BPA - one of the chemicals the EPA is focusing on - is found in many canned foods and drinks. (Photo source: Tomomarusan at Wikimedia Commons)
The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:
There’s this notion that the plastics and chemicals in the products you buy all have been tested for safety.
That is just wrong.
The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, wants Congress to pass laws to better regulate chemicals in the things we use. But getting a new law will take a while. So, in the meantime, Jackson says the EPA will do more under the existing law.
“Do as much as we can to identify the chemicals that are of concern to the public and move quickly to evaluate them and determine what actions need to be take to address the risks they may pose.”
The agency plans to first look at chemicals such as Bisphenyl A – BPA – used in some hard plastics, phthalates used in cosmetics and plastics, PBDE’s – a flame retardant that’s turning up in mother’s milk, and benzadene dyes and pigments.
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)
The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:
Transcript
The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:
Central Michigan has a dubious distinction: The Environmental Protection Agency
claims that a flood plain there has some of the highest dioxin levels ever found in soil.
That dioxin came from a Dow chemical plant decades ago. The EPA and Dow just
concluded negotiations over a clean-up deal.
Wendy Carney is with the EPA’s regional Superfund cleanup office. Carney says the
deal is not done, though.
“This agreement doesn’t actually contain any cleanup options. It also doesn’t
address any cleanup levels for the site. That would be a part of things we would talk
about with the public in a public forum to get their feedback on those issues.”
Carney says the EPA could unveil its agreement with Dow in two weeks.
The EPA suspects dioxins cause cancer and other health problems.
DDT was banned in 1972, but traces of it are still all over the place - including in Great Lakes fish. (Photo courtesy of Tony Arnold)
Scientists have known for a long time
that a lot of wild-caught fish have
dangerous contaminants. People
who eat fish have to weigh the health
benefits against the risks of consuming
those pollutants. Now, some research
could make that balancing act even
trickier. Gabriel Spitzer has more on
the link between diabetes… and an
infamous old chemical many assumed
was long gone:
Transcript
Scientists have known for a long time
that a lot of wild-caught fish have
dangerous contaminants. People
who eat fish have to weigh the health
benefits against the risks of consuming
those pollutants. Now, some research
could make that balancing act even
trickier. Gabriel Spitzer has more on
the link between diabetes… and an
infamous old chemical many assumed
was long gone:
In the early morning hours, anglers gather on Navy Pier in downtown Chicago.
Ray Penn is practically within casting distance of the city’s skyscrapers.
He dips his line in the waters of Lake Michigan, hoping to pull out something tasty.
“I filet ‘em, and I fry ‘em, yeah. They got a little bit of bones in ‘em, but – oh yeah. Oh, yeah, baby! I felt that!”
It’s looking like a good morning for rock bass.
“See, there’s a bass on the end of this. This is a small bass, now this guy here, he’s edible.”
Penn says he eats fish a couple of times a week, without giving it a second thought.
Down the pier, Patrick Duhan has the same attitude.
“This is the Great Lakes! It’s such a big body of water. It’s almost like the ocean. They throw tons of crap in the ocean, and there’s just too much of it to screw up.”
But, scientists say, people have managed to screw up the Lakes a fair amount.
Epidemiologists have been studying a group of sport fishers, like these guys, and charter boat captains, who eat a lot of Great Lakes fish.
Mary Turyk of the University of Illinois at Chicago measured the contaminants in their blood, and tracked their health over the years.
“We found we had 36 cases of new diabetes. And what we found was that DDE, the metabolite of DDT, was related to diabetes incidence.”
DDT.
That’s the pesticide made famous by Rachel Carson’s book, “Silent Spring.”
The chemical was banned in 1972, but traces of it are still all over the place – including in fish.
And like mercury or PCBs, it concentrates as it moves up the food chain.
So you don’t have to eat much.
“The captains were eating, I think, on average, a meal a week. One meal a week? Yeah. That doesn’t seem outlandish or anything. No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t at all. In fact, recommendations from the FDA for eating fish, based on mercury levels, are two meals per week, for pregnant women.”
So just half that much fish was linked to about a 33% increase in diabetes cases.
Turyk says it’s not clear how DDE or DDT might contribute to diabetes.
It may have to do with effects on hormones or the immune system.
“We really need more basic science to determine mechanisms that might be responsible for this.”
Another unknown is just how dangerous might this be, and when does it start to outweigh the advantages of an otherwise healthy food?
Tamara Duperval is a family doctor at a West Side Chicago clinic.
She says she still tells people to eat more fish.
“In our population, it’s really a wonder and a challenge to try to present fish as an option, when primarily the staple of diet is either chicken or beef.”
That population is mostly low-income and minority.
She says about half are overweight or obese.
From a nutrition point of view, those are exactly the people you’d want to be eating a lean, healthy protein like fish.
So Duperval is concerned about sending mixed messages.
