December 9th, 2010
Dear Senator Lautenberg,
As the most recent legislator to introduce a bill on “Toxics”, I have sent your office copies of the following correspondence because you and your colleagues in Washington need to know that we, the people, are unable to safe-guard our own health from one of the most common hazards around today—modern pesticides. While these chemicals may be effective in increasing crop yields, they have still found their way into our homes, offices, hospitals, schools and every location where people gather. Current laws to assess the success or failure of moving farm chemicals into non-agricultural locations do not allow citizens and their physicians to find out if this experiment has succeeded or failed. We have no means of learning this because of restrictions keeping laboratories from developing testing panels to learn about how pesticides affect human biochemistry and influence health.
In 2002, the CDC had researchers test the bodily fluids of 3000 Americans, confirming that 70% of them had been exposed to sufficient amounts of a class of pesticides called ‘pyrethroids’, to have those by-products (metabolites) identified in their urine. How much is too much? We don’t know because physicians are unable to order the same tests performed for CDC research. No labs exist for the medical monitoring of patients. When an individual demonstrates exposure related illness, it cannot be directly confirmed despite the existence of protocols to measure it as per the cited studies above. Veterinary laboratories can do this but not human laboratories. In humans, harm must be inferred through the temporal association of exposure, assuming one knows of it, with meeting descriptions of adverse effects cited directly on the pesticide labels. The EPA confirms the need for medical monitoring in their own publication, “The Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning.” Beginning as ‘flu-like’ symptoms, with respiratory symptoms, nausea, cramping, headache and so forth, intensifying into more frank signs of central nervous system effects. These can include the inability to sleep, nervousness, attention deficits, tremor and convulsions. Irreversible damage can result if sufficient numbers of nerve cells are damaged.
These chemicals target nerve cells (of insects and people) to stop working by hyper-activating them. Nerve cells fire excessively due to alterations of the sodium ion channels on the nerve axons. The resulting over-stimulation of the nervous system leads to paralysis and death in insects. Applied to the skins of animals for flea and tick control, pyrethroids and pyrethrins are known to kill small animals. Veterinary toxicologists don’t actually know the lethal dosages for these products on animals and therefore don’t recommend their use on cats. If the animals suffer sub-clinical signs of damage, it doesn’t appear to be monitored in terms of behavior and learning ability. Do we really want to measure safety only in terms of lethal effects?
What about people? When pyrethroids and pyrethrins are applied indoors, these products not only contain the active ingredients designed to disrupt nerve cell functions but also ‘other’ chemicals called synergists, which keep targeted and untargeted life forms from swiftly eliminating the poisons from the body. One such ingredient, piperonyl butoxide targets the liver to accomplish this goal. It is also known that these products also affect the endocrine system which regulates hormonal activity. They can contain ingredients which are suspected or confirmed carcinogens. The nature of pesticides, from their active ingredients to the petrochemicals solvents used to deliver them in liquid sprays, guarantees an array of problems will be brought indoors which were of less concern when their use was limited to large, open areas, away from concentrations of residential properties. Bio-monitoring in research has been an invaluable tool for observing unexpected effects such as the affect of farm chemicals on entire communities. Bio-monitoring has permitted conclusions to be reached about the effects of dietary exposures in children. Unless we are aware of these levels, we cannot identify the points at which we need to be clinically concerned and corrective action taken for the health of patients.
I was at my doctor’s office yesterday and we had an interesting discussion about this because he was helpless to find a resource to determine if I was being exposed to these chemicals. Someone has been spraying substances on my car which make me feel sick and are sometimes visible to the eye. A couple of highway patrol officers have been kind enough to even photograph the visible residues and one police officer took a sample of it last summer. Unfortunately, the police laboratory did nothing with it because they don’t have the forensic capacities to do such analysis according to detectives. The CHP was most apologetic that the best they could do was take those photographs and note the incidents. Interestingly, one of these increasingly common incidents took place last month as I was returning to a friend’s home after meeting with Congressman Waxman’s staff (about toxic chemicals) in Los Angeles. Nothing more could be done in the absence of lab testing and it isn’t possible to have that done, contrary to movie and television scripts leading us to believe that the use of forensic science is common in law enforcement.
