I did my own language and occupational therapy primarily from a bed in a garage apartment using a Web-TV. Selling that article was an incredible achievement for me and the product of around a year of rehabilitation work. Having it published marked the successful return of a significant portion of my impaired literacy skills. Yes, it took an editor days to reduce my six page story submission to three, well organized and grammatical pages for her publication. It was true that I would never again produce a good composition completely independently or with any speed that would adequately serve the needs of an employer or client. However, the cause for celebration was that I could once again research and formulate answers to basic questions, such as how a developmental disabilities specialist could lose 24 IQ points, becoming ADD and mildly aphasic, from working in her own school. The answer is pesticides. That leads to the next question of why anyone actually thinks that putting neuro-toxic chemicals in a school represents sound science or good social policy. That question hasn’t received the consideration it is due despite a decade of ‘study’ regarding the School Environment Protection Act, buried deep in the bowels of some legislative committee.

I saw that article referenced on a website just yesterday. The internet address, commonly called a URL read:

http://pestcontrol.omgletsbbq.com/the-armchair-activist-%C2%BB-getting-the-bugs-out-pesticides-and-your/

In case you missed the abbreviated references, they read as, “pest control – oh my god let’s barbecue.com/the armchair activist”. Yes, that’s me. Well, any industry website that would refer so disparagingly to the author of an article lauding its most responsible members as mine does, just might not boast enough professionals to deserve the public’s trust.

Perhaps the EPA needs to rethink the supervision of any industry that allows poison to be sold on store shelves right next to food without the can being shrink wrapped. Cigarettes and liquor are poisons only sold to adults but any child can buy a can of pesticide along with a chocolate bar (and hope the can doesn’t leak as the items are placed in a bag together).

Perhaps the EPA needs to rethink the supervision of an industry that sprays occupied buildings with chemicals developed for use outdoors on farmland. Considering the fact that both the EPA and the CDC are unable to tell physicians how to test patients for pesticide exposures, supervision might need to come from a higher authority. I continue to hope that Administrator Jackson will personally intervene in this egregious violation of the FIFRA laws.

Perhaps the pesticide industry needs to adopt better policies for educating its membership. There certainly needs to be stricter policies developed for protecting vulnerable occupants of schools, hospitals and households from toxic chemicals. If they do this independently, Congress might have one less industry to regulate.

Barbara Rubin
The Armchair Activist

Yes, that is a recurring theme on this blog because, as even the CDC has remarked, pesticides are ubiquitous in our environment. There is no escaping exposures to these toxic chemicals despite the body of laws contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), supposedly governing their use. No one can take that act seriously, if you look at the history of our modern veterans, terribly damaged from pesticides and herbicides.

The full truth of that damage continues to be denied while we supposedly ‘honor’ our heroes of wars past and present, all exposed to intensive amounts and combinations of these dangerous poisons. Who doesn’t know of ‘Agent Orange’? That era prompted decades of denial by the US government regarding the extent to which herbicides destroyed the health of so many Vietnam soldiers and the Vietnamese themselves. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs has only just gotten around to recognizing several more diseases stemming from such exposures, in addition to those recognized earlier. The term “earlier” is relative. It wasn’t until the 1990s that claims of injury from decades of use for this defoliant, in jungles and on crops, began to be compensated.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) chided the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2004 for its inadequate review of the science pertaining to the enormous number of veterans sickened during this brief (1990 -1991) action in the Persian Gulf. With around 175,000 of those soldiers reporting illnesses related to their service, Veterans Affairs head Eric Shineski recently released new guidelines for ‘presumptive’ approval of requests for assistance with the resulting disabilities. Finally recognizing the need to acknowledge many impressive studies from diverse sources, the Institute of Medicine reviewed those which had been published since 2005. Interestingly, their summary specifically cited adverse effects of cholinesterase suppressing chemicals (as in a now-banned group of pesticides) as being implicated in the ‘multi-system’ illness typical of many veterans. The report leaves the door to future findings wide open, as scientists continue to scrutinize the many systemic changes chemicals can induce. Of course, pyrethroid pesticides were heavily used in the Gulf War. Uniforms were soaked in those pesticides and central nervous system damage has been documented when these are combined with exposures to chemicals inducing other biochemical changes. We have yet to see any governmental policies demonstrating that we’ve learned from studies of human exposures being used by governmental institutions in granting veterans benefits. Indeed, the EPA is out of compliance with FIFRA laws pertaining to the bio-monitoring of our use for these chemicals throughout the United States. Nearly every American is exposed, with pyrethroids now a staple of the pesticide industry.

If only pesticides were scrutinized before marketing and vendors were forbidden to tout the safety of their products to users.

Of course, service related disabilities have provided a new crop of clients for lawyers to reap since a 2006 ruling allowed those denied benefits to obtain counsel for appeals. A 2007 article in the ABA Journal (Law News) notes that there were lawyers who’d taken up to a thousand clients in pursuit of veterans benefits were ‘well-intentioned’ but inadequate to such a task.

No kidding.

The blind eye turned towards the misuse of pesticides is a war on our population. Only the multi-national corporations bent upon expanding the sale of farm chemicals to urban populations can benefit. There should be an entirely new industry devoted to the science of safe indoor pest control which has nothing to do with protecting crops and weed control. A new study just demonstrated how populations of malaria-carrying mosquitoes can be safely reduced without harmful insecticides. We should certainly be capable of managing our households from lesser hazards. The Department of Agriculture has responsibility for the investigation and enforcement of pesticide regulations outside of agricultural settings where regulations don’t respect the difference between indoor and outdoor settings in the degradation of chemicals or the degree to which airborne residues linger inside closed spaces. The incredible toll taken on our health care system alone in acute and chronic illnesses resulting from these differences is something we should learn from our Veterans. They have so much to teach us about common sense and prioritizing the importance of people over the tragic consequences of going to war for financial gain as in ‘oil’ or for reconstruction contracts for industries.

We can at least honor their sacrifices by progressing in our use of these wartime technologies. Let’s not forget that pesticides were invented for use as chemical warfare agents. That fact alone, should make it all the more apparent that we need to reconsider their use in our lives. Technology is merely a tool and therefore requires scientific wisdom to utilize it in all its forms.

I’ve run into those conflicts of interest time and time again as I have evaluated different residential environments, all contaminated with agricultural pesticides known to be harmful to humans and their pets. Testing such places revealed an amazing array of pollutants which cannot be reconciled with the sanctity of ‘hearth and home’. In the USA, our homes are damaging our health as we seal them for energy efficiency, exterminate them, decorate them and attempt effective climate control within them. In some cases where the harm was destined to affect many individuals in the future, I contacted the EPA. In each case I was told nothing could be done or referred to another agency such as the Department of Health or the Department of Agriculture for that particular jurisidiction. In turn, those agencies would tell me that nothing could be done. No one denied the contamination of the areas. They merely pointed out that it was of no concern—to anyone, apparently.

After learning of extensive chlordane contamination in one New England residence, I showed the laboratory evidence to the owner who then admitted his wife had become very ill while living in that house. They moved and began renting it out. It is entirely possible that they continue to do so even knowing of the contamination lurking therein. Perhaps you are living in that home today. Some 70 million Americans are affected by chlordane contamination despite it having been banned back in 1988. People test residences for radon these days but no one considers chlordane, still affecting millions of buildings and wells to this day.

New approaches are needed to fully utilize the body of laws called FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which serve to oversee the use of pesticide products. These remain a monopoly of agribusiness, when these poisons invented for use in chemical warfare during the 1930s turned out to be efficient tools in killing pests which threatened agriculture. Whether or not you are a fan of conventional agriculture or prefer organic produce, the typical pesticides sold today for use in your home were made for use on farm fields, open to the air and sunlight needed to degrade these chemicals. This is not an issue under consideration in the regulation of pesticide manufacture and use. In fact, chlordane was actually banned for use in farming in 1983 while its use in homes was permitted for another five years, until 1988. The illogic of that delay permitted millions of additional properties to become contaminated with full knowledge of the hazards by authorities. The EPA currently warns us to be careful of these chemicals when dealing with bed bugs since using pesticides intended for outdoor use can render our bedrooms and entire home uninhabitable. That is a high price to pay for failing to research the best and safest methods of relieving such problems.

