38-09/29/2005

the letter below comes from Caroline Lucas, a UK MEP for the Greens in the EP. In line with what she is saying, I am forwarding you the briefing from the NGOs which WECF signed on to. Similar to the letter with the European Women's Lobby, it lists precise amendment numbers that we are all asking MEPs to support.

I can only say that things are not going well at all currently because we are seeing first signs of weakening also in the Council (where the Member States discuss). Now it becomes ever more clear that if we do not get our voices heard we will not win REACH but we will have a bad REACH that will not protect women, and mothers and children and the unborn and families and so on.

The environment committee is voting next week on 4 October. I am attaching the list with MEPs that we had prior to the Lobbying. Please contact anyone on this list that is a member of the environment committee.

Any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Most of the information (letters and the list of Europarliamentarians) you can also find on www.wecf.org/reach

As you may be aware, in the next few weeks MEPs will be voting on one of the most important pieces of health and environmental legislation of this parliamentary term - REACH. Designed to regulate toxic chemicals, REACH, which stands for Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals, is a landmark proposal that - if successful - will greatly improve the protection of human health and wildlife from hazardous chemicals.

*As an organisation that works on health-related issues, I am writing to ask for your help in making REACH a success.***

The European chemical industry is immensely powerful and MEPs are being lobbied extensively by companies that do not want REACH to succeed. Indeed the battle is proving to be one of the nastiest that the European Parliament has seen. Of course, the industry lobbyists are not telling MEPs that this chemicals legislation is essential as a means of protecting against the build-up of phthalates, dioxins, pesticides and similar chemicals in our environment

- all of which pose an enormous threat to both human health and that of our environment. The industry's determination to avoid being regulated is driving it to use every trick in the book to try and destroy REACH - and unfortunately there are signs that many MEPs are being persuaded by their claims.

*By lobbying your MEP, both as an individual and as a representative of your organisation, you can ensure that the powerful arguments in favour of REACH are heard.

- ensure that the 20,000 chemicals which are produced in volumes of 1-10 tonnes per annum are subject to the full Chemical Safety Report requirements.

- ensure that an authorisation for the use of "chemicals of very high concern" should only be granted if no safer alternative is available and the use is essential to society. It is vital that the substitution principle is made mandatory.

- introduce independent quality controls for industry to guarantee the reliability of the information provided.

- ensure that imported articles containing chemicals have the same information requirements as those made in the EU.

- give the public and consumers a right to know about the chemicals in products they are buying and using, by improving procedures on access to information throughout the supply chain.

*Your assistance is really needed now* - the vote in Environment Committee is on 4 October and the vote by the whole Parliament in Strasbourg is in early November. *It is desperately urgent that MEPs are shown the importance of these issues to the health and safety of their constituents.* You can find the names of your UK MEPs on www.writetothem.com.

Thank you in advance for your support and if you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact my office using the details given below.

Cath Miller, Constituency Co-ordinator for Caroline Lucas - Green Party MEP for SE England Suite 58 The Hop Exchange 24 Southwark Street London Bridge London SE1 1 TY, Tel: +44 (0)20 7407 6281 Fax: +44 (0)20 7234 0183 Email: carolinelucas@greenmeps.org.uk Website: www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk

If you would like to receive monthly email news bulletins about Caroline's work please send an email with the word 'INFO' in the subject header.

There may be more than you bargained for in your backpack
Buzz Off ™ Insect Repellent clothing is a new line of outdoor apparel treated with the pesticide permethrin to ward off mosquitoes. The clothing, which is made by Greensboro, NC-based Buzz Off Insect Shield LLC, is being sold in leading outdoor lifestyle retailers, including REI, LL Bean and Orvis, without adequate labels warning consumers of the potential health and environmental risks posed by the pesticide.

The permethrin insecticide found in Buzz Off ™ clothing - which is marketed to outdoor enthusiasts such as recreational fisherman, campers and hikers - is highly toxic to fish and other marine life, and present risks to human health, especially when used in conjunction with DEET, another popular bug repellant. Permethrin is classified as a "possible" human carcinogen by the EPA; and it's also suspected of disrupting the human endocrine system.

Despite the risks, Buzz Off ™ apparel is not adequately labeled to warn consumers of these hazards. If the EPA won't regulate, consumers will have to exercise their own muscle!

Urge REI, LL Bean and Orvis to stop selling Buzz Off ™ insect-repellent clothing until there are adequate warning labels explaining the risks to human health and to the environment. .....
See full petition below <http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/545144827>

***

From Pesticide Action Network North America, April 06, 2005

Tell Bayer Not to Sell Lindane Products in U.S.!
The United States is one of the few countries in the world that still permits agricultural uses of the pesticide lindane. More than 50 countries--including all of Europe, Canada, and most recently Mexico--have phased out lindane use in agriculture. Ninety-nine percent of remaining lindane use in the U.S. is for seed treatment of a handful of grain crops.

