Consumer Reports bought whole chickens from 100 different stores to test for their study.
(Photo courtesy of the USDA)
A Consumer Reports study finds
most of the chickens bought at
the grocery store are contaminated
with bacteria that can cause you
to get sick. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A Consumer Reports study finds
most of the chickens bought at
the grocery store are contaminated
with bacteria that can cause you
to get sick. Lester Graham reports:
Consumer Reports bought whole chickens from 100 different stores.
Dr. Urvashi Rangan says they tested them for two different strains of bacteria.
“Salmonella and campylobacter infections can give people serious diarhea, abdominal cramping for sometimes days, even weeks at a time.”
Two-thirds of the chickens they tested were tainted.
Rangan says the U.S. government’s guidelines are pretty loose for the chicken processors.
“Each company is basically allowed to script their own hygeine plan. And, clearly, there aren’t enough standards or standardidization among them that has allowed them to achieve a decent rate of cleanliness.”
The chickens that were cleanest were organic air-chilled chickens. The Consumer Report’s study is available online and will be published in the January issue of the magazine.
The Shaker Heights School District in Ohio now serves smoothies, salads, even sushi. But students say they still prefer ice cream and french fries.
(Photo by Julie Grant)
When we hear about kids and obesity,
a lot of people point the finger at
schools. Most kids today eat about
half their meals at school, and many
cafeterias are filled with junk food.
In the second half of our school lunch
series, Julie Grant reports that some
districts are trying to improve what
they serve – but there are a lot of
challenges:
Transcript
When we hear about kids and obesity,
a lot of people point the finger at
schools. Most kids today eat about
half their meals at school, and many
cafeterias are filled with junk food.
In the second half of our school lunch
series, Julie Grant reports that some
districts are trying to improve what
they serve – but there are a lot of
challenges:
(sound of a school cafeteria)
The food available in school in Shaker Heights, Ohio looked a lot different a few years ago. They used to sell lots of pop and French fries. Today, we’re standing at what’s called the Nutri-Bar. Students can buy salads, sandwiches, even sushi.
“Fresh, healthy and portable. That’s the motto of the Nutri-Bar. This has been a big hit with our students.”
Peggy Caldwell is spokesperson for the school district. She says a group of parents started worrying about national obesity and diabetes rates among children and pushed for the change.
“They want us to provide healthy choices. They want us to provide nutritious meals. They understand that students learn best if they are healthy and well fed.”
Parents worked with the district to improve the food available in the schools.
(school bell)
“And, here they come.”
It’s lunchtime. Students are packing into the cafeteria.
(sound of a blender)
A few girls order fruit smoothies at the snack bar.
(sound of students in line)
But the line is much longer for the hot meals. Cheeseburgers and pizza are always on the menu. Today’s special: chicken strips and mashed potatoes. That might sound like a lot of fat and salt, but Caldwell says it’s actually pretty healthy.
“The chicken strips are baked now, they’re not fried. The potatoes are baked or, if they’re mashed potatoes, they’re made with low fat milk. There’s less sodium. They may look the same, but they’re better for you than they used to be.”
Caldwell says they’re starting to make pizza with whole wheat crust and the pasta is all whole grain.
But serving healthier food has cost the district. They had to buy ovens so they could bake. They have to pay more for labor to chop vegetables and make smoothies. And the food, itself, costs more. Fruits and vegetables come at a higher price than those processed foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt.
Especially in schools. Schools can actually get 15% to 20% of their food for free through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Janey Thornton is undersecretary for food and nutrition at the USDA. She says when farmers have too much of, say, blueberries or green beans or ham, the USDA buys those commodities for schools.
“If we have an abundance of blueberries – in order to stabilize the market, to keep prices near where they should be, then those products are purchased by the federal government.”
Then the government offers those blueberries for free to schools. That sounds might sound like a win-win – helping farmers and schools. But lots of times those berries are processed into unhealthy things – like glazed blueberry snack pies – before they get to schools.
Peggy Caldwell says the government food presents a challenge. Schools can’t afford to turn down free food. But it’s often high in salt and fat, and at odds with her district’s efforts to provide healthy lunches.
