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:

Thank you for this analysis which infers a great deal about what Americans are prepared to tolerate in this country at our own expense. First, why is any asbestos still being sold today when we’ve known of its lethal properties since the sixties? Few consumers even know this substance is in current use in their cars. Apart from risk to workers, are fibers entering cars through vents or being inhaled on the streets by pedestrians?

Many real estate rental/sale agreements include indemnities for asbestos and chlordane contamination in a property. Why wouldn’t an owner be required to know about these two, potentially lethal conditions in their homes? I’ve personally tested residences with high levels of chlordane shown to be present and asbestos has no safe level of exposure at all. If consumers shared responsibility for acquiring property contaminated with such substances, a ban would be in high demand. Mortgage companies should be asking for proofs of this type just as they do for termite inspections. Invisible property damage exists if building conditions will produce illness in some of its occupants.

We must also ask the identities of those companies still marketing asbestos ‘aggressively’ overseas so we can boycott them. Such willful imposition of harm upon their customers would seem to make any of their products suspect in terms of safety. Under capitalism, consumer dollars should only reward the makers of the best products which means we all have an obligation in such matters.

Another trail of money to follow is in legal costs. This article cites industry losses of 70 billion in total, with 49 billion to victims and lawyers. Why don’t we have a registry for claims requiring medical proof alone and a basic judicial review? This would end costly court battles as lawyers are currently occupied with re-try the same cases over and over again and take large percentages of awards from needy victims. Lawyers would then be available to take more complex claims for those who might be excluded from the expedited process as well as fight new battles on the consumer health front.

That would save billions of dollars and likely make bans on patently harmful products more desirable.

Barbara Rubin

In war, you know the identity of your enemy. Nicholas Kristoff asks an excellent question in this Op Ed piece for the NY Times, “Do We Really Want the Status Quo on Health Care?“. It identified lack of health care as part of the current status quo. The next question to ask here is just who or what is the enemy, taking out so many non-combatants each year? Is it health care costs? Certainly a single payer system would go far towards cost containment since the private sector is guilty of price fixing in setting values upon products and services – be it a mortgage or an MRI. Health care constitutes more than 17% of our gross domestic product for other reasons.

It’s a bit ridiculous to claim it is ‘overuse’ of services as we hear from the ‘party of No’. The last time I checked, people in the market for entertainment chose Disneyland over a visit to an orthopedist. Services are certainly not ‘overused’ by those without insurance and the many people who are ‘under-insured’. The latter individuals forgo many exams and medications due to co-pays and the need to cover that next health insurance premium which is really retained for catastrophic coverage. Nor are services ‘overused’ in the quest for a proper diagnosis in a culture of health care that is oriented to the control of symptoms instead identification of their source. Drugs may be ineffective for their intended purpose and many lead to serious adverse effects as well. Seeking out multiple physician opinions to obtain health care with a good outcome is not ‘over-use’ but a necessity until medicine matures sufficiently to return to cure-oriented treatments. This is well understood – and feared – by many Americans. I personally know one, very well insured person, who suffered a stroke rather than see a physician for check-ups to learn about having chronically high blood pressure and silent kidney damage.

If it is ‘just’ about sickness, then we need to utilize the renewed Patriot Act in order to force Congress to legislate universal health care. The enemy must find it incredibly comforting to know that Americans require huge amounts of health care because we are an exceedingly ill nation.

• One quarter of children have a chronic health condition.
• Nearly half of all adults have a chronic health condition.
• Our seniors, comprising more than 12% percent of our population will predictably require care and ‘end of life’ services. Medicare exists to provide them with a considerable degree of coverage for their conditions without the attendant blame for needing health insurance which is accorded to younger Americans without the funds to pay for it.

We are a nation of patients. Debating about caring for the sick is entirely based upon a premise that our country is first an economic system rather than a constitutional entity. The health care debate centers around the notion that offering a cost-effective public system of medical coverage to its citizens is unfair to industry because it removes a share of potential consumers from the marketplace. All discussion of competition between insurers (not even providers of care) relegates the science of medicine to an equal rung on the marketplace ladder with, say, that mysterious metal coil we call a ‘Slinky’. Are these really products and services we wish to consider identical to the marketing of toys within the marketplace?

