The tomato ban was really tough on some farmers (Photo by J. Beavers, courtesy of the USDA)
The Food and Drug Administration continues
to investigate the source of tainted tomatoes that
sickened more than 160 people. It’s narrowing down
the source of the salmonella bacteria, and has lifted
a ban on tomato sales in many states. Julie Grant
reports on how the ban has affected tomato growers:
Transcript
The Food and Drug Administration continues
to investigate the source of tainted tomatoes that
sickened more than 160 people. It’s narrowing down
the source of the salmonella bacteria, and has lifted
a ban on tomato sales in many states. Julie Grant
reports on how the ban has affected tomato growers:
It’s been a tough June for Florida tomato growers – who
grow 90% of the nation’s tomatoes. It’s not that they’ve
been working too hard – it’s that they haven’t been able to
work.
Lisa Lochridge is with the Florida Fruit and Vegetable
Association.
“Business pretty much ground to a halt for Florida tomato
growers. There were tomatoes out in the fields left, there
were tomatoes in the packing houses just sitting there, there
were tomatoes on trucks that were being turned away.”
Lockridge says Florida growers will have lost 500-million
dollars as a result of the ban. Now that the ban has been
lifted in Florida, she says growers are restarting business
and shipping tomatoes to the stores, cafeterias and
restaurants that want them.
George Washington's dentures (Photo courtesy of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research)
Some consumer advocate groups say there’s
another reason to fear a trip to the dentist. They
say dentists should stop using mercury to make some
types of metal fillings. Mark Brush reports the
groups recently settled a lawsuit with the Food and
Drug Administration:
Transcript
Some consumer advocate groups say there’s
another reason to fear a trip to the dentist. They
say dentists should stop using mercury to make some
types of metal fillings. Mark Brush reports the
groups recently settled a lawsuit with the Food and
Drug Administration:
Moms Against Mercury and several other groups sued the FDA. They said the agency
was failing to inform the public about the dangers of mercury in dental fillings.
Mercury can do damage to the nervous system. But people’s exposure from fillings has
long been debated.
Charlie Brown is a lawyer for the groups who sued the FDA. He says getting mercury
out of dental offices will protect those most at risk.
“It’s permanent damage to the developing brain. Not like a guy like me losing brain cells
everyday, but to the child whose potential is being destroyed by neuro-toxic damage.”
As a result of the lawsuit, the FDA changed its message about mercury exposure from
dental fillings. They now say the exposure might hurt the nervous systems in developing
children and fetuses.
The agency plans take a closer look at the science and issue a final rule next year.
Environmental activists are calling for
food packagers to stop using a toxic plastic to
line food and beverage cans. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Environmental activists are calling for
food packagers to stop using a toxic plastic to
line food and beverage cans. Lester Graham reports:
The thin plastic lining used in many canned foods and soft drinks contains a chemical
called bisphenol-A.
Canada is taking steps to restrict the use of the plastic in baby
bottles and formula can linings. In the U.S., some retailers have removed some
products using plastic with bisphenol-A.
Aaron Freeman is with the Environmental Defense Fund in Canada. He says this
chemical has been linked to too many health problems to ignore.
“Things like breast cancer, prostate cancer, early puberty in girls, attention deficit
disorder, and so on – those are all health effects we’re seeing sharp rises on.”
Freeman concedes cans lined with plastic containing bisphenol-A have not been proven
to cause the diseases. But he says since the canning industry has other plastics it can
use, it’s just a sensible precaution to stop using plastic with bisphenol-A.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Consumer advocates say most soaps, shampoos, and cosmetics contain 1, 4 dioxane (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Consumer advocates say your children might
be at risk because of the soaps you use. They say
most shampoos and cosmetics contain a chemical that
might cause cancer. Julie Grant reports they want
the government to clean up these products:
Transcript
Consumer advocates say your children might
be at risk because of the soaps you use. They say
most shampoos and cosmetics contain a chemical that
might cause cancer. Julie Grant reports they want
the government to clean up these products:
(sound of laughter)
Moxii Rose has been running around all afternoon. She’s
this tiny two and a half year old. She giggles as she dumps
her toys and spills juice on the carpet.
She’s excited when it’s time for a bubble bath.
(sound of running water and child in bathtub)
And so is her mother, Khalilah Pickings. Once Moxii gets into
the tub, she finally quiets down.
“And normally when we have bubble bath time, I just sit right
here. And let her do whatever she needs to do. Gives her a
minute to calm down, and me a minute to calm down.”
Khalilah says she hasn’t thought about it a lot, but figures if
the stores can sell kids bubble bath and lotion, they must
be safe.