“It’s not always consistent with the nutritional guidelines. It can be a challenge for a staff to use in a way and in quantities that really meet the health requirements we’re trying to meet for our students.”
Some critics have gone so far as to call the schools garbage disposals for un-sellable farm commodities. Janey Thornton with the USDA scoffs at that suggestion.
“I would love to have that garbage disposal in my home, in my freezer if that were the case.”
Thornton worked 25 years in school nutrition at a local district before coming to the USDA. She says the ground meat has gotten leaner, the canned fruit is now healthfully packed in a very light syrup.
(sound of a cafeteria)
For those that disagree, debating the federal government might seem like a huge undertaking. But there maybe even tougher tasks for schools encouraging healthful eating, like Shaker Heights.
The chemical Bisphenol-A, or BPA, is found in some plastic food packaging and the inside of most tin-cans.
(Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
The government missed a deadline to
declare whether a chemical in food
packaging is safe. Shawn Allee reports critics are growing
tired of the delay:
Transcript
The government missed a deadline to
declare whether a chemical in food
packaging is safe. Shawn Allee reports critics are growing
tired of the delay:
The chemical is Bisphenol-A, or BPA. It’s found in some plastic food packaging and the inside of most tin-cans.
The US Food and Drug Administration is reviewing whether BPA causes developmental diseases and some cancers. The agency missed a deadline of November 30th, and some groups are getting impatient.
Sarah Jennsen is with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says while the Food and Drug Administration deliberates, more studies are coming out against BPA.
“We’ve had studies now published that show toddlers exposed to BPA behave diffrently from toddlers who are not exposed, and so this human research which is being published is very concerning because it’s replicating what we’ve already seen in the animal studies.
The Food and Drug Administration won’t say which studies it’s including in its scientific review of BPA or when it will finish.
Mother Gwen Rosenburg doesn't think schools should serve SuperDonuts.
(Photo by Julie Grant)
We hear a lot about American kids
and obesity. Many children eat half
their meals at school – and some
parents question whether those meals
are teaching kids healthy eating habits.
In the first part of our series on
school lunch programs, Julie Grant
reports on the push for change in
the cafeteria:
Transcript
We hear a lot about American kids
and obesity. Many children eat half
their meals at school – and some
parents question whether those meals
are teaching kids healthy eating habits.
In the first part of our series on
school lunch programs, Julie Grant
reports on the push for change in
the cafeteria:
Gwen Rosenburg was appalled when she saw the menu at her son’s elementary school. It was called a heart-healthy menu.
“So, I saw chicken patties and corn dogs and chicken nuggets, hot dogs and hamburgers. And super-donuts for breakfast and s’mores flavored Pop Tarts for breakfast. And then I got really angry – because I don’t like to be called stupid.”
Super-Donuts. That sounded like junk food – not heart healthy food. So Rosenburg called the school district to complain.
But her district, like many, hires an outside company to take care of food service. So Rosenburg started writing to the company, Aramark, to find out the nutritional content of the foods it was serving. She didn’t get many answers.
Rosenburg didn’t want her kids to eat the school food.
Most people told her to stop complaining and just pack lunch.
But that only helped her to realize why this bothered her so much. Lots of families don’t have enough money to pack lunch – so their kids have no choice but to eat the subsidized school meals.
“It bothered me that my tax dollars were paying for food that I wouldn’t serve my kids. Once I made that realization it seemed suddenly unethical for me to do nothing and say, ‘thank God I’m not poor.’”
Rosenburg went on a campaign and contacted everyone she could think of about it. She also started her own blog to document her attempts to improve school meals in her district.
Patrick McMullen is in charge of food service in Rosenburg’s district. He works for the company, Aramark. McMullen says things are a lot better now than they were ten years ago. Back then, the high school had soda on tap, free with lunches.
Today, you can’t even buy carbonated beverages in the schools here. McMullen says most people agree that was a healthy change.
But it’s not usually that clear: he says every family has its own idea of what is good food.
“Somebody likes chicken nuggets, somebody doesn’t. A lot of people see chicken nuggets as an unhealthy item. Some people think it’s perfectly fine because it’s a lean meat.”
McMullen says it’s his job to make sure the school meals stay within the district’s budget, while meeting USDA nutritional guidelines. And that kids buy and eat them. That’s why things like that Super-Donut exist.
