From www.ewg.org October Newsletter.....
Permission to Breathe Freely:
Senate Passes Asbestos Ban
You don't have to go to a haunted house to find lung-damaging asbestos. It's banned in dozens of countries, but the U.S. is behind the times.
This known carcinogen has been used in everything from vinyl floors to car parts. In 2004, EWG found that asbestos kills 10,000 Americans every year -- 2,500 more people than skin cancer.
So this month's Senate bill, which cites EWG's work, is a victory. But it must still pass the House and escape presidential veto. Contact your Representative and ask them to support the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007 (H.R.3285).
Monday, November 5, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Common Cleaning Sprays and Asthma
Yahoo News................
Housework could pose health hazards, study says
Fri Oct 12, 12:14 PM ET
Housework might be bad for your health, according to a study suggesting that tidying up as little as once a week with common cleaning sprays and air fresheners could raise the risk of asthma in adults.
Other studies have linked these types of products with increased asthma rates among cleaning professionals but the research published on Friday indicates others are potentially at risk as well.
Exposure to such cleaning materials even just once a week could account for as many as one in seven adult asthma cases, the researchers wrote in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
"Frequent use of household cleaning sprays may be an important risk factor for adult asthma," Jan-Paul Zock, an epidemiologist at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, who led the study, wrote.
Asthma is an inflammation of the airways with symptoms that include wheezing, shortness of breath, coughing and chest tightness. More than 300 million people worldwide suffer from the condition.
Using data collected from 22 centers in 10 European countries, the researchers studied more than 3,500 people over a nine-year period to see how many developed asthma and whether cleaning could be a cause.
Two-thirds of those in the study who reported doing the bulk of cleaning were women and fewer than 10 percent of them were full-time homemakers, the researchers said.
The study found that the risk of developing asthma increased with the frequency of cleaning and the number of different sprays used but on average was about 30 to 50 percent higher in people exposed to cleaning sprays at least once a week.
While air fresheners, furniture cleaners and glass-cleaners had the strongest effect, the researchers said the study did not determine what biological mechanism sparked the increase.
Housework could pose health hazards, study says
Fri Oct 12, 12:14 PM ET
Housework might be bad for your health, according to a study suggesting that tidying up as little as once a week with common cleaning sprays and air fresheners could raise the risk of asthma in adults.
Other studies have linked these types of products with increased asthma rates among cleaning professionals but the research published on Friday indicates others are potentially at risk as well.
Exposure to such cleaning materials even just once a week could account for as many as one in seven adult asthma cases, the researchers wrote in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
"Frequent use of household cleaning sprays may be an important risk factor for adult asthma," Jan-Paul Zock, an epidemiologist at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, who led the study, wrote.
Asthma is an inflammation of the airways with symptoms that include wheezing, shortness of breath, coughing and chest tightness. More than 300 million people worldwide suffer from the condition.
Using data collected from 22 centers in 10 European countries, the researchers studied more than 3,500 people over a nine-year period to see how many developed asthma and whether cleaning could be a cause.
Two-thirds of those in the study who reported doing the bulk of cleaning were women and fewer than 10 percent of them were full-time homemakers, the researchers said.
The study found that the risk of developing asthma increased with the frequency of cleaning and the number of different sprays used but on average was about 30 to 50 percent higher in people exposed to cleaning sprays at least once a week.
While air fresheners, furniture cleaners and glass-cleaners had the strongest effect, the researchers said the study did not determine what biological mechanism sparked the increase.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
If you are pregnant or considering having children, its time to think about what you are doing now that may affect your child's health:
Cosmetics might not be as safe as we like to think.
By Maggie Koerth-Baker for MSN Health & Fitness
Find More
* Estrogen May Lower Younger Women's Heart Risk
* Hormone Therapy Extends Lives of Ovarian Cancer Patients
* Total Body Tune-Up
* Women's Health Message Boards
Roman women slowly poisoned themselves with generous slatherings of white lead foundation. Medieval Italians sensuously dilated their pupils—and blinded themselves—with an extract of belladonna. And the ladies of Queen Elizabeth’s court wore thick layers of red lip color made from toxic mercury compounds. All apparently were under the impression that their daily beauty regimen was 100 percent safe. Which begs the question: Are we similarly deluded today?
Cosmetic Conflict
Even if you don’t wear much makeup, chances are that you’re washing your hair with shampoo and conditioner, toning down your underarm stink with deodorant, and attempting to stave off old age with moisturizer. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a watchdog organization that monitors the use of chemicals in everyday life, those simple actions add up fast. A survey the organization conducted in 2004 showed that American women use an average of 12 hygiene products each day. By the EWG’s count, that translates to more than 150 ingredients being absorbed through the skin, inhaled through the nose or inadvertently licked off the lips.
As far as the EWG is concerned, all this represents a massive risk to public health. “Essentially, we’re conducting a giant experiment,” says Jane Houlihan, the organization’s vice president for research. “People are being exposed to hundreds of chemicals. Every person is full of complex mixtures and the health consequences are completely unknown.” Particularly of concern to the EWG and other activist groups are two families of chemicals known as phthalates and parabens.
Phthalates are a common ingredient in things like hairsprays, nail polish and perfume, where they function as a plasticizer—keeping the mixtures flexible while also helping them remain sticky. Parabens are preservatives that keep fungus and bacteria at bay in a wide variety of cosmetics and hygiene products.
The EWG points out that research on rats has shown both chemical families to be carcinogens. A 2004 study published in the journal Reproductive Technology linked phthalates with reproductive anomalies, and a study published that same year in the Journal of Applied Toxicology detected parabens in breast cancer tissue. In fact, parabens and phthalates were among the chemicals banned by the European Union in 2003. A quick Web search will turn up a number of organizations that have extrapolated this research into warnings that makeup or deodorant are the cause behind breast cancer.
Naturally, this makes the cosmetics aisle seem pretty scary. But not all scientists agree that the danger is so great. The Food and Drug Administration officially classifies parabens and phthalates as safe, because the research has yet to prove a causal link between the chemicals and diseases in humans. As it turns out, rats, while convenient for research, don’t actually process chemicals the same way we do. So what’s deadly to them could easily be harmless in us. Other organizations—like the industry-run Cosmetics Ingredient Review board and the independent American Council on Science and Health—agree, pointing out that the amounts of phthalates and parabens used in cosmetics are far, far lower than even the amount needed to induce cancer in rats.
Pretty Is as Pretty Does
advertisement
So, who’s right? The answer probably falls somewhere in between. “There’s a lot of people talking black and white, this is good or this is bad,” says Urvashi Rangan, an environmental health scientist who works with Consumer Reports magazine and its parent organization, the Consumers Union. “But a lot of the ingredients in cosmetics come down into a very gray zone.”
To Rangan, the fact that cosmetics use very low levels of chemicals doesn’t mean there’s zero risk. Instead, it means that we need more research to understand the effects of chronic, long-term exposure. On the other hand, chemicals aren’t inherently bad and Rangan thinks it’s inaccurate to say that using certain cosmetic products could be deadly.
“We don’t know all the reasons cancer happens,” she says. This means it’s impossible to identify a certain chemical as the precise—and sole—cause of a cancer. "To say these products are going to kill you is an overstatement. It's not likely that there's going to be a single reason behind why someone gets cancer."
Instead, Rangan says, the real problem lies in how we currently address the potential dangers associated with these chemicals. “Europe tends to operate on the precautionary principle and they tend not to make things legal until there’s a proof of safety,” she says. “Here, it’s the opposite. In order for the FDA to ban a chemical used in cosmetics it has to be proven harmful.”
And proving harm is tough. Usually, it requires thousands of people to develop a problem that can be linked definitively to a specific product or ingredient. Currently, the FDA has no authority to review cosmetics before they go to market and can only ban ingredients after problems arise. So, while most cosmetic products have been tested for short-term safety, their long-term effects are almost completely unknown. “There’s very little data to suggest safety or harm,” Rangan says. “There’s just a big question mark there.”
For now, whether or not you should keep using your favorite products depends a lot on how you use them and how much risk you’re comfortable with. For instance, occasionally using eyeliner with a questionable ingredient probably isn’t dangerous, but if you’re applying heavy amounts of a suspect lotion every day, you might want to consider taking steps to reduce your exposure.