“I do think it is confusing. And, it’s in part, I think, how we communicate crisis in this country, especially when it comes to food safety. They miss the overall preventative message, that fish is good food, and it actually provides a lot of important nutrients that are lacking in their diets.”
Health authorities often issue advisories about certain fish that have a lot of pollution.
Duperval says understanding those warnings can help people avoid some of the hazards.
But the diabetes research shows we may still have a lot to learn about these chemicals, so what’s safe to eat is getting harder to know.
More than half of the mercury switches still on the road are in GM’s cars. But, since filing for bankruptcy, GM stopped paying into the program. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The new General Motors, which recently emerged from bankruptcy, wants to create a clean, green image with its Chevy Volt electric car. But GM might have a bit of an environmental PR problem on its hands. Tamara Keith explains:
Transcript
The new General Motors, which recently emerged from bankruptcy, wants to create a clean, green image with its Chevy Volt electric car. But GM might have a bit of an environmental PR problem on its hands. Tamara Keith explains:
Automakers used to use mercury switches for lights and anti-lock brakes. But when old cars are scrapped and melted down, those parts turn into toxic air pollution.
So automakers and environmental groups created a program to recycle the mercury.
More than half of the mercury switches still on the road are in GM’s cars. But, since filing for bankruptcy, GM stopped paying into the program.
Rich Bell is president of the program, and he also works at Ford.
“None of our members are interested in paying for GM’s environmental legacy issues, and so we’re looking for a path forward, and we’re kind of in the midst of that now.”
In a statement, the new GM said those cars with mercury switches were made by the old GM.
The new GM that emerged from bankruptcy is not responsible for those old switches.
Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:
Transcript
A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:
The authors of this paper looked at a lot of research on cancer in wild animals. Some of these studies linked the cancer cases to pollution.
Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. And some fish and clam species have developed cancers after being exposed to pollution.
Denise McAloose is a veterinarian with the Wildlife Conservation Society. She’s the lead author of the paper.
“People should care about cancer in wildlife because, especially in those cancers that are driven by environmental factors, those environmental factors affect not only the animals, but people as well.”
For example, the people who worked in those aluminum smelters also had higher rates of cancer.
She says more research into the link between pollution and cancer in animals needs to be done. Because looking at how the disease affects wildlife might help us treat or prevent cancer in people.
Molly Aubuchon and Stefan Meyer survey their lawn. (Photo by Julie Grant)
There are some dead spots in the yard, but they don't want to use chemicals. (Photo by Julie Grant)
They like to keep the yard natural and free from chemicals. (Photo by Julie Grant)
Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:
Transcript
Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:
Molly Aubuchon and her husband Stefan Meyer aren’t sure
what they’re going to do. Their two little kids are running
around the yard. Stefan wants a lawn of thick, soft grass for
them to play on. But that’s not what he’s got.
Stefan: “As you can see, there’s no grass here.
I don’t know what some of this stuff is. Some kind of moss.
I think even the moss died, so now we have dead moss
that’s like yellow and brown.”
Molly: “It’s not attractive dead.”
Stefan: “No. I just think, when I’m out here cutting my grass,
I’m like, man, if I lived across the street, I’d be like, ‘hey look,
they’re cutting absolutely nothing again. They’re just running
that lawn mower over bare spots.’”
They see their neighbors, with those thick, green lawns,
spreading chemicals a few times a year. Molly and Stefan
don’t want to do that.
Molly: “Well, the fact that I’ve got kids running around here
all day. And the fact that it seeps into the water supply and
the rivers, that’s a concern to me.”
There are lots of people who are concerned about lawn
pollution. Lawns have gotten a bad wrap in some places –
because of the fertilizers and other chemicals people use on
them. In much of Canada, lawn chemicals have actually
been banned.
Lou DiGeranimo is General Manager of Water in Toronto.
He says lawn chemicals were damaging the water quality.
“People were over-fertilizing, they were using commercial
pesticides. That chemical ended up in the rivers and ended
up in the lake. We passed a bylaw that prohibited that.”
But some experts say the chemical bans in Canada are
extreme.
David Gardner is professor of turf grass at the Ohio State
University. He doesn’t think banning lawn chemical will do
anything to improve the environment.
“Based on the work that I have seen, based on the research
that has been conducted, I believe that if there is a unilateral
ban on the use of pesticides it will make absolutely no
impact on our environmental footprint.”
Gardner says compared to
other sources of pollution, like cars and over-use of
chemicals on farms, the impact of lawn care is miniscule.
Still, Gardner says people like Molly and Stefan can keep
nice lawns – without using a lot of chemicals.
He says you’ve got to cut the grass and water regularly.
He also recommends fertilizing lightly in the spring and more
heavily in the fall.
That’s what Gardner does at his house – and he uses only 6
to 8 ounces of herbicide a year.