The Department of Agriculture continues to be largely responsible for the implementation of FIFRA laws governing farm chemicals used in your home, school, office and hospital; your parks and libraries; your day care facilities and your hotel room. The question to ask is why a brand new industry devoted to the research and development of indoor pest control hasn’t risen to the fore. Pest control is a vital service and there is no reason why a divide shouldn’t exist between agribusiness and home health concerns involving pest control given the vast difference between the two types of environments. Our health may well depend upon our breaking up this strange monopoly of agribusiness in the manufacture of such chemicals. Certainly, we need the FIFRA laws to begin differentiating between their uses in outdoor as opposed to indoor settings. However, agribusiness has many ways in which it maintains its monopolies and even restricts research.

There are many things which can be done but for the obstructive nature of individuals committed to keeping the status quo. Having compiled a list of concrete needs for dealing with this aberrant and illegal state of affairs after a decade of study about these issues, I sought to deliver that list directly into Administrator Jackson’s hands and set about attempting to make an appointment for a ten minute phone call. The request was denied. After several exchanges of emails and phone messages with the scheduling office, I was offered contacts with individuals and departments already known to me. I declined to renew those contacts since they’d claimed no authority to act in prior incidents and discussions. Had those individuals been able to utilize the information previously related, I certainly wouldn’t have any need to speak with the head of the EPA. Unfortunately, when one takes over an ineffective system, some degree of ‘micro-management’ is initially required until existing or new personnel can effectively work with novel goals and procedures.

Apparently, my efforts to reach Ms. Jackson will have to begin with this blog. Every day these issues go without resolution, more people end up sick, disabled or dead. What was most interesting is that the scheduling office mentioned that Ms. Jackson lacks the in-depth knowledge of her staff in pesticide toxicology as another reason for my speaking with other staff. While this may indeed be the case, the issues I am raising do not require a degree in biochemistry. They do require familiarity with FIFRA, the EPA bureaucracy and the obstacles standing in the way of implementing FIFRA. Ms. Jackson is indeed well versed in that morass by now. As is Carol Browner, currently involved in the current administration in other capacities. Perhaps the two minds might together address these issues while health costs soar for leaving them unresolved.

I have been asked why I’ve gone beyond the cursory awareness many Americans have from reading headlines or hearing sound bites about such industry giants as Monsanto, Dow Corning, Bayer, Syngenta and other trans-national corporations which all enter our lives in one way or another. It is because I, like many others, ultimately learned something about the manner in which chemicals can both help and harm society. I witnessed damaged children use drugs which controlled seizures and enabled them to function normally, and met patients cured of cancers like Hodgkin’s Disease. I also witnessed years of chemical exposure leading to disease and death in adults working in harmful occupations. Did you know that the list of ‘harmful’ occupations includes teaching? Teachers have high rates of autoimmune disease.

And then I lost a layer of brain cells and some functions I’d taken for granted would always be mine, because I was exposed to pesticides in a school setting. This happened even though I’d taken preventive measures to avoid such an eventuality for the sake of both the students and staff under my supervision. It is literally impossible to do that successfully in our world which takes all personal choice about chemical exposures away from citizens. That is unacceptable and places business interests over and above all other rights in the USA. How is that democracy in action?

We can certainly praise companies for their successes while still holding them accountable for their failures. They don’t get a free ride for causing cancer just because they treat it as well. We can’t sacrifice the water table to carcinogens in order to use pesticides on the land to artificially increase yields for mere, short term gains. Bad practices should not be permitted as the price to be paid for positive outcomes of related commercial enterprises. It can take thirty years to remove a hazardous chemical from the marketplace. The economy can’t withstand the costs of such large-scale harm in terms of lost worker productivity and high health care costs of preventable illnesses.
 
Consumers were successful in making their desires known to their favorite store chains when it came to marketing genetically modified foods and increasing selections within organic brands. However, typical vendors of food and home/business products such as cleaners and pesticides remain unaffected by the preferences of that sector of consumers. It takes too long to educate the average citizen in the neuro-toxic effects of many chemicals on the market today including their favorite weed and seed lawn products. That is where, however reluctantly, governments have to offer regulatory guidance which can protect citizens from the adverse effects of widely marketed (and deceptively advertised) products. In Canada, such lawn care products will be banned in most of the country within a few years while industry pursues their quarrel with any restraint of trade in the Canadian courts. Canada’s willingness to engage in legal wrangling with mega-corporations selling poisons is based on the fact that it is cheaper than spending tax dollars on the health care consequences of using those products. The same motivation led the US to widely pass bans on smoking in the workplace. This has already had a huge economic benefit to all Americans in reducing heart disease among non-smokers.
 
Government agencies have become complicit in the less attractive activities of multi-national corporations by acquiescing to their dictates of non-interference. By the time sufficient outrage has been generated by a consumer base to initiate regulation, an extraordinary degree of damage has already been suffered in terms of societal costs. It isn’t only measured in terms of dollars spent on health care. Many children are prevented from reaching their optimal potential for intellectual achievement through contact with lead, mercury and neurologically damaging pesticides.

Technological advances from the private sector will only advance so far as the desire for profit allows. Since industry has refused to diversify their scope of marketing of pesticides in the name of limiting current hazards for future gains – investing in their own consumers – then government must alter the degree to which problem industries can monopolize such markets by removing them from oversight positions and legislative influence. The Constitution of the United States permits regulation of industries where needed unlike NAFTA. Under NAFTA, a chapter eleven provision prohibits governments from restricting trade it considers harmful without making reparations to the industries for any loss of profits. Which provisions should we regard as more important and far-reaching? The U.S. Constitution gets my vote. It is possible to do this if agribusiness is simply declared to be a poor candidate for leadership of non-agricultural activities. We aren’t farmers and can’t tell those who are, how to run their farms other than by deciding what foods we wish to consume. Similarly, why should the Department of Agriculture be responsible for deciding what kinds of chemicals belong in my home or office? Just think of the incredible new industry that could arise if the process of researching and developing pest control products solely for use in occupied buildings were independent of agribusiness! There is no reason for farm chemicals to wind up in schools. Children are not crops.

I hope these six ‘bullet’ points makes sense to the average person who hasn’t actually thought about the influence of farm policies upon their daily lives and futures, beyond issues of food production. As of the present, they actually intrude upon every aspect of your life from the toothbrush you purchase to the paint you buy at Home Depot to your child’s classroom.
 
TO EPA ADMINISTRATOR LISA JACKSON:

 
I hope the following six areas of concern regarding oversight of FIFRA laws will spur your interest in widening the range of authorities involved. A division between the regulation of pesticide products used in agriculture versus those used in non-agricultural settings is crucial to the health of our citizens today and the potential achievements for future generations.
 
1. Detection of environmental poisons by odor: The legal use of pesticides and other toxic materials is quite widespread but, in the majority of locales, there are no laws requiring notification before they are used or permission of bystanders who will be inhaling, ingesting and absorbing the chemical drift and residues through their skins and mucous membranes (eyes, throats etc.). In areas where gas fuels are used, an odorant is added to the mixture to identify leaks which would lead to explosions for these highly flammable substances. Without that addition (usually methyl mercaptan), leaks would otherwise go unnoticed by residents and present grave risks for fires/explosions. Unlike our recognition of the dangers from combustion, we cover up the hazards presented by pesticides and many cleaning solvents by adding scents and masking fragrance chemicals. These hide the usual ‘warning’ odor of toxic materials among the many, undisclosed ingredients in these products. That means most individuals exposed to these chemicals remain unaware of their presence. Many who do purchase or contract for their application will assume the lack of odor–or a pleasant odor–means fumes emanating from these chemicals are harmless. It is essential that any chemicals which can harm have a ‘tell-tale’ odorant present. It doesn’t have to be ‘skunk-like’ to repel all comers but should be characteristic (as with gas fuels), so that building occupants and passers-by know of their exposures. It can then be avoided by choice or reported as part of an exposure history to physicians should illness arise. Ignorance of the presence of these chemicals is largely responsible for a lack of test data on their effects upon our population.
 