One way to help gauge your risk is by looking up your brands on Skin Deep, the Environmental Working Group’s online database, which analyzes all the various risk factors associated with specific products.
Under Suspicion: 4 Ingredients to Keep an Eye On
Parabens
What They Are: Preservatives that keep products bacteria-free.
Where You’ll Find Them: Cleanser, hand soap, moisturizers and toothpaste
Names They Go By: Methylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben.
What’s the Concern: Parabens can mimic natural hormones, including estrogen. Disruption of sex hormones increases the risk of certain cancers.
Phthalates
What They Are: Plasticizers that increase flexibility and strength.
Where You’ll Find Them: Hair spray, nail polish and perfumes.
Names They Go By: Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and diethyl phthalate are common in fragrances, while dibutyl phthalate appears in many nail polishes.
What’s the Concern: Can also mimic sex hormones and may be able to affect growth of reproductive systems in fetuses. Used in hundreds of non-cosmetic plastic products, so exposure is increased.
Coal Tar
What It Is: The liquid by-product of coal distillation.
Where You’ll Find It: Shampoos aimed at killing head lice or reducing dandruff and some dark hair dyes.
What’s the Concern: Extremely carcinogenic in rodents. Might also be linked to liver disease.
Toluene
What It Is: A solvent, basically a liquid that dissolves other liquids or solids.
Where You’ll Find It: Nail polish and nail polish remover.
Name It Goes By: It might appear under the names methylbenzene or phenylmethane.
What’s the Concern: Breathing in the fumes can damage kidneys and cause birth defects. People who work frequently with nail products are at most risk.
More on MSN Health & Fitness:
* Anti-Aging Guide
* Cosmetic Surgery at the Mall?
* In the Name of Beauty
* Plastic Surgery Secrets of the Stars
Maggie Koerth-Baker is a freelance writer and a contributing editor to mental_floss magazine. Her work has appeared in the Associated Press, AARP: The Magazine, and Health.
Cosmetics might not be as safe as we like to think.
By Maggie Koerth-Baker for MSN Health & Fitness
Find More
* Estrogen May Lower Younger Women's Heart Risk
* Hormone Therapy Extends Lives of Ovarian Cancer Patients
* Total Body Tune-Up
* Women's Health Message Boards
Roman women slowly poisoned themselves with generous slatherings of white lead foundation. Medieval Italians sensuously dilated their pupils—and blinded themselves—with an extract of belladonna. And the ladies of Queen Elizabeth’s court wore thick layers of red lip color made from toxic mercury compounds. All apparently were under the impression that their daily beauty regimen was 100 percent safe. Which begs the question: Are we similarly deluded today?
Cosmetic Conflict
Even if you don’t wear much makeup, chances are that you’re washing your hair with shampoo and conditioner, toning down your underarm stink with deodorant, and attempting to stave off old age with moisturizer. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a watchdog organization that monitors the use of chemicals in everyday life, those simple actions add up fast. A survey the organization conducted in 2004 showed that American women use an average of 12 hygiene products each day. By the EWG’s count, that translates to more than 150 ingredients being absorbed through the skin, inhaled through the nose or inadvertently licked off the lips.
As far as the EWG is concerned, all this represents a massive risk to public health. “Essentially, we’re conducting a giant experiment,” says Jane Houlihan, the organization’s vice president for research. “People are being exposed to hundreds of chemicals. Every person is full of complex mixtures and the health consequences are completely unknown.” Particularly of concern to the EWG and other activist groups are two families of chemicals known as phthalates and parabens.
Phthalates are a common ingredient in things like hairsprays, nail polish and perfume, where they function as a plasticizer—keeping the mixtures flexible while also helping them remain sticky. Parabens are preservatives that keep fungus and bacteria at bay in a wide variety of cosmetics and hygiene products.
The EWG points out that research on rats has shown both chemical families to be carcinogens. A 2004 study published in the journal Reproductive Technology linked phthalates with reproductive anomalies, and a study published that same year in the Journal of Applied Toxicology detected parabens in breast cancer tissue. In fact, parabens and phthalates were among the chemicals banned by the European Union in 2003. A quick Web search will turn up a number of organizations that have extrapolated this research into warnings that makeup or deodorant are the cause behind breast cancer.
Naturally, this makes the cosmetics aisle seem pretty scary. But not all scientists agree that the danger is so great. The Food and Drug Administration officially classifies parabens and phthalates as safe, because the research has yet to prove a causal link between the chemicals and diseases in humans. As it turns out, rats, while convenient for research, don’t actually process chemicals the same way we do. So what’s deadly to them could easily be harmless in us. Other organizations—like the industry-run Cosmetics Ingredient Review board and the independent American Council on Science and Health—agree, pointing out that the amounts of phthalates and parabens used in cosmetics are far, far lower than even the amount needed to induce cancer in rats.
Pretty Is as Pretty Does
advertisement
So, who’s right? The answer probably falls somewhere in between. “There’s a lot of people talking black and white, this is good or this is bad,” says Urvashi Rangan, an environmental health scientist who works with Consumer Reports magazine and its parent organization, the Consumers Union. “But a lot of the ingredients in cosmetics come down into a very gray zone.”
To Rangan, the fact that cosmetics use very low levels of chemicals doesn’t mean there’s zero risk. Instead, it means that we need more research to understand the effects of chronic, long-term exposure. On the other hand, chemicals aren’t inherently bad and Rangan thinks it’s inaccurate to say that using certain cosmetic products could be deadly.
“We don’t know all the reasons cancer happens,” she says. This means it’s impossible to identify a certain chemical as the precise—and sole—cause of a cancer. "To say these products are going to kill you is an overstatement. It's not likely that there's going to be a single reason behind why someone gets cancer."
Instead, Rangan says, the real problem lies in how we currently address the potential dangers associated with these chemicals. “Europe tends to operate on the precautionary principle and they tend not to make things legal until there’s a proof of safety,” she says. “Here, it’s the opposite. In order for the FDA to ban a chemical used in cosmetics it has to be proven harmful.”
And proving harm is tough. Usually, it requires thousands of people to develop a problem that can be linked definitively to a specific product or ingredient. Currently, the FDA has no authority to review cosmetics before they go to market and can only ban ingredients after problems arise. So, while most cosmetic products have been tested for short-term safety, their long-term effects are almost completely unknown. “There’s very little data to suggest safety or harm,” Rangan says. “There’s just a big question mark there.”
For now, whether or not you should keep using your favorite products depends a lot on how you use them and how much risk you’re comfortable with. For instance, occasionally using eyeliner with a questionable ingredient probably isn’t dangerous, but if you’re applying heavy amounts of a suspect lotion every day, you might want to consider taking steps to reduce your exposure.
One way to help gauge your risk is by looking up your brands on Skin Deep, the Environmental Working Group’s online database, which analyzes all the various risk factors associated with specific products.
Under Suspicion: 4 Ingredients to Keep an Eye On
Parabens
What They Are: Preservatives that keep products bacteria-free.
Where You’ll Find Them: Cleanser, hand soap, moisturizers and toothpaste
Names They Go By: Methylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben.
What’s the Concern: Parabens can mimic natural hormones, including estrogen. Disruption of sex hormones increases the risk of certain cancers.
Phthalates
What They Are: Plasticizers that increase flexibility and strength.
Where You’ll Find Them: Hair spray, nail polish and perfumes.
Names They Go By: Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and diethyl phthalate are common in fragrances, while dibutyl phthalate appears in many nail polishes.
What’s the Concern: Can also mimic sex hormones and may be able to affect growth of reproductive systems in fetuses. Used in hundreds of non-cosmetic plastic products, so exposure is increased.
Coal Tar
What It Is: The liquid by-product of coal distillation.
Where You’ll Find It: Shampoos aimed at killing head lice or reducing dandruff and some dark hair dyes.
What’s the Concern: Extremely carcinogenic in rodents. Might also be linked to liver disease.
Toluene
What It Is: A solvent, basically a liquid that dissolves other liquids or solids.
Where You’ll Find It: Nail polish and nail polish remover.
Name It Goes By: It might appear under the names methylbenzene or phenylmethane.
What’s the Concern: Breathing in the fumes can damage kidneys and cause birth defects. People who work frequently with nail products are at most risk.
More on MSN Health & Fitness:
* Anti-Aging Guide
* Cosmetic Surgery at the Mall?
