Fish Stocking Taxing

  • As fewer Brown Trout from a state stocking program survive in the waters of Thunder Bay in Lake Huron, the fish takes on the allure of a trophy fish, especially since those that do survive can grow very large. Last year, a 28 pound Brown Trout won the tournament. It may be the biggest Brown ever to be caught in the state of Michigan. (Photo by Linda Stephan)

Most cities have their symbols. Imagine San Francisco without
the Golden Gate, New York without the Statue of Liberty, or
Miami without dolphins. Linda Stephan has the story of a
community that has linked itself with a fish that is not native to
its waters. And stocking that fish is costing taxpayers a lot:

Transcript

Most cities have their symbols. Imagine San Francisco without
the Golden Gate, New York without the Statue of Liberty, or
Miami without dolphins. Linda Stephan has the story of a
community that has linked itself with a fish that is not native to
its waters. And stocking that fish is costing taxpayers a lot:


The brown trout arrived in Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay by a
fluke. Back in the 1970s, about a thousand fish – surplus stocks
from inland waters – were simply tossed out into the bay by
biologists, as if the bay were a trash bin.


No one expected them to survive. They thought they’d just be
food for other fish. But the brown trout did survive. They
quickly grew large and feisty. The state started to stock these
waters with young brown trout every year because anglers
liked catching them.


In fact, it was so popular, they named a fishing tournament after
it: the brown trout Festival in Alpena, Michigan. This year, a
crowd of hundreds gathered, despite periodic rain showers, as
festival o-“FISH”-als weighed in a day’s catch… lake trout, walleye:


(Sound of announcer at tournament)


You don’t need a brown trout to win at the brown trout
Festival. And it’s a good thing because these days, most boats
don’t catch even one. That’s because things have changed.


The ecosystems of Lake Huron and the other Great Lakes are
changing rapidly, as foreign invasive species, such as the zebra and
quagga mussels, steal away food at the bottom of the lake’s
food web.


Plus, a migratory bird that’s been showing up in this bay in huge
numbers, cormorants, have been eating the small browns
stocked by state fish nurseries before the fish ever make it into
open waters.


For the past decade, the Brown hasn’t survived all that well in
Lake Huron. So today biologists estimate that, taking into
account all those fish that don’t survive, every time an angler
catches a big Brownie, it now costs taxpayers close to
three hundred dollars.


In other words, each brown trout caught represents about
three hundred dollars spent by the state stocking program.
Even though the brown trout is not native, people here say the
fish belongs in these waters.


Hobbyist Dick Cadarette at the brown trout Festival says the Brown has a special allure for
the angler:


“Well, because they’re the best eating and they’re the hardest to
catch. That’s why we call it the brown trout because anybody
can catch a steelhead – I mean a lake trout – but they can’t
everybody catch a Brown.”


As the large fish becomes more and more elusive, it takes on
the allure of a trophy fish.


Fisheries Biologist Dave Fielder says because of the cost – for
years now – the state has had good reason to quit stocking these
waters with brown trout, but they still haven’t. No one’s
willing to see the namesake of the brown trout Festival
disappear:


“What’s always amazed me is how the natural resources in
Michigan, including the fisheries that we enjoy in the Great
Lakes, is really a part of that local heritage and quality of
life for these local communities and becomes an important part of the local existance and indentity it’s important that we
as scientists don’t lose sight of that.”


But some say the fact that the local community has gotten used
to seeing the brown trout does not mean it belongs in the lake.
Mark Ebener is a Fisheries Biologist for the Chippewa-Ottawa
Resource Authority. It regulates fishing for five Native
American tribes:


“You tell a lie long enough and sooner or later people
believe it and accept it as the truth. You know it’s not that
brown trout belong here. brown trout were introduced
and they continue to be defined as an introduced species
into North America.”


Ebener says since the brown trout does no harm to native fish,
such as the lake trout, his organization doesn’t oppose the
stocking program. But he also says at the current cost, the
brown trout is a clear waste of taxpayer money.


Back in Alpena, Biologist Dave Fielder agrees the state can’t
keep stocking the lake with browns if so few continue to
survive. But, an angler himself, he looks with envy on a
mounted brown that took last year’s top prize in the tournament,
an unbelievable 28.2 pounds:


“Can you imagine landin’ that fish? That must have been
somethin’. Anybody’s who’s caught fish can look at that and imagine the battle they must’ve went through and the excitement they must’ve felt. And those are real feelings and that’s not to be
trivialized.”