But some consumer advocates aren’t so sure.
David Steinman started worrying about the bubble bath his
kids were using. He heard bubble bath might have
something called ‘1, 4 dioxane’ in it. The Environmental
Protection Agency lists it as probable carcinogen.
“I took the products they liked and some others that were
from other companies to a laboratory to have them analyzed, to see
if they did contain this chemical. And they all had it. Every
single product.”
Even the products labeled ‘natural’.
Now, you won’t find 1, 4 dioxane on ingredient lists on the
back of the bottle. It’s not added to soaps and detergents.
When other chemicals are combined, they create 1, 4
dioxane. It helps make soaps foamy and work well.
Steinman says that when children get in a warm bath, their
pores open and can soak the chemical right into their
systems.
Studies show that 1,4 dioxane causes cancer in lab animals.
Scientists are debating how much those findings in rats and
mice apply to people.
Bob Hamilton’s company sells soaps and dishwashing
liquids under the Amway label. He’s an expert on the
regulation of soap.
“There is not a concern based on the best scientific review
that has been done over many decades. The levels that are
found are minor contaminant levels that are well below any
concern levels as expressed by regulators in every country
around the world.”
The US government doesn’t really have any standards for
the amount of 1, 4 dioxane allowed in products. And even
though the EPA lists it as a probable carcinogen, the agency
says the tiny amount in consumer goods is still safe.
Consumer advocate David Steinman says the government
only looks at the amount 1, 4 dioxane in each product
individually. No one considers that we’re using bubble bath,
soap, lotion, and dishwashing detergent every day.
“When do a lot of little bits of chemicals become a whole
lot?”
Steinman wants consumers to force change. He wants
people to buy only the soaps that don’t contain 1, 4 dioxane.
But single mother Khalilah Pickings says she’s already
overwhelmed with trying to be a good mom. How is she
supposed to know whether products have 1, 4 dioxane and if
it’s a real concern or just something environmentalists are
worrying too much about?
“If it hasn’t hurt anyone and if people aren’t like getting
cancer or some crazy weirdo Ebola virus soap-causing
disease, just leave me alone. I’ve got enough to think about, okay?
It’s just me and her here. I don’t have time to think about
the soap that I’m using.”
Pickings says she doesn’t really trust the government, but
she has to assume if it allows the products on the market,
they won’t hurt her little girl.
A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
Transcript
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
(sound of backyard)
Kathy Henry’s backyard runs down to the bank of the Tittabawassee River.
It’s a beautiful view, but that’s not what Kathy Henry sees.
“When I look back there now, I see dioxin.”
You can’t really see the dioxin, but it is there. Dow Chemical started
dumping dioxin into the Tittabawasee river in the 1890s. Dioxin is believed
to cause cancer and damage reproductive systems. And, there are high
concentrations of dioxin not only in the Tittabawasee, but in all the water
and floodplains between the chemical plant and Lake Huron 50 miles
downstream.
Kathy Henry first found out about the dioxin seven years ago when a
whistleblower at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
warned local environmentalists about the contamination. She has wanted to
sell her house ever since.
“We’ve lived here for 24 years. We loved living in here. Now I’m afraid to
go out in my own yard. I just, psychologically, couldn’t stand living here
anymore. I had to get out.”
Dow says it will clean up any dioxin that’s proven to be dangerous to human
health, but the company has spent decades fighting with Michigan and the
US Environmental Protection Agency over how much of it is a threat.
Dow spokesman John Musser says there’s no proof anyone has gotten sick
because of the dioxin.
“We’re not seeing any impacts. We’re not seeing any cause for alarm. We’re
not seeing any imminent health threat. If it’s not a problem for humans or
the environment, then maybe the best thing to do is to leave it alone.”
But Michigan environmental officials are not so laissez-faire about the
contamination. They continue to warn residents about eating fish from the
rivers, about eating wild game killed in the region, and about swimming at
some beaches.
Robert McCann is with the state of Michigan. He says science is way past
the point of debating whether dioxin is dangerous.
“Study after study has shown that there are some very serious potential health
effects from being exposed to it, even at some lower levels over a long
period of time and those health effects do include things like cancer and
diabetes as well as some more minor health effects that can be caused from it.”
But Dow does debate whether dioxin is dangerous. John Musser says
Michigan and the EPA are using bad science based on dioxin exposure to lab
animals. He says Dow has human data from employees that show dioxin is
not as dangerous as people think.
“They were exposed at extremely high levels. And we’ve tracked their
health and their death records for 60 years and we’re not finding any ill
health effects.”