Lindane, a dangerous neurotoxic pesticide, persists in the environment and builds up in our bodies. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control found lindane's breakdown product in 62% of people whose blood was sampled in the United States, with the highest levels in women of childbearing age. Lindane is also transported on wind and air currents to the Arctic region, where it is one of the most commonly found chemicals in the environment and a particular threat to indigenous people in the region.

Bayer CropScience recently acquired the company that distributes lindane agricultural products in North America. Canada has already banned seed treatment with lindane, and in early 2005, Bayer announced that it will withdraw registration of lindane seed treatment products in Mexico. Bayer executives need to know that the U.S. public wants to join Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world and stop using this dangerous pesticide!

Act Now: Write to Esmail Zirakparvar, President and CEO of Bayer CropScience's North American offices, urging him to immediately withdraw registration of lindane seed treatment products in the U.S.: http://ga4.org/campaign/Bayer

About Lindane

Banned in at least 52 countries and severely restricted in more than 33 others, the organochlorine pesticide lindane is currently registered for use in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. While Mexico recently committed to phase out all uses and Canada has phased out all agricultural uses, the U.S. continues seed treatment uses of lindane for corn, wheat and a handful of other grains. In an average year, 142,000 pounds of lindane are used agriculturally in the U.S. for seed treatment. Lindane use to control headlice and scabies also continues in the U.S. and Canada.

Agricultural uses are largely responsible for the pervasiveness of lindane and its breakdown products in the Arctic environment, where it is found more often than any other pesticide. Indigenous peoples of the north who rely on traditional diets of marine mammals and fish are particularly at risk from lindane exposure through foods. In 1997, the Northern Contaminants Program estimated 15 to 20 percent of Inuit women on southern Baffin Island are exposed to dangerous levels of lindane in their daily diet.

Lindane can cause seizures and damage to the nervous system, and can weaken the immune system. Case-controlled research shows a significant association between brain tumors in children and the use of lindane-containing lice shampoos. The insecticide is also a suspected carcinogen and hormone disruptor. Lindane and its breakdown products persist in the environment, where they can expose people and wildlife long after the pesticide is applied. A 2003 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 62% of U.S. residents sampled carry the insecticide in their body, and the highest levels are found among women of childbearing age.

In addition to agricultural uses, the Food and Drug Administration continues to approve use of this dangerous insecticide in shampoos and lotions for control of lice and scabies. These pharmaceutical uses are also approved in Canada. Given that elementary schools are frequently plagued with infestations of head lice and children are known to be particularly vulnerable to lindane's toxic effects, approval of this neurotoxin for head lice is especially risky. Use of these products on young children appears to be continuing despite new labeling required by FDA warning of the dangers of lindane use. Safer and more effective alternatives are available for all pharmaceutical uses of lindane. Careful combing with a specially designed fine-tooth comb for lice control is one example.

Lindane is also a significant contaminate in urban sewer systems and can pollute sources of drinking water. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District estimates that one dose of lindane shampoo used as a treatment for head lice contaminates six million gallons of water. This threat to clean drinking water, and the enormous costs of clean up, prompted California to ban lindane shampoos and lotions in 2002. After the ban, levels of lindane leaving Los Angeles County reclamation plants dropped dramatically.

=================================================

BOOK - INTERNET

Neurotoxicity: Identifying and Cointrolling Poisons of the Nervous System. Princeton, April 1999, 362 S.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk2/1990/9031/9031.PDF

=================================================

CHEMICALS - EU - POLITIC

New BEUC website: Our daily cocktail of chemicals

While not obvious to many, the modern world as we know it would simply not exist without chemicals. As a result we probably interact now with more chemical substances than at any time in human history - in food, clothes, air, buildings, cosmetics, vehicles, detergents and in the "natural" environment. Some of these chemicals accumulate in us and in the physical environment.
There is a system in place for evaluating new chemicals but there are already on the market over 100 000 chemicals and we know nothing about their impact on our health. To try to assess at least some of these chemicals the European Commission has published a new strategy called REACH - for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. We welcome the publication of this strategy but we think it has serious flaws.
To raise public and MEPs awareness towards this issue, BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, is today launching in the European Parliament our new campaign: "Our daily cocktail of chemicals". On our new website: http://www.chemical-cocktail.org, we highlight everyday items that contain chemicals that may be bad for our health and/or for the environment.
"We do not want to scare people unnecessarily, since we do not expect most of the chemicals already on the market to pose a serious problem for our health and the environment", said Jim Murray, BEUC Director, adding that "the problem is that we do not know which of these 100 000 could be problematic, since they have not been properly assessed".
http://www.chemical-cocktail.org/index_en.asp

=================================================

CHEMICAL - FRAGRANCES

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4531191.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/cambridgeshire/4655105.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/07/naero.07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/07/ixportal.html

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/ely/2005/07/06/0c0ee39f-f0c5-4db1-ac44-5f745a127d52.lpf

=================================================

CHEMICALS - PESTICIDES

From P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service

CDC Body Burden Study Finds Widespread Pesticide Exposure
July 22, 2005

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday released its Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, finding that more than 90% of U.S. residents carry a mixture of pesticides in their bodies. Many of these chemicals are linked to health effects such as cancer, birth defects and neurological problems. Children, who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of pesticide exposure, had higher levels of some pesticides in their bodies than adults.