If you can’t afford bread, it will be provided to you. However, you may have to ration those loaves carefully to last you for the requisite period necessary. Can a lesser tier of insurance provide a ‘half-cure’ for a disease? Ask any physician if you should take seven days of antibiotics for an infection which requires fourteen days of medication to achieve a cure. Patients have been known to cut short the length of treatment time for many infections in the hope that rationing their medication for their current illness will save costs for new prescriptions for their next illness. We know now that this approach merely leads to the growth of antibiotic resistant infections and far greater illness (not to mention costs) than had we assisted them with the full price of earlier treatments. Seizures are quite difficult to control in many patients without a minimum level of drug support and often combinations of drugs. The nervous system may not recognize the notion of ‘compromise’ based upon income. Should the acquisition of seizure medications be dependent upon the same economic system that markets Slinky toys? Does our national identity become so lost if medical care is provided to all that it is better to consign 45,000 people each year to death for lack of medical insurance? Any war with that level of annual casualties would have the public taking to the streets in protest. Of course, this figure doesn’t even factor in deaths due to being ‘under-insured’. Again, how much compromise can one safely make with costly high blood pressure medications?

As with most issues which appear to be full of contradictions, philosophy dictates that we must check our assumptions. The ‘right’ side of the legislative debate (or the wrong side for purposes of this blog post) relegates the art and science of medicine to a commodity instead of a life preserving or life-saving practice. If medicine is strictly a commodity then it will remain available only to those with sufficient income for a comprehensive tier of medical insurance. The minimum wage only offers sufficient income to deprive earners of federal medical coverage granted to the ‘legally’ poor. The majority of insured Americans will eventually find themselves ‘under-insured’ in a marketplace where every buyer is guaranteed to need their full investment back when they get sick. With the escalating numbers of sick and disabled Americans, no insurance company can be considered a sustainable entity as fewer healthy people purchase their policies.

Since capitalism invites unsustainable businesses to go out of business, should medical care be considered part of that process at all? Medical care for humans isn’t a ‘choice’ as it is with veterinary care for pets. One can put down a sick Doberman or withhold treatment but is that option open to you with Aunt Edith? It would seem that regarding medical care as a commodity is the surest way to create death panels based upon income levels alone. Only the poorest, the elderly and the wealthy will be able to access care unless the insurance risk pool grows to include everyone AND we begin to deal with the excessive rates of illness. Controlling environmentally induced ailments will not just slow the rate of inflation but reverse it.

Let’s move on to another radical assumption about ourselves as Americans. Requiring a basic level of wealth in order to access health care services says that we are first and foremost consumers, rather than citizens. Our last administration was fond of terming us, “consumers” and the presidency as akin to the CEO of America. As consumers, we become subservient to corporations which claim they must not be required to compete with a government capable of offering the same essential medical services to its legal residents at a lower cost, i.e. Medicare. Why can’t they compete? Is there some reason corporations are supposed to be underwritten by the government to ensure the availability of customers or a particular profit margin? If the products and services of a company are out of range of most consumer’s wallets, wouldn’t any company naturally diversify or go out of business? Isn’t it corporate welfare to consign American citizens to the mercies of private insurers with no other options? Does that even guarantee any level of competition will exist?

By the time G.W. Bush left the gubernatorial chair of Texas, medicaid payments were so reduced that doctors could not afford to maintain a practice in poorer areas. United States ‘consumers’ were crossing the Mexican border to obtain services from clinics in Mexico. The government failed to meet even the meanest corporate standard of payment for essential services and certainly health care professionals are entitled to a living wage! A definite end to any government challenge to business.

No economic system should be confused with determinations of basic morals and ethics. Canada and European nations don’t classify medicine in the same category as other commodities. For the average commodity such as housing, food and clothing, one budgets according to one’s income. Those who can’t own, rent. Those who can afford to do so choose lobster over tuna. The cost differences between various brands of clothing is quite broad. Consumers choose accordingly but still remain housed, fed and clothed for the most part. Citizens in dire straits however, do receive food, clothing and housing. Why then is medicine assigned a lower rung on the ladder of necessary products and services? National identity is at the heart of this debate, not capitalism and competition. Further erasing the notion of competition being at the heart of this debate – revealing as such a position may be – true competition no longer appears to be part of our major industries. Price fixing is common today, as I recently found when looking at independent and assisted living facilities. Astonished by the notion that a small room in such a facility was deserving of a monthly, $2,100 price tag, even with a meal plan. I was informed by one manager that it was only fair not to undercut the prices of their competition too greatly. The presence of government options with little or no profit margin restores an absolute value to such products and services once more. All we’ve known in recent decades is relative value – the minimum profits agreed upon by trade associations without regard for demand in relation to production costs (varying according to quality).

