Vegetables in the produce section of a supermarket in VA. (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
During the past 35 years, people have been getting
sick from contaminated produce more often. That’s according
to a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
During the past 35 years, people have been getting
sick from contaminated produce more often. That’s according
to a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Rebecca Williams reports:
After hundreds of people got sick from contaminated spinach and
lettuce, researchers started looking back at three decades of disease
cases. They found that people are getting sick from contaminated produce
more often. Bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella are often the cause.
Michael Lynch is one of the study’s authors. He says Americans are eating
more salads, but that doesn’t totally explain why there are more disease
outbreaks.
“We were a little surprised that that didn’t entirely explain the increase
but what else is contributing to that is not clear.”
Lynch says contamination can happen anywhere between the farm and your salad
plate. He says it’s important to thoroughly wash lettuce before eating it.
But he says that might not be enough to avoid getting sick.
He says stronger controls are needed at every step to try to prevent
contamination.
A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:
Transcript
A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:
Peter Jenkins: They’re charged with protecting native species. They’re charged with enforcing the
Endangered Species Act, which is an important part of this issue because these non-
native species threaten our native species, including threatening endangered species in
many cases.
Lester Graham: In the past, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has been accused of being too
slow to act, even when a problem is pointed out. Would the regulation changes you’re
talking about help speed that process?
PJ: Well, Congress would have to agree to commit more resources to the agency…I mean,
there is only one person, believe it or not, only one person whose job is to assess species
to be listed under that law to keep out of the country. Obviously, we need more than one,
we need some qualified professionals working this area. We don’t need millions and
millions of dollars, but we do need a significant increase, probably five or six or up to ten
professional staff looking closely at these imported animals to assess whether we’re
gonna have problems and which ones need to be restricted.
Now, how’s that gonna be paid for? Well, the industries that are bringing these species in
and that want to benefit from the import trade, whether it be pet or live animals or
biomedical testing or zoos or what have you…Those people bringing these species in
clearly should carry some of the cost of what they’re bringing in and in that way, the
taxpayers don’t get burdened too much.
LG: As you’ve mentioned, this is as much an economic problem as it is an environmental
problem. Why haven’t the dollars and sense of this issue really had an impact on the
politics behind making sure that we can restrict this kind of trade?
PJ: Well, that’s a great question and defenders of wildlife did do a white paper on the
economic impact of animal imports trade. The reason is very simple…the people who
benefit do not suffer the cost when these things go wrong. That is to say, the costs are
suffered by the public in terms of disease or invasive species concern or pests, so these
costs are externalized or passed on to the general public and it’s the taxpayers in the end
who wind up having to pay the costs. On the whole, these species that are brought in,
non-native species, are brought in for the pet trade…That’s by far the biggest reason that
species are brought in. That’s basically a luxury item, that’s not an essential item. Those
that benefit from luxury items should bare the cost.
LG: Now, nature seems to eventually cope with many of these exotic species, even the
invasive species to one degree or another and some people would say that this biological
pollution is nearly impossible to prevent so why fight the inevitable?
PJ: Uh, I don’t buy that argument at all. It’s like saying diseases are natural and people are
going to eventually cope with diseases, so why bother trying to prevent diseases? I mean,
we do it because we want to protect certain values. We want to protect our native species,
we want to protect human health, we want to protect the health of our livestock. Of
course we need to be protective and have adequate standards. I mean, we don’t need to be
operating under a law that was written in 1900 just because some people think it’s futile
to try to deal with this issue…We could cope with it.
HOST TAG: Peter Jenkins was one of the authors of a Defenders of Wildlife report calling on the government to do a better job of screening live animal imports. He spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham. The report is available at www.defenders.org.
More people are planning a so-called green burial when they die . Some want to
be laid to rest in a more natural setting called a conservation cemetery. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
More people are planning a so-called green burial when they die . Some want to
be laid to rest in a more natural setting called a conservation cemetery. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Green burials don’t use environmentally harmful chemicals to preserve the body
and avoid elaborate caskets or concrete burial vaults. In a few cities around the
US, the burials take place in conservation cemeteries. Those sites don’t mow
the grass or use lawn chemicals, and have grave markers that fit in with the
landscape.