And that is simply wrong in this day and age of information which enables us to monitor our intriguing technologies. Where is the guiding wisdom of science when it comes to ensuring our tools are safe for us to use in each new application found for those products? Whether it’s smart-meters for calculating our electricity usage or a can of pesticides someone buys at a local store, we have the ability to find out if it is working to our advantage or to our disadvantage. Since our government is minimally ‘invasive’ in regulating commerce unlike Europe where chemicals are supposed to be tested now for safety before they are marketed, it is up to consumers to develop the body of evidence via experience and sometimes through the courts. That takes access to all information about the circumstances surrounding their use. Unless, for some reason, it is deemed by industry more desirable not to tell us.
Over the past five years, I have been attempting to obtain missing ‘paper discovery’, i.e. my records of employment by YAI/National Institute for People With Disabilities and their sub-division, the New York League for Early Learning based in New York City. I was employed there between 1995 and 2000, at which point I retired on disability with a diagnosis of “Toxic Effects of Chemicals”. The EPA actually suggested I file this suit because they have little or no authority to regulate where various registered pesticides are used and depend upon citizens to exercise our own legal rights in these matters. Civil procedure requires all parties in a suit to exchange information. All of it.
Those attempts have been unsuccessful to this day and my attorney has been reluctant to dispense with the polite formalities and file a motion to compel. I have written about this litigation as an example of how law suits aren’t an evil instrument for profit, but a means for evolving legal safeguards about our use of technology as experience teaches us more about it.
The School Environment Protection Act was introduced (and twice passed in the Senate) which not only endorsed our right to know and consent to the use of pesticides in and around schools, but limited or prohibited the use of the particular types that damage the central nervous system. It cannot be written into law simply because the House of Representatives has never had the opportunity to consider voting on it. The Committee on Agriculture has been ‘studying’ it for a decade although it has no connection with agriculture. That is a lot of study and very little action, requiring us to ask the question of why the Senate was convinced this was a sound measure while our representatives in congress aren’t allowed to reach their own conclusions about it. Had they done so in 1999, I might not be writing this now and there certainly would not have been a need to file this law suit.
My lawsuit asserts that I was poisoned by the use of chemicals actually invented for outdoor use but which are likely to be found in the majority of schools in American today for lack of information about their use (advance notification) and selection of more benign (least toxic) forms of pest control. To the best of my knowledge, my employers were not responsible for the use of these chemicals as they didn’t own the building rented to house our school program, nor did they hire the pest control company which applied the chemicals. The missing records should corroborate the testimony I provided many years ago as they became aware of the changes in my health and ultimate need to retire. Indeed, they supported my application for disability based upon chemical exposures. When I filed suit, the defendants were the ones to sue my employers and assert they might hold some degree of responsibility.
I still have not been privileged to obtain those records and my suit is currently marked ‘disposed’ in the courts pending completion of discovery. Those documents are key yet remain unavailable to me after many years of waiting through the legal process which remains largely incomprehensible to me. In the absence of my ability to advance the legal questions surrounding product safety for certain current-use pesticides, we must return to the ability of citizens to assess health concerns which arise from their use.
Mr. Lautenberg, below is my latest correspondence with the EPA. That correspondence began with this blog post about pesticide regulation. I hope this letter will be the last needed to direct legislative efforts at the most basic level of safety monitoring. Just this morning, my reply from the EPA informs me that that agency has no interest or authority in ensuring their approved chemicals are actually safe for use by the public. Frankly, I can’t find a single agency which does so I imagine this is the type of situation our forefathers envisioned when they put a clause in the Constitution which allows Congress to legislate matters affecting commerce where they deem it necessary.