2. Registry of pesticide use: There is no reason not to offer a registry of information about the legal applications of pesticides within communities. Even the EPA has no right to inquire of a farm if they have applied non-restricted chemicals freely sold ‘over the counter’, despite their toxicity by inhalation or absorption in the water table. Instead of neighbors becoming aware of choices made by farmers with regard to their chosen chemicals after harm is suspected, it is far better for a town clerk’s office to have a registry of the chemicals in use. This would be accessible by those interested in making decisions about residency in farming communities. Many individuals should not reside close to such entities due to interference of pesticides with various medical conditions and drugs used to manage them. Homes near golf courses require similar disclosures as the advantages must be weighed against the disadvantages—particularly for those about to start families. Some pesticides are known to be disruptive of reproductive health and fetal/child health and individuals require the right of choice when large scale users of such chemicals are present in a community. This is not a punitive effort but one which frees all concerned to act in concert with their needs and preferences.
 
3. Supervision of pesticide use by community-appropriate officials and agencies: Currently, most decisions made regarding pesticide use in our homes, offices and schools are merely extensions of policies developed for farmland management. People are not crops and the Department of Agriculture is an inappropriate agency to conduct oversight of pesticide use within residential and businesses settings. The sales of pesticides for non-agricultural uses has become hugely profitable and therefore a major conflict of interest. The incredible profits garnered from transferring agricultural chemicals off of the farm and into our urban communities has retarded technological advances in pest control which would increase the safety of humans occupying treated buildings. These chemicals do not act indoors as they do outdoors. The health effects are simply too well documented now to permit any confusion about the science. The School Environment Protection Act has been passed by the Senate yet has never been released from the Agricultural Committee for a vote in the House. One provision calls for the cessation of use for pesticides which damage the central nervous system. Another calls for the least toxic chemicals to be used in all cases. Where health issues require any higher toxicity chemical to be applied, notification of building occupants and signage is required. Why are our schools even asking the Department of Agriculture for permission to stop exposing our children and teachers to chemicals which damage brains because they were designed to do so in insects which eat growing vegetables and fruits? I lost 24 IQ points to exposures to such chemicals in a school setting. What chance do developing minds have to reach their potential when established learning is so easily disrupted as neuronal activity is directly impaired by these chemicals? If the Department of Agriculture ceases to be involved in chemical use within non-agricultural settings, a new industry will come to the fore. Certainly, new methods of assessing efficacy and safety of pesticides for use in and around occupied buildings can be promoted since these issues are in no way similar to the safety issues presented by agricultural uses for pesticides. Secondly, agribusiness will be freed from dependence upon the income generated by the virtual monopoly they hold upon the pesticide industry and concentrate on better methods of increasing cost-effective food production in the various climates and terrains around the world. The EPA will be able to divide its enforcement codes between the two diverse (and presently conflicting) aspects of pesticide use for the benefit of all citizens and consumers.

4. We cannot hope for any enforcement of the FIFRA laws when there is no medical monitoring possible for current-use pesticides. I contacted the CDC and every imaginable source but couldn’t find a single medical laboratory that presently measures blood or urine metabolites of pyrethrin and pyrethroid pesticides. One lab told me they were trying to ‘gear up’ for such testing. In 2002, the CDC found seventy percent of our population (N=3,000) positive for these chemicals when their urine was analyzed. I contacted the researcher herself but was told they don’t do these tests outside of research purposes. It is unconscionable to market chemicals for which exposure analysis can’t be accomplished in order to learn what concentrations are associated with immediate and deferred adverse effects. In a nation which requires consumers to prove harm instead of vendors to prove ‘safety’, this is a violation of our basic civil rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. Similarly, exposure is ubiquitous for these chemicals so it becomes even more important to be able to assess specific environments (e.g. a child’s bedroom or classroom) for the amount of such chemicals which are circulating in our air spaces and associated with immediate and deferred adverse effects. We have OSHA and NIOSH rules for exposure limits in workplaces but none for residences or schools/offices where non-employees are to be found without the right to report toxic exposures.. Having tested air purifier filters left running in numerous settings, the findings were shocking with regard to the amount and variety of toxicants found. Laboratory facilities which are consumer friendly for such analyses must be made available. This would indeed be a good subject of investigation for entrepreneurs to undertake at this time.

6.Respect for the toxicity of pesticide products: Pesticides are poisons which means they should only be used by individuals qualified to comprehend the precautions mandated on their labels and to seek help if adverse effects are noted. Purchase and use of these chemicals by minors is something to be avoided just as sales of liquor and cigarettes are prohibited. When sold in stores carrying food and children’s toys, only shrink wrapped cans ought to be sold as cans sometimes leak and buyers sometimes ‘try out’ aerosol cans to ensure they are working. Similarly, poisons can be used as weapons and forensic kits for sampling sites of suspected pesticide applications for malicious purposes are essential. There are many cases in which such actions are suspected yet go without any investigation for lack of training and procedural hurdles on the part of police. Some of those hurdles are voluntary in the refusal to cooperate with other agencies. Not one law enforcement agency I have contacted from the police to the EPA to FEMA and Homeland Security, will actually collect and analyze such samples. The FBI will take a report but not inform those involved of any actions taken which requires the assumption that nothing is being done to protect Americans from chemical threats of an organized or casual nature. Therefore, criminal activity using pesticides and many common chemicals cannot prosecuted. Sarin gas acts as some classes of pesticides still sold in stores—something the average citizen needs to know in selecting such products for their own use. There is no question but that the lack of forensic testing for these chemicals places our population at risk for their use in domestic acts of violence and terrorism.

Additionally, the devices and mechanisms for delivering pesticides such as foggers and hoses originally meant for broadcast spraying of outdoor settings are completely unregulated under FIFRA laws. Therefore, the methods of application can easily result in the introduction of high levels of these poisons which result in acute illnesses and are followed by long term exposures to residues. The fogging of rooms for fleas and the spraying of mattresses for bedbugs may be well intentioned by individuals subjecting their residences to such treatments in desperation for relief from household infestations. However, many people have found themselves and their families with far greater problems than their unwanted insect visitors, once their homes become permeated with levels of hazardous poisons they may neither recognize nor be able to assess and remove.

Pesticide delivery devices should be considered weapons just like any firearm discharging a tool (bullet) which can be used defensively or offensively. Either way, innocent people are routinely hurt if safety considerations aren’t carefully followed. These considerations are poorly publicized and the public lacks understanding of them. A fogger can be considered an ‘ouzi’ in the indiscriminate spraying of liquid poison around a room or yard. In comparison, a layer of diatomaceous earth placed around a foundation is the equivalent of a ‘barbed wire’ fence to keep insects from crawling into openings yet to be caulked.
 
Sincerely,
Barbara Rubin

My own history of disabling pesticide exposures in a school—my former workplace–is no different for having taken place in our nation instead of a war-torn country. Misinterpreting (or misrepresenting) agricultural chemicals as having equivalent value and efficacy for indoor control of pests, industry has been pouring these same chemicals into our homes, offices, schools and public areas for two generations. The amounts applied are prescribed for efficacy rather with respect for the health of human occupants, also subject to the ‘knockdown‘ effect so valued in pesticides. The cosmetic relief of pests returning to their hidden nests after spraying belies the fact that they haven’t been eradicated and survivors will merely breed a generation of chemically resistant descendants. DDT and chlordane would likely not have been banned despite their hazards had not the insects for which they were used become resistant. In that case, industrial interests worked in concert with those of citizens.

Even as we slogged through the mind-numbing—and expensive—process of eliminating a few of the obviously damaging pesticides, we left their sister chemicals alive and well in the marketplace. Today’s pyrethroids are similar in action to DDT (banned in the 60s), mainly differing in their shorter span of environmental persistence. Residues of DDT are finally diminishing nationally, but break-down products (DDE) are found in small amounts everywhere you test. Lindane and other organochlorines remain on the market, despite the ban placed upon chlordane in the eighties. Most intriguing is the fact that chlordane was banned for agricultural uses first while withdrawal from residential uses followed about five years later. It has yet to break down after all these years and millions of people remain exposed to its deleterious effects upon our central nervous and immune systems. Building upon old agricultural sites where this was employed may lead to intrusions of chlordane into the home much as radon enters via foundations. Unfortunately, ventilation won’t erase it’s effects. Dursban and Diazanon were banned in 2002 for most uses and there is an upcoming ban on aldicarb pesticide after thirty years of expressed ‘concerns’ about it. A large number of other pesticides in that same class of organophosphate chemicals are still available for use. . . and harm.

