthy environment."
Another pregnant
bartender says, "I have been a bartender for the past two years. During the course of working there, I discovered
that I was two months pregnant. I immediately
stopped working, but my unborn child had been exposed to two months of smoke. I have never smoked a day in my life and I pray
that this does not have a negative effect on my baby." She has
been unable to find another job.
Tobacco interests
will be holding what they say will be a massive demonstration at
New York City Hall on Thursday. Cigarette sales are down, and they are
not happy about it. We will be there too holding a counter demonstration. You
are welcome to attend.
Tobacco interests
claim that New Yorkers won't go out anymore if the air is clean and that tourists won't
visit (even though the opposite has happened in every locality that has gone smokefree).
If you would like to send a letter in support of New York's smokefree workplace law, go to www.smokefree.net/ny
Joseph W. Cherner
http://www.smokefree.net
=================================================
CHILDREN
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
#769
.
May 15, 2003, (Published July 17, 2003)
.
Prenatal
exposure and disease
At last, an ancient problem has been
solved.
More than 2000 years ago people knew that
the quality of the natural environment affected their health. During the first century
B.C., the ancient Roman architect, Vitruvius, highlighted the relationship of environment
to disease in his book "De Architectura."[1] However, getting hold of reliable
information on the subject remained impossible for more than 2000 years.
Even with the rise of modern science and
medicine over the past 600 years, reliable information on environment and disease remained
difficult or impossible to lay hands on. Published in obscure journals or books, stored in
relatively few libraries, and written in jargon that the public could not understand, good
information about environment and disease remained under wraps -- accessible only to a
privileged few with special training and special access.
Now the situation is rapidly improving
because of two developments:
(1)
A "scientific information movement" begun in the 1950s by Barry Commoner and
Margaret Mead and their colleagues within the American Association for the Advancement of
Science became a broader "public interest science" movement in the 1970s thanks
to Ralph Nader and his co-workers.[2] Those pioneering efforts have now engendered two
generations of scientists who conduct studies that serve public needs and who translate
scientific findings into terms that people can understand so that citizens can make
informed decisions; and
(2) The world wide web now allows people
almost anywhere to get their hands on reliable plain-language descriptions of scientific
and medical studies that link the environment to human disease. Today almost anyone with
access to a public library (or a $500 home computer and a telephone) can tap into a vast
body of plain-language information explaining how environmental contamination causes human
disease. The most exciting developments in web-based information are evolving as we speak.
In particular, three related web sites
now offer daily updates of news stories, scientific studies, and medical reports linking
environmental contamination to human disease. See http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org
and http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newest.htm
and http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/New/newstuff.htm
....
See more at
http://www.rachel.org
=================================================
CONFERENCE
At September 4, 2003 is a meeting in
Berlin about the MCS-study, which was published in
February 2003
some information in English under http://www.safer-world.org/e/disease/MCS/RKI.htm
I will be a speaker at
this meeting.
Scherrmann: When you want to see the programm, please send me an email.
=================================================
COUNTRIES
– COLUMBIA
From P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network
Updates Service
Colombian
Court Nixes
Spray Program
July 15, 2003
Three recent Colombian court rulings
emphasize the health and environmental damage of the aerial spraying to eradicate coca and
poppy crops. On June 25, 2003, a Superior Administrative Court of
Cundinamarca, Colombia, ordered a stop to the spraying of
glyphosate herbicides until the government complies with the environmental management plan
for the eradication program, and mandated a series of studies to protect public health and
the environment. In May, a Colombian
Constitutional Court ordered the
suspension of spraying in indigenous territories until the government consulted with the
indigenous people of the Colombian Amazon. A State Council also recently ordered full
compliance with an environmental management plan approved by the Ministry of Environment.
Yamile Salinas of the Colombian
Ombudsman's Office called the Cundinamarca decision "a victory for both public health
and the environment of Colombia." Salinas added that, in applying the Precautionary Principle,
"the court affirms that the significant and potentially irreparable risk posed by the
spraying is reason enough to suspend the fumigation program." Those risks have been
demonstrated in numerous reports of illnesses from exposure to the herbicides including
the death of two children, well-documented extensive losses of food crops, and reports of
wildlife damage.