Dave Drapac is with the Trust for Natural Legacies. He says despite the non-traditional process, green
burials are not a threat to public health:
“You know, if the person had a disease when they died, you’re gonna have to
take precautions, but you’d have to do that either way… and then the other issue with
burial, you have to make sure the cemetery is sited properly, just like any
cemetery does now, not near groundwater.”
Some funeral directors already offer a more environmentally-sensitive burial at
traditional graveyards.
Chances are your doctor doesn’t know much about environmentally-related
illnesses. Ann Murray looks at why most US doctors and nurses aren’t even
talking about environmental connections to their patients’ health and what’s
being done to remedy the situation:
Transcript
Chances are your doctor doesn’t know much about environmentally-related
illnesses. Ann Murray looks at why most US doctors and nurses aren’t even
talking about environmental connections to their patients’ health and what’s
being done to remedy the situation:
In 1999, Jo Ann Meier was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was shocked
to discover she had the disease. No one in her family had a history of cancer.
And she only had one of the standard risk factors for the illness:
“Of course, you always speculate when you have a disease like this. Was it
something I did or was it something that I was exposed to?”
Meier says her doctors never talked to her about possible environmental
links to her illness. Today, Meier is cancer free and runs a non-profit that
raises money for breast cancer research. She hears similar stories about other
primary care physicians from the breast cancer patients she works with every
day.
“There’s a great deal of anger about the misinformation or lack of
information given to them in general. I mean, it would be great if your PCP would
say you have to look at what you’re doing on a day-to-day basis that might
be affecting your health.”
Jo Ann Meier’s experience isn’t unusual. Experts agree that most doctors and
nurses aren’t ready to deal with the environmental links to dozens of
illnesses like cancer or lung disease. Sometimes crowded doctors’ schedules
or fear of being seen as an environmental advocate get in the way. Leyla
McCurdy directs the Health and Environment Program at the National
Environmental Educational and Training Foundation in Washington, DC.
McCurdy says medical providers don’t know much about environmental
health issues because training is so hard to come by.
One of the challenges that we are facing in terms of integrating environmental
health is the lack of expertise in the area. There are very few leaders who
are willing to take the time and create their own materials to educate the
students at the medical and nursing schools:
“As a result of this small pool of experts, and an already crowded set of
courses, most med students get only about seven hours of environmental
health education in four years of school. Established doctors and nurses have
even fewer training options.
A small but growing number of health care institutions, non-profits and
agencies are stepping in to fill the training gap. On this morning, medical
residents and staff doctors crowd into a hospital lecture hall.
“Welcome to medical grand rounds. Our speaker today is Doctor Talal ElHanowe,
who is going to talk to us about estrogenic pollutants in the environment and
the risk they pose to people.”
“Can these chemicals, which resemble estrogen, in one way or the other, cause an increase in the risk
to develop cancer? And the answer is yes.”
ElHanowe is a medical doctor and research scientist. He works with the
University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Environmental Oncology. The Center
is developing environmental health training for doctors and nurses. After his
seminar, ElHanowe says response to the program has been good. But his job
of relating environmental health risks can be tough because doctors aren’t
used to treating diseases with causes that are hard to pin down.
“In the scientific community, we can’t prove everything. Many things are
very difficult to prove.”
ElHanowe’s boss, Devra Davis, says medical providers will have to be
satisfied with substantial evidence, not absolute proof, that certain
environmental toxins increase the risk of illnesses, and steer patients to safer
alternatives. Davis is a nationally known epidemiologist. She says
environmental medicine’s emphasis on prevention is the shot in the arm
American health care needs:
“Because no matter how efficient the health care system becomes at finding
and treating disease, if we don’t reduce the burden of the disease itself, we’ll
never be able to improve the health of Americans.”
But to make environmental medicine standard issue in schools and practice,
a lot more doctors and nurses will need to be educated. And that means a lot
more funding. It’s hoped as medical providers make the connection between
environmental exposures and public health, funding sources will open up
and environmental medicine will make its way into mainstream health care.