It is necessary. Just ask the American Association of Environmental Medicine about their frustration with regard to the limitations they face on assessing patient exposures. Review the testimony of an esteemed pediatric expert who testified before Congress on these matters, Dr. Phillip Landrigan. Let us have the ability to medically assess our exposures and correlate findings with symptoms. Forensic testing in the matter of ‘suspicious’ appearances of chemicals should not be limited to fiction seen on television shows, but a working reality. We are citizens first, and consumers second. Medical insurance isn’t useful to us if medical procedures to confirm the sources of our illnesses aren’t available to us.
Thank you for your attention.
Barbara Rubin
My recent correspondence with the EPA about laboratory testing for their approved chemicals received a reply recommending I contact other agencies:
(more…)
Categories: EPA, Letters
Tags: environmental effects of pesticides, environmental justice, Health, neurotoxic substances, pesticide poisoning
November 25th, 2010
The recent conviction of terrorist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani proved that citizens can effectively implement justice in a system intended to be managed by civilians, preventing the military from ever taking supremacy over a government, “…of the people, by the people, for the people.”. The question remains why this normal judicial process was so long delayed.
One of the major reasons for my support of candidate Barack Obama for president, was that he taught constitutional law. I had my doubts that the other candidates had both read and understood that document. It’s easy to slap a bumper sticker of an American flag on an SUV, but that doesn’t turn us into educated citizens, aware of our privileges and responsibilities. Love of country isn’t enacted through the repetition of mindless slogans or assumptions based upon frequently expressed opinions. It takes effort, just as the love of family drives Americans to work more hours than other industrialized nations. It takes logic, which is entirely lacking when members of the Supreme Court convening to protect the constitution, permitted its privileges to be extended to non-human constructs called corporations back in the 19th century. Conferring the rights of ‘personhood’ upon them, separate and apart from the rights of their owners, created a new class of citizenship. In deciding the recent Citizens United case, a modern Supreme Court allowed the constitution to be turned into a prospectus. Justice Steven’s dissenting opinion eloquently details how that decision placed our elections in the hands of businesses (corporate persons), which do not even pay taxes or have any allegiance to the U.S. That decision ratified the transition of this country from an independent nation called the United States, into America, Ltd. Businesses were now allowed to sway our political system from foreign shores and leave the public ignorant of which ‘paper citizens’ were making such an investment in our government.
Competition used to be for the betterment of business entities, trying to outdo each other in building a better ‘mousetrap’, and capturing the largest market share of consumers at home and around the globe. This turned into a competition among states for who could get the largest piece of the federal ‘pie’, while denying the importance of the other states contributing the monies to bake it. Montana’s Representative Baucus noted how his state depended upon the federal funding of special projects (earmarks) to cover close to half of that state’s annual budget despite professed concerns about the deficit. Our ‘union’ has become dis-united because of a misconception that competition, the basis of capitalism, somehow dictates the nature of nationhood. George W. Bush had referred to himself as the CEO of American Ltd., although the members of his board remained in the shadows, meeting in secret with his COO, Cheney.
We can’t be governed by people who have no idea how the United States of America works, yet they appear to be in the majority. The change in government two years ago was largely a reaction to the loss of jobs and health care benefits. Concern was also rising about deficit spending due to our involvement in a war and the enrichment of select corporations through expensive reconstruction contracts.
Back home, the phrase ‘secure employment‘, became an oxymoron while health care insurance costs spiraled out of control for the unemployed and those working for small businesses. Large companies saw no reason to reduce the incredible salaries and bonuses given to executives in order to fairly compensate a disposable workforce. Like so many broken toasters, it is cheaper to replace a worker than to offer raises in a culture which has labeled workers as commodities (much like health care). Why pay higher premiums for workers who will need to use their health care plans as they age? Americans are routinely classed as laborers, patients and consumers. It is time to return to our legal status as citizens. Why worry about illegal immigration when those of us who are legal residents aren’t exercising our rights and responsibilities?