Huge industries such as the manufacturers of pesticides and chemicals, such as pyrethroids and formaldehyde, have arranged to make the distribution of their products so wide that exposure is unavoidable to the general population. Those who are not primary consumers purchasing them for personal use, are second and third hand consumers by inhalation, skin absorption or ingestion through hand/food contamination. Walls, floors and ceilings offer an imaginary privacy but are no barrier to the migration of gaseous emissions from chemicals ‘next door’.

We live in a ‘show-me’ world, which works well for businesses who can slap cosmetic facades upon cheap goods and ‘sell the sizzle’. The comic phrase, “It is better to look good than to feel good-”, is taken quite literally among our often shallow culture. Unfortunately, the same theme sells in the world of medicine. We spend ages seeing ailments, which defy explanation, until we take the plunge and look at the invisible forces around us. First came Leeuwenhoek, who invented the microscope and others like Lister, who endured ridicule and censure to save millions from death by germs lurking in unhygienic medical practices. It prevented minor wounds from developing fatal infections, improved surgical outcomes and reduced childbed fever, which had turned pregnancy into a life-threatening condition.

How long will we wait before existing, and safe technology, overcomes that Madison Avenue fable of ‘better living through chemistry’? Probably not until the sick have easier and independent access to tests which reveal their sources of injury and inflammation so we can begin to improve the health of future generations. For now, as long as we continue to ignore that which is not visible, we will be held hostage to the chemical companies and the ignorance of consumers who support them through the purchase of their outmoded, though still profitable, products.

Today, gas chromatography reveals the presence of many invisible, yet toxic, chemicals present in air, absorbed by objects and invading our bodily fluids and tissues. Unfortunately, such testing is costly – another depends upon sharp doctors taking environmental histories from patients with unusual or multi-systemic ailments. We’ve finally realized the toxic effects of inhaling tobacco smoke in our proximity and proven the long-term contamination caused by smoke in indoor areas (called third-hand smoking). Yet the effects of absorbing other forms of poisons which are less visible, but intentionally applied in order to poison nerve cells and interrupt other bodily functions, go undiagnosed.

Hysteria, depression, anxiety and somatoform disorder is a frequent assumption or default diagnosis when women and children are ill without obvious cause. Certainly such things as poisoning are not possible in the world of psychologists like Simon Wessely and Herman Staudenmayer. These individuals have raised the age-old practice of pinning psychiatric diagnoses on patients to an art form. Instead of ruling out organic problems, patients are asked to prove to clinicians that their illnesses may have an organic basis. Otherwise, the default condition of psycho-pathologically disordered patients goes into effect. It is almost amusing to see the lengths they go in order to make the search for knowledge and peer support. When any novel or puzzling constellation of illness is publicized, as with Gulf War Syndrome, support groups for those patients are labeled (or ‘libeled”) a means of spreading hysteria instead of knowledge via shared experience with the problem. We will next be informed that groups like the Compassionate Friends, lead bereaved parents further into depressive states. We are told social isolation is unhealthy, but now gatherings for mutual support and study are suddenly ill advised. No matter what affective presentation a patient offers, someone will determine it to be pathological. How is one supposed to respond to tragic events? Perhaps the pathology is more likely to be found among those who fear facing such facts among friends and loved one. It certainly appears to be an opportunity for profit in some quarters.

Psychiatrist Dr. Frances Allen, headed up the last group effort to update the DSM ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). He has widely criticized an insistence upon pathologizing normal human experience with diagnoses of mental illness. There are no objective medical criteria. The new committee to create a fifth edition of the manual is proposing to reduce the length of time a patient experiencing sadness and related symptoms from six months in order to qualify for a diagnosis of depression to a mere two weeks. Frankly, such a brief period of intense mourning for a loved one would indicate an absence of any depth of feeling—an affective disorder—essential to strong relationships, unless one qualifies for an affective or personality disorder. This means profound grief comes at the end of them, a heavy but worthwhile price to pay for years of sustained joy in human interactions. Why are we so afraid of facing the physiological damage inflicted by a chemically complex modern world? Why are we afraid to become responsible consumers and learn about the products chosen for us, if not by us? Dr. Peter Breggin heads an advocacy group for the use of safer psychoactive medications than the current ones and only then, for a far more limited group of patients. A return to the provision of short-term, supportive counseling should be adequate in many situations.  True pathology is simply not as prevalent as claimed and lacks any supporting medical evidence.

There is a firm movement to stigmatize and dismiss patients seeking relief from acute and chronic conditions that are hard to diagnose. Our economy relies upon an ‘honor system’ for the sale of food, clothing and dwellings essential to life, along with the non-essential toys we choose to enhance our life-styles. Vendors are not required—and may not even know—what goes into their merchandise. From Chinese drywall to melamine laced baby foods to diacetyl in our flavored popcorn, many illnesses are generated through bad decisions in manufacturing processes. Lack of labeling keeps physicians and patients from being able to associate various products with human illness until huge numbers of severe outcomes results in an investigation. Industries willing to reap economic gains via unethical means, rather than modernizing their products and services. This is likely because profit margins may be reduced. Perhaps a few more home-owners will choose to conduct their own pest control activities. Nonetheless, poisons placed unnecessarily in our living and working spaces are a human rights violation. Instead of religious fanaticism, we see a financial fanaticism in which any form of profit is wildly applauded in the mistaken belief it may lead to more jobs being provided.

We don’t owe any industry unearned profits. If the technology of the past is no longer desirable, we have the right to choose vendors supplying more appropriate options. You wouldn’t go to a Ford dealer and ask to buy an Edsel, would you? Or a car without seat belts? The majority of pest control problems, including bed bugs, can be handled with less toxic methods than currently used. It may not be as fast or as easy as we’d like to believe it should be, but life is never that simple. Less toxic choices are actually recommended by the EPA. They note that residences have been rendered uninhabitable after treatments with pesticides intended for outdoor use. Pest control services are more important than ever before, but companies must diversify in their methodologies to truly serve their purpose of improving our lives.

We need to stop pretending that pesticides are regulated in any fashion which is meaningful to the average citizen. Lisa Jackson, the newly appointed administrator of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), is highly concerned about toxics in the environment but is handicapped by precedents, and the enormous conflict of interests reflected in the oversight of major industries involved in agribusiness. As with any elected or appointed official, Ms. Jackson’s interests cannot turn into effectiveness without public support and participation. A declaration of full disclosure for use of pesticides is at minimum required to fulfill the requirements of FIFRA and to monitor the costs in human health for the marketing of products which have yet to be fully evaluated. Provisions for the bio-monitoring of pesticides in the population needs to be as widespread as the products if we are going to market them as an experiment prior to safety testing.

The harm these chemicals do is measurable whether or not exposed individuals are openly symptomatic. This is rarely understood because people are both fearful and under-informed of the meaning of the word, “poison” . Poisoning isn’t an event restricted to spies carrying cyanide pills or a Lucretia Borgia-type character emptying the deep well of her ring into a victim’s drink. Poisoning doesn’t usually result in the immediate paralytic and knock-down effect we expect insects to experience. It consists of any degree of interference with bodily functions, as with the suppression of enzymes or alteration of hormone levels which act as catalysts for other physiological events. Insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes are now well documented as consequences of exposures to persistent organic pollutants and herbicides such as Agent Orange. Blood sugar regulation is key in many disease processes and has recently been linked to Alzheimer’s as well. Failure by industry to diversify towards safer methods of pest control and landscaping for non-agricultural purposes in a timely manner, unrelated to regulation or litigation, is a form of Eco-Terrorism. This term no should no longer refer to vandalism of construction sites by a few over-zealous, eco-logically minded activists, but to the huge violence done to humans (Terrorism) in the name of Eco-nomics.

Related posts: Testimony Before the NH Legislature on Pesticides and Schools, A Nation of Patients, Getting the Bugs Out

The United States of America is not a democracy. Hopefully, this statement won’t shock the average reader in this age of information. Our country operates as a ‘Republic’, meaning that we elect people to make decisions for us instead of voting directly to create the laws by which we live. We use an electoral college and complex legislative procedures instead of a ‘one man, one vote and majority rules’ methodology. Our elected representatives don’t have free reign however; insofar as we hold them to that major outline of American legal principles referred to as the Constitution. This was written by the founding fathers to ensure we wouldn’t move too far from their original vision during the centuries of legal evolution expected to follow their initiatives. This made the courts an invaluable part of our system of government. Leaders might come and go but the principles of government to which they must adhere would endure.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn’t quite foresee the extent to which money would be used to overturn the basic principles of our constitutional republic.