CDC sampled the blood and urine of thousands of subjects across the country for 148 chemicals, 43 of them pesticides. This sample represents just over 3% of the 1,284 pesticide active ingredients currently registered in the U.S. that are formulated into tens of thousands of pesticide products for agricultural and home use.

Pyrethroids were included for the first time in this study, and CDC found one pyrethroid metabolite to be particularly widespread in the population, occurring in more than 75% of the subjects tested. Pyrethroids are insecticides widely used in agriculture, in home and garden pest products, and for lice control. They are a synthetic version of pyrethrins, a naturally occurring insecticide extracted from chrysanthemums. Unlike pyrethrins, which break down in the environment within hours, synthetic pyrethroids can last from days to months, creating a much greater risk of exposure.

The health effects of pyrethroids are well documented. Exposure can produce neurotoxic effects, vomiting, diarrhea and a tingling sensation on the skin (paresthesias). Pyrethroids are also suspected endocrine disruptors and possible carcinogens, and as a group are the second most common cause of pesticide poisoning reported to U.S. poison control centers.

Some pesticides were found in the CDC study at higher levels in children than adults. For example, the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos was found at higher concentrations in children, indicating exposures more than four times the level EPA considers "safe." Home use of chlorpyrifos was banned in 2001 because of concern over health effects in children, but an estimated 10 million pounds continues to be used in agricultural fields every year. In the 2001/2002 period covered by this report chlorpyrifos was found in more than 75% of the population.

The organochlorine pesticides aldrin, dieldrin and endrin, banned in the U.S. for decades, were included in CDC's study for the first time and were detected in very low or un-measurable amounts. CDC also sampled for breakdown products of the organochlorine pesticide lindane, found in nearly half of the subjects tested. Unfortunately CDC did not test for other organochlorines that continue to be used in the U.S., such as endosulfan and dicofol. Organochlorines are known to persist in the environment, build up in people's bodies, and are passed from mother to child in the womb and through breastfeeding.

A body burden study released last week by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported findings similar to the CDC study, focusing specifically on chemical exposures infants received before they were born. EWG tested fetal cord blood of 10 healthy infants born at various locations around the U.S. in 2004, revealing exposures to a total of 287 chemicals. Among the most pervasive pesticides found in newborns were hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin and DDT (and its contaminants and byproducts).

PANNA issued a set of recommendations based on findings from the CDC study. These include:

Corporations like Bayer CropScience that continue to distribute organochlorine pesticide products should withdraw them immediately from the U.S. market.
Policymakers should use CDC's biomonitoring data to help develop policies that better protect public health, and particularly children.
CDC should make more detailed data (such as location and timing of sampling and occupational information) publicly available to help policymakers set priorities and evaluate impacts of state-level policies already in place, such as California's ban of lindane for pharmaceutical use.
Consumers should choose organic food and pesticide-free household and hygiene products to protect their families and support markets for healthy alternatives.
CDC's biomonitoring program is the largest in the U.S. and provides invaluable information on chemical exposures nationwide. The agency announced plans to expand the list of studied chemicals to more than 300 in the next study, to be released in 2007. This year's report provides important insights into the widespread nature of pesticide exposure in the U.S. and highlights the need to shift to less toxic approaches to pest management.

See CDC Releases 3rd National Report on the PANNA website, http://www.panna.org

Sources: CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; Body Burden, The Pollution in Newborns, Environmental Working Group, http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/release_20050721.php; Reigart, R.J., and Roberts, R.J. 1999. Recognition of Management of Pesticide Poisonings 5th Edition. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contact: PANNA