While industry fuels the fears of unemployed Americans that any regulation of commerce will restrict job growth, the public should be able to see through such ploys when the justice system itself is taken out of citizen’s hands. NAFTA attempted to place business interests in the hands of corporate tribunals while the crimes of terrorists were removed from our jurisdiction into the hands of the military. The New York Times has been following the failure of government to support the constitution through the avoidance of jury trials for terrorists. They’ve described the obstruction of legislative activity by elected officials who boast they can shut down our government—merely to discredit a sitting president‘s historical record. And they can, in ways that damage progress in addressing the financial infrastructure that led to our economic meltdown.
Obstruction of justice and refusal by salaried officials to govern. This brings to mind the old saying, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”. I posted the following comment on the New York Times editorial praising the results of the first civilian trial of a terrorist who had been detained at Guantanamo. No matter the rhetoric of extremists, the constitution triumphed.
135. HIGHLIGHT (what’s this?)
Barbara Rubin
Ca.
November 19th, 2010
6:18 pm
The disrespect for citizens is what has brought us to our current status quo. In America, legislators defraud their constituents by refusing to govern. They hold the government hostage in defiance of their sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution. Jury trials are a constitutional right. If we don’t protect the constitution by honoring its provisions, there is no America.
We are not a democracy but a constitutional republic which elects politicians to make our decisions and laws FOR us. Presidents are made by electoral colleges so the “One Person, One Vote” system doesn’t exist. The right of non-corporeal entities (businesses) to infuse unlimited funds to sway those elections means political campaigns spend (your) millions of contributed dollars merely to counteract messages funded by corporations. Of course they don’t want juries to make these decisions. We don’t make any of the others. Didn’t we demand health care which our ‘leaders’ now swear to dismantle? So much for citizenship.
This jury deserves a congressional medal of honor. They put away a criminal (probably for life – how many convictions do you need?), using legal methodology. Legislators need to stop twisting the purpose for having a military. They guard citizens so we can promote justice.
Thank you NY Times editors.
Categories: NY Times, Published
Tags: constitution, Newspaper Commentary, undue corporate influence
November 19th, 2010
Ezra Klein’s article in today’s Washington Post is a prime example of how easily we can mistake the dirty pool of politics for government policy. While earmarks are being banned (in a non-binding sort of way), we are ignoring the fact that every single item on the US legislative agenda is automatically turned into an earmark. Every proposal requires bargaining and if there is a clash of interests, we can always ensure the bill never leaves its ‘study’ committee for a floor vote. Keep it captive until someone has something to trade for the right of citizens to enjoy the evolution of our society.
Today’s legislators tell us if they can’t have their way, all governmental activity will cease. These tantrums consist of elected officials holding their breath until their constituency asphyxiates. Sorry, Mr. Klein, but this column isn’t up to your usual standards of insight as I pointed out in this comment on your column today.
(more…)
Categories: Newspaper Commentary, Washington Post
Tags: constitution, politics, Rant
November 11th, 2010
Pesticides.
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.
Categories: Articles
Tags: Agent Orange, environmental effects of pesticides, Gulf War Syndrome, neurotoxic substances, pest control, pesticide poisoning, politics, Veterans
October 27th, 2010
MY CASE IN POINT
My recent blog posts have all referred to issues of pesticide poisoning in my own, personal experience and from reports of other incidents in the schools. I have posted about the adverse effects of these chemicals in the community at large when used lawfully and unlawfully. Most recently, I noted the absence of measures to detect and investigate it have become institutionalized in our country. Adverse effects of older use pesticides could be seen in lowered blood concentrations of particular enzymes and environmental sampling would reveal the particular agent responsible, if there was no documented application on record. Many in that class of chemicals (organophosphates) are currently banned for use in homes and schools although residues may persist and drift from legal applications in nearby farms or commercial properties can still lead to contamination. However, very few laboratories are set up to analyze samples collected from homes or schools in order to detect the newer pyrethroid pesticides, so widely used today. One lab tech informed me that there were no mandates as yet for running such tests and therefore few labs were re-tooling to conduct such analyses. Even more disturbing is the absence of medical laboratories to assess bodily tissues and fluids for absorbed pesticides because the CDC already detected them in the majority of Americans in their 2002 study of three thousand individuals.