Attacking regulatory science is a common defense for industries. David
Michaels is an epidemiologist at George Washington University. He says
just like big tobacco questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer,
big business always questions the science.
“Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years
as they can they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be
disturbed. It works.”
For example, a recent meeting supposed to update residents about clean up
efforts turned into more of a debate between government scientists and scientists
hired by Dow. One member of the audience got sick of it.
“I’m not a geologist, I’m not a toxicologist, I’m just a resident that lives on
the river. And the last I knew dioxin was the most toxic substance known to
man. And what I’m seeing here is you guys trying to find excuses to justify
poisoning us.”
The EPA recently forced Dow to clean up four hot spots along the river,
including one spot with the highest concentration of dioxin ever found in the
United States.
But the last few months have had more set backs than
progress. In January, the EPA gave up trying to negotiate a clean up
agreement separate from Michigan’s. It said Dow’s proposals were going
backward.
Earlier this month the Region 5 director of the EPA was fired. Mary Gade
says it was because of her tough stance against Dow Chemical.
Michaels' book about industry's influence on science. (Oxford University Press)
Bisphenol-A, in bottles like these, is one instance where Michaels says companies are calling for more data, even though the picture is clear (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
There’s a lot of confusion about global
warming. Is it real or not? Are the ingredients
in our food, our soap, the household products we
use all safe? Even if they’re not, there’s a
whole industry that’s working to make you, and
Congress, uncertain. David Michaels recently wrote
about this. His book is titled ‘Doubt is Their
Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens
Your Health.’ Lester Graham talked with Michaels,
who says companies today base their approach on the
tactics of big tobacco. The tobacco companies
successfully obscured the connections between
smoking and lung cancer for decades.
Transcript
There’s a lot of confusion about global
warming. Is it real or not? Are the ingredients
in our food, our soap, the household products we
use all safe? Even if they’re not, there’s a
whole industry that’s working to make you, and
Congress, uncertain. David Michaels recently wrote
about this. His book is titled ‘Doubt is Their
Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens
Your Health.’ Lester Graham talked with Michaels,
who says companies today base their approach on the
tactics of big tobacco. The tobacco companies
successfully obscured the connections between
smoking and lung cancer for decades.
David Michaels: “Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years as
they can, they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be disturbed. It works.”
Lester Graham: “We hear about Bisphenol-A in plastics, of course we hear about mercury in fish,
phthalates, even something like dioxin – industry scientists say ‘we’re safe, these are in minute
quantities’ or ‘the jury is out on just how dangerous this chemical is’. If they are dangerous, why
doesn’t the government make that determination and phase these products out?”
Michaels: “Well, right now, the Bush administration has absolutely abdicated its responsibility to
protect the public’s health and the environment. It’s not even a question of phasing them out, the
Bush administration has turned a blind eye, and said ‘we’re not even going to think about those
chemicals’. I’m hoping that as public consciousness of this increases, we’ll have more demand on
regulatory agencies to do something.”
Graham: “You’re very critical of the Bush administration in the book, saying scientific review
boards are stacked with industry officials. Why, or how, does the scientific community continue to
allow that?”
Michaels: “Well, the scientific community doesn’t have the power to stop it. But the scientific
community has me furious about this. And over and over again, not just individual scientists, but
mainstream science organizations, like the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
have issued statements, have passed resolutions complaining, criticizing the Bush administration.
But that’s all we can do. Congress has to stop it. And, the American public has to stop it.”
Graham: “The members of the Bush administration often point out, ‘hey we can’t make knee-jerk
reactions, over some single study, or even a small group of studies, we really need to rely on
sound science, this needs more review’. And it sounds like common sense to many of us.”
Michaels: “Well, when I hear the Bush administration call for ‘sound science’, I see what they’re
doing is calling for something that sounds like science, but isn’t. Bisphenol-A is a great example.
There are well over 100 studies showing that this causes endocrine disorders and reproductive
disorders in laboratory animals. And there are less than a dozen studies that say it doesn’t cause
it. The question we have to ask is: should we be exposing our babies, our children, ourselves to
potentially toxic chemicals that we don’t know that they’re safe?”
Graham: “And Bisphenol-A is, of course, used in plastics, in liners of canned foods, and so forth.
It’s a product that we come across a lot.”
Michaels: “Not only that, the studies are right now that 90% of us have Bisphenol-A in our body.
We can tell that from studies where we’re are excreting it in our urine. So, it’s out there are we’re
being exposed to it. We don’t know what the effects are, but since it causes harm in animals, why
should we be exposing ourselves to it?”