***

Resource Pointer # #381: (Organic Cotton) April 13, 2005
For copies of the following resources, please contact the appropriate publishers or organizations directly.
*Directory for Organic Cotton and Organic Cotton Products, Web site*http://organiccottondirectory.net/. One quarter of all insecticides and one tenth of all pesticides are applied to conventionally grown cotton. This directory promotes sustainable alternatives as it connects all links of the worldwide cotton chain from growers to gins, mills, manufacturers and retailers. First compiled by PANNA and now expanded and maintained by PAN Germany, the directory provides information on organic certification, cotton production and retail outlets in a wide range of countries. Contact Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk e.V. (PAN Germany), Nernstweg 32, D - 22765 Hamburg, phone (49 40) 399 19 10-0, fax (49 40) 390 75 20, email info@pan-germany.org, website http://www.pan-germany.org/.
*Dress Sense: A Consumer Guide to Shopping for Organic Clothing and Textiles, 2003* PAN UK. Discusses the social and environmental reasons for purchasing organic and fairly traded textiles and provides access to a full list of all known UK retailers of organic textiles. Includes a campaign postcard for consumers to encourage retailers to stock organic, fairly traded cotton. Provides access to other resources for education and campaigning.11pages. £2.50. Also available as a free download at http://217.154.68.186/cotton/consumer%20guide/consumerguide.htm. ContactSimon Ferrigno, Pesticide Action Network UK, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4JX, phone (44 20) 7065 0915, fax (44 20) 7065-0907, email simonferrigno@pan-uk.org, website http://www.pan-uk.org/.
*Organic Cotton: A Practical Guide to the UK Market, 2004* Simon Ferrigno. Provides practical information to consumers and suppliers as well as background information about the challenges of expanding organic cotton production in developing countries and the environmental and human health costs of conventionally grown cotton. Highlights organic cotton production in Africa. 76 pages. £10. Contact Pesticide Action Network UK, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4JX, phone (44 20) 7065 0915, fax (44 20) 7065-0907, email simonferrigno@pan-uk.org, website http://www.pan-uk.org/.

*Sustainable Cotton Project Web site*http://www.sustainablecotton.org/. Includes information on three separate tracks for growers, manufacturers and consumers of sustainably produced cotton. Provides growers with information and cost comparisons for Integrated Pest Management and the BASIC program (Biological Agriculture Systems In Cotton), manufacturers with information about the Cleaner Cotton Campaign, which seeks to boost markets for organic and sustainable cotton, and consumers with the "10 Good Reasons Campaign," which promotes fair trade, organic and sustainable cotton clothes. Also offers a comprehensive list of web resources for more information. Contact Sustainable Cotton Project, P.O. Box 363, Davis, CA 95617, phone (530) 756-8518 Ext 34, fax (530) 756-7857, email Marcia@sustainablecotton.org.

*Proceedings 04 Cotton: A European Conference on Developing the Organic Cotton Market, 2004* PAN Germany in cooperation with PAN UK and L'Organisation Beninoise pour la Promotion de l'Agriculture Biologique (OBEPAB). Includes a complete listing of events and transcripts from plenary and workshop presentations, the final conference declaration and a list of participants. Also includes a CD with the recorded proceedings.142 pages. $10.90 Euros. Contact PAN Germany, Cotton Connection, Alexandra Baier and Norbert Reintjes, Nernstweg 32, 22765 Hamburg, Germany OR PAN UK, Simon Ferrigno, Eurolink Centre, 49 Effra Road, London SW2 1 BZ UK, phone (44 20) 7065-0915, fax (44 20) 7065-0907, email simonferrigno@pan-uk.org, website http://www.organiccottoneurope.net/conference.htm/.

We encourage those interested in having resources listed in the PANUPS Resource Pointer to send review copies of publications, videos or other resources to our office.

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

CHEMICALS - PHTHALATES

J Autoimmun. 2005 Jun 28;
Autoreactive responses to environmental factors: 3. Mouse strain-specific differences in induction and regulation of anti-DNA antibody responses due to phthalate-isomers.
Lim SY, Ghosh SK.
Department of Life sciences, Indiana State University, 403-25 N, 6th St, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USA.
"Phthalates cause mice that are genetically susceptible to develop autoimmune symptoms resembling Lupus. Antibodies produced by mice in response to phthalates are almost identical to the anti-self antibodies responsible for lupus in mice. All commonly used phthalates caused the immune response. The doses used in these experiments were high compared to what most people would experience. Journal of Autoimmunity."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15993037&query_hl=1

Otto Hug Strahleninstitut – MHM e. V., D, Land Vorarlberg, A, Europäische Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Mut zur Ethik", CH Österreichische Ärztekammer, A, Deutscher Verband für Tschernobyl-Hilfe e. V., D, Stiftung „Ein Herz für krebskranke Kinder", L, Hippokratische Gesellschaft Schweiz, CH invite to an

International Conference 20 Years of Living with Chernobyl – Experiences and Lessons for the Future

Aims of the Conference: Immediately after the Chernobyl disaster the Soviet secret service (KGB) classified a long list of issues as "top secret". There was no truthful reporting on the radiation damage among the population and among the emergency workers, no truthful documentation of the radioactive contamination of the affected areas. 20 years ago, efforts to conceal the disaster and its consequences prevented important measures which could have been taken to protect the population. And since 1990, major industrial countries have participated in trivializing these consequences. Until today, institutions influenced and controlled by powerful nuclear interests produce the majority of reports on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Internationally prominent committees still speak of only 31 radiation deaths after Chernobyl. Almost every health defect attributed to Chernobyl is disclaimed –except for thyroid cancer among children.