In this age of terrorism which uses chemical nerve agents, it is ridiculous that we can’t even measure the presence/effects of nerve agents which are legally applied. That has led industry to make specious claims that the high frequency of usage of those products is, by itself, evidence that these products are ‘safe’. Claims of safety are illegal under FIFRA laws governing the use of pesticides. All that is demonstrated is that adverse effects are going undocumented. These inadequately researched chemicals on the market today are going to harm an entire generation before exposure data is finally mandated as per laws currently on the books.
As you will see from my own litigation experience, we can’t rely upon legal actions to protect society in general. Cases like my own which survive dismissal motions can languish for years in the dockets. There are no regulations which ensure timely prosecutions of cases and, as discussed in prior posts, trial is rarely on the horizon for any action. Discovery remains incomplete even in my own, eight year old case before the NYS Civil Supreme Court. For those of you who have asked to read the actual complaint as filed, you will see it in its entirety, under the cut below. This is the legalese which placed my injuries before the courts, although it may never see actual trial. While publicity surrounding the case reduces my chances of obtaining a settlement, I have made it clear that sealed settlements which hide the nature of injuries leading to court actions, are immoral because they don’t allow for precedents to be set that will protect others from similar hazards. If we can’t learn from these events, they are just another ‘day at the office’ for US citizens instead of a tool to assist in the evolution of society and in refining our use of dangerous technologies.
My injury in a school setting should never have happened. Repeated attempts have been made since 1990 to set legal guidelines for the kinds of toxic chemicals which can be used in schools, as well as the procedures for their safe application. Two decades later, these protections continue to be denied to staff and children despite widespread knowledge of acute and chronic illnesses which pesticides cause. The Senate has passed such measures twice in different versions of the School Environment Protection Act. However, this measure remains the hostage of the Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives where it has been refused a floor vote for over a decade.
I’ve always believed that reasonable adults can reach a consensus regarding any issue because we all have common interests. Bosses and workers need each other and so must work towards mutually advantageous business structures. Landlords, tenants and neighbors want peaceful living arrangements. Mature people recognize one another as independent agents working cooperatively towards mutually beneficial goals.
Partnerships are formed and agreements are made because goals are rarely reached in isolation. Success happens to be sweeter when attained by the maximum number of individuals within any group. That is what it takes to produce a product, develop a novel scientific discovery, or operate institutions such as those devoted to the education of children. Constitutional and legal provisions are a codification of common sense ways in which individuals intersect for the benefit of all. The courts are there when irrational impulses rule and benefit is sought at the expense of another.
I did my best to avoid conflicts in that school program by making advance arrangements to avoid the use of toxic substances in a setting which was mainly occupied by the most vulnerable of populations – very young children with disabilities. The courts will have the final say. In the absence of any rulings, let my example be sufficient warning to create new ways to keep our children and teachers safe in their schools.
Complaint:
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT QUEENS COUNTY
BARBARA RUBIN,
Plaintiff,
vs. VERIFIED COMPLAINT
MARATHON JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER Index No. 14425/02
and PRO-TECH PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC.
Defendants
(more…)
Categories: Litigation
Tags: environmental justice, integrated pest management, neurotoxic substances, nyc school, pesticide poisoning
October 17th, 2010
Administrator Lisa Jackson is one of the busiest people in America. Her recent appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is of enormous importance to citizens throughout the world. Not since Carol Browner’s tenure in the Clinton White House, have we seen anyone as committed to the reduction of toxic substances in our personal environments reach a position of any significance in the US government. Ms. Jackson should also have greater leeway to act if free to replace some of the ‘old boy’s network’ within her organization. Many reputable officials and scientists were driven to resign—or were fired—under the Bush administration amidst gag orders restricting the publishing and presentation of relevant research by our tax-funded agencies. What remains is a constant stream of conflicting interests which come between the Department of Agriculture and concerns which should rightfully be confined to the Department of Health and Human Services.