At some point, primarily through a chance remark made in 1866 regarding the rights of railroads to enjoy the due process of law, corporations obtained official status as ‘citizens’. Once imbued with their own set of constitutional rights those newly created citizens, whose corporeal bodies are really made of paper, began to alter the nature and future of this Republic. The privileges accorded to our ‘Paper Citizens’ are eroding the foundation upon which American society is uniquely based and explains why we have lost the ability to get ‘back on track’. Our courts have become inaccessible to the average individual, whose life experiences would promote legal evolution in the direction most related to the daily lives of our diverse population, including business owners. Instead, the courts have become the playthings of conglomerates with interests far beyond our borders.

The NAFTA trade agreement permits corporations to sue governments, if they suffer a loss of profits through any restraint upon trade, even if their products are being regulated by communities due to health concerns (e.g. pesticides banned in Canadian provinces provoked a suit). One might presume that such bans safeguard citizens’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the apparent form of happiness protected by this treaty appears limited to profits for paper citizens. Interestingly, these ‘citizens’ aren’t necessarily ‘American’. The transnational corporations in particular, would appear to have no particular allegiance to any government. This outside form of interference in our domestic court system can even bypass those venues and be done by tribunals. This avoidance of public hearings would indicate that corporations are disposed to view human citizens as capable of realizing they have a stake in such matters which might enlighten us as to the conflict of interest that exists with paper citizens who appear entitled to multiple justice systems. The question must then be asked, why such an agreement was made which undermines our system of jurisprudence. We send our youth abroad to fight perceived threats to our constitutionally prescribed way of life. Perhaps it’s time to face the internal forces which threaten that very system of governance we are brought up to believe is “American”.

Lawyers exist in abundance yet few see the inside of a courtroom. The litigation process is the way in which we bring meaningful issues to judicial attention. Public access is granted by means of the right to attend hearings and trials as well as obtain access to record of those proceedings. Such records set precedents for future generations and prevents injustices from repeating themselves unnecessarily under a veil of secrecy. Professor of law, Marc Galanter describes this in his brilliant essay, “The Vanishing Trial”, illustrating how the business of law has been transformed into the law business. Lawyers make more money by settling all their cases instead of trying them, even those which might appear to garner easy, profitable victories. After all, why should a fledgling attorney openly display their still-developing skills? Why would a veteran at the craft risk public defeat in an open courtroom and jeopardize their reputations and fund of future clients? Transcripts of these processes live on forever. Juries are not always predictable. Judges have been known to vacate or reduce awards from time to time.

Still, individuals filing law suits are under the impression that they will have their day in court to air their grievances and obtain compensation for damage to their persons or property. This isn’t about huge wins in the millions of dollars but far smaller amounts made large by the costs involved. The costs of conducting depositions, hiring expert witnesses, devoting many hours to legal research and eventually, the court costs are not to be lightly undertaken. However, it is well worth the price of admission if–as intended– it provides us with a blue-print of the circumstances and prevents the need for future litigation on similar principals through precedents.

Unfortunately, settlements are usually ‘sealed’ and the presented circumstances and arguments unavailable for public review. Severe penalties can be meted out should a participant decide to open that knowledge to benefit others. That renders these private battles useless to society. Even if a particular malefactor paying out large sums in settlements chooses to learn from their errors and change their practices, there is still no precedent leading others employing similar policies to make the same changes. Even worse is the opportunity to reach a settlement in which significant concessions are made without any acknowledgment of fault by the payee. Our legal system has turned into just another day at the office for huge numbers of people, both real and those made of paper. We can all participate in the justice system without actually advancing the cause of justice.

We ought to be viewing the practitioners of law as we do those practicing medicine or entering into the clergy. These are career choices requiring a ‘higher calling’ than, say, a person drawn to work at the local bar and grill. The future of a constitutional government depends upon it and the oaths taken by those entering into the Bar Associations of their states all affirm a commitment to defend the Constitution. In stark contrast, the settlement process may lead innocent people (or their insurance companies), to pay out penalty assessments simply because they have lawyers advising them it will avoid the more costly processes of proving their innocence. Most Americans are familiar with the saying, “Quit while you’re ahead.”. In these situations, it’s more closely resembles a case of “Quit while you’re behind.”.

How can we return the courts to the people they are supposed to serve? Bringing a case to trial is a Herculean task requiring resources most injured parties no longer possess. One needs a reasonable degree of health and energy to look after such matters. Monetary support during the years of delays in prosecuting a suit is crucial, assuming you have an attorney able to take the case on contingency and bear the costs of litigation for the plaintiff. Last, but not least, one needs to be able to judge the competency of their own counsel’s performance. Are their efforts are being expended in good faith for the benefit of the client and not just their own coffers? Are special interests delaying or preventing your case from proceeding? Few people are in a position to press legitimate and important suits because the most harmed have the least power.

When did Americans lose this power to use our own system of justice? An examination of a country’s economics is usually a good predictor of how readily citizens will relinquish their rights in return for the illusion of economic stability, if not prosperity. Preoccupation with keeping a roof over one’s head is a big part of the problem. We appear to be in a period of civil war between classes largely established by businesses. In this reprise of the feudal system, citizens compete for their spot inside the castle perimeter because there are no paychecks, (with or without benefits), to be found outside of the moat. Even the invention of part time employment as a means of avoiding benefits packages didn’t cause unions to launch a large-scale assault upon the castle walls. As living costs rose and wages fell, thoughts of advancement in the workplace was replaced by hopes for retaining one’s current job or similar position. We ceased to be an upwardly mobile society or even a mobile society for that matter, with fewer jobs to spur movement around the country.

The myth of secure employment remains prevalent among hopeful citizens. The Bureau of Labor tells us workers now change jobs about ten or eleven times in their working careers – a practice which used to bring suspicion upon workers for failing to keep a ‘steady; job. There is a widespread illusion that corporate ‘emergency measures’ to promote survival in a rough economy, will change when times improve. The assumption of a return to older standards of loyalty to a long-term, devoted workforce appears to be unfounded optimism. The NAFTA agreement may be philosophically valid in its pursuit of global cooperation in business but the reality of this particular agreement subverts that endpoint. Instead of increasing respect and remuneration for workers globally, it appears to prescribe a challenge to corporations to enrich their Boards of Directors through excessive cutting of costs for labor and quality materials.

Classic capitalism envisioned a world in a firm collaboration between workers and employers, essential to efficiency in production and beneficial to both sides. However, Peter Drucker corrected that pipe-dream when he redefined the status of workers to that of a commodity. Training enables productivity to increase even where wages remained at low levels in modern society. This was adequately demonstrated in developing countries and the recent suicide of a Chinese worker tells the tale in this article by the NY Times detailing enormous profits generated through the regimentation of labor in a life maximizing hours devoted to repetitive tasks through provision of living quarters and mandatory overtime, among other methods of concentrating the working experience. The ‘sweat shop’ mentality is not unknown in the US – ask the child of any immigrant about their parent’s and grandparents experiences. Any degradation of the individual via labor abuses is itself a mirror of the degradation of judicial systems. Business has become ‘transnational’, without loyalty to any particular government and largely immune from traditional legal remedies for injuries or injustices. Governments are placed under the regime of businesses outside of their borders.

The general public is comprised of workers. Workers, reduced to commodity status, cannot attain the goals set for sustainable business practices. Our citizens are becoming a subsidiary of the corporation I refer to as America Ltd. The ‘unlimited’ promise of a constitutional government became lost when law ceased to be an instrument for justice. Now, it is a quick buck for a few lawyers and is held in contempt by the general public without an actual understanding of why the legal process has become so reviled by the very people it is supposed to serve. Until, that is, someone realizes they’ve been harmed. Let’s look at that next over a hot cup of McDonald’s coffee in Part II, ‘Remembering the Principles’ here. Part III, ‘Enforcing the Principles’ is here. Part IV, here.

