Scientists & Engineers for America Action Fund

Current Events, Insurance, and Women’s Health

From our friends at the Pump Handle

The recent economic downturn has left more people worried about losing their jobs, and for the 54% of our population relying on employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), losing a job also means losing health insurance.

Some of those who lose ESI will be able to pay their full premiums, including the share formerly handled by their employers, and extend their coverage for up to 18 months under COBRA. (According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual premium in 2008 for is $4,704 for individuals and $12,680 for families – not easy amounts to come up with if your paychecks have stopped.)

(more…)

Tobacco Tactics for Climate Change Denial

From our friends at The Pump Handle

American News Project has just posted a new video segment about how tactics used to defend tobacco are now staving off action on climate change. In “Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming,” Danielle Ivory gives an eight-minute overview of how we went from reassurances that tobacco isn’t really harmful to insistence that we don’t really need to worry about global warming. Our own David Michaels provides commentary.

Even if you already know all about how manufactured doubt has stalled progress on smoking cessation and greenhouse-gas reductions, it’s worth watching the piece for its collection of ads and speeches by those trying to prevent regulation of their products. My favorite: former Philip Morris CEO Joseph Cullman, when asked about smoking’s link to low-birthweight babies, saying “some women prefer having smaller babies.”

Watch it here.

Senators Press OSHA on Diacetyl

From our friends at the Pump Handle

Four U.S. Senators have written to Labor Secretary Chao and OSHA Asst. Secretary Foulke expressing serious concern that “OSHA has failed to make significant progress in addressing the continuing hazards” of diacetyl.  They asked for a response by October 8 to four simple questions, including a list of inspections conducted as part of OSHA’s national emphasis program on diacetyl.

It was nearly 10 years ago when an alert physician in Missouri linked rare cases of the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans to his patients’ workplace exposure at a microwave popcorn manufacturing plant.  Soon after, the Missouri Department of Health (MDOH) contacted OSHA and NIOSH.  Now, dozens of workers have been identified with the debilitating disease and others diagnosed with other respiratory impairments.  OSHA previously told the Senators that it “intends to propose a permanent standard addressing the hazards of flavoring containing diacetyl,” but the wait continues.

In their September 24 letter, Senators Brown (D-OH), Kennedy (D-MA), McCaskill (D-MO) and Murray (D-WA), noted that OSHA rejected a petition filed in July 2006 by workers who asked for an emergency temporary standard on diacetyl for all exposed workers.

(more…)

Involving the Public in Scientific Decisions

By Olga Naidenko at the Pump Handle

Maybe our government should listen to what the people have to say? I mean, not all the time, not every day – surely, that would be too much to ask for – but at least every once in a while? Occasionally? And even consider those public opinions with a modicum of respect? Ah, what a dream that would be!

On Tuesday September 16 Erica Engelhaupt reported in Environmental Science and Technology on the findings of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. The opening phrase of the NRC report is incisive: “Advocates of public participation believe it improves environmental assessment and decision making; detractors criticize it as ineffective and inefficient.” So, in the NRC opinion, does public participation result in better or worse decisions for environmental and public health?

The conclusion is unambiguous: public participation improves the quality and legitimacy of a decision, builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the policy process, can lead to better results for the environmental and social objectives, enhance trust and understanding among stakeholders and produces a decision that has a longer staying power and effectiveness.

(more…)

Bisphenol A (BPA) back in the news

From our friends at The Pump Handle

We’ve discussed the component of plastics bisphenol A (BPA) here before (here, here) but yesterday the Journal of the American Medical Association published a significant paper with an accompanying editorial that deserves mention. A panel of the FDA was scheduled to meet the same day to review FDA’s draft assessment that BPA was not a safety problem in the US food supply and environment. As a result of the JAMA article, the ranking member of the Committee on Finance, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has written to the Commissioner of the FDA asking for a clarification of the FDA’s position on the science underlying a recent NIH review of BPA’s safety together with the names, titles, internal communications and communications with the chemical industry trade association and manufacturers of BPA. Clearly Grassley smells a rat. The precincts of the FDA are already so odorous it’s a wonder a new stink can even be detected. So this one must really reek. Here’s some of the background from the Editorial:

In this issue of JAMA, Lang and colleagues report the results of the first major epidemiologic study to examine the health effects associated with the ubiquitous estrogenic chemical bisphenol A (BPA). This compound is the base chemical (monomer) used to make polycarbonate plastic food and beverage containers, the resin lining of cans, and dental sealants; it also is found in “carbonless” paper used for receipts as well as a wide range of other common household products. Based on their analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, Lang et al report a significant relationship between urine concentrations of BPA and cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver-enzyme abnormalities in a representative sample of the adult US population. (vom Saal, F, Myers P in JAMA)

(more…)

Seeking Government Scientists

By Liz Borkowski at the Pump Handle

I’m repeating myself here, but it’s for a good cause. At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we’ve launched a multi-part study to understand the current policies surrounding scientists’ work at government agencies and to create recommendations for policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.

(more…)

FDA Favors Industry Science on BPA

by Sarah Vogel at the Pump Handle

On Friday, August 15, the FDA released its draft assessment of the safety of bisphenol A (BPA).  To the frustration and deep consternation of many, the regulatory agency upheld the current safety standard for human exposure to BPA in food.  The agency based their decision on two large multigenerational studies funded by the American Plastics Council (part of the American Chemistry Council) and the Society of the Plastics Industry.[1]   As for the large body of literature on low dose effects of BPA that originally raised concerns about the chemical’s ability to disrupt reproductive, neurological and metabolic development and function at levels of exposure within the range found in humans,[2]   the FDA broadly found these studies to be inadequate or of limited utility in evaluating safety. By relying solely on the industry-funded studies, the agency reaffirmed the trade associations’ ability to control what is considered to be reliable, credible science.  This protracted battle over BPA safety is about more than just this one chemical.  It reveals a larger struggle to define whose science gets to count, how information shapes public policy decisions and how scientific knowledge informs chemical safety.

Whose definition of safety?
Safety, for the FDA, “means that there is reasonable certainty in the minds of credible scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.”  Further, “absolute harmlessness” can never be certain.[3]   Based on this definition used to guide the FDA’s BPA assessment, one could draw the following conclusions: 1. the agency speaks from a position of credibility and scientific authority; 2. industry-funded studies represent credible research for evaluating safety; and 3.  the body of peer-reviewed, published, low dose research on BPA that used “non-traditional” design methods and endpoints does not represent valid research for evaluating safety.

If we then accept these conclusions, what does this mean about the “minds” of scientists that are reasonably certain that BPA is not safe at current levels of human exposure? What about the group of 38 researchers, responsible for close to 100 published studies on low dose effects of BPA, who came to scientific consensus about the inadequacy of the current safety standard in 2007?[4]   What does it say about the credibility of the National Toxicology Program’s staff scientist who stated they have “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A”, and that although there are limitations to and controversy over the low dose effects of BPA, “the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed”?[5]

(more…)

Iraq veterans and Lou Gehrig’s Disease

From our friends at The Pump Handle

Bush has announced he will reduce the forces in Iraq by 8000 by early 2009. My first thought (after “that’s it? I thought we were victorious”; and let’s get all of them out now as fast as we can) was to wonder what condition they will be in and what’s in store for them in the future? I thought about that particularly because of the emerging scientific literature on strange and rare diseases in Gulf region veterans. One of these diseases is Lou Gehrig’s Disease (medical name, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS). ALS, while rare (about 1 - 2 cases per 100,000 population in the US each year), is not the only disease of its kind, but one of a group of diseases called motor neuron diseases (MNDs). The physicist Stephen Hawking has a MND but it isn’t ALS, although it is frequently mistakenly identified as such. Unlike the disease Hawking has, ALS kills pretty fast, usually within 3 years of onset.

ALS, however, has been reported to be high in Gulf War I. veterans. One paper (Horner et al.) has made the further argument that the excess in Gulf War vets occurs specifically in the decade following service, but the paper is at best suggestive. The same research group (Duke and the University of Cincinnati) has just published a study of where the ALS cases were in the Gulf region and identified some areas of higher relative odds but have yet to tie any environmental factor to these locations that might account for it. This seems to be preliminary work and the methods are not well described so I don’t know what to make of it.