Price fixing is the purposeful undermining of capitalism in order to restrict ‘fairness’ to corporate entities instead of the consumer. It restricts efforts to promote increased quality among similarly priced services wherever there appears to be sufficient numbers available to feed at the shared trough. Only when the numbers of ‘consumers’ available to take these small rooms in senior communities decreases, can a fall in charges can be expected. These ‘homes’ have many rooms going empty which is not, apparently, a threat to their continued operation. This is not a function of competition but of tacit agreement between corporate entities that one must take every last penny from a consumer’s wallet before declaring one’s profit to be at an acceptable level. Rooms go empty rather than be accorded an actual value which would be within the means of far more consumers and still be profitable for the vendor.

I had a similar experience with used car dealers. None would disclose what a car was worth until they learned of how much money I had to spend – carefully calculated by them according to my income. The worth of the car appeared to change with each successive journey the salesman made into his boss’s office during negotiations. I believe Saturn became a popular car based upon its sales policy of one price for all customers. Imagine that – a product with a singe value accorded to it regardless of consumer income. Comparing that view to that of the salesman in that assisted living facility is the best illustration of how capitalism has mutated into a form of gangster capitalism. When politicians begin expounding about maintaining a ‘free marketplace’, we must remember that the marketplace is never free when profit margins are pre-determined by official or unofficial trade associations. Instead of increasing quality and advancing new technology, vendors band together to break any newcomer so foolish as to actually exceed their level of service quality for the money in a sustainable manner.

Capitalism was supposed to spur the pursuit of excellence in industry. Progress depends upon it instead of solely relying upon tax incentives for industry to embrace new developments as older – and often hazardous – products and services are banned.

We must further go to the nature of our justice system which promises injuries can be redressed. With so much illness either known or suspected to be the result of pollution – a byproduct of industry which is largely ignored by government regulators – how can we permit it to go untreated? How can we wrest the costs from the victims of pollution? We’ve seen lead removed from paint and the outrage over of imported toys possessing that toxic ingredient. We’ve seen anti-smoking legislation reduce cardiac events by one third in participating municipalities. Pollution emanating from many uncontrolled sources is also causing asthma, heart disease, autoimmune disorders and cancers among other disorders. Why is the individual held responsible for their medical treatments when causation goes undeterred? This is an issue of justice as much as it is one of national identity. Are we citizens or consumers? If the elderly are allowed medical care, it is ageism to declare younger citizens to be dispensable in all matters medical.

Obviously, the real enemy is sickness. We have consistently failed to meet it on the honorable battlefield of medicine because – that’s right – we left the field of battle to lobbyists and their corporate sponsors telling dying people that it is better to be dead than participate in ‘socialist’ medicine. What, pray tell, should we do when reaching retirement age? Commit hara-kiri rather than accept evil, government-sponsored Medicare?

We know that voters began demanding universal health care, preferring a single payer option just one year ago, before slogans and tea parties began to frighten the average person into believing they are better off without health care than with an incomplete plan of action – as if any taxes paid towards that effort would ever even approach the charges of the average health care plan in America. That would not be the case if healthy Americans were paying reasonable premiums to, say, Medicare instead of a private insurer where overhead would automatically be greater lest an American CEO be left behind. Paul Krugman gives an excellent synopsis of the insurance game lest anyone remain in denial of how this process works.

Sickness may be the enemy but ignorance and denial leaves us without the weapons to fight it. We are thus far unarmed in a battle which is not about life. It is about ideologies which are counter to both the ideological basis upon which we are governed and to capitalism, our presumed economic system. There isn’t much more you can get wrong in politics.

Once the public realizes that freedom of speech does not ensure accuracy of content, we may begin to take our personal responsibilities more seriously, having fiddled while the District of Columbia burned. But don’t expect treatment at your local ER for your wounds unless you have great insurance. When Massachusetts voters decided that, having attained universal health care for their fellow Bay Staters, the remainder of the country could go without lest any part of that cost devolve upon them, it was clear that Americans no longer wondered about what was to happen the day AFTER tomorrow.

Perhaps the new conservatives they elected will be happy to suspend their health care once their state’s allotments no longer cover their citizens. Pretending you aren’t part of a larger nation is always a mistake. It takes an entire nation, not a village. Villages are razed all around the globe daily by the bullies and their minions- who also don’t think about the day after tomorrow.