New research is helping identify chemicals in the environment that
might increase the risk of getting breast cancer. Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
New research is helping identify chemicals in the environment that
might increase the risk of getting breast cancer. Mark Brush has more:
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for US women in their late
30s to their early 50s. A new study points to 216 chemicals that might
be increasing the risks of getting the disease.
The researchers compiled data from hundreds of animal studies that have
linked environmental pollutants to increases in breast tumors. The
research is published in the journal Cancer.
Julia Brody is with the Silent Spring Institute. She’s the principal
investigator of the new study:
“There really hasn’t been adequate attention to possible environmental
factors in breast cancer. This is a relatively new field of study, so
it’s an area where there’s an enormous knowledge gap.”
Breast cancer rates have been dropping in last several years. And
Brody thinks the rates could drop even more as potential environmental
risks are identified.
A program is trying to save another
native tree that’s being wiped out by an invasive
fungus. People who like the butternut are hoping
that by planting more seedlings, and tracking
mature trees, they’ll find some are resistant
to a blight that’s killing the butternuts.
Lucy Martin reports:
Transcript
A program is trying to save another
native tree that’s being wiped out by an invasive
fungus. People who like the butternut are hoping
that by planting more seedlings, and tracking
mature trees, they’ll find some are resistant
to a blight that’s killing the butternuts.
Lucy Martin reports:
Butternuts are rich in history. Native Americans used the tree for
medicine and dye. They ate the nuts. During the Civil War, so many
Confederates used the tree’s yellow-brown dye to make home-spun
uniforms that their army picked up the nickname “butternuts.”
Wood ducks, finches and songbirds eat the tree’s spring buds. The fall
nut crop feeds woodpeckers, turkeys, squirrels and other wildlife.
The tree’s hard wood resembles walnut, but with a lighter, golden tone.
That’s why it’s sometimes called “white walnut.”
The trees are seriously threatened by butternut canker, an invasive,
airborne fungus. The blight was first noted in Wisconsin in 1967. In
some states, up to 90% of all butternuts are now affected, but there’s
work underway to try to save the butternut before it’s wiped out.
Tucked in an old orchard, a cold-storage room serves as a distribution
station. Each spring, this is where the Rideau Valley Conservation
Authority gives away seedling trees to the public. Project technician
Rose Fleguel gave me the tour:
“So, I think there’s about 100,000 seedlings here. These are boxed or
bagged so that the trees stay moist and dark. We’ve already spent two
days re-packing into individual landowner tree orders.”
At this time of year, the dormant seedlings just look like twiggy
sticks. Many are still wrapped in brown paper sacks. Conservation
agencies plant all kinds of trees. But sometimes they target very
specific problems, like butternut canker.
“My thing is the Butternut Recovery Project, whatever amount of land
can sustain 10 seedlings, then you’re free to take the seedlings and
plant them out. ‘Cause what we’d like to do is get the seedlings out on
the landscape, get them growing. Replace the ones that have been killed
by this disease, already, and that continue to be killed, and hope for,
I mean, it’s going to be, it’s going to be a shot in the dark, but hope
that maybe some of these seedlings might be resistant.”
“Hope” is the key word. It’s not clear whether any butternuts are
resistant to the canker blight. The seedlings being handed out are
from trees that are still healthy. This recovery program also maps
mature trees and keeps track of the ones that still seem to be canker-
free. It’s a long shot, called “find the resistance.”
Rudy Dyck is the Director of the local Watershed Stewardship Services.
He says you can usually see if a butternut has been attacked by the
disease:
“Look for black patches, black streaks, black sooty areas on
the main stem, at the root collar, and always look on the underside of
the large branches, because that seems to be where the canker first
infects.”
“And if you notice that, is there anything to be done?”
“No, there’s nothing you can do. We’re asking people to keep them, as
long as they can. But one of the reasons that butternut is in such
extreme danger of extinction is that it just does not regenerate very
well.”
Dyck says that’s why it’s important to conserve existing trees.