(revised, 8/7/10)
Interesting link here to the Trial Warrior Blog by a Canadian lawyer for an international perspective on law practice.

GETTING THE BUGS OUT: Pesticides and Your Child’s School by Barbara Rubin

Michael Eash went through the first grade in his Pennsylvania school with frequent flu-like illnesses. His pediatrician noted that he missed 30 days out of the school year. His mother, Connie, watched his symptoms worsen during the week, only to improve on weekends and holidays when he wasn’t in school. The cycle began to repeat itself the following fall. Connie and two other mothers noticed an insecticide odor in the classroom. The teacher reported that many in her class were suffering from symptoms similar to MIchael’s.

Michael’s doctor tested him for exposure to organophosphate pesticides, finding him abnormally low in concentrations of the red blood cell cholinesterase, an indication of pesticide poisoning. Connie removed Michael from the classroom and began to teach him at home. In time, his blood levels returned to normal, but he showed a heightened sensitivity to pesticides, fragrances, cleaning products and other household chemicals. It was clear to Connie that Michael required a school environment that was free of toxins in order to remain well.

Doesn’t every parent want a toxin-free school for their child?

THE TRUTH ABOUT PESTICIDES

Pesticides, like the organophosphate product used in Michael’s school, are designed to kill targeted pests by destroying their central nervous systems. Non-targeted organisms, such a beneficial insects,pets and humans , can also be adversely affected. Acute and chronic exposure to pesticides has been associated with many major and minor health problems, eliciting asthmatic and dermatological reactions, as well as symptoms of toxicity affecting gastrointestinal, endocrine, immune, reproductive and/or neurological systems. Exposure to pesticides is also linked to increased rates of cancer.

According to Dr. Sheldon Wagner of the Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology at Oregon Stte University, the organosphosphate class of pesticides is of the highest order of toxicity. Dr. Wagner has served in a variety of advisory capacities to EPA and is now administrator of the National Medical Monitoring Program. “Misapplied organophosphate pesticides can mimic asthma,” says Dr. Wagner, emphasizing that more serious effects are possible under conditions of chronic exposure.

Lower toxicity pesticides, like the natural pyrethrums, are not without their own dangers. “Pyrethrum is a known allergen which can cause asthma and skin reactions,” Wagner said, adding that too little is known about the possible adverse effects of pyrethroids, the synthetic versions of pyrethrums. “Certain groups of children, such as the ‘atopic’ or allergic youngster, are at greater risk for adverse effects from contact with both the active and inert ingredients of these chemicals.” He recommends that parents be informed before these material are used on school sites, so they can make choices regarding undesirable exposures.

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

Recognizing that we are all exposed to pesticides in multiple ways in our day-to-day lives and that this exposure is problematic, particularly for vulnerable groups like children, the chronically ill, pregnant women and the elderly, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. The Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and reduce permitted levels of pesticide residues on foods. The Act’s focus is on foods, however; it does not address pesticides use in homes, gardens, offices and schools.

The U.S. Senate has twice passed the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), which contains a policy known as “integrated pest management” or IPM. IPM promotes pest control using a variety of least toxic methods, such as blocking pests’ entry into buildings with caulk and window screens and cleaning up likely sources of food and water. It recommends common sense solutions to pest control problems which do not necessarily involves the use of poisons, such as removing pests with a HEPA vacuum or using gel baits and other materials which do not become airborne. If stronger pest control is warranted, IPM allows targeted applications of more toxic pesticides but requires that special precautions be taken, such as notifying affected people within the vicinity. Opponents argued that the bill is expensive, burdensome and unnecessary, and SEPA died in a House Committee.

According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, four states- Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania- now have regulations which contain all the SEPA provisions. Other states have one or two of the EPA requirement, but there is no uniformity among them.

Until now, pesticides have been a ubiquitous, if unconscious part of the national landscape. The SEPA debates have helped to increase public awareness of this issue, and concern about pesticide use is growing internationally. Canada has taken a leadership position in adopting a precautionary approach to chemical exposures. Many communities there have passed laws that restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides on public lands and privately owned lawns where children and other bystanders can be affected.

SAFE SCHOOLS

The Eash family moved to Connecticut , where they enrolled Micheal in a school district that uses strategies to promote a healthy school environment. Facility managers maintain school grounds and buildings using a careful selection of “least toxic” products. For example, the use of pesticides and herbicides on turf is reduced by sowing multiple seed types in high concentrations to help ensure survival of healthy grasses. Application of certain soil amendments, along with a variety of aeration and mowing techniques, all promote lawn health and reduce pest infestation. in addition, effective water management (e.g. reducing amounts used for irrigation during humid weather) limits the growth of fungi.

The same thoughtful attention is given to indoor maintenance. The entry of pests into buildings is prevented by sealing cracks in foundations and installing screens. The facility managers keep buildings in good shape and promptly repair leaks. They make certain that all food is properly stored and disposed of and that facilities are kept clean. As a result, the school provides necessary maintenance while it reduces the costs normally associated with pest control. A pest control company inspects school buildings every month. If pests are noted in large number, the least toxic measures, such as gel baits or boric acid, are used. In rare cases where a more toxic product is recommended, advance notification goes out to all concerned staff and parents.

Applications are then made outside of school operating hours. When the state of Connecticut adopted laws to reduce pesticide use in its schools, this district already exceeded the provisions of the new statutes.

Advance notification of chemical applications on school property is still not required in most states. Fortunately for Micheal Eash, such notification had become policy in his new school district. However, until such policies become standard, parents are well advised to be aware of school maintenance policies and procedures. only a healthy school environment can foster learning and personal growth.

Public concern continues as more unwelcome ingredients, such as asbestos and lead in children‘s toys, are discovered in a variety of imported products. A longer-running dispute continues domestically between consumers and vendors of many products boasting undisclosed ingredients.

Among them is the class of widely marketed products known as synthetic fragrances. The older question about consumers’ right to know about the contents of any purchase is now entering a new realm of debate about the need to know all about the chemically laden manufactured goods on the market.

As reports about the adverse health impacts of commonly encountered products mount, the current American version of “free” enterprise seems to be traveling a collision course with the growing public outcry for greater regulatory oversight. Basic marketing philosophy for materials concocted in modern laboratories appears to be in conflict with the original vision of capitalism as a consumer-driven process, in which demand shapes supply. What happens to the nature of consumer demand in an era of consumer ignorance regarding the items they buy? Let’s examine this question using as a microcosm the debate surrounding the production of synthetic fragrances.

As many as 5,000 different chemicals are incorporated within various fragrance formulas, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. Industry asserts that fragrances have been used safely for hundreds of years. Such claims are belied by the fact that chemical compounds appearing in the products (e.g., benzaldehyde and linalool found to be present in a 1992 EPA laboratory study), have not been known for very long. Today’s fragrances rarely contain only those natural ingredients used in earlier centuries; hence the adjective, “synthetic.”

The public is prone to assume that all these chemicals have been thoroughly vetted for their safety prior to sale. Many chemicals have multiple uses across industries, appearing in cosmetics, medications, cleaning products and even food flavorings. The intended use of a product determines what agency, if any, has jurisdiction for inquiring into its business.

For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that it has no oversight duties with regard to the ingredients used in cosmetics. These consist of products intended to enhance attractiveness whether the product is ingested, topically applied or inhaled. The only exception is with colorants (as in hair dyes). Otherwise, unless some claim is made regarding benefits to health, as opposed to self-esteem, there is no requirement for registration of these products with the FDA. This means that recalls of products suspected of containing potentially harmful ingredients are essentially a voluntary act on the part of vendors.

How complex is the task of developing appropriate testing protocols for fragrance chemicals? There are multiple avenues for their internalization apart from direct application and absorption through the skin. Fragrances are intended to be inhaled, which would seem to make assessment of their potential as respiratory irritants or sensitizers a priority at least equal to the more commonly cited skin testing. Once airborne, fragrance chemicals are going to be absorbed by all in their vicinity, not just the intentional user. A class of secondary, unintentional fragrance consumers is created via the same mechanisms by which secondhand cigarette smoke has become an issue before the general public. Therefore, the societal impact of these products is far greater than basic consumer demand summarized in sales statistics.