* In the Name of Beauty
* Plastic Surgery Secrets of the Stars
Maggie Koerth-Baker is a freelance writer and a contributing editor to mental_floss magazine. Her work has appeared in the Associated Press, AARP: The Magazine, and Health.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Spike in Kid's Health Issues -Make Behavioral and Environmental Changes now!
Spike in kids’ health issues foretells problems
Rise in chronic ills may up health-care spending, disability risk, experts say
WASHINGTON - The number of U.S. children with chronic health problems such as obesity has soared in the past four decades, foreshadowing increases in adult disability and public health-care spending, researchers said on Tuesday.
More time in front of the television and use of other electronic media, decreased physical activity, increased time spent indoors, increased consumption of fast foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, and changes in parenting are all likely to blame, the researchers said.
Writing in an issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association devoted to childhood chronic disease, researchers tracked rising rates of obesity, asthma and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, among U.S. children.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
In the early 1970s, about 5 percent of children ages 5 to 18 were obese, compared to about 18 percent now, the researchers said. Asthma rates are estimated at 9 percent among these children, doubling since the 1980s, they said.
About 6 percent of school-age children currently report an ADHD diagnosis, also a dramatic increase in recent decades, the researchers said.
“The expanding epidemics of child and adolescent chronic health conditions will likely lead to major increases in disability among young and then older adults in the next several decades, with major increases in public expenditures for health care and income support,” the researchers wrote.
They based their estimates on government data and previously published research in scientific journals.
Focus on prevention
“One of the most important messages is that we really need to focus on prevention,” said Steven Gortmaker of the Harvard School of Public Health, who worked on the report.
“Genetic bases have been described for obesity, asthma and ADHD. Nonetheless, gene pool changes cannot explain the recent dramatic growth of these conditions,” the researchers wrote, pointing instead to a host of behavioral and environmental changes.
Gortmaker said while prevention sounds simple — eating a more healthful diet, getting more exercise and cutting down on TV — making it happen is not.
In many children, chronic health conditions continue into adulthood and can be expected to raise health care costs while driving down quality of life, the researchers said.
Obesity is recognized as a growing public health problem worldwide. Obese people are at greater risk for diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and some cancers.
ADHD persists into adulthood roughly half the time, putting people at higher risk of other mental health problems, the researchers said. Asthma persists to adulthood in at least a quarter of childhood cases, they said.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Rise in chronic ills may up health-care spending, disability risk, experts say
WASHINGTON - The number of U.S. children with chronic health problems such as obesity has soared in the past four decades, foreshadowing increases in adult disability and public health-care spending, researchers said on Tuesday.
More time in front of the television and use of other electronic media, decreased physical activity, increased time spent indoors, increased consumption of fast foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, and changes in parenting are all likely to blame, the researchers said.
Writing in an issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association devoted to childhood chronic disease, researchers tracked rising rates of obesity, asthma and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, among U.S. children.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
In the early 1970s, about 5 percent of children ages 5 to 18 were obese, compared to about 18 percent now, the researchers said. Asthma rates are estimated at 9 percent among these children, doubling since the 1980s, they said.
About 6 percent of school-age children currently report an ADHD diagnosis, also a dramatic increase in recent decades, the researchers said.
“The expanding epidemics of child and adolescent chronic health conditions will likely lead to major increases in disability among young and then older adults in the next several decades, with major increases in public expenditures for health care and income support,” the researchers wrote.
They based their estimates on government data and previously published research in scientific journals.
Focus on prevention
“One of the most important messages is that we really need to focus on prevention,” said Steven Gortmaker of the Harvard School of Public Health, who worked on the report.
“Genetic bases have been described for obesity, asthma and ADHD. Nonetheless, gene pool changes cannot explain the recent dramatic growth of these conditions,” the researchers wrote, pointing instead to a host of behavioral and environmental changes.
Gortmaker said while prevention sounds simple — eating a more healthful diet, getting more exercise and cutting down on TV — making it happen is not.
In many children, chronic health conditions continue into adulthood and can be expected to raise health care costs while driving down quality of life, the researchers said.
Obesity is recognized as a growing public health problem worldwide. Obese people are at greater risk for diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and some cancers.
ADHD persists into adulthood roughly half the time, putting people at higher risk of other mental health problems, the researchers said. Asthma persists to adulthood in at least a quarter of childhood cases, they said.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Antibiotic Use in Infants May Up Asthma Risk
Think twice before pushing your doctor to give your child antibiotics:
Antibiotic Use in Infants May Up Asthma Risk
The drugs might kill off bad and good bacteria, study suggests
By Serena Gordon, HealthDay Reporter
The drugs might kill off bad and good bacteria, study suggests.
Find More
* Add Meningitis Shot to Summer Camp To-Do List
* Cut Down on Lawn Mower Injuries This Summer
* Today's Health News
MONDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Giving antibiotics for a non-respiratory tract infection to an infant younger than 1 greatly increases the odds that the child will develop asthma, according to new research.
The study found that the risk was highest for those infants who received multiple courses of antibiotics and those who received prescriptions for broad-spectrum antibiotics. Broad-spectrum antibiotics tend to kill a wide range of bacteria -- both good and bad.
"Asthma is a multi-factorial disease, and we've found evidence of an association with first-year-of-life antibiotic use and asthma," said the study's lead author, Anita Kozyrskyj, an associate professor at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.
One hypothesis, Kozyrskyj added, is that broad-spectrum antibiotics are killing off too many good bacteria.
"It may be that you need the presence of good bacteria during the first year of life for the immune system to develop normally, and the antibiotics are killing off some of the natural microflora in the gut," she said.
The study findings are published in the June issue of the journal Chest.
Each year, about 4 million American children have active asthma, resulting in about 14 million missed school days, according to the American Lung Association. Because asthma can't currently be cured, only controlled, researchers are focusing on factors that may play a role in the initial development of the lung disease.
For the new study, Kozyrskyj and her colleagues followed almost 14,000 children from birth in 1995 until 2003, when all of the children had reached 7 years of age. Data came from the Manitoba Health Services Insurance Program and included information on physician visits, prescriptions, hospitalizations and health diagnoses.
Additionally, the researchers linked this data to data on the mothers of these children to see if there was a maternal history of asthma. Parents also completed surveys on home and environmental exposures.
All of the children were from Manitoba. Half were male, and 57 percent lived in urban areas. One-quarter of the children were from low-income families; 90 percent had siblings; 5 percent had a maternal history of asthma, and 6 percent developed asthma by age 7, the researchers found.
Two-thirds of the youngsters had received at least one antibiotic prescription during their first year of life, many of them for broad-spectrum antibiotics, according to the study. And, the more antibiotics received, the greater the risk of asthma.
Kids who received one to two courses of antibiotics had a 21 percent increased risk of asthma; those given three to four courses of antibiotics had a 30 percent rise in risk; while youngsters given more than four courses of antibiotics had a 46 percent increased risk of asthma.
Children given antibiotics for non-respiratory tract infections, such as urinary-tract infections, were as much as 86 percent more likely to develop asthma than those treated for respiratory infections.
Other factors that increased the risk of asthma included a family history, living in an urban area and being male. Having a sibling conferred a slight protective effect, as did having a dog for children who received multiple courses of antibiotics. In kids who had more than four courses of antibiotics before age 1, having a dog decreased the risk of asthma by 28 percent. However, in kids who received fewer antibiotics, that protective effect wasn't there.
Dr. Alan Khadavi, a pediatric asthma specialist at New York University Medical Center, said that prevention of asthma isn't a reason to get a dog. "If you already have a dog, that's fine, but the studies are conflicting about whether they're helpful or harmful," he added.
As for antibiotic use, Khadavi said, "If your child under 1 year is sick, have him or her evaluated. Don't push for antibiotics. But. on the other hand, if it's a serious infection that needs to be treated, I wouldn't worry too much about the asthma risk. If it's a mild infection, a watch-and-wait approach won't be harmful if they're under a physician's care."
Dr. Sai Nimmagadda, an attending physician in the division of allergy at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, said this study points to the need for "more judicious use of antibiotics, especially broad-spectrum antibiotics in kids under a year."
"Once wheezing has developed, it's difficult to alter the course of asthma, so now we're looking back to see if there are any risk factors we can change," he said.