“A Super-Donut is a fortified donut that’s made with juice and it’s infused with nutrients.”
McMullen says some parents see Super-Donuts as a healthy item. But lots of parents around the country have complained about the Super-Donut.
Janey Thornton is Undersecretary for Food and Nutrition at the US Department of Agriculture. The USDA is in charge of the national school lunch program.
Thornton says a food like the Super-donut is handy. Kids like it and they can eat it at their desks. She says parents wouldn’t complain if it was shaped like a piece of breakfast bread.
“Because it’s round with a hole in it, and we assume that it has donut-like qualities then, it sometimes gets a bad rap.”
But some parents think it’s giving kids a false impression of what’s healthy. Gwen Rosenburg says the Super-Donut is a prime example of how school meals are setting up kids for a lifetime of bad eating habits.
“Alright, I’m not supposed to eat a donut for breakfast. Sometimes I do, right. But I don’t believe that it is healthy. I know that it is not a healthy food option. But when you present it to children and say this is what the government, taxpayers, this is what your community has purchased for you to eat and you get it for free. It’s a donut. What exactly are you teaching them to do for the rest of their lives?”
Rosenburg says there are so many efforts to teach kids healthy habits, but those messages are easily undermined in the cafeteria.
There are districts around the country that have been improving school meals – offering salad bars and whole grain breads. Rosenburg says all her efforts have made some difference. Her district has added foods she thinks are healthier to the menu, and her son even buys his lunch sometimes.
“All I really wanted all along was something that I could say ‘I would let my kid eat that.’ And if I would let my kid eat that, then I would gladly whatever tax dollars to give it for free to the kid whose family can’t afford it. But if they’re going to serve food that I won’t let my child eat, I do not want them to serve that to impoverished children. It’s morally wrong. And it reeked to me like a form a classism.”
Linda Barberic's partner Keith helps her prepare a healthy meal, using olive oil instead of butter.
(Photo by Julie Grant)
With so many Americans facing diabetes,
heart disease, and other health problems,
the Thanksgiving meal has become a battleground
in some families. Some family members want
to make it a healthy meal, others want to
stick with their traditional family dishes.
Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
With so many Americans facing diabetes,
heart disease, and other health problems,
the Thanksgiving meal has become a battleground
in some families. Some family members want
to make it a healthy meal, others want to
stick with their traditional family dishes.
Julie Grant reports:
Four years ago, Linda Barberic gave her left kidney to her sister. The surgery went well. But since then, there have been a lot of other health problems in the family.
“We’ve had a few strokes in the family, we’ve got diabetes, we’ve got high blood pressure, we’ve got some other heart conditions, a few heart attacks.”
That’s some serious stuff. Linda thinks a lot of it has to do with the way her family eats: lots of salt, fat and sweets. She is hosting everyone for Thanksgiving dinner. And thought this might be a good time to get them all on board with healthier eating.
So she sent out a mass email to the family.
“So I thought this year, why not give everyone a challenge and make it a healthy Thanksgiving. Really – no fats, no butters, no salts, no heavy creams.”
Linda even suggested some recipes: steamed green beans with lemon zest, fingerling potatoes roasted with fresh garlic and thyme.
The resounding response: No salt, no fat, no fun.
Someone even said they wouldn’t come. They wanted the turkey with gravy, green bean casserole with crispy onions on top, and Mom’s dumplings with lots of butter.
Her brother-in-law Matt Previte is one of those with a heart condition. He and Linda’s sister, Sandy Previte, appreciate Linda’s thought, but…
Matt: “For one meal, for one day, one special occasion – it’s not worth it.”
Sandy: “How often do we eat gravy? Twice a year. So I’m like, let’s do the traditional. Why not? Let’s just stick with what it’s about – people getting together to have good food.”
So Sandy says why not have the gravy, have the butter?
But her sister Linda says it’s not one or two days a year. Her family, like many, eats fatty, salty foods all the time.
That’s one big reason why two-thirds of American adults are considered overweight or obese. And diabetes has become an epidemic.
So, why do we keep going back for more – when we know it’s making us sick?