Part I: General Remarks

Thank you for permitting me to offer this information in support of HB 1456. We urgently need to improve the indoor air quality (IAQ) of schools through reducing and/or potentially eradicating the use of pesticides with known toxicity effects upon people and other non-targeted life forms.

As a disabled educator poisoned by pesticides used in my own NYC school facility in 1999 and, as a part-time journalist who has published a few articles and commentaries on the subject matter, I hope my informal remarks and lay studies will be of use to this committee. Please forgive any errors committed in the conveyance of this testimony as I am mildly aphasic and have acquired learning disabilities. These disabilities have been attributed to brain injury suffered in a NYC school setting as a result of exposures to the very chemicals we are here to discuss. My exposures occurred while I was a supervisor of a school for developmentally disabled children between 2 and five years of age. My aim today is to discuss the scope of inquiry for a committee dedicated to developing a needs assessment for policy setting in pest control practices. I hope to accomplish this through a review of well known issues in the science of pest control and my own, personal experience of the terrible results of ignoring science in the service of retaining old technologies and business practices.

Pest control services are a vital industry to the health of the population. We know that it is impossible to eradicate insect populations, and other invasive organisms. While these will always be with us, controls are important in preventing intolerable concentrations of these unwanted items from turning into infestations and uncontrolled colonizations of molds or bacteria. Advances in chemistry taught us how quickly we can kill such organisms but gave us little preparation for the collateral damage such chemicals can cause. Fortunately, we now have the knowledge and technology which allows us to avoid sacrificing the safety of building occupants against the desirable goals of pest management A study regarding pesticide use in the schools is not a dismissal of the value of pest control services but rather an investigation into the forms it should take in these environments occupied by the most vulnerable of exposed populations – children and a largely female staff.

Pesticides are toxic by definition and it remains against the law for vendors to claim they are ‘safe’, even when used as directed. This alone makes examination of their use in schools a worthwhile endeavor. We know pesticides include ingredients which are irritants as well as well as contributing to asthma – the largest cause of missed school days for children and the fourth largest cause of lost work productivity among adults. While the waste products and remains of dead pests such as roaches also contribute to respiratory problems, those can be resolved with a vacuum cleaner unlike the residues left by pesticides.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the ailment.

Pesticides are a class of chemicals which include not just products that kill insects but also target other life forms – hence the suffix, ‘cide’. This extends the range of our concerns here to include herbicides (targeting weeds); mildicides/fungicides (targeting molds/ fungi) and products which kill disease promoting micro-organisms like bacteria. Many products called ‘repellents’ are actually pesticides despite the alteration in labeling. Today, DDT is applied as a repellent to the interior of house walls in some countries. The overuse and abuse of biocides such as triclosan has led to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria which has become a concern to school programs in recent years. Our increased understanding of mycotic diseases stemming from exposures to certain forms of molds and fungi associated with moisture damaged buildings has led to increased use of fungicides and mildicides in the schools. These pesticidal agents are present in products used in cleaning to those used in painting and other construction/renovation materials. Since all of these products are regulated by the same EPA department, I suggest they should be considered by this committee as falling within their scope of inquiry. It would not only serve the NH communities but set precedents for other states to broaden their range of concerns. For a full listing of the various kinds of pesticides, I refer you to this website by the EPA.

A major concern should be the fact that the most commonly used pesticides act by disrupting the ability of nerve cells to cease firing, over and over again until they become damaged or die. They don’t discriminate between the type of cells they disrupt and humans are a non-targeted organism affected by them. Central nervous system functioning is primary to learning. Developmental disabilities are now affecting one in six children according to Dr. Phillip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai Hospital, a leader in developing the field of environmental pediatrics. You may wish to consult with him since you will be reviewing the testimony of experts in the field at some point in this process. Further, exposure to toxic materials is also a candidate for investigation into high rates of illness, particularly autoimmune diseases. Disability among adults working in the schools may also be worth examining in a needs assessment of the type being recommended today.

Pesticides are quite persistent when used indoors without the aid of sunlight to degrade them, contrary to assumptions and recommendations for re-entry to treated rooms on material data and safety sheets. Exposure considerations must take into consideration the re-release of pesticide residues into the air each time a treated surface is exposed to heat (e.g. baseboard heating surfaces), light from direct sun or lamp exposure, or subjected to increased temperatures from seasonal changes. Recurrent applications, something which is very common in school settings, leads to issues of insect resistance calling for the use of more and mixed types of pesticides. The effects of combining chemicals upon bystanders has not been studied but we do know that effects are not just additive but synergistic. Also, the break-down byproducts or metabolites of some pesticides are more toxic than their original forms (as in the case of malathion).