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:
(more…)
Categories: Articles, EPA, Letters
Tags: environmental effects of pesticides, indoor air quality, integrated pest management, undue corporate influence
September 21st, 2010
The New York Times reported a horrendous crime perpetrated upon young girls and their teachers in Afghanistan over a period of years, in the form of poisoning. Compounds commonly found in pesticides known as organophosphates (or “OP’s”) were applied to school buildings housing female students and mass illnesses occurred, while village authorities relegated the ailments to symptoms of mass hysteria. In a country where girls attending school is an affront to an influential religious faction, there was good reason to be suspicious. Still, this serious problem was dismissed for not being as visible as acid thrown on students or fires set in buildings. Fortunately, the World Health Organization recognized the possibilities and tested the children. But don’t nod your head in approval and consider this a victory over third world ignorance. The same thing is happening here at home in the US. Your home. Your child’s school. Your office. Why didn’t you know it?
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.
(more…)
Categories: Articles, NY Times
Tags: environmental effects of pesticides, environmental justice, feminism, integrated pest management, neurotoxic substances, pesticides
September 6th, 2010
An AP article by Mark Sherman shows us how our judicial system is being held hostage by Senators with subversive (as opposed to ideologically based) legislative agendas. Sherman notes that just over one hundred judgeships remain unfilled, with about half of those dockets sufficiently backlogged to be deemed ‘emergencies’. As long as a Democrat is in the Oval Office, it appears that ‘conservative’ senators will ensure judges’ chairs across the federal system remain empty.
The terms ‘conservative’ and Republican’ aren’t really suitable descriptions for legislators blocking judicial nominations in order to sabotage a Presidential legacy. After all, if the country actually runs on Obama’s watch, who will name these obstructionists as ‘saviors’? Apparently the citizenry are considered too stupid to recognize bi-partisan cooperation as being essential to the success of any presidency.
The label of “Republican” (conservative or otherwise) infers a degree of mindfulness of particular legislative goals and does not appropriately describe those senators with nothing less than the abolition of justice in mind. Since our officials are sworn to protect and defend the constitution, blocking access by citizens to the judicial process is criminal, constituting obstruction of justice which should be examined by the office of Attorney’s General. It is hard to believe that sufficient numbers of qualified individuals to fill most of these positions, cannot be found.
These obstructionists regard the constitution as an historical convenience to cite when their vested interests are being challenged in the present. However, the country requires a living document which will grow with the population’s needs. It takes effort for the timeless principles to be adapted to contemporary contexts undreamed of by the framers. Two hundred years of existence for a nation is far too short to justify petrification of our culture in order to prevent further decline. The decline was prompted because we’d become petrified in our cultural evolution.
A relevant example was given to me by a Rabbi who said it was against Jewish law to leave your car keys in the ignition when leaving your parked vehicle. Of course that received a chuckle from all those present, since there were no cars in biblical times. Nonetheless, a principle applied in this situation. Through the biblical prohibition stated in Leviticus 19:14, “You shall not… place a stumbling block before the blind”, we extrapolate a current need to help desperate people avoid the temptation of stealing. Leaving your car keys in your ignition or on the front seat makes such theft an easier, quicker decision to reach by the weak in much the same manner as it would be cruel to trip a sightless individual. It doesn’t make us responsible for the choices of others, but does require us to be aware that our actions have a cascade of effects upon others. No action is too small to be deserving of attention.