Linda Spurlock is director of human health at the Museum of Natural History in Cleveland.
She says we’re hard-wired to crave sugar, fat and salt.
“If you did not have the inherited yearning for fat or for sugar and grab it anytime you could get your hands on it, you probably would not live to reproduce back 2- or 3- million years ago.”
But while our ancestors had to smash open bones to get to the marrow – so they could get the fat they needed – we can just pull up to the drive through and order whatever we want to eat.
Spurlock says the original Thanksgiving meal was probably a small, lean turkey, squirrel, raccoon, and roasted root vegetables.
“And how it got bigger and bigger and bigger –
I have a feeling that it wasn’t until quite recently that people had the expectation of several kinds of pie for dessert and yes giblet gravy and mashed potatoes and sweet potatoes.”
Spurlock says Americans can start eating healthier by training themselves to enjoy the simple taste of vegetables. But she says Thanksgiving probably isn’t the time for it.
Linda Barberic has come to the same conclusion.
“ I kind of just backed off on it. And said, ‘do what you’re going to do.’ Thanksgiving is about family. I’m grateful that everyone is healthy this year and everyone is here. So, I’m just grateful to have Thanksgiving. But, I have a feeling there will be some fat. (laughs)”
West Michigan Park lies along the Tittabawassee River.
Large swaths of its soil was removed and re-sodded due to dioxin contamination.
The removal was part of a US EPA effort to have Dow clean up several hot
spots in the rivershed.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
Imerman Park sits on the flood plain of the Tittabawassee River.
Signs along the trail warn walkers about dioxin contamination in some of the park's soil.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
Two rivers in central Michigan were
polluted with dioxin 30 years ago.
The dioxin came from a Dow chemical
plant. The toxin’s been found in fish,
animals, and dirt, but, of all those,
contaminated soil might be the touchiest
subject. A study done in the area suggests
dioxin in soil might not be getting into
people living there. In the final part
of a series on Dow Chemical and dioxin,
Shawn Allee looks at that study
and the government’s take on it:
Transcript
Two rivers in central Michigan were
polluted with dioxin 30 years ago.
The dioxin came from a Dow chemical
plant. The toxin’s been found in fish,
animals, and dirt, but, of all those,
contaminated soil might be the touchiest
subject. A study done in the area suggests
dioxin in soil might not be getting into
people living there. In the final part
of a series on Dow Chemical and dioxin,
Shawn Allee looks at that study
and the government’s take on it:
To understand what’s at stake over the science of dioxin and soil, I want to talk with Marcia Woodman.
So, Woodman and I talk in this big, three-season room with tons of windows. It’s like you’re outside in some woods.
“I love it, so it wasn’t hard to convince me to move here.”
From here, the trees look inviting, but Woodman says she only lets her kids enjoy them from a distance.
“They’re not allowed to play back in the woods anymore. They used to play and we used to take walks back there.”
You see, eight years ago, the state tested soil for dioxin. Her place was okay, but there were high levels in the neighborhood. So, Woodman worried dioxin might move from soil into her kids, and maybe they’d get cancer or some other disease. But, what if dioxin in soil is not getting into people nearby?
“We found virtually no relationship between soil contamination and blood dioxin levels. In other words, the amount of soil contamination on your property really didn’t relate to blood levels.”
This is Dr. David Garabrant. He researches public health at the University of Michigan. Now, we need to tell you, in the interest of full disclosure, The Environment Report is produced at the University of Michigan.
Dr. Garabrant looked at whether people in the contaminated region have higher dioxin levels in their blood. They do – but just slightly. And those higher dioxins levels? They’re probably from other factors, like living in that area when dioxin pollution was highest – decades ago. Again, for him, soil is less of an issue.
This conclusion bothers two groups of people that really matter. That would be the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Michigan. The EPA would not provide an interview on this, but they have public documents about it. Michigan has the same reservations about the study. Here’s just one.
“He didn’t test children. And children, typically, have some of the highest exposures.”
This is Steve Chester. He heads Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality.
“It’s probably even more of a concern for children who get down into the dirt and get it on their hands and shoes and so forth.”