Butternuts don’t bear seed each and every year. And when they do, the
nuts tend to get gobbled up. Growing new butternuts takes a few tricks:
“You have to stratify them, or prepare them for growing, the next
spring. So they have to spend a few months in kind of freezing
temperatures, an un-insulated garage in a pot of peat moss, or
something. Another strategy some people do, is they bury the nuts in
the fall, and they cover them with chicken wire, and then that protects
them from squirrels during that fall period and, as they start to grow
next spring, you can transplant them.”
Dyck says US and Canadian agencies are sharing ideas and results
because diseases don’t stop at borders:
“There’s literally thousands and thousands of heavily cankered, dying
butternuts out there, and we really want to focus on looking at
healthy, canker-free trees. Because those are the trees we want to get
into our geo-data base, for future seed collection, those are the trees
that may hold some resistance and those are the trees we want to
track.”
Butternut canker isn’t a well-known problem. The beautiful trees are
too big for most yards. They’re usually sparsely scattered in forests,
or old farmsteads. But Dyck says the butternut has an important place
in nature.
“There’s no question, bio-diversity and having many, many types of
ecosystems, habitats, species. They all interact, they all count on
each other, and it all makes for a healthier environment and place for
us all to live.”
Many native trees such as the chestnut, elm, and now the ash, are under
attack from invasive diseases or pests. The butternut is yet another
tree biologists want to save for future generations.
A disease that’s killing fish in the Great Lakes region is spreading;
and, as Richie Duchon reports, it’s infecting more and more species:
Transcript
A disease that’s killing fish in the Great Lakes region is spreading;
and, as Richie Duchon reports, it’s infecting more and more species:
The disease is called Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, or VHS. It weakens
fish immune systems, and they often die of organ failure and internal
bleeding.
Gary Whelan is with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. He
says the disease is here to stay:
“We cannot stop the disease. That’s very unlikely. It will continue
to spread. But we certainly can try to keep it out of sensitive fish
populations and out of inland lakes to our best that we can.”
Whelan says that includes not moving fish or water from lake to lake.
Just last month, VHS was confirmed in two popular sport fish in Lake
Huron.
Whelan says the virus could make it to Lakes Michigan and Superior this
year.
Commercial fishers and biologists are concerned
about the impact a viral disease will have on the Great Lakes fishery.
There have been some large fish kills. Live fish commerce has been
restricted to help prevent the spread of the disease.
A disease is spreading, causing large fish kills in the Great Lakes.
Biologists and fishery officials are working to prevent further spread of
the disease, but there’s a conflict between government agencies. Lester
Graham reports there’s also a cost to businesses that deal in live fish:
Transcript
A disease is spreading, causing large fish kills in the Great Lakes. Biologists and
fishery
officials are working to prevent further spread of the disease, but there’s a conflict
between government agencies. Lester Graham reports there’s also a cost to businesses
that deal in live fish:
The disease that’s killing fish is called Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia — or VHS. Jim
Diana is a fish biologist at the University of Michigan who’s been looking into what
it
does to fish…
“So, it’s a virus that the fish pick up and the virus causes really kind of a
general systemic
deterioration. Most notable, sometimes they’ll develop sores or lesions on the
outside of
the body, but they often will die without really external evidence at all.”
Basically, the fish die from internal bleeding. For several years there have been
die-offs
in the St. Lawrence River, which connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. But
researchers weren’t able to confirm the cause was VHS. Then this past summer in Lake
Saint Clair — the lake near Detroit that lies between Lake Huron and Lake Erie —
Jim
Diana says fish die-offs were confirmed to be caused by VHS.
“And since then, they’ve found it in quite a few other species, something like 20
other
species, so it’s quite widespread.”
It’s not clear how the virus got here. But… it originated in Europe. Researchers
guess
that infected fish hitchhiked in the ballast tanks of a ship… or a live fish shipment
escaped into the St. Lawrence River and it’s spread from there by ship.
Biologists say the spread of VHS is not good. It’s not expected to wipe out fish in
the
Great Lakes. But it is causing some real concern.
“We’re not talking about a couple of fish here, we’re talking about large fish
kills. And
VHS is present in those and implicated in the deaths of those fish.”