That’s evidence to Fielder, and others who fish these waters,
that at least some brown trout have what it takes to complete
for food in the changing ecosystems of Lake Huron.


For the Environment Report, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links

Who Should Watch Big Farms?

  • Hog manure being injected into the ground and tilled under. The manure fertilizes the crops, but if too much is applied it can foul up waterways. (Photo by Mark Brush)

Big livestock operations can raise thousands of cows, chickens or pigs
under one roof. It helps keep the price of food lower. But neighbors
complain the government’s not doing a good enough job of monitoring the
pollution these farms produce. Rebecca Williams reports there’s a
debate heating up in several states over who should be regulating these
big farms:

Transcript

Big livestock operations can raise thousands of cows, chickens or pigs
under one roof. It helps keep the price of food lower. But neighbors
complain the government’s not doing a good enough job of monitoring the
pollution these farms produce. Rebecca Williams reports there’s a
debate heating up in several states over who should be regulating these
big farms:


The days of small farms with different kinds of livestock grazing in
the pasture are fading from the landscape.


They’re being replaced by farms that specialize in one kind of animal –
and raise thousands of them. They’re called concentrated animal
feeding operations, or CAFOs.


There are battles in several states right now over who should be keeping an eye
on the CAFOs. Usually, the state departments of environmental
protection have power under the federal Clean Water Act to enforce laws
and issue permits. But in the Midwest, in states such as Ohio and
Michigan, and in the West, in states such as Oregon and Idaho, they either have transferred or are working to transfer oversight power to the state agriculture departments – and get U.S. EPA approval.


Jerry Van Woerkom is a Republican state senator in Michigan. Right
now, the state Department of Environmental Quality – or DEQ – has the
oversight powers. But Senator Van Woerkom is sponsoring a package of
bills that would put most of the state’s big livestock farms under the
Department of Agriculture:


“Those people tend to be supportive and come with the attitude of we’re
going to try to work together to solve this problem. Whereas when they
work with the DEQ the attitude is more like we’re coming with a
hammer and if we find anything you’ve done that’s out of line, we’re
going to wop you with it.”


The CAFOs are in the spotlight because they can produce tens of
thousands of gallons of urine and manure each day. That liquefied
manure is eventually spread onto farm fields.


The Environmental Protection Agency says that waste can wash from
fields into streams and creeks. That can cause fish kills. Animal
waste has also gotten into drinking water and made people sick.


Lynn Henning runs a small farm. She says there are 13 CAFOs within a
10 mile radius of her Michigan farmhouse. She says the manure odors
are overwhelming:


“We can’t hang laundry when the emissions are in the air. We have
severe fly outbreaks. We’ve had family farmers that have been diagnosed with hydrogen
sulfide poisoning from emissions from the CAFOs.”


Henning says the current oversight system is weak. She says the
Department of Environmental Quality doesn’t have enough funding to
monitor the CAFOs. So that job often falls to residents like her. She
says putting the Department of Agriculture in charge of oversight would
make the problems even worse:


“The MDA has no enforcement authority and they promote agriculture in
Michigan. It’s like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
You can’t give authority to punish to an agency that’s promoting.”


But it could become a wider trend if the states that are proposing the
switch now actually make it happen.


Karla Raettig is an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project.
It’s a group that’s been critical of weakening environmental laws.
She’s been tracking trends in enforcement of livestock farms:


“I think the Farm Bureau and other really large industry advocates are
seeing a chance to get regulation that is perhaps more cooperative,
less regulatory and less on the enforcement side. It isn’t totally
nefarious but I think it could have outcomes that are not anticipated.”


Raettig says you have to wonder what will happen without the threat of
enforcement from an environmental agency.


But Senator Jerry Van Woerkom from Michigan argues that farmers are
more likely to do the right thing if they’re overseen by a friendlier
agency, as he proposes:


“I mean you’re not able to cover up problems that happen, it gets in
the newspaper, people know when problems happen. But I believe that the
agriculture department will work with people, especially if people are
getting a bad reputation. I think they will work with them and if
those people do get out of line, it’s back to the DEQ.”