Kozyrskyj recommended that physicians start by prescribing narrow-spectrum antibiotics, such as amoxicillin, for their youngest patients, and then if necessary, try a broad-spectrum medication.
More information
To learn more about childhood asthma, visit the American Lung Association.
content by:
Healthday
SOURCES: Anita Kozyrskyj, Ph.D., associate professor, Faculties of Pharmacy and Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Sai Nimmagadda, M.D., attending physician, division of allergy, Children's Memorial Hospital, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago; Alan Khadavi, M.D., pediatric asthma specialist, New York University Medical Center, New York City; June 2007, Chest
Copyright © 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
Antibiotic Use in Infants May Up Asthma Risk
The drugs might kill off bad and good bacteria, study suggests
By Serena Gordon, HealthDay Reporter
The drugs might kill off bad and good bacteria, study suggests.
Find More
* Add Meningitis Shot to Summer Camp To-Do List
* Cut Down on Lawn Mower Injuries This Summer
* Today's Health News
MONDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Giving antibiotics for a non-respiratory tract infection to an infant younger than 1 greatly increases the odds that the child will develop asthma, according to new research.
The study found that the risk was highest for those infants who received multiple courses of antibiotics and those who received prescriptions for broad-spectrum antibiotics. Broad-spectrum antibiotics tend to kill a wide range of bacteria -- both good and bad.
"Asthma is a multi-factorial disease, and we've found evidence of an association with first-year-of-life antibiotic use and asthma," said the study's lead author, Anita Kozyrskyj, an associate professor at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.
One hypothesis, Kozyrskyj added, is that broad-spectrum antibiotics are killing off too many good bacteria.
"It may be that you need the presence of good bacteria during the first year of life for the immune system to develop normally, and the antibiotics are killing off some of the natural microflora in the gut," she said.
The study findings are published in the June issue of the journal Chest.
Each year, about 4 million American children have active asthma, resulting in about 14 million missed school days, according to the American Lung Association. Because asthma can't currently be cured, only controlled, researchers are focusing on factors that may play a role in the initial development of the lung disease.
For the new study, Kozyrskyj and her colleagues followed almost 14,000 children from birth in 1995 until 2003, when all of the children had reached 7 years of age. Data came from the Manitoba Health Services Insurance Program and included information on physician visits, prescriptions, hospitalizations and health diagnoses.
Additionally, the researchers linked this data to data on the mothers of these children to see if there was a maternal history of asthma. Parents also completed surveys on home and environmental exposures.
All of the children were from Manitoba. Half were male, and 57 percent lived in urban areas. One-quarter of the children were from low-income families; 90 percent had siblings; 5 percent had a maternal history of asthma, and 6 percent developed asthma by age 7, the researchers found.
Two-thirds of the youngsters had received at least one antibiotic prescription during their first year of life, many of them for broad-spectrum antibiotics, according to the study. And, the more antibiotics received, the greater the risk of asthma.
Kids who received one to two courses of antibiotics had a 21 percent increased risk of asthma; those given three to four courses of antibiotics had a 30 percent rise in risk; while youngsters given more than four courses of antibiotics had a 46 percent increased risk of asthma.
Children given antibiotics for non-respiratory tract infections, such as urinary-tract infections, were as much as 86 percent more likely to develop asthma than those treated for respiratory infections.
Other factors that increased the risk of asthma included a family history, living in an urban area and being male. Having a sibling conferred a slight protective effect, as did having a dog for children who received multiple courses of antibiotics. In kids who had more than four courses of antibiotics before age 1, having a dog decreased the risk of asthma by 28 percent. However, in kids who received fewer antibiotics, that protective effect wasn't there.
Dr. Alan Khadavi, a pediatric asthma specialist at New York University Medical Center, said that prevention of asthma isn't a reason to get a dog. "If you already have a dog, that's fine, but the studies are conflicting about whether they're helpful or harmful," he added.
As for antibiotic use, Khadavi said, "If your child under 1 year is sick, have him or her evaluated. Don't push for antibiotics. But. on the other hand, if it's a serious infection that needs to be treated, I wouldn't worry too much about the asthma risk. If it's a mild infection, a watch-and-wait approach won't be harmful if they're under a physician's care."
Dr. Sai Nimmagadda, an attending physician in the division of allergy at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, said this study points to the need for "more judicious use of antibiotics, especially broad-spectrum antibiotics in kids under a year."
"Once wheezing has developed, it's difficult to alter the course of asthma, so now we're looking back to see if there are any risk factors we can change," he said.
Kozyrskyj recommended that physicians start by prescribing narrow-spectrum antibiotics, such as amoxicillin, for their youngest patients, and then if necessary, try a broad-spectrum medication.
More information
To learn more about childhood asthma, visit the American Lung Association.
content by:
Healthday
SOURCES: Anita Kozyrskyj, Ph.D., associate professor, Faculties of Pharmacy and Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Sai Nimmagadda, M.D., attending physician, division of allergy, Children's Memorial Hospital, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago; Alan Khadavi, M.D., pediatric asthma specialist, New York University Medical Center, New York City; June 2007, Chest
Copyright © 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Is Cheaper Better?
Please keep this in mind when shopping for your family:
Tainted Products Continue to Flow out of China
Toothpaste, cough syrup, and fish added to growing list of contaminated products
By Omid Ghoreishi
Epoch Times Edmonton Staff
May 31, 2007
Bella waits for a check up at Adams Veterinary Clinic in Florida after her owner brought her fearing the canine was fed a tainted brand of pet food originating from China, and distributed from Canada. Within China, quality control and food safety regulations tend to be lax or non-existent. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Related Articles
- A Costly Trade With China Sunday, May 27, 2007
- Chinese Corruption Allows Toxic Products Onto Global Markets Monday, May 28, 2007
- FDA to Monitor Toothpaste From China Friday, May 25, 2007
Just as Canadian and U.S. health officials were scrambling to find out which brands of Chinese-made toothpaste had entered their countries, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced last Friday that it has intercepted a shipment of corn gluten from China contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid.
Melamine, a toxic chemical used to make fertilizers, is the chemical that in March was found to have contaminated over 100 brands of pet food in Canada and the U.S. The source of the contamination was found to be tainted wheat flour imported from China.
Also last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that packages of fish imported from China labeled monkfish could actually be puffer fish which contain the lethal toxin Tetrodotoxin.
Earlier in the week, health officials in the Dominican Republic recalled two Chinese brands of toothpaste which contain diethylene glycol, a lethal chemical used in engine coolant. The contaminated toothpaste has also been sold in Panama and Australia.
The same chemical was found in a Chinese-made cough syrup in Panama last year, and resulted in the death of at least 50 people. A spokesperson from Health Canada confirmed that the two Chinese toothpaste brands have not been approved for sale in Canada, and have not been found on the Canadian market so far.
Toxic Imports
Monthly reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration show that China by far tops the list of countries with the most food shipment rejections. Last April, 257 import shipments from China were denied entry to the U.S. for reasons ranging from mislabeling to using poisonous additives.
A few years ago, the European Union banned all imports of animal products from China after finding high levels of dangerous chemicals in some of the products. Although the blanket ban was later removed, many products still remain on the banned list.
Last year, South Korean officials banned Chinese imports of Kimchi, a spicy cabbage dish, after parasites normally found in human excrement were discovered in tested samples.
In recent years, both Canada and the U.S. have been accepting cheap and very often lower-quality imports from China, which might explain why problems with Chinese food imports have suddenly surfaced; the more potentially tainted products that are imported, the higher the chance they will make it onto the market.
Recently, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) boosted its efforts in inspecting shipments of wheat, rice, soy, corn gluten, and protein concentrates of Chinese origin entering Canada, holding all such shipments for inspection before they can enter the Canadian market.
"The focus is on what presents the risk, which is the product, not the country. In that context, when the evidence points to a particular country being a source of a particular problem, then we do more specifically [focus] on products from that country," says Paul Mayers, executive director of the Animal Products Directorate with the CFIA.
Mayers says the CFIA has not set a specific time frame to terminate the border lookout for vegetable and protein concentrates from China, but it will continue until there is "sufficient assurance" that contaminated products are not entering Canada.
Even so, the possibility of tainted food slipping through the cracks is high, says Dr. Keith Warriner, a food science professor and food safety researcher at the University of Guelph.
"If you think how much product is imported to Canada, to actually test it all is merely impossible. In addition to that, sometimes these contaminants are hidden in fairly low concentrations, so you don't know what to look for."