Since 2000, the U.S. government has provided funds (as part of a U.S. aid package now approaching a total of US $2.4 billion)
for the spraying of potent formulations of glyphosate in Plan Colombia, an aggressive counter narcotics program that has
displaced thousands of farmers from their lands.
Last September, scientists and
advocacy groups released six independent reviews challenging claims made by a September 4, 2002 U.S. State Department report on the aerial coca
eradication program in Colombia. The State Department report claimed
glyphosate was one of the least harmful herbicides available on the world market and
asserted that since it bonds tightly to the soil and completely biodegrades, glyphosate is
responsible for little runoff into watersheds.
However, the U.S Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has termed glyphosate "extremely persistent" with U.S. field tests measuring half-lives longer than 100 days.
The herbicide has been found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
applications. The glyphosate used in the Colombia spray program is a formulation of the herbicide Roundup,
manufactured by Monsanto. Despite the fact that the US EPA placed glyphosate in a category
of "non-carcinogenicity for humans" two studies have linked glyphosate with
increased risks of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The herbicide has also been found to cause
genetic damage and reproductive problems. The spray program does not warn residents before
their homes and farms are sprayed, and because they have no alternative, sprayed
communities must wash and cook with contaminated water, and consume food laden with the
spray.
Anna Cederstav, staff scientist
with the nonprofit public interest law firm Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association
for Environmental Defense, said, "In light of the evidence presented and the
Cundinamarca court's clear decision on this matter, the Department of State cannot certify
to Congress that the herbicide mixture, in the manner it is being used, poses no
unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment, or that the herbicide
is being used in compliance with the environmental management plan for the program."
Unfortunately, the Colombian
government has announced that it disagrees with the Superior Administrative Court's decision and will not stop the herbicide spraying.
Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos Calderón promised that the government would
file an appeal. The spray program and the Colombian court rulings against the spraying
were not a factor for U.S Secretary of State Colin Powell when he certified to U.S.
Congress on July 8, 2003, that the Colombian government is adequately
protecting human rights. Powell's action frees U.S. $31.6 million in assistance to Colombia security forces, and was met with strong criticism from
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The Colombian Courts have presented
the people of Colombia with an environmental and human rights
victory. It is time the U.S. and Colombian governments comply with the
courts and put an end to the devastation.
Sources: Press Release,
Associación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Interamerican Association for
Environmental Defense) AIDA, June 26, 2003; Press Release, Organization of Indigenous
Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC), June 20, 2003; Environmental review of Colombia
Spray Program and Press Release, Amazon Alliance, June 20, 2003, http://www.amazonalliance.org
; Powell: Colombia Abides by Rights Laws, New York Times, July 8, 2003; NCAP Pesticide
Factsheet: Glyphosate (Roundup), http://www.pesticide.org/factsheets.html#pesticides
; Press Release, Environment News Service (ENS) July 1 2003, http://ens-news.com/
; The Center for International Policy's, Colombia Project, http://ciponline.org/colombia/aidtable.htm
.
Contact: PANNA or Interamerican
Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) c/o Earthjustice, 426 17th Street, 6th Floor,
Oakland, CA 94612-2820; email aceder@aida2.or ; Web
site
http://www.aida2.org.
Back issues of PANUPS are available
online at:
http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html
To subscribe, send a blank email to: PANUPS-subscribe@topica.email-publisher.com
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA,
Email: panna@panna.org
Web: http://www.panna.org
====================================================================
COUNTRIES
– EU
European
legislative framework for GMOs
is now in place, 22 July 2003 http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/1056|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=
=================================================
FOOD
From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action
Network Updates Service
Resource
Pointer #328 (Global Trade and Agriculture)
Back issues of PANUPS are available
online at:
http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html
=================================================
LAW – ACTION LAWSUITS
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT &
HEALTH NEWS #768
.