Environmentalists and small farmers are worried about the idea of
states handing off oversight of CAFOs… from their environmental
watchdog agencies to their agencies in charge of promoting the business
of agriculture.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Nature Profile: Women and the Woods

  • (L to R) Lorin Waxman, Cindy Waxman, Pamela Waxman, Bonnie Waxman, on their back deck. (Photo courtesy of Pamela Waxman)

Fairy tales and slasher films suggest that
the woods can be a scary place. It’s a place where
someone or some thing could hurt us. In our
occasional series about people’s connections to
the environment, Kyle Norris talks to one woman
who has every reason to fear the woods, but has
come to reject that notion:

Transcript

Fairy tales and slasher films suggest that
the woods can be a scary place. It’s a place where
someone or some thing could hurt us. In our
occasional series about people’s connections to
the environment, Kyle Norris talks to one woman
who has every reason to fear the woods, but has
come to reject that notion:


Pamela Waxman spends every minute of her free time hiking,
camping, and backpacking through the woods. And when she’s
in the woods she smiles a lot. And talks slower and a little
easier than when she’s in her day-to-day life. She likes
exploring nature with other people. But she also enjoys going out
by herself, and she does a lot. And that really stresses-out her
parents.


“They’re worried that something’s going to happen to me,
something bad. That either I will be attacked or that I’ll break a
leg or something and there won’t be someone else to help me or to go for
help. They don’t want to lose me and they don’t want me to
suffer.”


For some people, there’s a great fear involved when women go
into the woods. Especially when women go into the woods alone. For Pamela’s
family, this concern is based in reality.


“Well, my sister was murdered out in nature attending to
something she loved. She was alone in a wooded area and
somebody attacked and killed her. So it’s easy to see a parallel
with me going out in woods and being alone in a wooded area.”


Pamela’s older sister, Cindy, was sexually assaulted and killed
in the woods near her home. She had just turned eleven. Pamela
was eight. It makes sense that Pamela may not enjoy being out in the woods, but that’s not what happened. Instead of avoiding the
woods, she embraced the woods:


“I do turn to nature as a place to be and it’s definitely linked to
fact that Cindy was murdered in sort of a wooded area in the
suburbs but still. I reject that. I’m not going to live that way.
I’m not willing to stay indoors and not go out because
someone might murder me in the woods. I don’t think that’s
rational. I don’t want to and will not live that way and I don’t
want to set the example for other people to do that.


“Like the first thing my parents did, like really soon after my sister
was killed was send me away to camp. Which seems totally ridiculous now, but… backpacking which I don’t think I’d ever done, backpacking, rock
climbing and repelling. Under the supervision of basically
a bunch of teenagers, 19-year-olds. For a week, in the High Sierras. Sounds insane. Was totally great. I’m so grateful they sent me because it would have been so easy to clamp down.
And be like no you’re staying with us so we can watch you.
But they didn’t so that. They sent me out into the woods.”


(Norris:) “Did nature help you heal from her death?”


“Oh, I don’t know. Have I healed from her death? Not really…”


But she keeps going back to nature. Today Pamela works at a teen
center. And she recently took a group of teenage girls on a
week-long camping trip. She said the girls would say things like
“I’m afraid of the dark,” or “the woods are creepy”:


“There’s a lot of fear. I think it’s an internalized fear about
violence, rape. I never hear, then they feel it and repress it, but I
never hear boys and men say that they’re afraid to be out in
nature.”


So helping young women feel safer and more comfortable in
nature has become one of Pamela’s personal goals. Pamela says
that nature has taught her about survival. It’s taught her about being normal. And
being fine.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Great Lakes Lower Levels

Scientific data indicate lower Great Lakes water levels might be because of global
warming. But, Lester Graham reports many people believe the lower levels are
because of water withdrawals:

Transcript

Scientific data indicate lower Great Lakes water levels might be because of global
warming. But, Lester Graham reports many people believe the lower levels are
because of water withdrawals:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental
Research Lab has been investigating the lower water levels on the Great Lakes for
several years now. They’ve recorded less snow pack to replenish the lakes, and
less ice cover to prevent evaporation during the winter. That’s corresponded with the
lower lake levels.