Fake Products
Within China, quality control and food safety regulations tend to be lax or non-existent, and consumers have to be constantly vigilant for so-called "fake products," which can include everything from fake soy sauce and fake herbs to wine with high levels of industrial ethanol and vegetables overdosed with fertilizer.
"If you talk to anybody from China, they'll tell you about how there's absolutely no food safety standards there in a lot of the locally produced foods," says Dr. Warriner.
Julie, a Chinese-Canadian who immigrated to Canada from Beijing in 2000 and wishes to keep her surname private, says it is very common in China to read in the local papers about cases of tainted food being sold, resulting in cases of poisoning.
In a famous case in 2004, hundreds of babies in an eastern Chinese province became ill and 13 died after incurring severe malnutrition from fake milk powder.
In a speech in Paris in 2006, Zhou Qing, a Chinese scholar and freelance writer, provided some disturbing statistics from a food and safety investigation he performed. In 2001, around 6,000 students in Ji Lin city were poisoned by fake soymilk, and in 2002, another 3,000 students in Hai Cheng city, Liao Ning province, were poisoned.
Qing also mentioned a 2004 Chinese survey indicating that 90 per cent of the participants were worried about food safety, and 82 per cent of those had encountered food safety problems. He said Chinese scholars have ascertained that there are two to four million food poisoning cases occurring in China each year.
Back in 2000, an official from China's State Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision announced a crackdown on the production of fake and shoddy goods. The areas targeted were construction materials, agricultural production materials, gas stoves, household appliances and food.
Counterfeit Drugs
Dozens of people have died in China as a result of counterfeit drugs. Last year, 11 deaths were caused by the drug Xinfu, a poor quality antibiotic that hadn't been properly sterilized.
Many counterfeit drugs that originate in China and India make their way onto overseas markets. In India, there's a law against selling counterfeit drugs within the country, but not against exporting them.
The former head of China's State Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, was recently convicted of accepting large bribes to approve hundreds of untested drugs. In one case, a company paid bribes to Zheng in return for approving 277 drugs, mostly antibiotics.
In February, the BBC reported that corruption at the State Food and Drug Administration runs so deep that Beijing is considering closing it down entirely.Beijing announced on Tuesday that a new recall process targeting unapproved food products would be introduced by the end of the year.
Dr. Warriner says that since China's relatively recent emergence onto the global market, there has been no real system of food safety inspection or protocol to enhance food safety, and standards in China remain far from what we expect in North America.
"With all the outbreaks of pet food scandals and now the toothpaste…can we afford the risk of injury to the Canadian population, and obviously to our pets as well? I would advise a very cautionary tale…this is not just a flash in the pan, it's an endemic problem, a serious problem," says Warriner.
Additional reporting by Dane Crocker, Rory Xu, and Heidi B. Malhotra.
Copyright 2000 - 2007 Epoch Times International
Tainted Products Continue to Flow out of China
Toothpaste, cough syrup, and fish added to growing list of contaminated products
By Omid Ghoreishi
Epoch Times Edmonton Staff
May 31, 2007
Bella waits for a check up at Adams Veterinary Clinic in Florida after her owner brought her fearing the canine was fed a tainted brand of pet food originating from China, and distributed from Canada. Within China, quality control and food safety regulations tend to be lax or non-existent. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Related Articles
- A Costly Trade With China Sunday, May 27, 2007
- Chinese Corruption Allows Toxic Products Onto Global Markets Monday, May 28, 2007
- FDA to Monitor Toothpaste From China Friday, May 25, 2007
Just as Canadian and U.S. health officials were scrambling to find out which brands of Chinese-made toothpaste had entered their countries, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced last Friday that it has intercepted a shipment of corn gluten from China contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid.
Melamine, a toxic chemical used to make fertilizers, is the chemical that in March was found to have contaminated over 100 brands of pet food in Canada and the U.S. The source of the contamination was found to be tainted wheat flour imported from China.
Also last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that packages of fish imported from China labeled monkfish could actually be puffer fish which contain the lethal toxin Tetrodotoxin.
Earlier in the week, health officials in the Dominican Republic recalled two Chinese brands of toothpaste which contain diethylene glycol, a lethal chemical used in engine coolant. The contaminated toothpaste has also been sold in Panama and Australia.
The same chemical was found in a Chinese-made cough syrup in Panama last year, and resulted in the death of at least 50 people. A spokesperson from Health Canada confirmed that the two Chinese toothpaste brands have not been approved for sale in Canada, and have not been found on the Canadian market so far.
Toxic Imports
Monthly reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration show that China by far tops the list of countries with the most food shipment rejections. Last April, 257 import shipments from China were denied entry to the U.S. for reasons ranging from mislabeling to using poisonous additives.
A few years ago, the European Union banned all imports of animal products from China after finding high levels of dangerous chemicals in some of the products. Although the blanket ban was later removed, many products still remain on the banned list.
Last year, South Korean officials banned Chinese imports of Kimchi, a spicy cabbage dish, after parasites normally found in human excrement were discovered in tested samples.
In recent years, both Canada and the U.S. have been accepting cheap and very often lower-quality imports from China, which might explain why problems with Chinese food imports have suddenly surfaced; the more potentially tainted products that are imported, the higher the chance they will make it onto the market.
Recently, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) boosted its efforts in inspecting shipments of wheat, rice, soy, corn gluten, and protein concentrates of Chinese origin entering Canada, holding all such shipments for inspection before they can enter the Canadian market.
"The focus is on what presents the risk, which is the product, not the country. In that context, when the evidence points to a particular country being a source of a particular problem, then we do more specifically [focus] on products from that country," says Paul Mayers, executive director of the Animal Products Directorate with the CFIA.
Mayers says the CFIA has not set a specific time frame to terminate the border lookout for vegetable and protein concentrates from China, but it will continue until there is "sufficient assurance" that contaminated products are not entering Canada.
Even so, the possibility of tainted food slipping through the cracks is high, says Dr. Keith Warriner, a food science professor and food safety researcher at the University of Guelph.
"If you think how much product is imported to Canada, to actually test it all is merely impossible. In addition to that, sometimes these contaminants are hidden in fairly low concentrations, so you don't know what to look for."
Fake Products
Within China, quality control and food safety regulations tend to be lax or non-existent, and consumers have to be constantly vigilant for so-called "fake products," which can include everything from fake soy sauce and fake herbs to wine with high levels of industrial ethanol and vegetables overdosed with fertilizer.
"If you talk to anybody from China, they'll tell you about how there's absolutely no food safety standards there in a lot of the locally produced foods," says Dr. Warriner.
Julie, a Chinese-Canadian who immigrated to Canada from Beijing in 2000 and wishes to keep her surname private, says it is very common in China to read in the local papers about cases of tainted food being sold, resulting in cases of poisoning.
In a famous case in 2004, hundreds of babies in an eastern Chinese province became ill and 13 died after incurring severe malnutrition from fake milk powder.
In a speech in Paris in 2006, Zhou Qing, a Chinese scholar and freelance writer, provided some disturbing statistics from a food and safety investigation he performed. In 2001, around 6,000 students in Ji Lin city were poisoned by fake soymilk, and in 2002, another 3,000 students in Hai Cheng city, Liao Ning province, were poisoned.
Qing also mentioned a 2004 Chinese survey indicating that 90 per cent of the participants were worried about food safety, and 82 per cent of those had encountered food safety problems. He said Chinese scholars have ascertained that there are two to four million food poisoning cases occurring in China each year.
Back in 2000, an official from China's State Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision announced a crackdown on the production of fake and shoddy goods. The areas targeted were construction materials, agricultural production materials, gas stoves, household appliances and food.
Counterfeit Drugs
Dozens of people have died in China as a result of counterfeit drugs. Last year, 11 deaths were caused by the drug Xinfu, a poor quality antibiotic that hadn't been properly sterilized.
Many counterfeit drugs that originate in China and India make their way onto overseas markets. In India, there's a law against selling counterfeit drugs within the country, but not against exporting them.
The former head of China's State Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, was recently convicted of accepting large bribes to approve hundreds of untested drugs. In one case, a company paid bribes to Zheng in return for approving 277 drugs, mostly antibiotics.
