Two government agencies are agreeing to work together to test chemicals in products we use. But Lester Graham reports… there are still lots of hurdles and years of delays before products already on the shelves can be tested for safety:
Transcript
Two government agencies are agreeing to work together to test chemicals in products we use. But Lester Graham reports… there are still lots of hurdles and years of delays before products already on the shelves can be tested for safety:
Three years ago, a government report showed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could not assess the health risks of 85% of the chemicals in the products you probably have in your bathroom or out in the garage.
The Government Accountability Office found part of the reason then, and now, was because laws protect corporations’ secrets—over public knowledge about health risks.
On top of that other reports found the EPA was years behind in testing chemicals at all.
Now the EPA and the National Institutes of Health are going to be working together to test chemicals faster and without using lab animals.
The agencies will be testing the safety of chemicals ranging from pesticides to household cleaners to see if they harm human health.
The one problem… it will take, quote, “many years” to validate the new testing methods before the testing program can be fully implemented.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
To those who may recoil in terror from this picture, relief from peanut allergies may just be a vaccine away. (Photo by Mike Froese)
A new vaccine that reduces food allergies in dogs could
some day help people who suffer dangerous reactions to food like
peanuts, milk and wheat. The vaccine is also more evidence in
support of the so-called “hygiene hypothesis.” The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
A new vaccine that reduces food allergies in dogs could some day help people who suffer
dangerous reactions to food like peanuts, milk and wheat. The vaccine is also more
evidence in support of the so-called “hygiene hypothesis.” The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Allergies to foods like peanuts have become much more common over the past 20 years.
Some researchers believe it’s because, as a hygiene-conscious society, we’re no
longer exposing our bodies to infections that stimulate the immune system and protect
us from allergies. Pediatrician Dale Umetsu of Stanford University mixed a component
of Listeria bacterium and peanuts into a vaccine. He then gave it to dogs
with allergies so severe that one peanut made them sick.
“After the treatment, the dogs could tolerate up, on average, to 30 to 40 peanuts,
so this was quite an increase and the effect lasted several months, at least,
after the treatment.”
Umetsu says it could be five years or more before a vaccine is available for human trials.
A vaccine could help millions of people with food allergies.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tracy Samilton.
Once hunted nearly to extinction, the gray wolf has recently rebounded under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to take the wolf off of the Endangered Species List and hand wolf management back to the states. (Photo by Katherine Glover)
A captive wolf at the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. (Photo by Katherine Glover)
Peggy Callahan, Executive Director of
the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. Callahan works to minimize conflicts between wolves and people. (Photo by Katherine Glover)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:
Transcript
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population
of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management
to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:
(sound of wolves howling)
The image of the wolf has always had a powerful effect on people. Wolves seem dangerous,
mysterious, romantic. They are a symbol of the untamed wilderness. Before Europeans came
to America, wolves roamed freely on every part of the continent. In 1630, the colony of
Massachussetts Bay started paying bounties to settlers for killing wolves. Over the next
300 years, wolf killing spread across the country, until all that was left was a few small
pockets of surviving wolf packs.
When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, the only wolves left to protect in the
Midwest were in Northern Minnesota. By some estimates, there were as few as 350 of them.
Today, Minnesota has a healthy wolf population of around 2400 animals, and smaller populations
are growing in Wisconsin and Michigan. Becaue of this success, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has proposed removing the animals from the Endangered Species List. This would mean wolves would
no longer be federally protected – it would be up to the states.
(sound of gate opening)
Peggy Callagan works with captive wolves at the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. She’s the
Center’s co-founder and executive director. She and her staff research ways to minimize
conflicts between wolves and people. Callahan is looking forward to seeing the wolf taken off
the Endangered Species List.
“It’s a good thing for the Endangered Species Act, to take a wolf off or an eagle off or a
peregrine off when it has recovered. The act was not established to provide a permanent
hiding place. It was established to protect a species until such time that they could be
managed in a different way.”
Wisconsin and Michigan have wolves because young born in Minnesota have migrated east to start
their own packs. Callahan says how Minnesota manages its wolves will affect wolf numbers in the
Midwest. And she isn’t crazy about Minnesota’s current wolf management plan, which has different
rules for different parts of the state.
“Now, there’s a boundary; there’s a boundary called a wolf zone, and there’s a boundary that’s
called the ag zone. And nobody likes it. We went backward.”
In Northeastern Minnesota, where the majority of wolves are, landowners can only kill wolves
if they can demonstrate an immediate threat to pets or livestock. In the rest of the state, where
there is more agriculture and more people, the rules are more lenient. On their own property,
landowners can kill any wolf they feel is a danger, without having to prove anything to the state.
The Sierra Club is opposed to taking the wolf off the Endangered Species list, largely because
of Minnesota’s management plan. Ginny Yinling is the chair of the Wolf Task Force of the Sierra
Club in Minnesota.
“They’ve pretty much given carte blanche to landowners, or their agents, to kill wolves
pretty much at any time in the southern and western two thirds of the state; they don’t even
have to have an excuse, if a wolf’s on their property they can kill it. Instead of this being
what should have been a victory in terms of wolf recovery and the success of the Endangered
Species Act, instead we’re afraid it’s going to turn into something of a disaster.”
Yinling is also concerned with the protection of wolf habitat, such as den sites, rendezvous
sites, and migration corridors.
“The current management plan protects none of those areas; it leaves it entirely up to the
discretion of the land managers.”
But wildlife managers say these are not critical for a large wolf population
like Minnesota’s. Mike DonCarlos is the wildlife program manager for the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
“As you look at the range of species that are threatened by habitat change, ironically the wolf
in Minnesota is not one of them. As long as there’s a prey base that continues, wolves should
do just fine. The key is mortality rates and availability of food.”
In Wisconsin and Michigan, where there are fewer wolves, state laws will continue to protect
wolf habitat. Peggy Callahan says she has faith that the wolves will be fine, even if the
Minnesota state plan is not perfect. But at the Sierra Club, Ginny Yinling says they have
plans to challenge wolf delisting in court.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Katherine Glover.