There are, however, more and more scientists in both the east and the west struggling to discover the real truth and to help the people affected in the Chernobyl region. The aim of the conference is therefore to provide experts with the necessary platform to openly report on the situation of these people, the lives they are now forced to lead, to expose the lies and strategies to cover up what happened, and to draw conclusions. We invite physicians, scientists and other experts to present and discuss their ‚inopportune‘ research and experiences in connection with Chernobyl. We also invite all interested citizens, Chernobyl Initiatives, politicians, physicians, energy scientists and representatives of institutions to listen, study, pose questions and seek realistic measures, whose priority is the well-being of the Chernobyl victims and the lessons learned from the disaster rather than the support of senseless specialist nuclear technology projects.

Medical problems in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia
How has data for illnesses, for instance of the thyroid, breast cancer, leukaemia, eye diseases, teratogene damage and for the general state of health changed? Have new results for the evaluation of the radiation effects been found?
Medical problems in Western Europe
Has people‘s state of health in other European countries also been affected (e.g. changes in the occurrence of infant mortality, abnormalities, Down syndrome, cancer and leukaemia)?
Socio-economic aspects
What are the socio-economic consequences for the affected population, for the job situaton, for people‘s health and general well-being, for the population development? Examples of national measures and aid projects (e.g. by NGOs)
Questions related to disaster management
Is the expensive building of a second sarcophagus necessary? Which dangers still emanate from the Chernobyl site? Is there new information about the cause of the disaster? What happens in the prohibited areas? Which lessons result from Chernobyl for the disaster control and the risk evaluation of nuclear power plants in the west?
International organizations and information policy
What are international committees such as ICRP, WHO, IAEA, EURATOM, UNSCEAR and others contributing towards the evaluation and overcoming of the Chernobyl consequences, and what are they not doing? The goals and effectiveness of international programs, e.g. of the CORE program?

Program coordination and registration for all countries except Switzerland: Prof. Dr. Edmund Lengfelder, Strahlenbiologisches Institut der LMU, Schillerstraße 42, D-80336 München Tel. 0049-89-218075-833/834, Fax 0049-89-218075-835 Email: lengfelder@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Conference office and registration in Switzerland Tschernobyl 2006 Feldkirch, Postfach CH-8501 Frauenfeld Tel: 0041 71 931 51 56
Email: tschernobyl2006@gmx.net
website: Working Group Chernobyl and its Consequences, www.zeit-fragen.ch

DISEASE - MCS

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency has released a report on MCS (in English)
Environmental Project no. 988, 2005
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, MCS
Abstract: "The report is based on a study of the scientific literature on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, MCS, in Denmark called odour and chemical hypersensitivity. It is concluded that MCS - a new health disorder which has been described during the last 20 years - is a real condition. MCS differs from the common scientific understanding of illness because the condition is always manifested by multiple non-specific symptoms from different organs at the same time and because these symptoms may occur after exposure to chemicals at very low concentrations."
available at: http://www.mst.dk/homepage/default.asp?Sub=http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-548-4/html/default_eng.htm

***

From Peter Evans, Convenor SA Task Force on MCS
On 5 July 2005 the South Australian Parliament released its long awaited report into multiple chemical sensitivity. The report concludes that MCS is "very real" and places the illness squarely on the public health and disability access agenda.

Recommendations include the formation of a MCS reference group by the Department of Health, ongoing epidemiological studies to monitor MCS, medical and public education, hospital protocols, disability access to services, safety warnings on products associated with MCS, establishing No-Spray registers for herbicides with local governments, and national research for safer methods of weed control.

A copy of the report can be downloaded from the South Australian Parliamentary website at:
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/committees/committee.asp?doCmd=show&intID=45 see link to Reports Tabled.

The inquiry received nearly 200 submissions from Australia, Canada, USA, Italy, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Denmark and acknowledges with thanks the many individuals with MCS who provided personal accounts of the difficulties they encounter.

The SA Task Force on MCS will be moving rapidly into implementation mode to ensure that our government adopt the reports recommendations. Any comments on the report are very welcome.

=================================================

14 July 2005, Network of Concerned Farmers (Australia)

Farmers slam Bayer Cropscience for contamination
Farmers are outraged at the report that there was 0.01% contamination found in an Australian Barley Board non-GM canola consignment destined for Japan.

"If Bayer Cropscience think that farmers are going to accept losses in markets or additional costs because of these unwanted GM genes, they can think again," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. "Wake up Bayer, it is a major problem for farmers and markets and because there is a moratorium the problem is for Bayer Cropscience to recall the product."