In February, the BBC reported that corruption at the State Food and Drug Administration runs so deep that Beijing is considering closing it down entirely.Beijing announced on Tuesday that a new recall process targeting unapproved food products would be introduced by the end of the year.
Dr. Warriner says that since China's relatively recent emergence onto the global market, there has been no real system of food safety inspection or protocol to enhance food safety, and standards in China remain far from what we expect in North America.
"With all the outbreaks of pet food scandals and now the toothpaste…can we afford the risk of injury to the Canadian population, and obviously to our pets as well? I would advise a very cautionary tale…this is not just a flash in the pan, it's an endemic problem, a serious problem," says Warriner.
Additional reporting by Dane Crocker, Rory Xu, and Heidi B. Malhotra.
Copyright 2000 - 2007 Epoch Times International
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Autism's Rise May Reflect Broader Definition, Better Diagnosis...
Just wanted to share this interesting article regarding autism. The increase in problems such as autism, asthma, and cancer certainly is something we all must become aware of.............
Autism's Rise May Reflect Broader Definition, Better Diagnosis
By Ed Edelson
HealthDay Reporter 4 minutes ago
SUNDAY, May 27 (HealthDay News) -- How widespread is autism? And is the condition, which centers on characteristics such as the inability to form personal relationships, being properly diagnosed?
New York City-based YAI-National Institute for People With Disabilities (YAI-NIPD) is a not-for-profit organization that not only assists families who have members with a variety of developmental disabilities, but also holds a series of conferences that highlight the latest research into specific conditions.
Earlier in May, YAI-NIPD held an autism conference that addressed the apparent increase in autism cases. One reason may be a broader definition of autism, said Dr. David Kaufman, medical director of Premier Healthcare, a Manhattan organization specializing in disability services.
"The estimate was one child in 166, made by the epidemiology unit of the National Institutes of Health," Kaufman said. "Now it is down to one in 150. I think that since the definition has been broadened, a lot of children are getting diagnosed who are at the milder end of the spectrum.
The cause of autism remains unclear, Kaufman said. "I believe that there is something in these children that predisposes them to autism and maybe something that triggers it, perhaps a viral illness, like children who get diabetes at an early age."
Whatever the cause, "the best treatment so far is diagnosing it early on and intervening early on, sometimes with medications," Kaufman said. "There is a broad array of early intervention services."
When a child's mysteriously detached behavior arouses parents suspicions, "the first line of defense is with the pediatrician," he said. "The child can be referred to a developmental pediatrician or pediatric neurologist or specialist who will do an evaluation and then send the child to a speech therapist, a language therapist or another therapist for treatment. The earlier you intervene, the better children do."
Financial help is often available from state governments, but "each state has different funding lines," Kaufman noted.
Children's basic medical needs should not be overlooked, Kaufman said. "Their medical needs are the same as anyone else, but it is harder to get at them," he said. "Once they get to age 2 or 4, they are able to tell the doctor what is wrong with them, but they are not as cooperative as another child might be."
Although there is a long way to go, "One thing that is being done right is an increased awareness of autism," said Dr. Eric Hollander, professor and chairman of psychiatry at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "It has become a priority funding issue for the National Institutes of Health. There are findings that directly impact on treatment and also can lead to a better understanding of the underlying causes."
One area that clearly has been neglected is autism in adults, Hollander said. "The high school or college population, the need for residential care is also there. Child psychiatrists and pediatricians will not necessarily be treating these individuals when they get older.
"And those who work with the older population don't have enough training. We need to know a lot more about intervention with medication, how it alters outcome, the repetitive behavior, the rigid behavior, and also new treatments for disruptive behavior."
What causes autism? Attention is being focused on oxytocin, a hormone produced by the pituitary gland, Hollander said. It appears to play a role in social behavior and repetitive behavior. "Now we are starting to have a certain impact on symptoms by administering oxytocin in various forms, such as intravenously."
Attention also is being paid to environmental and genetic factors, Hollander said, "things in the environment that influence what genes are turned on and turned off. We need to know a lot more about environmental factors and how they play a role in some people with autism."
One indicator of how much remains to be learned is the widely differing rates of diagnosis of autism from state to state, Hollander said, but that is just part of the picture. "We don't have predictors of which individuals will respond to which kinds of treatment," he said, but ended on a hopeful note: "With additional funding, there will be more rapid breakthroughs."
Dr. Steven Lowe, the medical director of YAI-NIPD, added that autism treatment still is often a struggle. "It's a challenge, because so little work has been done in the management of patients with autism and also in mental retardation and developmental disabilities," he said. "There has been very limited work on management of such patients in the primary care area and very limited research. There is limited interest for primary health-care practitioners, because it is such a daunting prospect."
But there is impetus for progress from "parents and other caregivers and the media," Lowe said. "Among them, the issue of autism is better recognized, and it is less of a stigma. People with autism are becoming more visible. Caregivers are advocating for better access to the same sort of health care that disabled people are getting.
"There is a tremendous lack of formalized training in medicine appropriate to this patient population," Lowe added. "But there are providers out there -- institutions like our own take care of patients with mental disabilities, mainly through on-the-job training."
For families facing a problem, "my recommendation is to find a place that specializes in this patient population," Lowe said. "Look for a multidisciplinary system where everyone is comfortable with mental retardation or developmental disabilities such as autism. You need a large group of clinicians in various fields, the kind of team approach that has proven to be very effective."
Then there is the influence of other elements, such as diet. Dr. Joseph Levy, a pediatric gastroenterologist who is professor of pediatrics at the New York University School of Medicine, offers a theory that developmental disability is often literally a gut issue.
"There are a whole host of anecdotal reports about how particular diets have enabled children to make progress," Levy said. "Sooner or later, every parent will focus on the dimension of nutrition of child care and will experiment with it. For example, if there is aggressive or self-injurious behavior, the explanation is that the child has reflux irritation or difficulty with bowel movements."
The problem is that parental concentration on dietary factors means that they "sometimes are committed to thinking that autism is the manifestation of a leaky gut," Levy said. "But we don't know whether it is proven that autism is really a disease that affects the immune system in the gut, with toxins that are absorbed from the intestines."
It is necessary to work with nutritionists to be sure that children with autism get the proper micronutrients, but "autism is not one diagnosis, and this can put parents to great restrictions and might even be harmful," Levy said. "We do have to move forward the science that enables us to understand what is going on in the gut of the child, but we must do that without a preset ideology."
More information
There's more on autism at Autism Speaks.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Pesticides and Child Safety
Subject: EPA states/ 69.000 children involved in common household poisonings...read this!
| |
| |||||||||
Pesticides and Child Safety (read GENERAL FIRST AID GUIDELINES at the end of the article!)Although pesticides can be beneficial to society, they can be dangerous if used carelessly or if they are not stored properly and out of the reach of children. According to data collected from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, in 2002 alone, an estimated 69,000 children were involved in common household pesticide-related poisonings1 or exposures2 in the United States. An additional 26,338 children were exposed to or poisoned by household chlorine bleach. A survey by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding pesticides used in and around the home revealed some significant findings:
Bathrooms and kitchens were cited as the areas in the home most likely to have improperly stored pesticides. Examples of some common household pesticides found in bathrooms and kitchens include roach sprays; chlorine bleach; kitchen and bath disinfectants; rat poison; insect and wasp sprays, repellents and baits; and, flea and tick shampoos and dips for pets. Other household pesticides include swimming pool chemicals and weed killers. EPA regulates pesticides in the United States under the pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). Since 1981, the law has required most residential-use pesticides with a signal word of "danger" or "warning" to be in child-resistant packaging. These are the pesticides which are most toxic to children. Child-resistant packaging is designed to prevent most children under the age of five from gaining access to the pesticide, or at least delay their access. However, individuals must also take precautions to protect children from accidental pesticide poisonings or exposures. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTING ACCIDENTAL POISONING:
IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, try to determine what the child was exposed to and what part of the body was affected before you take action, since taking the right action is as important as taking immediate action. If the person is unconscious, having trouble breathing, or having convulsions, give needed first aid immediately. Call 911 or your local emergency service. If the person is awake, conscious, not having trouble breathing, and not having convulsions, read the label for first aid instructions and contact your local Poison Control Center at 1-800-222-1222. In most cases, the pesticide products label provides you with a "Statment of Treatment" to follow in emergencies. The appropriate first aid treatment depends on the kind of poisoning that has occurred. If first aid instructions are not available, follow these general guidelines: GENERAL FIRST AID GUIDELINES:
Additional pesticide product information can be obtained from the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) 1. The American Association of Poison Control Centers defines poisoning as an adverse reaction due to symptoms from exposure to a poisonous substance. Back to Text 2. The American Association of Poison Control Centers defines exposure as having contact with a potentially poisonous substance; however, not necessarily showing symptoms of being poisoned. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (7506C)
|
| | | |
|
| ||
| | ||
| This page was generated on Thursday, April 21, 2005 View the graphical version of this page at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/childsaf.htm
|
Monday, May 14, 2007
CHILDREN'S SPECIAL VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
CHILDREN'S SPECIAL VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
The central theme of a pivotal report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1993 was that children are not "little adults" -- a fact already known to legions of parents, teachers, and others worldwide.[1] Infants and children are different from adults because they are growing and developing. Environmental hazards affect children differently than adults. Their bodies are not fully mature, and therefore may not be capable of detoxifying certain harmful compounds. The very nature of children's behavior -- highly curious and physical -- can also put them at increased risk. That children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental hazards is well established in the scientific literature. In fact, the World Health Organization recommended more than a decade ago that, "when health risks from chemicals are evaluated, the special characteristics of infants and children must be recognized."[2]
GREATER EXPOSURE
Pound for pound, children breathe more air, drink more water, and consume more food than adults. This higher rate of intake means that children will receive higher doses of whatever contaminants are present in the air, water, or food. In addition, infants have a relatively greater surface area of skin than adults, thereby increasing their potential dermal absorption of certain compounds.
