|
SAFER WORLD a private independent international internet information network www.safer-world.org/ 20/08/23/2003 |
|
contact: info@safer-world.org
|
Dear subscribers, When you want to unsubscribe this
newsletter, please send an email to info@safer-world.org
with "unsubscribe newsletter/English" in the subject-line. CHEMICAL - ARSENIC http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994024
================================================= CHEMICALS - LEAD Even
low lead levels pose perils for children New York
Times ================================================= 2003-08-13 Intake of plasticisers possibly higher than assumed Plasticisers keep plastic products pliant. They are used in so many
areas of daily life that they can be described as ubiquitous. The consumer, therefore,
frequently comes into contact with these substances. One of the most frequently used
plasticisers is diethyl hexyl phthalate, in short DEHP. This substance is considered to be
"well investigated" in terms of its health risk. A comprehensive risk assessment
is currently being undertaken within the framework of the European existing chemicals
programme. Despite the damaging effects which DEHP can trigger, more extensive,
risk-reducing measures are only deemed to be necessary for children but not for adults.
This is justified by the fact that the estimated average daily intake of DEHP is within
the tolerable dose range. BfR has now challenged this assessment and bases its arguments
on the new study findings from the DEHP belongs to the group of phthalates.
It has a low acute toxicity; the substance is not classified as mutagenic. Depending on
the dose, DEHP may have damaging effects on the testicles, kidneys and liver. In animal
experiments the substance impairs reproductive capacity and leads to congenital
abnormalities of the sexual organs in male offspring. DEHP is used in the production of a
large range of plastic products, mainly PVC materials. The substance is present, for
instance, in car parts (panelling, controls), clothing, toys, food packaging, cosmetics
and medical devices (dialysis tubes). Because of its physical properties DEHP can dissolve
or outgas when it comes into contact with liquids or fats from plastics and then directly
reach the consumer or indoor air. The European existing substance report states that the
average daily intake of DEHP through respiratory air, skin and blood is 12 microgram per
kilogram body weight and day (µg/kg body weight/day). This value is far lower than the
tolerable daily intake of 50 µg/kg body weight/day, laid down by the EU Scientific
Committee for Food, at which no damage to health is to be expected. However, the food path
was not taken into account when assessing the exposure of the consumers in the existing
substance report. Study findings of the The Federal Institute for Risk
Assessment has drawn the attention of the European Chemical Bureau to the results of the
study and requested a review of the ongoing risk assessment. As DEHP is not only the
plasticiser with the largest production volume but possibly also with the severest
reprotoxic effect, this could lead to a new assessment of the risk and, by extension, to a
need for minimisation measures. The only national application restrictions for DEHP in the
food sector are those within the framework of the plastics recommendations of BfR.
Furthermore, the Institute has recommended that no phthalates be used in toy manufacture. Further
information on DEHP can be accessed on our homepage only in German (www.bfr.bund.de ) under "Lebensmittel"
(Lebensmittelsicherheit/Rückstände und Kontaminanten) ================================================= Beyond
Pesticides' Daily News Headlines (week of
* NRDC Sues EPA for Failing to Protect
Endangered Wildlife from Atrazine * Recycling Plant Workers Poisoned by
Pesticide * Toxic Pesticides Found in California
Rain Samples * Program Launched to Incorporate
Organic Food At School and Home * Judge Favors Pesticide-Free Zones on
Some West Coast Salmon Streams --- Beyond
Pesticides' Daily News Headlines (week of
- Borates
Used Successfully As Alternative to Highly Toxic Wood Preservatives - Report
Weighs Risks and Benefits of DDT - School and
Childcare IPM Programs Significantly Reduce Pesticide Use And -
- Pesticide
Tracking Law Stalls in The purpose of this update is to let you know about pesticide news stories posted at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/main.html from the past week that you might have missed. These updates will be short and sent only once a week. If you know of a story that should be covered in the Daily News, please let us know by sending an email to info@beyondpesticides.org. --- From Indian
Pop Has POPs (and other pesticides)
The Centre
for Science and Environment (CSE) in Lindane, an organochlorine pesticide applied to
seeds before planting and used pharmaceutically to treat lice and scabies, was found in
every brand of soft drink tested. Lindane persists in the environment, contaminates
surface and ground water and accumulates in fat tissues. Highest concentrations of lindane
found by PML were 0.0042 mg/L, or 42 times the European Economic Commission (EEC) standard
for drinking water. For all twelve brands, lindane concentrations averaged 21 times the
EEC standard. … --- Resource
Pointer #333 (Water
Pollution),
Resource
Pointer #332 (Children's
Environmental Health),
Resource
Pointer #331 (Debt and
Development in the Global South),
Back issues
of PANUPS are available online at: http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html Pesticide
Action Network =================================================
Some
household products contain substances that can pose health risks if they are ingested or
inhaled, or if they come in contact with eyes and skin. The National Library of Medicine's
(NLM) Household Products Database (http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov)
provides information in consumer friendly language on many of these substances and their