Too many principles become eroded through living life on ‘automatic pilot’. It would appear that many in our government are engaged in the fight to do nothing that will disturb the status quo. We may be a Republic and elect others to make our laws for us, but we are now a literate society with free access to information in every public library. That means we can’t leave out thinking to others. That essential truth should end our acceptances for simple explanations to complex problems and inspiring slogans by ringleaders seeking to control those who refuse to think. Empty rhetoric extolling the concepts of freedom while denying us access to it, are among the lies we must stop ‘re-tweeting’ across the nation. If it can be said in 140 characters, it isn’t going to hold the secrets to the pyramids or the rulebook for a better America.
Categories: Associated Press
Tags: constitution, litigation, politics, undue corporate influence
September 6th, 2010
All you have to do is bring up the phrase, “Free Market Economy”.
Bob Herbert’s column, “Of Janitors and Kings” was, as usual, a fascinating commentary about our society from the vantage point of newly unemployed, low-wage workers. Most interesting is the information which wasn’t printed. We don’t know why this Goliath corporation needed to lay off janitorial staff considering the amount of work that goes into building maintenance. We can take a good guess at this juncture that the lack of transparency in the situation is purposeful. The actual explanations would render the cheer-leading done by Limbaugh, Beck and Palin completely off-topic.
The comments left by readers posted below that NY Times Op-Ed are certainly proof of the conditioning that the mega-corporatocracy (as opposed to actual businesses which compete to offer goods and services in the marketplace) has imposed on our society. How many hours of radio do they buy up for the Limbaughs and Becks whose vast fund of well-compensated hatred is only exceeded by the absence of logic in their statements. Who was it that equated the practices of ‘Capitalism” with the phrase, “Free Market Economy”? A marketing genius, no doubt since the two are not at all the same. However, the term, “Free” is a buzz-word that automatically spurs positive feelings and condemnation of those who spurn the misuse of the term in that context.
Capitalism is an economic practice with governmental restrictions upon it to ensure fair competition. Monopolies and trusts (the actual inhabitants of the Free Market zone) are forbidden, not that anyone bothers to enforce anti-trust laws any longer. Capitalism is neither a form of government nor is it a replacement for government. The constitution for our Republic actually empowers Congress to intervene in business to preserve constitutional freedoms for citizens. The framers were well able to conceive of robber barons gaining undue influence over government and trampling the rights of citizens.
Capitalism carries a lot of responsibilities for both businesses and for consumers. It’s a contract through which satisfied customers reward good businesses with their hard earned dollars. Bad businesses are supposed to fail as good ones expand and can take on the losses of workers created in a changing marketplace. However, when bad businesses form agreements to conform to policies which place them in adversarial roles with labor, the contract with capitalism has failed. Multiple businesses may be technically separate entities but competition has effectively ended. It represents a decision that the trough is large enough for all to feed. Trough, indeed.
But what happens when the drive to rake in another penny per unit for the sellers, ends up decimating suppliers? What happens when the seller is such a large entity that their profits become losses for the population at large, mesmerized by low costs and hidden ingredients? We wind up with a market full of hazardous products which harm the workers who make them and the consumers who buy them. It leads to low wages, importing illegal labor and exporting local jobs into the hands of people who will not in turn, be consumers of US businesses by and large. It means increased underemployment and unemployment to be remedied by tax funded means to prevent starvation and homelessness. It means poor educational experiences for children living in poverty, diminishing hopes of future generations to surpass the last one.
Everyone is a consumer, including our mega-corporations. What happens when the largest institutions refuse to examine the practices of the smaller ones with whom they trade? Here, the firing of janitorial staff earning under $14 per hour, was of no interest to the giant who referred to the matter as belonging only to another ‘vendor’. Too many providers of essential services (such as cleaning) are forced to sacrifice their more experienced employees for cheaper workers in order to underbid for a contract which further threatens their stability as a business. This practice ensures a smaller pool of trained, secure workers which makes up a stable society. It basically renders the entire workforce a disposable commodity. Were we less of a capitalist society when good workers enjoyed longevity and advancement within their employment settings? Now that the workforce has increased in diversity, the fund of useful knowledge and willing hands is larger than ever. It eradicates the independence of labor which is essential to the growth of a large (politically active) middle class.