Chester says the state needs to create regulations that take risk to kids into account. That makes Dr. Garabrant’s study a bit beside the point. Dr. Garabrant says he wanted to get kids into his study, but you have to draw lots of blood.
“You can’t ethically take enough blood from a child to find the dioxins. And that’s a real dilemma.”
Garabrant says his study went as far as it could.
For some people, there’s a different problem with the research.
“The study is funded by the Dow Chemical company through an unrestricted grant to the University of Michigan.”
That would be Dow Chemical – the company that polluted the Tittabawassee River and floodplain decades ago. Soon, Dow might have to spend tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up contaminated river silt and soil. Still, Garabrant insists Dow has no influence.
“The only thing we give Dow is when they sit in meetings like the rest of the public and they hear what we have to say.”
Garabrant’s study on dioxin exposure is getting attention right when the US EPA is taking another look at the risk dioxin poses to people. Critics of his study worry it will stir up a whole new debate that could delay dioxin clean ups in Michigan and other toxic waste sites across the country.
The EPA insists it won’t let that happen – and it’ll soon have more science to back up its position.
Fish advisories dot the banks of the Tittabawassee and
Saginaw Rivers. Various forms or pollution, including historical dioxin
pollution from Dow Chemical, have led to warnings to avoid certain species
of fish and limit consumption for them. Pregnant woment and young children
are given more stringent warnings. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
It’s deer season in Michigan, and
hunters are trekking through the woods,
trying to bag dinner or something
special for the holidays. Hunting’s
gotten a little complicated in some
areas recently. Just because you catch
something doesn’t mean you should eat
it. That’s because a stretch of river
in Michigan was polluted with dioxin –
decades ago. In the fourth part of a
series on Dow Chemical and dioxin, Shawn
Allee found the state thinks
old dioxin pollution from a Dow chemical
plant poses a health risk today:
Transcript
It’s deer season in Michigan, and
hunters are trekking through the woods,
trying to bag dinner or something
special for the holidays. Hunting’s
gotten a little complicated in some
areas recently. Just because you catch
something doesn’t mean you should eat
it. That’s because a stretch of river
in Michigan was polluted with dioxin –
decades ago. In the fourth part of a
series on Dow Chemical and dioxin, Shawn
Allee found the state thinks
old dioxin pollution from a Dow chemical
plant poses a health risk today:
It was hard for me to understand why wild game like deer or turkey might be contaminated from river pollution, so I hit up Daniel O’Brien for some answers. O’Brien’s a toxicologist with Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources. He says the problem starts with dioxin in the river.
“It’s in the sediments in these contaminated parts of the Tittabawassee River, and after flood events in the spring when, say, mud in the river gets deposited onto bushes or whatever and deer browse those, then they pick up soil that way.”
Part of O’Brien’s job is to spread the news about the contamination. He says when you buy a hunting license in Michigan you get this brochure.
“It’s a booklet that has all the regulations for hunting and trapping in it.”
These wildlife consumption advisories are voluntary but they kinda read like owners manuals. They lay out where the dioxin-contaminated animals are. They tell you what animals you can eat, and what parts. For example, no one’s supposed to eat deer liver from the areas – that’s got the most dioxin in it. And, of cuts you can eat, the advisory says how much, and how often. Plus, they tell who should eat less or maybe none at all.
“Kids might be more sensitive. They might have a more stringent advisory than somebody like me who’s kinda your middle-aged man and we might not be as susceptible to toxic effects.”
The idea’s to protect people from dioxin, and the risk it poses for cancer and diseases of the immune, reproductive, and developmental systems. It’s an important job, given how big hunting is in Michigan.
“We have three quarters of a million hunters every year that go afield and harvest half a million white-tailed deer.”
Michigan scientists take the issue seriously, but I’m kinda curious whether hunters do. So, I visit the Saginaw Field and Stream Club. Inside, there’s this paneled wall with faded pictures of club presidents. It stretches from the club’s founding in 1916 – all the way to this guy, current President Tom Heritier.
“We’re still here today.”
Heritier says his club’s smack-dab in the contaminated area and everyone knows about the advisories, but, well …
“With the game advisories, I have not heard one person who has any problem with the deer or the birds around the watershed.”
This goes for him, too.
