Federal agencies have been aware of a link between artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn and a debilitating respiratory illness. The illness has shown up in factory workers - and recently one consumer of microwave popcorn made the news when he also got sick. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Microwave popcorn lovers are thinking twice about their favorite snack. Lester
Graham reports, a lung disease associated with popcorn packers might be a risk for
some popcorn snackers:
Transcript
Microwave popcorn lovers are thinking twice about their favorite snack. Lester
Graham reports, a lung disease associated with popcorn packers might be a risk for
some popcorn snackers:
For years federal agencies have been aware that there’s a link between an artificial
butter flavoring and lung disease. Some workers at factories that pack popcorn in
microwavable bags are exposed to the chemical diacetyl. It causes a debilitating
respiratory illness thatís now called “popcorn workers lung.”
No one really thought consumers were at any risk, since exposure to diacetyl is
limited. But a recent New York Times article revealed a microwave popcorn lover
who ate two bags a day and stuck his nose into the bag to inhale the buttery odor of
diacetyl also contracted “popcorn workers lung.”
Congress is pressuring various federal agencies to set a health standard for
exposure to diacetyl to protect workers in popcorn packaging factories and other
industries that use the chemical.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Chances are your doctor doesn’t know much about environmentally-related
illnesses. Ann Murray looks at why most US doctors and nurses aren’t even
talking about environmental connections to their patients’ health and what’s
being done to remedy the situation:
Transcript
Chances are your doctor doesn’t know much about environmentally-related
illnesses. Ann Murray looks at why most US doctors and nurses aren’t even
talking about environmental connections to their patients’ health and what’s
being done to remedy the situation:
In 1999, Jo Ann Meier was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was shocked
to discover she had the disease. No one in her family had a history of cancer.
And she only had one of the standard risk factors for the illness:
“Of course, you always speculate when you have a disease like this. Was it
something I did or was it something that I was exposed to?”
Meier says her doctors never talked to her about possible environmental
links to her illness. Today, Meier is cancer free and runs a non-profit that
raises money for breast cancer research. She hears similar stories about other
primary care physicians from the breast cancer patients she works with every
day.
“There’s a great deal of anger about the misinformation or lack of
information given to them in general. I mean, it would be great if your PCP would
say you have to look at what you’re doing on a day-to-day basis that might
be affecting your health.”
Jo Ann Meier’s experience isn’t unusual. Experts agree that most doctors and
nurses aren’t ready to deal with the environmental links to dozens of
illnesses like cancer or lung disease. Sometimes crowded doctors’ schedules
or fear of being seen as an environmental advocate get in the way. Leyla
McCurdy directs the Health and Environment Program at the National
Environmental Educational and Training Foundation in Washington, DC.
McCurdy says medical providers don’t know much about environmental
health issues because training is so hard to come by.
One of the challenges that we are facing in terms of integrating environmental
health is the lack of expertise in the area. There are very few leaders who
are willing to take the time and create their own materials to educate the
students at the medical and nursing schools:
“As a result of this small pool of experts, and an already crowded set of
courses, most med students get only about seven hours of environmental
health education in four years of school. Established doctors and nurses have
even fewer training options.
A small but growing number of health care institutions, non-profits and
agencies are stepping in to fill the training gap. On this morning, medical
residents and staff doctors crowd into a hospital lecture hall.
“Welcome to medical grand rounds. Our speaker today is Doctor Talal ElHanowe,
who is going to talk to us about estrogenic pollutants in the environment and
the risk they pose to people.”
“Can these chemicals, which resemble estrogen, in one way or the other, cause an increase in the risk
to develop cancer? And the answer is yes.”
ElHanowe is a medical doctor and research scientist. He works with the
University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Environmental Oncology. The Center
is developing environmental health training for doctors and nurses. After his
seminar, ElHanowe says response to the program has been good. But his job
of relating environmental health risks can be tough because doctors aren’t
used to treating diseases with causes that are hard to pin down.
“In the scientific community, we can’t prove everything. Many things are
very difficult to prove.”
ElHanowe’s boss, Devra Davis, says medical providers will have to be
satisfied with substantial evidence, not absolute proof, that certain
environmental toxins increase the risk of illnesses, and steer patients to safer
alternatives. Davis is a nationally known epidemiologist. She says
environmental medicine’s emphasis on prevention is the shot in the arm
American health care needs:
“Because no matter how efficient the health care system becomes at finding
and treating disease, if we don’t reduce the burden of the disease itself, we’ll
never be able to improve the health of Americans.”
But to make environmental medicine standard issue in schools and practice,
a lot more doctors and nurses will need to be educated. And that means a lot
more funding. It’s hoped as medical providers make the connection between
environmental exposures and public health, funding sources will open up
and environmental medicine will make its way into mainstream health care.
Environmentalists say the Bush administration is ignoring the government’s own scientists in new proposed air pollution rules. The rules reject advice to further restrict soot and other fine particle pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Environmentalists say the Bush administration is ignoring the
government’s own scientists in new proposed air pollution rules. The
rules reject advice to further restrict soot and other fine particle pollution.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Environmental Protection Agency’s own staff scientists and the
independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee both found the
EPA needed to issue more restrictive rules regarding fine particulate
matter, that’s soot emitted from sources such as diesel trucks and coal-
burning power plants.
After reviewing 2000 studies linking particulate matter to asthma, heart
attacks, and early death for people with heart and lung disease, the
scientists concluded that standards set by the Clinton administration in
1997 did not go far enough to help reduce health risks. Despite that, the
Bush EPA appointees basically plan to keep restrictions where they are.
The power plant industry indicates further restrictions would be a
financial burden to it, and provide only marginal public health benefits.
Environmentalists say the Bush administration’s proposed rules ignore
mountains of medical research showing this kind of air pollution causes
serious health problems.
Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air, water, or ground. This information is made available to the public. And proponents say this database has led to the cleanup of countless facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental
Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air,
water, or ground. This information is made available to the public, and
proponents say this database has led to the clean-up of countless
facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of
information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush
has more:
The EPA says it wants to make things easier on companies that are
required to file yearly reports on the toxic chemicals they work with.
Instead of filing a report every year, officials say they want companies to
file a report every other year.
Dr. Michael Harbut heads up the Center for Occupational and
Environmental Medicine in southeast Michigan. He says
epidemiologists rely on the annual reports for research into human
diseases:
“What’s being proposed here is a marked reduction in the data available
to persons who are involved in the fight against cancer, and to persons
who are involved in the fight against the most common killers in the
United States; heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes.”
EPA officials say having companies report every other year will help
improve data quality, and will allow them to conduct more analysis
on the data that’s submitted.
For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.
Host Tag: The EPA will take public comments on the proposed changes
until January 13th.
A new study is producing more evidence that there is a direct link between air pollution in big cities and lung damage. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
A new study is producing more evidence that there is a direct link between air pollution in big cities and lung damage. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Researchers at the University of Southern California followed more than 100 children through their teen years. They compared those who stayed in Los Angeles with those who left to live in cities with less air pollution. The results show the children that moved away from cities with polluted skies had significantly faster growth in their lungs. Scientists say children with decreased lung capacity are more susceptible to respiratory disease and more likely to have chronic lung problems as adults.
Lead researcher Edward Avol says the study is the latest piece of evidence that proves there is a direct and measurable positive effect in reducing air pollution. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
Federal agencies have been aware of a link between artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn and a debilitating respiratory illness. The illness has shown up in factory workers - and recently one consumer of microwave popcorn made the news when he also got sick. (Photo by Lester Graham)