Further, decades of use of chemicals such as chlordane and DDT, prior to their bans, means continued risks to children in older buildings where these chemicals and their metabolites remain. This means that the age of school buildings and their locations should also fall within the parameters of our concern. I have personally measured concentrations of these chemicals in both low and high amounts in residences. School locations are also subject to pesticide drift from nearby sources. Proximity to farms and gardening/nursery enterprises are obvious sources while communities near marshes and bodies of water will be open to drift for chemicals used for mosquito control. Commercial properties near schools may still be allowed to use chemicals currently banned for residential and school use so such chemicals can still become significant presences in our schools.

Drift from aerial applications of pesticides for forestry management and farming purposes travels extensively and communication with the Department of Agriculture in preparing a needs assessment for the testing of buildings is advisable. Aerial spraying is soon to be banned altogether in the European Union for this reason. Exposure by children in agricultural communities has been proven to be unavoidable, regardless of proximity to farmland as measured in metabolites of these chemicals in the urine of children. Therefore, applications in schools add to the overall body burden of children already affected by these chemicals in other settings.

The literature on the effects of pesticides contains a wealth of evidence for both immediate and delayed symptoms, long term damage to multiple organs biochemical processes apart from enzyme inhibition and adversely affecting learning abilities. Pesticides are also delivered in solvents such as xylene and trimethylbenzene, members of a large and hazardous class of regulated substances all on their own. These are known central nervous system depressants and carcinogens. The Ontario College of Family Physicians did an exhaustive review of the literature with specific conclusions about the risks of exposure to children by these chemicals.

This is the basic information I wished to present to this committee. My next submission is about my personal experiences which exemplifies how vital it is that we do not ignore this technical data. The results of doing so are with us daily.

Part II: My Personal Experiences in Pest Control in School Settings:

I first learned of my vulnerability to pesticides when I fainted following the departure of a pest control applicator in a school where I worked in the Bronx, NY in 1990. After learning about Dursban, the chemical in use, I began to work with accommodation plans permitting me to be absent when pesticides were applied each month. However, while a difference of a few days may make it appear as if one escapes hazards, the effects can only be assessed by looking at biochemical changes rather than overt symptoms. A poison is not just a substance that brings direct harm to us but also one that damages by adversely impacting catalysts in the body which are necessary to other functions. These may include hormones (e.g. thyroid, estrogen) or various enzymes (e.g. acetylcholinesterase). Reductions in important enzymes, interference in hormone regulation, inflammation and deferred symptoms of toxicity must be considered.

The information I gained at that time was used again when I lived in NYC in 1999 when West Nile Virus made its appearance in New York City and malathion was unwisely chosen to be applied by helicopter. Testimony by experts before a bi-partisan congressional committee headed by Congressman Gary Ackerman in March of 2000 found it to be most unwise with side effects far more damaging than its presumed benefits. The practice was halted. I have appended a copy of an article I wrote in 2002 for a magazine in which the effects of pesticides in school settings are discussed with respect to a particular child along with general considerations and quotes from interviews with several experts in the field.

We now use pyrethroids in many locations where we used to use the organophosphates listed above since they were banned for the purpose. Pyrethroids are often advertised as synthetic pyrethrins or acting much like the anti-pest effects of the essence of chrysanthemum flowers. However, we also know these chemical effects, while still disabling to the nervous system, are amplified by the addition of synergists to the formulas. This increases the toxicity beyond the levels at which the active ingredient was approved for sale. Attached is a news article describing up to a ten-fold increase in toxicity, rendering these chemicals threats to aquatic life. The particular synergist cited is piperonyl butoxide and quite toxic in its own right.

I had never heard of pyrethroids until June of 1999 when I was enjoying my second year as supervisor for a school program for developmentally disabled preschoolers called the Douglaston Early Childhood Center. This program was run under the aegis of the New York League for Early Learning (a subsidiary of YAI/National Institute for Early Learning). Having learned first hand that environmentally induced illnesses in school programs can be avoided, I had instituted an indoor air quality program in our first year of operation (1998) which proved quite effective in maintaining a productive working and learning environment.