May 1, 2003, (Published July 10, 2003)
.
Estreme
threat to class action lawsuits
July 10, 2003: Sometime during July, right-wing extremists in Congress
expect to achieve another major milestone in their radical revamping of the U.S. court system. If they attain their goal, successful
environmental class-action lawsuits will become as rare as Dodo birds.
Class action lawsuits are
the only effective remedy when large numbers of people are harmed but each person sustains
relatively small damages, making individual lawsuits inefficient or impossible. … More at http://www.rachel.org
===========================================
POLITIC-EUROPE
18/2003, 2003-07-22 Planned European Chemical System means progress for consumer
health protection
BfR, however, feels that the
REACH System is in need of major improvements
Chemicals are present in many products
which consumers come into contact with every day. Approximately 30,000 chemical substances
are produced in volumes of more than one tonne a year. We do not always know which
products these chemicals are used in. Assessment of possible health risks are only
available for a small percentage of the 30,000 substances. This unsatisfactory situation,
possibly involving some safety gaps, must be remedied. That's what prompted the European
Commission to submit a draft regulation containing details on the components Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and restrictions on the use of Chemicals for which the abbreviation the "REACH
System" has been coined. The main thrust is the introduction of an authorisation
obligation and an accelerated risk assessment procedure. At a press conference staged by
the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv) on EU chemicals policy, the head of
Chemicals Evaluation at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment described the draft
decision today in principle as an important contribution to chemicals safety. Professor
Dr. Ursula Gundert-Remy commented, "However, in important areas we urgently need
improvements in order to guarantee a sufficient level of consumer health protection".
The REACH System aims to markedly improve
knowledge about the use and potential risks of chemicals within a period of twelve years.
Amended authorisation and test conditions are to ensure greater consumer protection. One
of the new features is public access to information on chemicals which, at present, is
currently only available in some cases to manufacturers. For consumers the benefits will
be greater knowledge and transparency about use. The use of chemicals in products is also
covered by the REACH System. In the same way as manufacturers, the intermediates industry
must also comply with its information obligation and prove that no products are placed on
the market which may be unsafe for the environment and health. Furthermore, the system
also applies to the importers of chemical substances and products.
In concrete terms, the concept envisages
the collection of data on toxicological and ecotoxicological properties and on the
intended use of just under one third of the 100,000 chemicals on the market. The
requirements concerning the scale of information are tiered in line with production
volumes. More than 60,000 substances are unaffected by the provisions because of their low
production volume (cf. bgvv Press Release 10/2001 of 2 March 2001).
For substances with a carcinogenic,
mutagenic or reprotoxic effect, the REACH System prescribes an authorisation procedure in
which the intended uses are restricted and specified. Information and existing data on
substances with production volumes of more than one tonne must be submitted to a central
European agency within certain deadlines.
In principle, BfR welcomes the draft
decision and the REACH System on which it is based. The proposed measures promise major
improvements for environmental protection. However, in order to sufficiently guarantee
consumer protection as well, major improvements are necessary in the opinion of BfR. This
applies in particular to the authorisation of chemicals. According to the draft decision
only those chemical substances need to be authorized for which a risk from carcinogenic,
mutagenic or reprotoxic effects has been proven. According to the Federal Institute
for Risk Assessment, the authorisation must definitely be extended to encompass chemical
substances for which up to now only indications of such effects are available. For
reasons of precautionary consumer protection, they should be subjected to an intensive
risk-benefit assessment.
The deadlines laid down in the draft
decision reveal an ambitious time schedule. Manufacturers, users, importers and public
authorities, too, will all be required to do their bit. At present, the draft decision
still does not contain any mention of sanctions in order to guarantee that this time
schedule is also complied with. According to the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment,
the consumer is entitled to know which substances surround him and are contained in the
products he uses every day. "This right", commend Ursula Gundert-Remy,
"must be enforced today and not reserved for future generations."
=================================================
end of newslettter /English/19
|