"We don't want liability for a product we do not want and do not need, yet farmers sign guarantees that we have no GM in our produce" she explained. "Liability should be on Bayer Cropscience's shoulders, not on farmers."

"If we can not control contamination coming from across the other side of the world, how on earth can we control it with a 5 metre buffer zone as suggested. Saying that is the fault of United States and Canada due to some imported breeding lines is ludicrous and little more than an excuse that gives others the blame for negligence."

The Australian Oilseeds Federation is pushing for tolerance levels where some "adventitous presence" of GM is allowed in non-GM seed. The ACCC has confirmed that in order to market as "non-GM" or "GM-free" there must be no trace of GM canola in the consignment. Markets and supply chains are demanding guarantees of no trace of GM in many Australian products.

"Setting a tolerance level that does not comply with law and does not comply with market demand is totally negligent" said Mrs Newman.

The Network of Concerned Farmers is asking for immediate legislative protection to ensure farmers can claim compensation if incomes are adversely affected.

"We knew something like this would happen eventually but the test is to see where the liability for this recklessness lies and it had better not rest with the non-GM farmers that do not want this GM product in their crops."

"Bayer Cropscience has no concern for sabotaging Australia's clean, green GM-Free image."

Contact Julie Newman: julie@non-gm-farmers.com

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2275

=================================================

France Plans Smokefree Workplace Law - Highest court rules that workers must be protected

Parts excerpted from the Associated Press, 8/2/05

Dozens of French lawmakers plan to propose a wide-ranging clean indoor air law that would clear the hazy air in France's restaurants and bars.

The bill, which has the initial backing of about 60 National Assembly lawmakers, will be submitted this autumn to the lower house of Parliament, Yves Bur, a lawmaker, told The Associated Press on Monday. "We need to move forward in our fight against the public scourge that tobacco is," said Bur, a deputy from President Jacques Chirac's governing conservative party.

Clean indoor air is currently required only in some public places in France, including hospitals, train stations and airports. Even there, many smokers openly disobey the law.

A 1991 law ordered the creation of smokefree areas in public places. Bur called the law "courageous" but said "it has never been properly applied because it is unworkable and unenforceable. We need clear smoking legislation that leaves no room for confusion," he said. "The clearest, simplest thing would be to totally eliminate workplace smoking."

About 20 million French people smoke - more than one-third of the population - as do 50 percent of youths aged 15 to 24, the highest rate in the European Union.

Recent government efforts to cut smoking have focused on raising prices and taxes. The price of a pack of cigarettes in France has doubled over the past decade, angering the powerful tobacco-seller's lobby. Cigarettes sold in France are among the most expensive in Europe.

"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 BREATHE-- Bar and Restaurant Employees Advocating Together for a Healthy Environment. "Laws should treat the health of all workers equally. Bar and restaurant workers should have the same right to a smokefree work environment as everyone else.

"No worker should have to breathe tobacco smoke pollution to hold a job, because it causes cancer, respiratory illness, and heart disease," Cherner added. "Smokefree workplace legislation is simply a matter of respect and dignity for workers."

The proposal is expected to face stiff opposition from tobacconists and restaurateurs, but health groups were optimistic about the bill's chances of becoming law. "For us, the question is not whether or not we will adopt a smokefree workplace law, but when," said Yves Martinet, president of the National Committee Against Tobacco Addiction.

Five European countries - Italy, Ireland, Malta, Norway and Sweden - have already eliminated smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars. A 2004 study by France's Alliance Against Tobacco found more than 70 percent of French people would support such a law in France. "Who would have thought that there would be no smoking in Ireland's pubs, or in the restaurants of Italy?" said Bur. "If it can happen there, it can happen here."

In June, France's highest court ruled that employers must protect workers from secondhand smoke, and it said that merely posting no-smoking signs did not go far enough.

To win smokefree air where YOU live, go to http://www.smokefree.net/alerts.php

=================================================

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS

***

July 7, 2005 Environmental Toxicants and Developmental Disabilities By Tim Montague
"Sixth grade was a trying time for Karen Singer's autistic son, who spent recess wandering the periphery of the playground by himself and sometimes hid in the school bathroom when he needed a safe place to cry. He knew he was doing something wrong as he reached the social crucible of middle school, but he did not know how to fix it. At home he begged his mother to explain:
"Why am I like this? What's wrong with me?" ...Parents, educators, researchers and clinicians all say that the majority of such children become conspicuous in the third grade and are bullied or ostracized by the time they reach middle school."[1]

Developmental disabilities such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and uncontrollable aggression currently affect an estimated 12 million U.S.
children under age 18 -- almost one child in five. A group of public health scientists led by Dr. Susan Koger estimates that between 3 and 25% of all developmental disabilities result from exposure to neurotoxic chemicals in the environment.[2] These disabilities ultimately impact all aspects of human development
-- our ability to learn, socialize and become productive members of society.