Differential Intake
- Children ages one through five eat three to four times more per unit of body weight than the average adult American.[3] The average one-year-old drinks twenty-one times more apple juice and eleven times more grape juice, and eats two to seven and a half times more grapes, bananas, apples, pears, carrots and broccoli than the average adult.[4]
- Infants and children drink more than two and a half times as much water daily as adults do as a percentage of body weight.[5] (An infant living solely on formula consumes about one-seventh of his or her own weight of water each day, which corresponds to approximately three gallons, or thirty-five cans of soda, for a 155-pound adult man.[6])
- The air intake of a resting infant is twice that of an adult under the same conditions.[7]
- A typical newborn weighs one-twentieth of the weight of an adult male, but the infant's surface area is one-eighth as great. Therefore, the total area of skin that could be exposed to a chemical (by swimming or bathing in polluted water or rolling in dirt) is two and a half times as great per unit of body weight in the infant as in the adult.[8]
Childhood Behavior
The typical nature of children's behavior also increases their exposure to environmental toxicants. An infant frequently explores objects by placing them in his or her mouth. This common hand-to-mouth behavior increases an infant's ingestion of substances in soil, household dust, floors and carpets, and on the objects themselves. In recognition of this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed assuming that children aged three to five years old put their hands to their mouths an average of one and a half times per hour.[9] As children grow, their endless curiosity and lack of fear can further increase their exposure to environmental hazards. With considerable physical energy, children can explore locations without regard for the consequences of their actions. At rest, children's breathing rates are faster than those of adults, and children's greater levels of physical activity can increase their breathing rates even further.
Children often play at ground level. In contrast, an adult's common breathing zone is four to six feet above the floor. Children will receive greater inhalation and dermal exposure to chemicals present on floors, carpet, grass, or dirt. Also, heavier chemicals such as lead and particulates will settle and accumulate in the air at ground level.
INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY
Human infants and children differ from adults not only in their size but also in the relative immaturity of their biochemical and physiological functions. Childhood is characterized by rapid physical and mental growth. Accordingly, certain organs may not be fully developed and may be more vulnerable to injury. Children absorb, metabolize, and excrete compounds differently than adults.
Rapid Growth and Development
The fetus is particularly sensitive to environmental toxicants.[10] Chemicals can affect the children born to women exposed during pregnancy, while the women remain unaffected. For example, the children of women from Michigan who ate two to three meals of fish contaminated with PCBs per month for six years before pregnancy had lower birth weights, memory deficits at seven months and four years of age, and cognitive deficits persisted at eleven years of age.[11] In Iraq, children born to women who during pregnancy inadvertently ate seed grain treated with mercury to prevent fungus had severe developmental and mental deficits.[12]
An infant gains weight more rapidly during the first four to six months after birth than at any other time during his or her life.[13] Typical newborns double their weight during the first five to six months and by their first birthday will weigh three times their birthweight.[14]
The growth of integral parts of the central nervous system (brain) and the immune system (thymus) proceeds most rapidly in the first six years of life. At age six, a child's weight is only about 30 percent of an adult's, but the child's thymus is approximately the size of the adult's, and the brain is about 80 percent of adult size.[15]
Many organs are not fully developed at birth and continue developing for years. The nervous system, lungs, immune system, and reproductive organs undergo extensive growth and development in utero and throughout infancy and early childhood. For example, sex organ development is not complete until puberty; myelination, the insulating of the nerve fibers, of the brain is not complete until adolescence; and the alveoli, or terminal air sacs in the lung where oxygen from the air enters the blood, continue to increase in number until adolescence.[16]
Differential Absorption, Metabolism, and Excretion
Infants' and children's pathways of absorption, metabolism, and excretion of compounds are different from those of adults.[17] In some instances, children may be more susceptible than adults due to their increased rates of absorption or decreased rates of elimination of foreign compounds. In other cases, the opposite may be true. Children will absorb about 50 percent of lead ingested, whereas adults will absorb only about 10 to 15 percent.[18] Kidneys are the principal pathway for elimination of most chemicals from the body. At birth an infant's kidney's filtration rate is a fraction of adult values, and by age one the rate is at adult levels.[19]
Recent molecular epidemiological data indicate that infants and children retain greater amounts of certain environmental toxicants. In a study of Polish newborns and their mothers, biomarkers, levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-induced DNA damage, were measured. Among newborns exposed to PAHs in utero, the level of DNA damage was comparable to the level in their mothers, even though the estimated dose to the fetus was one-tenth of that to the mother.[20] Similarly, in young children (under two years of age), levels of an indicator of exposures to PAHs (1-hydroxypyrene glucuronide) in urine were higher than in their mothers.[21] Another study investigated PCB levels in individuals residing on a Mohawk reservation downstream from pollution sources on the St. Lawrence River. PCBs were found in the breast milk and urine of women who ate fish caught in the river. The PCB concentrations in the urine of breast-fed infants were ten times higher than in the urine of their mothers.[22]
Longer Lifetimes
Children have more years of future life than most adults. Therefore, they have more time to develop any chronic diseases that might be triggered by early environmental exposures. Many diseases initiated by chemical hazards require decades to develop. Early childhood exposure to certain carcinogens or toxicants may be more likely to lead to disease than the same exposures experienced later in life.
Scientific Research Needs
Though children's unique vulnerability to environmental risk is now an accepted scientific axiom, much remains to be done to safeguard the next generation. In particular, much is still unknown about the effects of environmental exposures on children and infants: Are there critical periods of vulnerability during childhood? What are the differential susceptibilities for children? We need to better understand which differences between children and adults apply to all environmental hazards (e.g., differential air, water, or food intake rates) and which differences relate to specific categories of toxicants (e.g., neurotoxins' potentially greater impact on the developing central nervous system). Research identifying new types of toxic effects that have potentially significant impacts on children, such as endocrine disruption or immunotoxicity, is critical. Further study is important for determining how certain doses and health endpoints may be of primary concern in adults while different doses and endpoints may be more relevant to children. During childhood, for example, potential exposure to a neurotoxin will likely be of greater concern than exposure to a substance that elevates the likelihood of high blood pressure or heart disease; far later in life, the risk of cardiovascular disease will likely be of paramount significance. More scientific research is imperative. In the meantime, sufficient evidence exists to warrant increased protection for children from environmental hazards.
Notes
1. National Research Council, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press,1993.
2. International Programme on Chemical Safety, Principles for Evaluating Health Risks From Chemicals During Infancy and Early Childhood: The Need for a Special Approach, Environmental Health Criteria 59, World Health Organization, 1986.
3. Wiles, R. and C. Campbell, Pesticides in Children's Food, Environmental Working Group, 1993.
4. Wiles and Campbell, Pesticides in Children's Food.
5. Plunkett, L. et al., "Differences Between Adults and Children Affecting Exposure Assessment," Similarities and Differences Between Children and Adults: Implications for Risk Assessment, International Life Sciences Institute, 1992, pp. 79-94.