Measurable reductions in lung function, to a moderate degree, have been observed upon exposure to the chemical 1,4 dichlorobenzene, which is commonly found in deodorizing compounds. Ninety-six percent of subjects in a 2006 study (Elliot et. al.) showed evidence of exposure via blood sampling. Exposure by persons with pre-existing respiratory problems or by healthy individuals in combination with other common environmental irritants would have an even greater impact upon intentional and unintentional consumers.

A thoroughly tested synthetic chemical can provide data accounting for factors of carcinogenicity, central nervous system effects, reproductive and developmental toxicity, cardiovascular and endocrine effects, and specific organ vulnerabilities (e.g. liver or kidney damage). While the industry may have dispensed with a few harmful substances formerly incorporated in fragrances, manufacturers do not speak of the thousands currently in use. These include petrochemicals, aldehydes, phenols and esters, which are all known to have wide-ranging adverse effects when studied in isolation. Their effects in combinations have yet to be addressed in research models.

A newer area of concern is that of “mutagen” effects, or how chemicals around us alter the ongoing activity of our genes, cuing them to turn themselves on or off as they go about the daily business of regulating our bodily functions. The interactions of the environment with gene functions (referred to as gene expression), indicates that one need not have a genetic predisposition or defect for harm to occur.

The identification of hazardous or potentially hazardous ingredients in a product is usually followed by assurances that the amount present is negligible. Unfortunately, the determination of how much is too much is highly variable. Relevant factors include age, gender, weight, general health status and cumulative levels of exposure to multiple chemicals.

Practically speaking, this position is irrelevant to the very large numbers of people who report that a product has harmed, rather than enhanced, their quality of life. Science has also progressed beyond the old saw “the dose makes the poison.” It is now recognized that small amounts of a substance can sneak under the radar of one’s physical defenses while larger amounts of the material would alert the body to implement damage control procedures.

The American Academy of Dermatology also informs us that fragrance ingredients, along with preservatives, are respectively the first and second most frequent causes of contact dermatitis. Physicians warn us that contact can be from airborne particles and not just occur in primary users of a product. Between 40 and 50 million Americans (20 percent of the population) have allergies to one or more substances. Health care costs and losses in productivity are estimated at $6 billion annually from this widespread problem.

Approximately 35 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic lung ailment. The majority are diagnosed with asthma (over 22 million) and a majority report fragrance as being a common trigger for attacks. Asthma costs the public over $19 billion per year in direct healthcare costs and lost productivity. It is the most frequent cause of missed school days in children.

Migraine headaches are experienced by some 28 million Americans at an annual cost of $14 billion in medical costs and lost productivity. Among the majority, who report triggering events for their attacks, a sizable percentage count olfactory stimuli among them (perfume and/or strong odors).

Subgroups of chronically ill persons like those on chemotherapy and people who became ill following incidents of exposures to toxic chemicals are particularly vigilant in attempting to avoid such products. There is a sizable body of evidence that synthetic fragrances are a burden upon very large numbers of people.

According to sufferers, reactivity ranges in severity from annoying to disabling. Advice by vendors to individuals with adverse reactions to such products has simply been to avoid them. These consumers may choose to leave fragranced products untouched on store shelves, yet are still exiting stores, offices, hospitals, schools and libraries with molecules from these products left adhering to their nasal passages and lungs. These particles may later be deposited in other organs or stored in adipose (fatty) tissue and subject to gradual release over time. The indoor air of our typical environments is heavily laced with fragranced products emitted from store merchandise, cleaning products, air fresheners and the individuals we encounter throughout the day. Residues from various laundry and personal care products cling to their skins and clothing articles. Products may now include phthalates, those plasticizers which can act as perfume “fixatives,” making them longer lasting. The FDA plans to assess their safety in the near future, although other researchers classify them as endocrine disruptors.

Since general avoidance of fragrance chemicals is frankly impossible, consumers are left to try to identify key offending ingredients. This, too, is impossible, since industry is legally permitted to label the often-complex conglomeration of ingredients with a single term, namely “fragrance.” This does not allow individuals to collaborate with their physicians and isolate causes for environmentally triggered problems. It does not allow proactive, health-conscious individuals to discriminate among the varieties of fragranced products on the market today.

Only disclosure of ingredients offers consumers the opportunity to select preparations which are truly benign. The absence of such information makes it impossible to select products best suited to an individual’s particular health challenges, even by the expensive process of trial and error. Some adverse effects may be delayed and therefore not easily recognized.

Ostensibly, this withholding of information from consumers is done to protect trade secrets. One wonders what consumers are expected to do with such revelations if they became available. Certainly, competitors already analyze one another’s products in their own laboratories as a matter of course. In Europe, where labeling is required, companies do not appear to be going out of business because of competition from the man (or woman) on the street, who might choose to make such products at home!

Clearly, we need greater assistance from the fragrance industry to help consumers make appropriate selections from among thousands of fragranced products. These were created to enhance the quality of life rather than detract from it. Patents serve to protect industry interests, but only full disclosure of product ingredients will allow consumers to protect their own interests. Of course, this raises the question of why the interests of consumers and vendors would ever truly come into conflict with one another. Satisfied, healthy consumers generate more disposable income. This in turn enriches the makers of products that satisfy the demand for that level of quality in composition. If competition relies less on consumer ignorance and more on informed consumer preference, the marketplace can only become a source of healthy competition in a capitalist society.

———————————-

Barbara Rubin holds an MA in speech/language pathology and worked in the field of developmental disabilities for 25 years within educational and medical settings. In addition to her role as a therapist and supervisor of clinical programs, she also taught in several colleges and universities in her field of expertise.

Following her retirement in 2000, Rubin became a freelance writer about the human health effects of pollutants commonly encountered within indoor settings. She has published several magazine articles and numerous commentaries in various newspapers and journals. She would like to thank Barb Wilkie and Alison Johnson for their gracious editorial assistance with this article.

Americans are a funny group. Our arrival on these shores, originally rooted in the search for religious freedom, led to concepts of an entrepreneurial culture in which social strata were based upon success rather than birthright. However, our industrial orientation has evolved to the point where it can no longer be correctly referred to as capitalism. A component of “gangsterism”, resulting from the successful collusion among corporations and between government and business, has diminished consumer control of the marketplace. ‘Demand’ no longer regulates supply in an era of subsidies for unsustainable businesses (e.g. agriculture) and consumer ignorance of product quality due to incomplete and misleading labels.

One holdover of our religious roots is the resigned acceptance by Americans to the burdens of life’s less pleasant aspects. This is evidenced in the lack of overt response to our increasing rates of ill health. Alternately viewed as a burden we are “meant ” to bear or evidence of our own faulty lifestyles and weak minds, we can be sure such factors were not bred into us by our hardy forefathers. We have failed to see the effects of the degradation of capitalism as an inciting factor in our apparent acceptance of chronic illness and pain as our heritage. Yet these are intimately related events.

We shudder to recall the black death, which claimed a quarter of Europe’s population. Yet we ignore the statistics of the Census Bureau which tell us that one-fifth of American adults (16-64 years of age) suffer chronic illness/disability. This alarming number does not include the enormous numbers of disabled children born each year or account for institutionalized adults, disabled military personnel and the elderly infirm. Those additions raise that statistic to astronomical proportions for a “modern” society.

The suffering of the multitudes is no longer heralded by a smell of smoke, the squealing of rats and cries to “Bring out your dead.” Instead, this photo’s caption is written on tickertape stemming from Wall Street’s acknowledgement of health care as our fastest growing industry, comprising 15% of the GNP. We are simply not that weak a species and this explosion of allergies, cardiac and respiratory ailments, chronic fatigue, cancers, autoimmune diseases and premature central nervous system degeneration (e.g. Alzheimers) is recent in our history. It does not appear attributable to living longer. We simply live longer with our illnesses. Case after case of poisoned towns (e.g. Anniston, Love Canal, Woburn) indicate the race is on to make Forest Lawn our best selling realty company.

The reason for this is a decades-long, illicit affair between industry and government. Industry provides the ads needed to whitewash the reputation of that union’s bastard child – preventable disease and disability. Numerous administrations told us we possessed a free market system which needs no regulation since capitalism is self-regulating: If the product is no good, no one will buy it. This mistaken view of capitalism as practiced in this country has actually destroyed our health and, subsequently, the economy. We turn a blind eye to the fact that nearly a third of our work force will experience disability PRIOR to reaching retirement age and yet still expect the GNP to recover. We also returned the spiritual outlook of a modern nation to a feudal acceptance of suffering as either a normal state of being or a by-product of a weak mind/soul which cannot purge itself of self-destructive tendencies. Stress must be the author of all ills. Pass the prozac please.