“Nobody is sick from it. I don’t know of anybody that has died of exposure. That’s never been proven. It’s nothing to take lightly, but then again, it might be a little bit on the overblown side, too.”
The State of Michigan tried to survey hunters like Heritier. Officials wanted to know if hunters were feeding tainted game to young children. That survey never made the budget.
Before I leave the hunting club, Heritier wants to clear something up. He’s actually mad about dioxin. It’s in the environment – he wants it gone.
Heritier: “There’s absolutely no reason for industry to be polluting our natural resources, whether it be air, soil, or water.”
Allee: “Even if it’s not a slam-dunk, for sure, killing people off sort of thing?”
Heritier: “Number one, God didn’t put it there, it don’t belong there. That’s the way it is.”
Well, Heritier wants the environment protected from dioxin, but not necessarily himself.
State scientists say, if Heritier changes his mind and wants to reduce his health risk – they’ll keep printing those game advisories for him.
Mitch Larson lives in Saginaw's Riverside neighborhood,
which saw a large dioxin removal project last year. His home is on the
banks of Tittabawassee River. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
The plaque recognizes Dow Chemical's generosity in contributing
toward improvements at Imerman Park, which lies along the Tittabawassee
River. The plague does not mention that Dow was required to perform several
improvements as part of dioxin remdediation activity. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:
Transcript
Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:
Dow Chemical is not just some company in Midland, Michigan. It’s part of life there.
Dow employs thousands of people. It pays for libraries and civic gardens. A high school football team is even named “The Chemix.”
I talked with plenty of people who’ve sided with Dow over the dioxin pollution issue. One works right across the street from the chemical plant.
“We’re in my law office and my house is two blocks south of us here.”
Bob McKellar says Dow’s been good for Midland, and, as far as he’s concerned, the federal government’s been trashing the town.
McKellar: “Dow, rightfully so, takes the position that, you know, ‘why are you always picking on us? We agree we’ve done some of this and we agree we’ll help clean it up.’ But then the EPA comes back and says, ‘well, you’re not doing enough.'”
Allee: “But the EPA says they’ve been dealing with the issue for 30 years.”
McKellar: “It’s because the EPA’s had the fist out – they haven’t come with a little bouquet of flowers and say, ‘okay folks, let’s sit down and talk about this and let’s get this thing done right.’”
McKellar says, getting things done right means the government should pay for a big hunk of any dioxin cleanup. It’s only fair – because he thinks pollution in the river and soil is overblown, and the EPA’s the one overblowing it.
Downstream, fewer people work at the Dow plant. They see less benefit, but they live with more dioxin pollution.
“Well, This is the Tittabawassee River. This is my homestead.”
I’m with Mitch Larson. He lives 20 miles downstream from Midland. His home’s in a woodsy part of Saginaw.
“When I bought this place, I was thinking that this would be a great place for kids to grow up. As they grew up, it was a right of passage to swim across the river. You know, I’d swim alongside them, you’d swim across to the other bank, and you’d have them sign their name in the sand, you know, you did it.”
The Tittabawassee River floods, and it left silt and traces of dioxin on Larson’s yard, but he didn’t know that until the state government tested his soil and found the dioxin.
They even tested his pet chickens and the eggs he fed his kids.
Larson: “They tested those also.”
Allee: “What did they tell you?”
Larson: “Don’t eat them. Chickens eat the dirt. The dirt was where the dioxin was, and eggs were full of dioxin. So, for the past couple years, every egg we ate was like a little shot of dioxin.”
He got rid of the chickens, of course, but he had to have a talk with his teenage girls. A report said the dioxin put them at risk for having kids with birth defects.
“You know, when they were all tested for the dioxin, I told them they were all high in dioxin and I had information about, you know, about the child-bearing thing. It put them at risk for having kids. You know, it’s not a good feeling.”
Larson and one hundred seventy two other plaintiffs sued Dow to pay for follow-up medical monitoring.
The courts said no.
Six years after dioxin was first found on the property, Dow chemical paid to clean and re-sod Larson’s lawn. He says it looks great, but he worries another flood’s gonna leave behind dioxin.
Right now, Dow and the EPA are negotiating an agreement that might make Dow clean up river sediment.