Reading and writing difficulties affect nearly 4 million school-age children. Disabilities in children pose lifelong difficulties for the affected individuals. It is harder for them to keep jobs, learn new skills, work and generally get along with others. Many developmental disabilities (like aggression and impulsivity) are precursors to violent and criminal behavior. In 2004, the U.S. prison/jail population increased at the rate of 933 each week and 75% of these new inmates were black or Hispanic -- populations disproportionately impacted by heavy metals and other toxicants.[3]

Costs to Society

Even if the developmental effects of environmental toxicants are subtle (which is not always the case), the economic and social impacts can be profound. Consider reduced intelligence:
If the cumulative effects of environmental toxicants reduced the average American's IQ by just one percent (about one IQ
point) the annual cost to society would come to $50 billion and the lifetime costs to trillions"[4]. The impacts are felt at both ends of the intelligence spectrum -- there is a greater burden on the social system, reduced productivity en masse, and there are fewer shining stars to discover new and better ways of living sustainably.

Mercury emissions from power plants alone impact approximately 500,000 children each year in the U.S. Their resulting lowered IQ translates into an annual economic loss of $1.3 billion (in 2000 dollars; this estimate is $8.7 billion if you consider all sources of environmental mercury).[5] And these statistics say nothing of the other costs to society including medical/therapeutic treatment, special education, incarceration, addiction counseling, etc.

Meanwhile, industry and government argue that its not economically viable to take a precautionary approach. As a result, Americans spend between $81 and 167 billion dollars each year on neurodevelopmental deficits, hypothyroidism and related disorders.

The Bush administration actively puts down European initiatives like REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of
Chemicals) that would force industry to evaluate the safety of chemicals prior to their marketing to the general public. This kind of precautionary stance might cost the U.S. $30 billion in lost sales of chemicals and products.[6] One study concluded that today's generation of newborns has a $110 to $318 billion GREATER earning capacity as a result of NOT being exposed to the levels of lead faced by infants a generation ago. [7]

Toxicants' Effect on the Developing Child

Growing children are particularly at risk to chemicals in their environment because they face greater exposure and are physiologically more susceptible. They ingest more food/water per pound of body weight than adults. Children spend more time near the ground and thus breathe up to ten times more dust and residues than adults. Children also put contaminated items in their mouths. When the National Academy of Sciences studied pesticides and children's health in 1993, the Academy concluded, "A fundamental maxim of pediatric medicine is that children are not 'little adults'.... In the absence of data to the contrary, there should be a presumption of greater toxicity to infants and children."[8]

Dr. Koger reviews some the literature on lead, mercury and
pesticides: We now know that environmental exposure to lead causes learning disabilities, reduced IQ, attention deficit, impulsivity, hyperactivity and violent behavior. Initially scientists believed that there was a threshold for lead toxicity but recent studies have confirmed that there is no safe level of lead exposure. If you ingest lead your IQ will be reduced. In the mid-1970s, 40% of American children under age 5 had average (mean) lead levels of 20 ug/dl or more. 10 ug/dl blood lead is the current safety threshold established by EPA.
Among African-American children in the mid-1970s, more than half had blood-lead levels greater than 15 ug/dl.[9]

Methylmercury (an organic form of mercury that accumulates in fish and the animals that eat fish) acts directly on the central nervous system by damaging or destroying nerve cells.
It impairs brain development and can lead to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, lowered IQ, loss of memory, reduced attention span and physical coordination. The FDA and EPA currently recommend that nursing mothers and young children avoid fish known to have high mercury levels (including albacore tuna, shark, swordfish, and king mackerel).[5] The major sources of environmental mercury are coal burning power plants, waste incinerators and volcanoes. Human sources account for 70% of the 5,500 metric tons (12.1 million pounds) of mercury released into the environment each year.[5] The EPA estimates that 1.16 million women of childbearing age "eat sufficient amounts of mercury-contaminated fish to pose a risk of harm to their future children."[10]

Pesticides are toxic by design and meant to kill weeds, insects, rodents and other pest organisms; they do so by impairing the nervous and immune system function. Many pesticides and their byproducts (which include PCBs) are highly toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative in humans. Because our nervous system shares basic physiology with other living things, pesticides also harm the human nervous and immune systems [see Rachel's #660]. Of the 140 pesticides officially known to be neurotoxicants, only 12 (8.5%) have been tested for potential impacts on children's development.[10] A study of Mexican children exposed to pesticides found impaired memory, creativity and motor skills compared to an unexposed population. The pesticide exposed children had trouble drawing an ordinary stick figure of a human, something the unexposed children could readily do.[11]