Graham: “You note that journalists are often the victims of their own determination to get both
sides of the story. What are you suggesting? That journalists ignore industry when it questions
studies or scientific method? That would assume that corporations are always bad actors.”
Michaels: “No, but I think it’s very important to note, for example, when an industry scientist
criticizing the study, to note, for example, that, you know, that this criticism is being paid for by the
industry. But the other criticisms, which are, you know, are independent, often paid for by the
government through grants to universities, are independent, and therefore have a lot more validity.
We have example after example, in the book, and all through the medical literature, of companies
that essentially create studies that provide the results they want. In my reviewing it, I’ve never
found a study which disagrees with what the sponsor wanted them to hear. It’s just overwhelming.”
Dr. Robert McLean works on a West Nile disease project at the National WIldlife Health Center with a Carolina Chickadee (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
There’s a new online map for tracking
wildlife diseases that threaten animals and
people. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
There’s a new online map for tracking
wildlife diseases that threaten animals and
people. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Diseases such as West Nile Virus, Chronic Wasting Disease, Avian Flu, and
others are now often in the news. A website partly developed by the US
Geological Survey aims to track reports of the disease outbreaks around the
world.
Veterinarian Josh Dein leads the project. He says he hopes both health care
professionals and the general public use the online map.
“One of the things you can do is say ‘what’s happening in my neighborhood,
what’s happening in my state, my country?’ And maybe I’m traveling to
someplace else. Maybe I want to look to see what’s happening somewhere else.”
Dein says the map also allows people to narrow their search to specific countries, types of
disease and affected species.
Clear, colored plastic bottles - such as this one - are made of plastic number 7, which contains BPA (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Recently there’s been a big concern about
bisphenol-A, or BPA, in some plastics.
Some plastic baby bottles and some water bottles have
been pulled from the shelf by retailers. Grist is an
online environmental news outlet. The journalists
at Grist have been looking at the BPA issue for a few
years. We got a chance to talk with Sarah Burkhalter
at Grist about BPA and why it’s suddenly
in the news:
Transcript
Recently there’s been a big concern about bisphenol-A, or BPA, in some plastics. Some plastic baby bottles
and some water bottles have been pulled from the shelf by retailers. Grist is an online environmental news
outlet. The journalists at Grist have been looking at the BPA issue for a few years. We got a chance to talk
with Sarah Burkhalter at Grist about BPA and why it’s suddenly in the news:
Sarah Burkhalter: “BPA has been in our bottles for a long time, and there have just been some
more high-profile studies in the last year. Back in February 2007, the National Institutes of Health
came out with a report saying that there was a link to BPA and health problems. Even at that point,
people were switching over to glass baby bottles and things like that. But just in the same week,
there was another National Institutes of Health high-profile report, just a few days separate from
when Health Canada – the Canadian Health Department – also expressed concern. So, I just think
it was in the news, and people are suddenly realizing that this is a problem.”
Lester Graham: “So, it was a one-two hit in the media, plus when you mention baby bottles, or
possibly the liners of formula cans, that gets people a little nervous, if there’s something toxic in
that stuff.”
Burkhalter: “Absolutely. And, the thing with BPA is that it’s an endocrine disrupter, it can mimic
estrogen. And so the plastics industry has been saying, ‘well, we use it in such small amounts, no,
it’s no problem’. Other studies have said that even in very, very small amounts, BPA can sneak in
and change cell structure, and really muck-up the reproductive system. And it’s been linked to
early puberty, and breast cancer, and behavioral disorders, and all kinds of things. So when they
hear about this being in, you know, things that we’re regularly eating and drinking from, they pay
attention.”
Graham: “Now, here’s the big question – we’ve seen retailers pull some bottles off of the shelves,
there’s been this controversy with Nalgene, and now even a lawsuit against Nalgene about their
plastic bottles – what plastic bottles are safe to use, what ones can’t I use, how do I tell the
difference?”
Burkhalter: “well, BPA is found in number 7 plastic – that’s also known as polycarbonate or lexan –
and that’s the clear, hard plastic. So Nalgene bottles – not the white ones – but the brightly
colored, clear ones. Those are number 7. There’s also, as you mentioned, plastic adhesive in
linings of cans, some of those, BPA is also in some dental sealants. But when it comes to bottles,
number 7 is the one you want to watch out for when we’re talking about BPA. Number 3 has its
own problems – that’s PVC or vinyl – that’s another one you want to watch out for. If you gotta use
plastic, you’re gonna want to look for numbers 2, 4, and 5.”