The inference is climate change – or global warming – is causing the Great Lakes to
lose water. But many residents in the Great Lakes region are convinced the water is
being piped away, either by industry or diverted to Western states.


Most of the water diversions in the Lakes have been around for a century and are
well-monitored. But, some politicians play on fears that the lower lake levels are part
of a grand conspiracy to steal Great Lakes water for more politically powerful states
in drier regions.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Beach Bacteria Can Cause Closings

Even if it’s safe to go in the water at your local beach, the sand
might harbor bacteria. Rebecca Williams reports a new study finds
contaminated sand could cause beaches to be closed to swimmers:

Transcript

Even if it’s safe to go in the water at your local beach, the sand
might harbor bacteria. Rebecca Williams reports a new study finds
contaminated sand could cause beaches to be closed to swimmers:


If officials find the bacteria E. Coli or Enterococci in beach water,
they usually close the beach. That’s because at high levels, those
bacteria can make swimmers sick. A new study found those two types of
bacteria can be common in beach sand.


Alexandria Boehm is the author of the study in the journal
Environmental Science and Technology. She says the bacteria in sand
can occur naturally, but they can also come from human or animal waste.


She found that bacteria in sand can get stirred into the water at high
enough levels to trigger beach closings:


“If sand is the source of pollution at these beaches it makes
remediation very difficult because we don’t really know how to clean up beach
sand.”


Boehm says more studies are needed to know if people can get sick by
being exposed to bacteria in sand.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Solar Shortages

  • (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

Leaders in the solar power industry say the
market is on the brink of expansion. But shortages
of solar panels and electricians to install them
need to be addressed. Many states are seeing those
problems as a way to boost their lagging economies
and create a new sector of manufacturing jobs.
Lisa Ann Pinkerton Reports:

Transcript

Leaders in the solar power industry say the
market is on the brink of expansion. But shortages
of solar panels and electricians to install them
need to be addressed. Many states are seeing those
problems as a way to boost their lagging economies
and create a new sector of manufacturing jobs.
Lisa Ann Pinkerton Reports:


10-year-old Alex Hinkley is sitting at a picnic table watching the Cleveland Indians play
the Kansas City Royals. She’s eating a hotdog, oozing with ketchup, and she’s found
shade under a rather unique awning. It’s made up of 42 solar panels.


The Cleveland Indian’s is the only American League Ball Club to have solar panels and
it’s the only one to use its solar electricity at the park. The panels power 400 TVs at
Jacob’s Field and fifth grader Alex thinks it’s a cool way to introduce people, young and
old, to renewable energy:


“Some people don’t know what they are, but if they know what it is they’ll
wanna learn about it. Because a lot of kids go to the Indians games and I think they should learn a
lot about energy.”


Alex thinks if people are exposed to what solar panels can do, they’ll want them for
themselves. And the notion isn’t far off. High energy prices and state and federal
subsidies are expanding the market more and more each year. In 2006, the electrical solar
industry generated more than 1 billion dollars in revenue.


Exhibiting his products at a Solar Convention, Al Frasz of Ohio Dovetail Solar and Wind
thinks the solar business is on the brink of expansion:


“We’re projecting over 100 percent growth this year. So we’re expecting probably over
the next five years at least 300 percent.”


But the Solar Industry suffers from supply shortages, locally and internationally. Brad
Collins of the American Solar Energy Society says current federal subsidies make solar
competitive with fossil fuels. But entrepreneurs haven’t invested in solar panel factories
because they don’t want their products to collect dust on the shelves if those subsides
aren’t renewed in the future.


So now, he says states are starting to take the lead. He says the rustbelt of America in
particular has a lot to gain from this supply shortage. It’s got the manufacturing
infrastructure and the skilled workforce needed to build the nation’s photo voltaic solar
panels, known in the industry simply as PV. Collins says factories that make auto glass
could easily make the switch:


“There’s a lot of similarities between the production of auto glass and production
processes that could be modified to produce PV. It’s putting a film on a piece of
glass…And that’s the way we can compete.”


Even if states are successful at establishing solar product factories, Bernie Kotlier says
there may not be enough electricians to install the systems. He coordinates weekend
training sessions for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in Los Angeles:


“What we feel is that the manufacturers are gearing up to supply the equipment but the
next bottleneck will be labor…What would happen if we don’t address it? Well, we’ll have a
shortage.”