Limits of Science

Koger identifies six reasons why it is inherently difficult to document a cause-effect relationship between toxicants and impaired health:

1. Lack of a control group -- because environmental toxicants are so widespread, it is difficult (though not impossible) to find unexposed groups for comparison with exposed individuals;

2. Multiple chemical exposure -- the interaction between chemicals may cause different effects than a chemical acting alone;

3. Behavioral and cognitive effects are typically subtle and difficult to measure;

4. The majority of research on toxicants is done on lab animals which limits their application to human health;

5. The effects of exposure may not be seen for months or years;

6. The brain and other systems of the human body are more susceptible to chemicals during specific development phases -- exposure at one time may have no effect while the same exposure at a different developmental stage could have significant effects; and

7. Genetic variation and gene-environment interactions greatly complicate the matter.

Conclusions and Regulatory Issues

Humans have long recognized the potential harm of environmental chemicals to child development. Unfortunately, regulatory efforts focus on proving harm before limiting the exposure of countless innocents, with the associated cascade of health, social and economic losses. When the U.S. finally banned lead in paint and gasoline, blood levels of lead improved dramatically. But left to its own devices, industry will do what is best for industry -- pursue profits for shareholders at any cost (see Rachel's #771, #419, #421, and #427). The alternative is to take a proactive approach like that being pursued by Sweden which calls for new products to be largely free from (a) persistent and bioaccumulative substances; (b) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics and endocrine (hormone
system) disruptors; (c) heavy metals like lead, cadmium and mercury.[2] The U.S. is currently standing on the sidelines of this significant ethical and technological advancement for society.

Dr. Koger calls on her colleagues in the scientific/mental health professions to take a stand against the historical
risk-assessment- reliant prove-harm approach that costs society so much human suffering and misery. The grand human experiment currently being conducted by industry is inconsistent with the ethical standards applied to pharmaceutical testing where erring on the side of precaution is customary.

Koger urges psychologists -- as the most qualified front-line professionals dealing with the problems of developmental disabilities -- to play a more active role in exploring alternatives like integrated pest management, speaking out in their local community, and applying their technical expertise to the widespread and growing problem of environmental toxicants. As scientist-citizens psychologists can reduce the toxic burden shared by all. A healthy and sustainable future for our children depends on it.

[1] Jane Gross, "As Autistic Children Grow, So Does Social Gap," THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 26, 2005, p. A1.

[2] Susan M. Koger, Ted Schettler, and Bernard Weiss, "Environmental Toxicants and Developmental Disabilities: A Challenge for Psychologists," AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST (April 2005) Vol. 60, No. 3, pgs. 243-255.

[3] Incarceration Project http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1044.pdf

[4] Bernard Weiss, "Vulnerability of children and the developing brain to neurotoxic hazards," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, (June 2000) Vol. 108 (Supplement 3), pgs. 375-381.

[5] Leonardo Trasande and others, "Public Health and Economic Consequences of Methyl Mercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES (May 2005) Vol. 113, No. 5, pgs. 590-596.

[6] Elizabeth Becker, "White House Undermined Chemical Tests, Report Says," THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 2, 2004 p. C2.

[7] S.D. Grosse, and others, "Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children's exposure to lead in the United States,"
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, (June 2002) Vol. 110, No. 6, pgs. 563-569.

[8] Philip J. Landrigan and others, PESTICIDES IN THE DIETS OF INFANTS AND CHILDREN (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993), pg. 9.

[9] James L. Pirkle and others, "The Decline in Blood Lead Levels in the United States," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (July 27, 1994) Vol. 272, No. 4, pgs. 284-291.

[10] Ted Schettler and others, IN HARM'S WAY: TOXIC THREATS TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT (Cambridge, Mass.: Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility [GBPSR], May 2000).

[11] Elizabeth A. Guillette and others, "An Anthropological Approach to the Evaluation of Preschool Children Exposed to Pesticides in Mexico," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES (June 1998) Vol. 106, No. 6, pgs. 347- 353.

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org

SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send E-mail to listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message.

SPANISH EDITION
The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word AYUDA in an E-mail message to info@rachel.org.

BACK ISSUES IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH

All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org in text and PDF formats.

***

Mar. 31, 2005 Published April 21, 2005
PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AFRAID TO SPEAK OUT

=================================================

MOTTO

"Save the Environment to save yourself" ( A. Mani Prakash, India)

=================================================
end of newslettter /English/38

Fair use notice This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

Ingrid Scherrmann
Fuchsfeldstr. 50, D-88416 Ochsenhausen, phone: + 49 7352 940529
email: info@safer-world.org , Scherrmann@safer-world.org web: www.safer-world.org SAFER WORLD is a private independent international internet-network for a safer and healthy environment.