Graham: “So we look for those numbers on the bottom of the bottle?”
Burkhalter: “Yup. Those are, I mean, you know, they’re not on every plastic, but if there is a
number on them, its ‘2, 4, and 5 to stay alive’. It’s the rhyme I just made up.”
The "Great Plate" - a 10-inch plate: half non-starchy vegetables, a
quarter lean protein, a quarter starchy vegetable or whole grains (Photo courtesy of the University of Michigan)
Lots of companies are starting new programs
that teach their employees how to eat healthier.
Because healthier employees can save companies loads
of cash. Kyle Norris has more:
Transcript
Lots of companies are starting new programs
that teach their employees how to eat healthier.
Because healthier employees can save companies loads
of cash. Kyle Norris has more:
So, Stacy Witthoff is teaching people about healthy snacks.
“We have some 100 calorie packs. We have fresh fruit like bananas, peaches, pears,
apples, any kind of canned fruit is good too.”
Witthoff is a dietician with the Michigan Healthy Community – basically it’s a group that
does health education for University of Michigan employees.
The people at this expo are learning about how to eat healthier, and the idea is that they’ll
share this info with their co-workers.
Witthoff stands in front of a little booth and she’s all friendly. She snags people as they
walk by.
She’s just caught Jason Maynard. He’s a nursing administrator. And he goes to a lot of
meetings where there are a lot of snacks.
“So at meetings it’s probably donuts or bagels, cookies.”
But he thinks people would go for fresh fruit like raspberries or strawberries, if they were
offered.
Stacy Witthoff is promoting a guide that helps people make better food choices.
It’s called the Great Plate. It’s a picture of a plate that’s divided into different sections.
“Basically you take a 10-inch plate and half of it should be non-starchy vegetables, a
quarter of it lean protein, and a quarter of it starchy vegetable or whole grains. So it’s just
an easier way to eat healthy without having to think about portions.”
Ok let’s recap.
Divide your plate in-half and fill that half with non-starchy veggies – carrots, broccoli,
cauliflower, green beans, asparagus and peppers. And aim for a variety of colors.
Then divide the other half of the plate into quarters. Fill one-quarter with grains &
starchy veggies – that’s things like brown rice and whole-wheat pastas and whole-wheat
bread. And starchy veggies are things like potatoes, corn, peas, and squash.
Then the last quarter of the plate should have meats and proteins. Things like grilled
or baked chicken, fish, turkey, lean cuts of meat. And non-meat options like tofu, beans,
and eggs.
And the Great Plate says go for way smaller serving sizes.
The Great Plate encourages people to eat what they call “whole
foods.” That means eat the food in its raw form and not it’s processed equivalent. So
like eat the apple – as opposed to apple juice. Or as opposed to the apple-flavored gummi
worms, if you were someone like me.
Steve Aldana helps companies start employee healthcare programs. He says that
culturally we eat pretty bad stuff. And that we’re way stressed-out.
And all that can affect an employer’s pocketbook, for real.
“So 2 things: poor behaviors are leading to onset of chronic diseases. And those chronic
diseases are costing an inordinate amount in health care. And it’s that cost alone that’s
driving most companies to start to look very, very intently at worksite wellness
programs.”
Businesses are starting to see healthy employees as a smart investment. Companies like
Johnson & Johnson, IBM, and Dow Chemical have all taken note.
They hope programs like this one will help shave-off millions of dollars from their
employee health care costs.
And these programs can also help save money in the long run – by boosting employee
morale and leading to fewer employee absences.
A layer of smog over upstate New York at sunset on October 21, 2000 (Photo courtesy of the Earth Science and Image Analysis Laboratory, Johnson Space Center)
A new report says smog can contribute to
premature death. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
A new report says smog can contribute to
premature death. Rebecca Williams reports:
Ozone is a main ingredient in smog – it comes from cars and smokestacks and
other sources.
The National Academies of Science report says ozone can send people to the
hospital, and even lead to earlier death. That’s because ozone can damage
your lungs and make it harder to breathe. It can be especially bad for
kids, older people, and people with lung diseases.
Dan Greenbaum is the president of the Health Effects Institute. He worked
on the report.
“It just reinforces the risks of exposure to ozone are there, they’re
significant and people really should be paying attention to alerts when
there are high ozone days.”
Ozone alerts mean even healthy people should avoid working or exercising
outdoors during the day.
The EPA recently tightened the ozone standards. But the agency’s scientific
advisory committee said the standards should be tightened even more.
The tomato ban was really tough on some farmers (Photo by J. Beavers, courtesy of the USDA)