“If it takes them thirty years to clean this river up so it’s clean for the next 200 years, it’d be worth it. People are fishing, kids are swimming across the river to show, you know, they’re a bad-ass.”
Larson says he’d welcome that future – even if it cost Dow a lot of money.
The southeast corner of the Dow Chemical plant, from the vantage
of Midland's Whiting Overlook Park, which features an homage to and
history of the company and its founder.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:
Transcript
The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:
If you want to see an environmentalist kinda lose his cool – talk to James Clift of the Michigan Environmental Council.
And bring up dioxin pollution.
Clift: “Um, it’s … people are think, frustrated. It is my entire career of working environmental protection in Michigan, this has been an issue. I’ve been doing this for over twenty years, and from day one I’ve been sitting on meetings about this site.”
Allee: “You’d rather work on something else? Birds or something?”
Clift: “I’d rather work on something else.”
Clift is frustrated with people who could have wrapped this up.
“I believe that each administration at both the state and federal level is culpable in failing to move this forward.”
When I talked to federal and state officials about this, they did some serious finger-pointing.
Let’s start with Steve Chester. He heads Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. Chester says when people first learned about the dioxin problem at Dow’s chemical plant, the federal government was the lead regulator.
That changed.
“The federal government wanted to transition and hand the project off to the state of Michigan and we were in fact given this corrective action authority in the mid-nineties, and so there was a period of time quite frankly, the agencies didn’t take advantage of moving a little bit quicker.”
Actually, it took Michigan almost ten years to re-license the Dow chemical plant. That meant the state was slow to find out exactly where old dioxin pollution was in the river system, so some people didn’t know there was dioxin in their yards until the past few years. That’s decades after dioxins got into local rivers.
But what about the US Environmental Protection Agency?
Several former officials said the polluter, Dow, slowed things down.
One of these who would go on the record is Mary Gade. She led the EPA office that regulated Dow. Now, in the past we’ve reported Gade said she was fired by the Bush Administration because she got tough with Dow.
The EPA wouldn’t comment on that.
But even today, Gade says Dow slowed down the clean-up.
“I think this corporation is hugely adept at playing the system and understanding how to build in delays and use the bureaucracy to their advantage and to use the political system to their advantage.”
A confidential memo leaked from the EPA says when Dow didn’t like what Michigan’s technical staff had to say, they’d go higher up and try to get rules changed.
For a month, I requested comment from Dow. A spokeswoman said the company is interested in talking about the future, not the past.
People who’ve watched this say, there’s been plenty of foot-dragging.
But why should this dioxin cleanup even matter to people who don’t live there? It’s Michigan’s problem, right?
Well, James Clift, that environmentalist, says, no, there’s a long list of toxic waste sites across the country. And Clift worries the government gets bogged down with big, slow cleanups.
“If they’re not even getting to the big ones which are known to everyone as known as causing widespread problems, that means they’re not getting to the medium sized ones and they’re not getting to the small ones.”
But there seems to be some progress. Recently, the EPA, the State of Michigan, and Dow came to a tentative agreement about cleaning up the dioxin pollution.
That means there’s at least one more delay, that would be public comment until mid-December.
The program is supposed to identify new viruses in animals before they spread to humans.
(Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
A new coalition wants to set up an
early warning system for diseases
that pass between animals and humans.
Samara Freemark reports
some research institutions and conservation
groups are launching the PREDICT program:
Transcript
A new coalition wants to set up an
early warning system for diseases
that pass between animals and humans.
Samara Freemark reports
some research institutions and conservation
groups are launching the PREDICT program:
Organizers hope the program will help prevent the spread of diseases like avian flu, ebola, and swine flu. PREDICT researchers will work in disease ‘hotspots’ overseas.
Program director Stephen Morse is an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York. He says the program will identify new viruses in animals before they spread to humans.
“We don’t even know how may emerging viruses, let alone other infectious organisms there are out there in nature, but the number must be large.”
The PREDICT program will also create better global disease warning systems.
“This is really essential to our survival as well as something very important to understand if we want to be able to control infections in the future.”
Morse hopes the program will help governments stop local outbreaks before they become global pandemics.
Consumer Reports bought whole chickens from 100 different stores to test for their study. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)