In the next ten years, California wants 1 million roofs generating power from the sun.
Kotlier says to make that happen the state will need conservatively, more than 10,000 additional certified
installers than exist today, to make that happen. He says that number’s even bigger is you
look at how the solar market could grow nationally, and across the country certified
installers are already scarce:


“We have people from all around the country who are contacting us regularly saying
we’re getting interest in PV solar in Arizona, in Washington state, in New York, in
Massachusetts. So it is spreading…but it’ll take time. But actually, that’s a good thing because frankly we couldn’t
handle all that interest at once.”


If states continue to offer incentives that bring the cost of solar power down to where it’s
competitive with fossil fuels, Kotlier says solar manufacturing sectors will surely be
required to meet the demand. Where those manufacturing jobs are located and if there
will be enough certified installers nationally remains to be seen. But he says the states that offer
subsides and the people who invest in solar now, could see a huge return on their
investments. Those who delay could find themselves left behind.


For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links

The Dirt on Diaper Duty

  • She's cute, but what about all those diapers? (Photo by Mark Brush)

There’s a reason more than 90% of American parents choose disposable
diapers over cloth. Nothing beats the convenience of disposable
diapers. But what about their effect on the environment? Reporter
Mark Brush has two little ones at home and decided to take a closer
look at the question:

Transcript

There’s a reason more than 90% of American parents choose disposable
diapers over cloth. Nothing beats the convenience of disposable
diapers. But what about their effect on the environment? Reporter
Mark Brush has two little ones at home and decided to take a closer
look at the question:


My wife and I didn’t hesitate in our decision about diapers. We went
with disposables from the start.


(Sound of baby crying)


Raising kids can be hard work. The convenience of disposable diapers
was just too much to pass up. But what does that decision mean for the
environment? I mean, if I do the math, we’ve got a three-year-old who’s
out of diapers. And a one-year-old who’s going through three or four a day now. Over
the years, we’ve dumped about 5,480 diapers into a nearby landfill.
Five thousand four hundred eighty. Going with disposables can’t be
good, can it?


Well, as it turns out, the answer is pretty darned complicated. There
have been several studies done on diapers and the problems they create.
Most recently, a study was done on diapers by the Environment Agency in
Great Britain.


It compared disposable diapers with cloth diapers washed at home, and
cloth diapers from a diaper service. In the end, they said, there were no clear
winners. So disposables aren’t so bad, right?


Well, not so fast, says Greg Keoleian. He’s the co-director of the
Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. Keoleian
says it all depends on where you live:


“In evaluating life cycle results you should look at local conditions.
For example if you’re in an area where water is scarce, like let’s say
Arizona, then you want to weigh that factor more heavily in your
decision.”


Keoleian says since I live in an area where landfill space is short,
and where water is plentiful… I might want to consider cloth diapers,
so, I bring the idea home to my family:


(Mark:) “What do you think, Andrea? Do you think we should try cloth
diapers?”


(Andrea:) “No.”


(Mark:) “Why?”


(Andrea:) “‘Cause you might have to send me to the Looney bin.”


(Eli:) “Well, Mom, then you don’t have to through them away.”


(Andrea:) “That’s true, you’ve got a good point.”


(Eli:) “You only have to wash them.”


(Andrea:) “Yep, that’s true. And you know what, my Mom and Dad always
washed all of our diapers. She was a better woman than I am…
(laughing)”


(Sound of baby crying)


But today, the choices are different than they were for our parents. It’s not just about cloth vs. disposable anymore. There are tons of different choices. For instance, I went down the street to our friend
Melissa’s house.


She and her husband have a two-year-old. They’ve tried out a bunch of
different diapers including one you can flush down the toilet. The
point of the G-diaper, Melissa says, is to treat the waste – rather than simply throwing
it in your garbage can:


“So then when you go to change him… you take it out… and then you put it
in the toilet and they give you a swish stick. And then you swish it
as it’s flushing – therefore you won’t clog up your toilets. Now, I did
notice that when I used these in public restrooms and I didn’t have my
swish stick I would kind of clog up the toilet sometimes… it all
depended on the toilet. So for going out, the G-diapers for me didn’t seem
to be such a good idea because I hated clogging up the toilets (laughs).”