Is it plausible that service in the first Gulf War (and by inference Iraq) could result in this deadly disease? It is the subject of intense scrutiny by the Department of Veterans Affairs (see, for example, this paper on a new ALS registry set up to study it) and new studies in veterans on interactions between genetic and environmental factors are underway. But ALS is one of the more mysterious diseases and whether it is plausible or not is hard to say since we know so little about it. Here’s some of what we know.

ALS is a progressive degenerative disease of the neuromuscular system that begins with weakness and clumsiness and spreads to become a universal paralysis that kills within a few years by paralyzing the respiratory system. It rarely strikes before the age of 40 but after that increases with each decade of life. The basic components of your neuromuscular system are a long nerve cell from your brain down to your spinal cord (the upper motor neuron) that connects to another nerve cell (the lower motor neuron) that goes from your spinal cord to the muscle it makes move. Both the upper and lower motor neurons die off in ALS, beginning with the lower neuron. This leads to muscle weakness and other abnormalities related to the lost nerve connection (this is the amyotrophic part of the name of the disease); and as the nerve cells die off they are replaced by harder non-nerve cells in the outer (lateral) part of the spinal cord (lateral sclerosis, where sclerosis is a general term for “hardening”).

Whites are slightly more affected than non-whites and males slightly more than females but in the US there seems to be no geographic pattern. Most cases of ALS are of unknown origin and appear random (they are called sporadic cases and constitute 90% of US cases. About 10% of cases in the US are clearly hereditary (called familial cases). While rare, however, the familial cases have been the subject of much study since it was discovered in 1993 that they were caused by a specific mutation in the super oxide dismutase I gene (SOD1). This has been a fruitful line of investigation but to date the results have been confusing (there is a news piece on recent results in Nature; subscription required, alas).

Is there any reason to suspect environmental or occupational factors? There is a Western Pacific variant of ALS-like MND, especially on the island of Guam, that has been associated with eating Cycads (Cycas circinalis), a seed plant used to make starch. The cycads contain an amino acid that overexcites nerve cells and in animals causes an ALS-like condition. But all sorts of toxins, including heavy metals like lead, have also been suggested as triggers for ALS. With so little known about the mechanism causing the motor neuron die off, we don’t even know where to look.

So we will welcome home Iraq soldiers with relief and the hope the deadly peril of combat will not be replaced by the deadly peril of a fatal neurological disease.

California May Tackle Chemicals in Consumer Products

From our friends at the Pump Handle

It looks like California is once again picking up the slack for a federal agencies failing in their regulatory responsibilities. In this case, they’re addressing the issue of chemicals in consumer products, as a step toward a broader “Green Chemistry Initiative,” which is “aimed at promoting development of safer chemicals with policies to spur green design, manufacturing, use and disposal.”

The Sacramento Bee’s Steve Wigand explains this latest move from California:

The two-bill deal, negotiated among legislators, the Schwarzenegger administration and environmental and chemical industry groups, also would lay the foundation for the administration’s “Green Chemistry Initiative,” which would fundamentally change the way the state handles hazardous materials.

“I think we’re on the verge of enacting groundbreaking legislation,” said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles.

Feuer’s measure, Assembly Bill 1879, would give the Department of Toxic Substances Control until January 2011 to establish a science-based process to identify and evaluate problem chemicals in their manufacture, use and ultimate disposal.

It would give the department authority to regulate the chemicals, including banning their use in California.

It also would create a “Green Ribbon” panel of scientists to advise the department.
Senate Bill 509, by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, would create a state-run Web site where consumers could search for information on chemical hazards.

(more…)

How Product Defense Hurts Workers

From our friends at the Pump Handle

Hazards magazine, a UK-based publication dedicated to occupational health, has just published a piece by David Michaels about how product defense tactics harm workers. Much of David’s book, Doubt is Their Product, focuses on substances whose dangers are particularly evident in the workplace, including asbestos, benzene lead, aromatic amines (dyes and rubber chemicals that cause bladder cancer), beryllium, chromium 6, diacetyl, and ergonomic hazards.

This latest piece, “Spin Cycle,” gives a good overview of how product defense firms have tried to prevent regulation of several specific workplace hazards in the U.S., and notes that standards set (or not set) in this country often have international repercussions. Hazards also provides sidebars on manganese, benzene, beryllium, and non-binding ACGIH standards.