The spraying of pesticides in and around the property ceased and increased maintenance efforts along with the use of baits unlikely to become airborne were substituted. The school building itself was used for multiple purposes and the owners, in conjunction with their pest control company that more toxic pesticides should be applied in spray form during our week long break between spring and summer sessions. Upon our return, the staff and I all were conscious of residual fumes and remained in better ventilated areas of the school until they faded. Unknown to me, further applications were made to the building and I developed serious and chronic health effects. By September of 1999, I was unable to eat during school hours and lost weight; fought constant bronchial constriction requiring me to carry oxygen with me to work since inhalers were not effective for me. I found myself unable to concentrate for prolonged periods of time, to recall names of familiar people and had difficulty with word-finding in conversations and in my writing. Where it used to take me two hours to write a comprehensive clinical report, it now took days to achieve anything resembling a satisfactory effort. [additional description of symptoms/damage submitted here as well]

My career was over.

An EPA complaint was filed regarding lack of notice and the use of those chemicals in poorly ventilated areas and locations where food was prepared, both advised against in the MSDS sheets. The investigator informed me that the EPA did not pursue actions in the use of registered pesticides as it comprised a conflict of interest between the applicators and their agency which approves these chemicals for use. Instead, they encourage private individuals to file law suits in order to encourage the industry to refrain from using these chemicals in school buildings, residences etc. My law suit is still pending. The federal government has yet to pass the School Environment Protection Act or SEPA, providing national guidelines for the use of nontoxic methods and least toxic methods of pest control. Notification for use of such products to interested parties is also included in those provisions. Only a handful of states have such regulations at present and my own home state of NY didn’t pass their version until a year after I was disabled.

I ask this body to conduct their needs assessment and do whatever it takes to make my tragedy the last of its kind in the Northeastern United States. The material is not only plentiful in identifying the undesirability of using toxic pesticides in school settings but the alternatives are plentiful The pest control industry is slowly evolving into novel practices referred to as Integrated Pest Management or IPM. I thought my school program was following such IPM protocols but was denied my rights to participate in the process because local laws to that effect were lacking. Every person should have the right of choice with regard to exposure to toxic chemicals for themselves and their children, whether that involves being able to substitute other products for the undesirable ones or simply leave the vicinity. Had I known recurrent applications were going to be made, I would have quit my job before becoming so damaged.

We don’t have to choose between pest control and human safety. We can have it all if all parties are required to modernize their knowledge of the effects of these chemicals and make better decisions about selecting among them. It takes work but then that is what adults do to ensure our children grow up to become healthy and capable individuals. The sight of a few ants or roaches shouldn’t be a barrier to any of us losing our health, our futures and becoming burdens upon society instead of assets.

Barbara Rubin, M.A.
Former speech-language pathologist and educator

The EPA tells us our indoor air quality is a greater threat to our health than even the industrial releases sending pollutants into the outdoor air of our urban environments. There is some sense to this claim if we examine what we bring into our homes from a trip to the store or home ‘improvement’ center. The irrationality of purchasing air-polluting materials unnecessary to our lives can only be accomplished by sales campaigns rich in disinformation. Such advertising is designed to maximize the profits of vendors without obliging them to justify their selections in product ingredients through objective measurements of air quality following the use of their products (air fresheners, pesticides, construction materials, etc.). There is no way for the average person to comprehend the potential harm posed by the simplest of products adorning our grocers’ shelves when the labels and even the MSDS documents of the manufacturers aren’t required to list all ingredients.

A ‘lifestyle’ based upon the introduction of air fresheners and perfumes, pesticides and paints, polyurethanes and adhesives, attaching garages to our living and working spaces – these methods of introducing serious and continuous sources of poisons into our bodies are indeed ‘lifestyle’ issues. If we spent a fraction of the time considering our surroundings that we spend pondering our intake of fat and calories, the cost of health care in America would drop like the proverbial stone. We are even learning that obesity can result from exposure to certain chemicals in our products. Many toxins are lipophilic, requiring us to produce more fat cells to store them where they won’t have an ongoing, adverse effect upon our systems.

Test it out in your own home. Literally. You may not be at fault for what lurks in your air, but you are living with the consequences of those unknowns.

Let it be known.