Melissa says after problems like this, she eventually switched to a kind of disposable diaper
that’s supposed to be better for the environment.


Now, if you really want to think outside the box, there’s another choice that might come in handy. It’s a practice called Diaper Free: No diapers. Parents help their infants go to the toilet when nature calls. Erin LaFreniere is a sort of local expert on the Diaper Free method:


“Diaper Free is a little bit misleading because people think you’re not
wearing a diaper, oh that must be horrible, how can you deal with the mess, that’s not sanitary. And really, diaper
free really means not being stuck with diapers all the time.”


LaFreniere says parents still use diapers, just not as often. They
learn how to pick up on their infant’s cues, and when it’s time they
take them to the bathroom. She says cutting back on diapers is a side
benefit. For her, learning how to communicate with her baby was more
important.


But, I don’t know. I can’t imagine the diaper free idea going over well at home. I mean, our lives are really busy and it’s hard enough for us to keep up. Disposable
diapers are just too convenient.


I guess it’s like a lot of decisions people make in their lives:
convenience will often trump a slight benefit to the environment.
And experts I talked to said if we take a look at all the impacts we have on the
environment, diapering is pretty low on the list. So, my wife and I can do right by the environment somewhere else in our lives.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Chemical Companies Could Be Safer

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


A House committee last year passed a plan to require industries to replace dangerous chemicals
with less toxic alternatives whenever feasible. The US Public Interest Research Group is among
the environmental organizations urging this year’s Congress to revive the measure.


Spokesman Bruce Speight argues the companies, and consumers, would not face sticker shock
when adopting greener chemicals and processes:


“No, in fact, over the long term they could actually save the facilities money and, you know, of course in the event of something happening, the cost to these facilities is great.”


When Speight says something happening he means an accident or terrorist attack at a site that
uses dangerous chemicals. Thousands of people could be hurt in such an incident. But the
chemical industry says many firms are already switching to less toxic substances, and don’t need
the federal government to push them.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Refinery Pollution Opposed

Politicians and environmentalists are rallying against the decision to allow British
Petroleum to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes. Laura Weber reports the
plan to expand a BP refinery is met with debate:

Transcript

Politicians and environmentalists are rallying against the decision to allow British
Petroleum to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes. Laura Weber reports the
plan to expand a BP refinery is met with debate:


British Petroleum is the first company approved to dump more pollution since the Clean Water Act was amended in 1977. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson says BP will be allowed to continue
expansion plans to the refinery near Lake Michigan as long as it remains compliant
with federal law. But some environmentalists and politicians think any additional
pollution is unacceptable.


Environment Michigan Director Mike Shriberg says the biggest problem with BP’s
permit is not the excess pollution… it’s the precedent it sets:


“By allowing BP to increase its toxic dumping, other companies are going to want
to have those same exemptions.”


The city of Chicago is threatening a lawsuit against BP if the company is not
willing to discuss ways to avoid dumping more pollution in the Great Lakes.


For the Environment Report, I’m Laura Weber.

Related Links

Plastic Ingredient a Health Hazard?

A common chemical in food and beverage containers could be harming
human health, even at very low levels of exposure. That’s the
consensus of a panel of 38 scientists convened by the National
Institutes of Health. Rebecca Williams reports the panel reviewed more
than 700 research studies:

Transcript

A common chemical in food and beverage containers could be harming
human health, even at very low levels of exposure. That’s the
consensus of a panel of 38 scientists convened by the National
Institutes of Health. Rebecca Williams reports the panel reviewed more
than 700 research studies:


The chemical’s called bisphenol A. It’s in everything from the lining
of metal food and drink cans to baby bottles and toys. The bisphenol A
industry says its products pose no risk to human health.


But a new scientific assessment says there could be risks to people.
It was just published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. Fred vom
Saal is the lead author. He says the levels of bisphenol A in people’s
blood routinely exceed the federal government’s safe exposure level:


“These blood levels are above the levels found in the blood of
experimental animals that result in wide range of adverse effects on
the brain, the reproductive system, the endocrine system and the immune
system.”


vom Saal says the science panel agrees there’s enough evidence to
suggest the chemical could be a problem for humans.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links