There is one circumstance in which “trickle-down” economic theory does work. If the upper echelons of the business world refuse to think about the source of their wealth, mindlessness proceeds the rest of the way down the chain.
How can a violation of sound business practices be made to sound acceptable in society? Simple. You begin to use the term ‘Free Market Economy’. That makes it seem as if corporations work alone in creating a healthy marketplace. If someone refers to capitalism at all, just throw out that ‘other’ phrase, “Socialism” and be sure you sneer as you say it. It can misdirect the conversation admirably and no one has to learn anything new. Ever. Let people infer that if business were just free of all regulation and taxes, there would be two jobs in every pot. Or some such rhetoric (I’m not old enough to recall the New Deal). We’ve had that for quite awhile now. How’d that turn out? Anyone? Bueller? Despite incentives to hire, businesses kept the profits from those incentives and got more for less out of their workers. As we already know, you get ‘less’ for ‘less’ and this has led to a slower recovery and poorer quality of production practices and merchandise.
In the meantime, make business work for their money. To the largest extent possible, patronize ethical businesses which pay a living wage while producing quality products and services with full disclosure of ingredients. Mindlessness may work for industry moguls with golden parachutes but citizens have to eat today and plan for tomorrow. There is a reason why we refer to working as ‘making a living’. The demand that one work only so that others can live (high on the hog if we go back to the trough analogy), is against every principle of capitalism. Unless mindlessness is contagious, citizens should think of the consequences for their consumer choices.
My commentary on this article:
(more…)
Categories: NY Times, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: capitalism, economic justice, Free Market, undue corporate influence
August 31st, 2010
The Times-Dispatch in Virginia published an article by Jim Morris, an excellent journalist on environmental issues. It is terrifyingly titled, “US Asbestos Toll May Reach A Half Million Deaths”.
Most of you likely think this substance has been banned by now. Many of us recall the scandal of so many military personnel exposed to it at naval bases, on ships etc. Flame resistant, we chose it as a form of insulation for hot water pipes. School teachers recall ceiling tiles composed of the stuff. No, it has not been banned. Its use in this country has been greatly reduced but is still likely to be found in the brakes of your car or some other product you’ve not suspected. In fact, you may have it in your home but not realize it because many real estate deals included indemnification clauses (“I don’t know if it’s there and you can’t sue me later on if it turns up or you get cancer. So there!”).
Perhaps you know its encasing your older pipes but don’t realize it’s reached the friable stage requiring removal. I once rented a house on Long Island, only to find it all over the basement on my first day there. I camped out in the yard that month until I got a new place. Conditions were such that the home couldn’t be rented again until professional remediation was performed and the owner was very regretful. Probably more for her expense than my enforced period of camping but that’s the real estate game for you. Luckily for me, it was high summer. And it was just a little hurricane. I’ve never looked at the phrase, “Shelter from the storm”, in quite the same way since then.
This isn’t in the least funny. Nothing is more vital to our well-being than our dwellings. The substances in our homes, offices, schools and libraries; our clothing, food, fuels and other accouterments to our lives can contain some appalling materials. When are we going to take it seriously enough to hear all of those voices calling to us that they are literally ‘sick to death’ of vendors being allowed to sell frankly lethal products? We pay the costs of the associated losses in health care expenses, lost work productivity and benefits to survivors of those who die in the cause of what is mistakenly referred to as a ‘free marketplace’. NOTHING comes free. Everything comes with some responsibility attached to it and freedom of choice isn’t one of them when you are forced to ingest, breathe and absorb toxic materials.
While this post interrupts the thread on litigation, just look at what Jim Morris has to say about the legal costs of asbestos related suits. Not quite so unrelated as it might seem.
My commentary on this pieces was as follows:
(more…)
Categories: Newspaper Commentary, Published, Times-Dispatch
Tags: Asbestos, Environment, Free Market, Health, industry regulation, undue corporate influence