6. Principles for Evaluating Health Risks From Chemicals During Infancy and Early Childhood.
7. Principles for Evaluating Health Risks From Chemicals During Infancy and Early Childhood.
8. Principles for Evaluating Health Risks From Chemicals During Infancy and Early Childhood.
9. U.S. EPA, Residential Exposure Assessment Work Group, Draft - Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessments, July 18, 1997.
10. Birnbaum, L.S., "Endocrine Effects of Prenatal Exposures to PCBs, Dioxins, and Other Xenobiotics: Implications for Policy and Future Research," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 102, no. 8, 1994, pp.676-679. Y.L. Guo et al., "Growth Abnormalities in the Population Exposed in Utero and Early Postnatally to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Dibenzrofurans," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 105, suppl. 6, September 1995, pp.117-122.
11. Jacobson, J.L. et al., "The Transfer of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs) across the Human Placenta and into Maternal Milk," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 74, 1984, pp.378-9. J. Jacobson et al., "Effects of In Utero Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Related Contaminants on Cognitive Functioning in Young Children," Pediatrics, vol. 116, 1990, pp.38-45. S.W. Jacobson et al., "The Effect of Intrauterine PCB Exposure on Visual Recognition Memory," Child Dev, vol. 56,1985, pp.853-60. J.L. Jacobson et al., "Effects of Exposure to PCBs and Related Compounds on Growth and Activity in Children," Neurotoxicol. Teratol., vol.12, 1990, pp. 319-26.
12. Gilbert, S. G. and K. Grant-Webster, "Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Methyl-Mercury Exposure," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 103, supp. 6, September 1995, pp. 135-142.
13. Principles for Evaluating Health Risks From Chemicals During Infancy and Early Childhood: The Need for a Special Approach.
14. Wiles and Campbell, Pesticides in Children's Food.
15. Sonawane, B. and R. Beliles, "The Susceptibility of Children to Immunotoxic and Neurotoxic Agents," Poster Abstract, lst National Research Conference on Children's Environmental Health, Children's Environmental Health Network, February 21-23, 1997, Washington, D.C.
16. Bearer, C., "How Are Children Different from Adults?" Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 103, supp. 6, September 1995, pp. 7-12.
17. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, 1993.
18. Royce, S. and H. Needleman, Case Studies in Environmental Medicine: Lead Toxicity, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1995.
19. Bearer, "How Are Children Different from Adults?"
20. Perera, F., "Molecular Epidemiology: Insights Into Cancer Susceptibility, Risk Assessment and Prevention," JNCI, vol 88, April 17, 1996, pp.496-509.
21. Perera, "Molecular Epidemiology."
22. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ATSDR, and Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, New York State Department of Health, Exposure to PCBs from Hazardous Waste Among Mohawk Women and Infants at Akwesasne
Friday, May 4, 2007
When God Made Mothers
With Mothers Day Around the corner, I wanted to share this with every Mom who has ever stayed up all night with a sick child, regardless of the cause. Happy Mothers Day!
When God Made Mothers
By the time God made mothers, he was into his sixth day of working overtime. An Angel appeared and said "Why are you spending so much time on this one?"
And God answered and said, "Have you seen the spec sheet on her? She has to be completely washable, but not plastic, have 200 movable parts, all replaceable, run on black coffee and leftovers, have a lap that can hold three children at one time and that disappears when she stands up, have a kiss that can cure anything from a scraped knee to a broken heart, and have six pairs of hands."
The Angel was astounded at the requirements for this one. "Six pairs of hands! No Way!" said the Angel. God replied, "Oh, it's not the hands that are the problem, It's the three pairs of eyes that mothers must have!" And that's just on the standard model?" the Angel asked.
God nodded in agreement, "Yep, one pair of eyes are to see through the closed door as she asks her children what they are doing, even though she already knows. Another pair in the back of her head are to see what she needs to know even though no one thinks she can. And the third pair are here in the front of her head. They are for looking at an errant child and saying that she understands and loves him or her without even saying a single word."
The Angel tried to stop God. "This is too much work for one day. Wait until tomorrow to finish.."
"But I can't," God protested. "I am so close to finishing this creation that is so close to my own heart. She already heals herself when she is sick and can feed a family of six on a pound of hamburger and can get a nine year old to stand in the shower!" The Angel moved closer and touched the woman. "But you have made her so soft, Lord."
"She is soft", the Lord agreed, "but I have also made her tough. You have no idea what she can endure or accomplish."
"Will she be able to think?", asked the Angel.
The Lord replied, "Not only will she be able to think, she will be able to reason, and negotiate."
The Angel then noticed something and reached out and touched the woman's cheek. "Oops, it looks like you have a leak with this model. I told you that you were trying to put too much into this one."
"That's not a leak", God said, "That's a tear!"
"What's the tear for?" the Angel asked.
God said, "The tear is her way of expressing her joy, her sorrow, her disappointment, her pain, her loneliness, her grief, and her pride."
The Angel was impressed. "You are a genius, Lord. You thought of everything. WOMEN are truly amazing!"
Pass this to an amazing woman you know!
When God Made Mothers
By the time God made mothers, he was into his sixth day of working overtime. An Angel appeared and said "Why are you spending so much time on this one?"
And God answered and said, "Have you seen the spec sheet on her? She has to be completely washable, but not plastic, have 200 movable parts, all replaceable, run on black coffee and leftovers, have a lap that can hold three children at one time and that disappears when she stands up, have a kiss that can cure anything from a scraped knee to a broken heart, and have six pairs of hands."
The Angel was astounded at the requirements for this one. "Six pairs of hands! No Way!" said the Angel. God replied, "Oh, it's not the hands that are the problem, It's the three pairs of eyes that mothers must have!" And that's just on the standard model?" the Angel asked.
God nodded in agreement, "Yep, one pair of eyes are to see through the closed door as she asks her children what they are doing, even though she already knows. Another pair in the back of her head are to see what she needs to know even though no one thinks she can. And the third pair are here in the front of her head. They are for looking at an errant child and saying that she understands and loves him or her without even saying a single word."
The Angel tried to stop God. "This is too much work for one day. Wait until tomorrow to finish.."
"But I can't," God protested. "I am so close to finishing this creation that is so close to my own heart. She already heals herself when she is sick and can feed a family of six on a pound of hamburger and can get a nine year old to stand in the shower!" The Angel moved closer and touched the woman. "But you have made her so soft, Lord."
"She is soft", the Lord agreed, "but I have also made her tough. You have no idea what she can endure or accomplish."
"Will she be able to think?", asked the Angel.
The Lord replied, "Not only will she be able to think, she will be able to reason, and negotiate."
The Angel then noticed something and reached out and touched the woman's cheek. "Oops, it looks like you have a leak with this model. I told you that you were trying to put too much into this one."
"That's not a leak", God said, "That's a tear!"
"What's the tear for?" the Angel asked.
God said, "The tear is her way of expressing her joy, her sorrow, her disappointment, her pain, her loneliness, her grief, and her pride."
The Angel was impressed. "You are a genius, Lord. You thought of everything. WOMEN are truly amazing!"
Pass this to an amazing woman you know!
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Airing the Truth About Indoor and Outdoor Air Pollution
(7/04)
Air pollution affects everyone. You can’t hide from it, even inside your own home. Just consider these facts…
- The Environmental Protection Agency ranks poor indoor air quality among the top five environmental risks to public health. Interestingly, five out of 10 Americans are not aware of this fact. (Source: American Lung Association and 3M survey, 2002.
- Levels of air pollution inside the home can be two to five times higher (and occasionally 100 times higher) than outdoor levels. (Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2002)
- Asthma, which can be triggered by either indoor or outdoor air pollution, annually accounts for an estimated three million lost workdays for adults and 10.1 million lost school days in children. Asthma costs our nation $12.7 billion in health care costs annually. (Source: American Lung Association, Trends in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality, 2002)
· Nearly 75 percent of Americans live with someone who has allergies, asthma, emphysema or another respiratory illness.
~~~~~~~~
Do you know of anyone with breathing problems? Lets talk!
~~~~~~~~
Do you know of anyone with breathing problems? Lets talk!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