Industries band together to lobby for the right to keep toxic ingredients off product labels under the guise of “trade secrets”. We are not allowed to know what is in our fragrances (e.g. toluene), pesticides (e.g. inert ingredients often more toxic than the active ones), foods (e.g. fish DNA in our tomatoes introduced by means of a viral carrier organism), building materials (e.g. formaldehyde in our wood products), fertilizer (e.g. containing a large percentage of industrial waste products permitted by law) and so forth. Industry refrains from competing to make the best product possible, opting instead for reducing competition by using similar quality of formulation and relying upon price wars (and price fixing) to share the consumer marketplace. Losses can be made up through government tax breaks, creative bookkeeping and slashing salaries and benefits for workers. If workers go out on disability, so much the better – more where they came from. And don’t forget the dead peasant’s insurance policy.

Conventional farming only continues by virtue of subsidies, given the expenses of GMO production costs in patented seeds and expensive chemicals – not because “modern” farming is economical. Attempts to educate the consumer and increase production of unadulterated food yields harassment by the FDA and law suits by corporate giants. One must not advertise foods as being free of GMOs lest one suggest to the consumer that GMOs might be undesirable. Truth in labelling has become an actionable offense in our economy and the US seeks redress for this criminal truthfulness via the WTO in international arenas when Europe bans or labels their US imports to reflect their higher standards. The USDA has forbidden a meat producer from testing each head of their cattle for Mad Cow Disease, even thought it would be at the company’s own expense. Foreign markets demand such care and would more than make up the expense in paying custom to a good producer they could trust…a basic capitalistic choice. No, says our government. What happened to laissez faire policies?

The EPA warns us that indoor air quality is now our worst enemy with 2 to 5 times the concentration of contaminants than outdoor air supplies. The pollutants are brought into our homes by ignorant consumers who assume the EPA would not let sources of these contaminants remain on the market to be brought into our homes. Denial becomes a way of life.

Genuine capitalism requires variety and true competition to create a “better mousetrap”. Then consumer choice supports the superior industries who can expand etc.. Capitalism was not intended to support a huge trough from which all manufacturers can feed. Happy and heathy consumers earning a decent wage are required to support the best industries in a “trickle up” model of economics. This country is losing its consumer base to poverty, illness and ignorance.

A dwindling tax base will not cover the costs of medical benefits for those who cannot work and require housing vouchers, food stamps and other supports. Social security/medicare was designed as a cushion for the elderly with inadequate means for a lengthy retirement and to sustain the disabled who lacked sufficient time to build up a retirement nest egg. It was not meant to sustain a society where a third of us cannot produce and another third has lowered productivity due to failing health on their way to disability or retirement. The remaining third is left to bear the burden of a country betrayed by empty promises of their right to pursue life, liberty and happiness while their pension funds are raided by CEOs who pay no taxes. Even Ayn Rand would be nauseated by what passes for a “free” market under this system.

What is done to one is done to all in the final analysis, a fact well known to the founding fathers. It is time to include the Bill of Rights in our litmus test of commerce issues to insure that disease and poisoning are recognized as impediments to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Full disclosure of product ingredients and corporate structures is required to restore capitalism to its original checks and balances…choice by consumers to support the best run companies with the best product lines with their dollars.

The Federalists refused to pass the original Constitution out of fear they would be substituting one tyranny for another. It was not until the Amendments to the Constitution were drafted that the states finally ratified the entire document.

The first ten amendments, below, is the portion of the Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights. These are violated daily in the lives of poisoning victims and those yet to be poisoned – we know it is just a matter of time for the majority of citizens. I suggest revising these protections since they modify federal authority which usurps basic tenets of individual freedoms. Here is a very rough draft of some of the possibilities to be pursued by more talented writers.

Barbara Rubin

———————————————-

Preamble to the constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To be rewritten as:

We the victims and/or witnesses to the government sanctioned poisoning of these United States, in order to preserve the ideals of our forefathers for a perfect union, the preservation of justice, insurance of domestic health and safety, for promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty in the teeth of scientific advances which they could not have envisioned, do hereby issue this Bill of Rights to prevent further harm, degradation and loss of life/property from occurring.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Rewritten as:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of “sound science” as a religion for the national worship and justification of industrial profits, or prohibiting the free excercise of “true” science in judging whether products violate the natural laws of biochemistry; or abridging the individual’s freedom to breathe fresh air, or eat pure foods, or the right of the people to assemble in communities with local ordinances intended to free them of industry or municipally imposed toxins; and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Rewritten as:

A well regulated body of independent scientists, free of loyalties to industry, being necessary to the practice of true science; the right of the people to determine what is an “acceptable risk” to them, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To be rewritten as:

No poisons at any dosage, shall, in times of peace, be forcibly introduced into any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of health emergencies, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particurlarly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To be rewritten as:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and effects against unreasonable contamination, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon the most dire health emergencies, supported by non-industry scientists of diverse backgrounds, probable cause to introduce toxins into personal environments.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To be rewritten as:

No person shall be held to suffer the consequences for the environmental crimes of industry and pay, with their lives and the health of their families, for such infamous crimes; nor shall any person be subject to being twice put in jeopardy of life and limb – first by offending individuals or corporations and then by government agencies failing to remedy the danger pending legal challenges to the source of injury; nor shall be compelled to participate in biological experiments through the premature marketing of inadequately tested products, without due process of law, nor shall private property be contaminated without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, an d to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

To be rewritten as:

In all criminal prosecution of poisoners, the victim shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial with testimony from impartial panels of appropriately credentialed witnesses who have personally borne witness to the resultant health effects of toxic exposures in the victim; to be provided with the full disclosure of industry documents pertaining to the nature of the toxic substances in question; to have compulsory process for obtaining qualified medical help and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

To be rewritten as:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall be comprised of issues in human health, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States in such a manner as to deny relevant scientific evidence presented by those with no conflicts of interest.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

To be rewritten as:

Damage to the health and property of individuals by action of industry or by the state, in excess of the ability of the damaged party to remedy during the implementation of legal process shall be alleviated immediately for later reimbursement by those judged at fault at the time of verdict.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To be rewritten as:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage the facts that science has progressed beyond the ability of the originators of our Constitution to foresee future events of this nature. Their understandable lack of foresight will not restrict the rights of the people to defend themselves against novel threats presented by technology in the name of profits.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

To be rewritten as:

The natural laws of biochemistry and of the heterogeneity of our species in our tolerance for chemicals introduced into our environments shall not be subjugated to man-made laws at federal or state levels. The individual’s health and well being shall be the final arbiter of what “levels” of contamination are “tolerable” in each case.

Yet that means critical decisions about your life are left in the hands of those who have no idea how you live it!

When one is disabled, disenfranchisement from the culture and society are typical. Nearly a third of Americans have chronic illness or a disability yet we have so little “clout” or say in our society. But most of us can have a voice if we take pen or keyboard in hand and express ourselves as members of a voting block, as active participants and thinking Americans no matter the physical limitations.

We need more Armchair Activists!

Instead of watching the news, read a paper or subscribe to one (they are usually free) on line. I read the NY Times and Washington Post headlines daily as they are emailed each morning. I choose stories which impact upon my philosophy or directly upon my life itself and write letters to the editor and letters to congressional representatives about my views.

As major papers are very selective about what they print, I then often go to more local sources around the country for similar stories and write those papers. I have had letters printed everywhere from here at home to England, to Australia and to Canada. It is surprising how similar human problems are around the globe.

Sometimes my letters get printed and make others think about things they may not have looked upon before. Sometimes they result in an article being written as a followup on the original from a new vantage point (I always copy my letters to the reporters writing the articles).

And lots to our representatives in governement! They take counts of yeas and nays on issues and it counts! Personal responses are exciting to receive and one can write to whole congressional committees by looking them up on THOMAS, where all legislative activity can be followed depending upon one’s interest and one’s time allowance.

Be Heard. Count. Your citizenship does require some participation to earn the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing ever came free.