“Putting it another way, if I were to go to a store and buy one
of those gallon jugs of ready-made herbicide, that would be
enough to last me for about 16 years.”
Gardner says the herbicide will hit its expiration date before
he has a chance to use it all.
But Molly and Stefan just aren’t sold. They don’t want to use
lawn chemicals just to appease the neighbors.
Stefan: “I just want to feel good about the way my yard
looks for my own satisfaction. I would like to cultivate some
grass that looks good, you know, with my hands.”
Besides, Stefan says, they don’t have the worst looking lawn
on the street and they’d just rather not add unnecessary
chemicals into the environment.
Stefan: “We don’t have the worst lawn on the street. Our
street is not that long. It’s only four blocks, five blocks long –
there’s a house down there and their yard looks worse than
ours.”
Nationwide, farms use the bulk of chemicals. But one expert says homeowners are more likely to overuse pesticides and fertilizers. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
New laws restrict pesticides and fertilizers in some cities. In recent years, farms have cut the use of chemicals. But, Rebecca Williams reports, some environmentalists say there are still far too many chemicals polluting streams and lakes:
Transcript
New laws restrict pesticides and fertilizers in some cities. In recent years, farms have cut the use of chemicals. But, Rebecca Williams reports, some environmentalists say there are still far too many chemicals polluting streams and lakes:
There are 40 million acres of lawns and sports fields in the US. That’s only one-tenth of the amount of cropland.
But some experts say lawn pesticides and fertilizers can be more of a problem.
Charles Benbrook is the Chief Scientist with the Organic Center. It’s a non-profit research group in Oregon.
“While there are many more acres of corn and soybeans and cotton treated with pesticides than there are lawns, the rate of application on lawns in urban areas often is far higher than on the farm.”
And, he says people are more likely to get exposed to chemicals on lawns.
“There’s many more opportunities for significant exposures, particularly for children and pregnant women in urban areas.”
Nationwide, farms do use the bulk of chemicals. But Benbrook says homeowners are more likely to overuse pesticides and fertilizers.
Styrene is one component in styrofoam containers (Photo by Renee Comet, courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
The styrene industry is suing to stop environmental officials from saying styrene could cause cancer and birth defects. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The styrene industry is suing to stop environmental officials from saying styrene could cause cancer and birth defects. Lester Graham reports:
Styrene is used in all kinds of products – containers like coffee cups, egg cartons, in construction, in cars.
The state of California wants to add it to a list of cancer-causing materials. The International Agency for Research on Cancer found styrene is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
Joe Walker is a spokesman for the Styrene Information and Research Center.
“Styrene is not a carginogen. Any listing that would categorize it as such basically would be illegal and would be erroneous and would have the potential of alarming the public unnecessarily about products that are made from styrene.”
If the court does allow California to put styrene on its cancer list, the styrene industry has a year to prove it doesn’t belong on that list.
Drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas (Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratories)
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
Transcript
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
For decades, drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas.
Environmental groups believe the chemicals are contaminating wells and aquifers here in the western U.S. Now gas drilling is moving east to places closer to cities such as Philadelphia and New York.
Several Democratic Members of Congress have introduced legislation to repeal the exemption in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Randy Udall is a co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA, an environmental group. He says as more gas is found, people in the East can expect more drilling.
“For better or worse, whether you like it or not, as time goes on, were going to be drilling in places where people are living.”
The oil and natural gas industry says the chemicals they force into the ground are “trade secrets.” They say the process is safe.
BPA doesn't line just baby products - it is in many canned foods and drinks (Source: Tomomarusan at Wikimedia Commons)
Food-packaging executives and
lobbyists for the makers of the
chemical bisphenol-A, often
called BPA, met in Washington
DC last week to come up with PR
strategies. Their message is:
BPA is safe. Lester Graham reports
someone took notes at that meeting
and then leaked them to reporters:
Transcript
Food-packaging executives and
lobbyists for the makers of the
chemical bisphenol-A, often
called BPA, met in Washington
DC last week to come up with PR
strategies. Their message is:
BPA is safe. Lester Graham reports
someone took notes at that meeting
and then leaked them to reporters:
Lyndsey Layton got ahold of those notes. She reports for the Washington Post.
“According to these notes, they called it the ‘holy grail’ spokesperson would be a pregnant, young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”
Ironic in that many studies associate BPA with birth defects.
John Rost is the Chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance.
He says the reporters got bad notes. He says it only came up because environmental activists used pregnant women to testify against BPA.
“We discussed that as an option and dismissed it and actually find it a little ironic that we are being criticized.”
Some retailers have taken toys and baby bottles made with BPA off the shelf in response to a consumer backlash.
It’s likely most consumers don’t yet realize the chemical also lines beverage and food cans.
BPA - one of the chemicals the EPA is focusing on - is found in many canned foods and drinks. (Photo source: Tomomarusan at Wikimedia Commons)