Marc Gaden is with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Gaden says because stocking
fish is a big industry… there’s a lot of fish shipped between the U.S. and Canada and
between one state and another.
“So, in the Great Lakes basin there is a movement of fish, fish eggs and other fishery
related things like water that’s used in the fish stocking trucks, things like that.
There’s
aquaculture that occurs, fish farms in the Great Lakes basin. The Departments of
Natural Resources harvest fish eggs to use in their stocking programs and the fish
themselves are stocked. So, there’s movement of fish and fish eggs throughout the
Great
Lakes basin just as a normal part of fisheries management and commerce that occurs.”
So the chance that the virus can be spread by all those fish moving around is
significant.
The federal government thought it was such a risk that it banned all fish shipments.
The
states quickly appealed that. They said it was overkill. They persuaded the feds
that they
were doing enough testing that the chances that VHS would be spread were slim.
So, the feds backed off a bit. But restrictions are still causing some problems. For
example… live fish that are not going to be put back into the lakes… live fish that
are
headed for dinner plates at restaurants still have to be tested. And VHS poses no
risk to
human health.
Ted Batterson is the director of the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center at
Michigan State University. He says he knows one fish farmer whose business is
supplying rainbow trout to restaurants.
“Well, now to be able to do that, he has to have the certification that these are
VHS-free.
It takes him currently, with the laboratory he’s been sending these to, up to 90
days to
get the certification that these are disease free. Well, that is not timely because
these
people who want fish at the other end need them in essence like yesterday, not 90 days
down the road.”
Another business hit by the restrictions on moving live fish is the bait industry.
If the
bait industry has to test –for example—one out of every 50 fish… and the test costs
about
50-dollars… no one will be able to afford to sell bait fish.
The states and the feds are still trying to figure out how to prevent the spread of
VHS…
without hurting the businesses that rely on live fish shipments any more than
necessary.
But… some businesses are already feeling the squeeze.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
People who are often exposed to high levels of pesticides
could be at a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s Disease. The
GLRC’s Chris Lehman reports on the findings of a new study:
Transcript
People who are often exposed to high levels of pesticides could be at a higher risk of
developing Parkinson’s Disease. The GLRC’s Chris Lehman reports on the findings of a
new study:
Researchers say people who are routinely around pesticides are 70 percent more likely to
develop Parkinson’s Disease. Alberto Aschiero was the lead researcher. He says the
pattern seems to be true for both farmers and backyard gardeners. He says even though
the findings are not conclusive, they confirm the results of earlier studies:
“I think this is enough to recommend to people to be very conservative in using
pesticides, especially when one is not essential, like in some home and garden
applications.”
Aschiero says he’s not advocating a warning label be placed on pesticide products yet.
He says that would be more appropriate if researchers can pinpoint specific pesticides
that are linked to Parkinson’s disease.
Chronic Wasting Disease is killing wild deer and elk. And it’s slowly spreading to new areas in North America. Right now, tests for the disease are done after the animals are dead, but researchers say they might be getting closer to a test that can be given to live animals. The GLRC’s Christina Shockley reports:
Transcript
Chronic Wasting Disease is killing wild deer and elk. And it’s slowly spreading to new areas
in North America. Right now, tests for the disease are done after the animals are dead,
but researchers say they might be getting closer to a test that can be given to live animals.
The GLRC’s Christina Shockley reports on what this might mean in the fight against the disease:
Chronic Wasting Disease, or CWD, causes deer and elk to waste away and die.
The disease is causing hunters and wildlife officials to worry about the
future of the wild deer population. Right now, testing a brain sample from a
dead animal is the sure-fire way to detect the infectious protiens, called prions, that
cause the disease.
Alan Young is a Veterinary Science professor at South Dakota State University.
He’s developing the new test.
“Our ultimate goal is basically to develop a test for infectivity in blood,
by taking a blood sample, and then analyzing for the presence of the infectious prion protein.”
Young says a blood test would let deer and elk farmers know if their herds are
infected before the animals die. He says the research could also lead to a cure for CWD.
Vegetables in the produce section of a supermarket in VA. (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)