Sent to the LA Times:

Re: LA Times article, “How to Have Healthier Air in your Home” by Karen Ravn (7/27/09)

To the Editor,

Our bodies are excellent at informing us of danger — unless we pop analgesics, anti-inflammatories or anti-depressants without ever looking for the cause of our discomforts. Toxicity reactions (as opposed to allergies), are year-round and have helped health care grow to an obscene 16 percent of the GNP.

Many carbon monoxide detectors won’t ring until an hour after detecting levels at 70 ppm. Harm begins at 35 ppm, so purchase meters allowing you to read current and peak levels at a touch.

Your home could harbor higher concentrations of pesticides and herbicides than outdoors if windows are open while landscapers apply weed killers or trucks drive by spraying for mosquitoes. These chemicals remain active for years where there is no sunlight to degrade them. Stay alert to events which will pollute your home, even as you ventilate it.

You can’t know if your home was built on old farmland, was renovated using toxic materials, or otherwise badly treated by prior owners. Test your home via air filter analysis, baseboard swipes or other method recommended by qualified toxicologists, if family members (including pets) are suffering from health problems. I have uncovered levels of various chemicals which would be prohibited by law in the workplace.

It is less painful and expensive to prevent illness than to treat it. Lower your risks through testing.

Barbara Rubin

********************

Re: Grist article, “Which Natural Toilet Bowl Cleaner Wins with a Flush” by Sarah Van Shagen

To the Editor,

It is time for Grist to make recommendations regarding ‘green’ technology based upon real data concerning the actual merits of a given product. This article was an example of why consumer advocacy and the business of ‘green’ technology is going straight down the toilet. It is because we are all being told that we may not be ‘privy’ to the actual ingredients present in the products we purchase.

Are we supposed to become euphoric at the disclosure of what is not actually in our goods today? I sure do want to select the sweetener containing no depleted uranium. And that floor cleaner which doesn’t utilize rocket fuel sounds like something consumers can use with a clear conscience.

Grist, when will you realize that a free market is only free when consumers know exactly what we are getting for our dollars? Is our product of choice really ‘green’ or is it more of a ‘chartreuse’? That missing two percent on the MSDS sheet may omit a key ingredient that sends an asthmatic to the emergency room. Pyrethrins may be considered a ‘natural’ pesticide from chrysanthemums but there is nothing natural about the synergist added to most of these formulations which increase its toxicity ten-fold. How many people know that electrical cords commonly contain lead unless they are in a state requiring such disclosure on labels?

When Van Shagen mentioned the smell of these toilet cleaners being overpowering, those of us who know what can be added to fragrances went on high alert. Not for the vendor, but for the credibility of the reviewer. Trade secrets are really only secret from the consumer. Competitors analyze the formulas of their competitors automatically. Since most of us have no plans to manufacture these products in our bathtubs, the hazard to disclosure must be about, well, genuine hazards.

Please stand up for truth in commerce. Tell vendors you will happily review their products if they offer full disclosure of contents. You know, like companies have to do for their European exports? For those ‘other’ people whose governments believe they deserve to know what is in their homes. You’ll still have plenty of work to do in translating euphemistic references to nerve toxins on labels but at least we’ll have a real clue about why the health of Americans has gone straight down the tubes in recent decades. You can’t choose a green lifestyle without solid information.

Barbara Rubin

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.

This article announces how a school was relocated so its building could be tested for an explanation of employee illnesses. Has anyone looked at student attendance records? I was poisoned in a school but have no notion of what, if any, effects there were for others. These are not mysteries. We have the technology for discovering what is around us and the ability to comprehend our physical intolerances for the follies of our fast food/quick construction society. The cost of health care today, and the huge demand for it, tells the tale.

My letter:

To the Editor,

Every public building requires toxicological testing. Not an impotent OSHA checking on carbon dioxide levels and merely cracking a window. A competent assessment examines mold for potential toxicity. It assays airborne volatile and semi-volatile compounds from fuels, cleaning solvents, construction materials, and furnishings.

I have tested a variety of residences and offices with shocking results. Mid to high levels of pesticides banned decades before that foundation was even dug; formaldehyde exceeding levels found in FEMA trailers; methylene chloride from chemicals stored in a garage below an apartment. Not unlike any other residence or office. I became disabled in a school I was supervising after applications of multiple pesticides.

The human genome was not designed with PCBs in mind. Many common synthetic chemicals are less than sixty years old. We cannot survive the onslaught, unscathed.

Test and build, or rehab carefully. Sometimes you don’t get a second chance.

I should know.

Barbara Rubin