potential health effects. For more technical information users can launch a search for a
product or ingredient in TOXNET from the Product Page in the database. Information
in the database is provided to NLM under a collaborative agreement and is derived from
publicly available sources, including brand-specific labels and information provided by
manufacturers and their Web sites. The list of products covered will be expanded, and
information for products currently in the database will be updated at least annually. "The
Household Products Database is a natural outgrowth of the work that the Library has done
in recent years, educating the public about environmental risks posed by chemicals in the
air, soil and water," explained NLM Director Dr. Donald A.B. Lindberg. "Last
year, we unveiled The
Household Products Database enables users to learn what's in the products under the
kitchen sink, in the garage, in the bathroom, and on the laundry room shelf. It is
designed to help answer questions such as: -- What
chemicals are contained in specific brands and in what percentage? -- Which
products contain specified chemicals? -- Who
manufactures a specific brand? How can I contact the manufacturer? -- What are
the potential health effects of the chemical ingredients in a specific brand? -- What
other information is available about such chemicals in the toxicology-related databases of
the National Library of Medicine? For example,
a homeowner trying to decide which algae- killing product to use in her swimming pool
could select Located in ================================================= POLITIC-
EU - PUBLIC HEALTH Injury
prevention programme newsletter http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_determinants/environment/IPP/newsletter_ipp_en.htm Issue 10
(PDF, 286 KB) http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_determinants/environment/IPP/documents/ippnewsletter10.pdf POLITIC
- Spoon-Feeding
Poison The Bush administration is now moving to endorse the testing of
noxious and lethal chemicals on human beings. Since this spring, despite rife opposition
from the medical community, the Environmental Protection Agency has quietly begun lifting
a 1998 ban on accepting such research. Once the prohibition is gone, which will likely
happen next year, chemical companies will have the full support of the federal government
to dose healthy young men and women with the latest insecticides, rodenticides, and
fungicides. This marks
the second round in a fiery debate over pesticide tests using people. In the late 1990s, a
group of doctors and public health advocates noticed that pesticide companies were
conducting a growing number of these trials as part of attempts to get government
approval. The advocates railed against the EPA and balked at the agency's failure to
enforce ethical standards. The "EPA does not routinely require companies who conduct
human experiments to . . . follow any ethical protocol," noted a 1998 report from the
Environmental Working Group. Later that
year, with criticism mounting, the agency prohibited its offices from using human data in
new pesticide registrations. Some companies continued the testing, however, saying it was
necessary to determine health risks. But they also preferred that method because they got
more favorable readings from dosing people as opposed to lab rats. The tests
appear to defy the very essence of the Hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm."
Unlike tests for exploratory vaccines and medicines, pesticide studies offer zero benefits
for participants. They're designed to find the level at which concoctions of orange juice
and bug spray won't send people crawling toward death, and are considered a glowing
success only when nothing happens. Independent researchers say the tests' scientific value
is highly suspect. But there's
big money at stake, especially with the EPA considering new restrictions or outright bans
on a number of products. On March 31, the Office of Management and Budget, the White
House's rule review board, signed off on a rough draft of a new policy that would again
allow the EPA to accept the test results. Doctors,
environmentalists, and public health advocates have been fighting the change. When the EPA
first took up the idea, medical experts began to pore over a stack of human tests. They
found many of the studies were cloaked in claims of valid research but were dominated by
practices that belonged in the annals of medical farce. "A reasonable person might
conclude that they were specifically designed to fail to show effects of the
pesticides," said Dr. Alan Lockwood, a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility
and a neurology professor at the State University of New York at
Vermin
killers have a nasty history. In 1934, Nazi Germany whipped up the first batch of
pesticides—organophosphates, in scientific parlance—for use as a chemical
weapon. Although the toxic soup never made it to the front lines, I.G. Farben, the company
that manufactured it (today Bayer, BASF and Aventis), found it could be marketed as bug
sprays and rodent zappers. Today, big
chemical companies are fans of human research because it encourages less stringent
standards. With data from lab animals, the EPA assumes the predicted hazards for humans
would be greater by a factor of 10. It's called the "inter-species rule,"
adopted by Congress to account for potential differences between reactions in, say, a
two-year-old child and a mature lab rat. Testing on humans lets a company duck the
automatic increase. That
translates directly into several billion dollars for the pesticide industry, which
annually sells nearly 4.5 billion pounds of chemicals—at a profit of more than $6
billion. Manufacturers have an outsized financial incentive to push for testing on humans,
warned Dr. Lynn Goldman, the EPA's pesticide director under President Clinton and now a
professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "EPA must of course
be mindful at all times of the test sponsors' interests in performing tests and, of
course, of the almost overwhelming economic incentives that companies have to find ways to
market more of their products," she said in January, testifying before the National
Academy of Sciences. Critics say
the companies give sparse attention to decent testing procedures and that nearly every
aspect of the testing seems driven by the need to get EPA approval. Take, for
example, a 1999 test conducted by the Lincoln, Nebraska-based MDS Harris Laboratory. A
handful of subjects were administered Dow Chemical's chlorpyrifos, a direct descendant of
Hitler's nerve agents. MDS Harris had recruited the group of healthy young men and women
by assuring them their health would be preserved, and by handing out juicy compensation
checks. They were told in consent agreements that low doses of chlorpyrifos "have
been shown to improve performance on numerous tests of mental function," implying
that the chemical could propel them into a new realm of genius. "The consent process
was inadequate, deceptive, or both," Dr. Lockwood said. "This makes it sound
like chlorpyrifos is good for you and may make you smarter—a clear deception." Nevertheless,
when none of them died, fainted, or delivered farewell speeches while clutching their
hearts in agony, Dow submitted a glowing report of the pesticide to the EPA and eagerly
awaited registration approval. Just one year later, on
In another
experiment, conducted in 1997 at the Central Toxicology Laboratory, researchers gave oral
doses of dichlorvos, a common insecticide, to a group of six young men. When four of them
suffered a dangerous drop in vital enzyme levels, they had to withdraw from the test. With
only two subjects able to complete the doses, the Central Toxicology Laboratory announced
that "no symptoms or adverse effects . . . were reported." They skirted the fact
that two-thirds of the participants had to drop out and effectively asserted that the
results derived from two people adequately reflected the potential harm to 266 million And there
is potential harm. Pesticides eat away at an enzyme called cholinesterase, which plays a
key role in all physical movement. It sweeps away chemical debris between nerve cells,
allowing those cells to fire up to 1,000 electric impulses to each other every second.
Pesticides break down cholinesterase, leaving millions of chemical messages to clog the
works. In mild cases, this leads to nausea, sweating, uncontrollable drooling, headaches,
and vomiting. In severe cases, it causes muscular tremors, abnormally low blood pressure,
loss of bowel functions, slowed heart rates, and even death. But test
groups rarely get that sick. And that's no surprise, considering their size and make-up.
They're usually limited to between six and 50 people, typically young and healthy adults
who are paid anywhere from $300 to $1,000. The studies are advertised in local newspapers
or on college campuses, specifically targeted to attract people from low-income or
minority communities. Pesticide
companies insist that trying out their wares on you and your neighbors allows
idiosyncratic human reactions to surface. "These safety factors are necessary,"
said Ray McAllister, vice president for science and regulatory affairs for CropLife The
industry is lining the campaign coffers on Capitol Hill. In the five years since the EPA
stopped looking at human research, the Center for Responsive Politics reports, companies
providing agricultural services and products donated more than $20 million to political
campaigns, almost 70 percent of which went to Republicans. by Tennille Tracy, Village Voice,
Coalition against BAYER-dangers www.CBGnetwork.org,
CBGnetwork@aol.com
================================================= POLITIC
- USA US House of
Representatives: Government Reform Committee, Minority Staff * Manipulation of Scientific Committees * Distortion
of Scientific Information * Interference
with Scientific Research Website Overview The American
people depend upon federal agencies to develop science-based At the
request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee (of the U.S. House of Representatives) assessed
the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. The report
Politics and Science in the Bush Administration (.pdf) finds numerous instances where the
Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or supressed
scientific findings. Beneficiaries This website is an ongoing record of interference
with science by the Bush Administration. Note links
to: Environmental Health - Advisory Committee to CDC's Lead Advice to CDC -- Politics Triumphs Over Appointments to CDC's Lead Advisory Group Workplace Safety -- Tampering with NIOSH Study Section Agricultural Pollution -- USDA Censors Publishing of Scientific Research by Scientists Breast Cancer - Changing an Analysis by the National Cancer Institute Perchlorate in Drinking Water - Pentagon drops Perchlorate Testing Program ================================================= RACHEL'S
ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS.
June 26,
2003 (Published
May 29, 2003 (Published
================================================= SMOKE
and DUST Smoke
and Dust at By ANDREW C.
REVKIN Scientists
say they have measured a slight but significant rise in the
percentage of small babies born to women who were around the during or after the terror attack compared with
babies of a large sample of pregnant women
who were elsewhere at the time.The researchers, from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, proposed that air pollution
from the pulverized, smoldering wreckage was
the most likely cause of the difference. But they and other experts said more work is needed to clarify any
link. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/06/nyregion/06BABY.html end of newslettter /English/20 |
Copyright© 1998-2008 SAFER WORLD. All rights reserved |