CDC: Teens now favor pot over cigarettes

Well, at least they'll live longer...-jef
 

 ++++

 

By Stephen C. Webster - RAW Story
Friday, June 8, 2012

 

 

A study released Friday (PDF) by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that in 2011, for the first time ever, more American teens were smoking marijuana than cigarettes.

The CDC’s annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey tracks drug abuse, among other potential destructive behaviors, by surveying high school students across the country. The agency said it collected data from more than 15,000 surveys taken in 43 states and 21 large urban school districts.

The result: Marijuana is officially more popular than cigarettes among U.S. teens, for the first time ever. A full 23 percent of students surveyed told the CDC they had used marijuana within the last month, whereas just 18 percent said they had smoked cigarettes.

The findings are consistent with a Raw Story analysis of the 2011 Partnership for a Drug-Free America report on teen drug abuse, which found that marijuana’s popularity has exploded since 2008. By comparing the Partnership’s data to prior CDC studies, Raw Story concluded that marijuana use had finally exceeded cigarette smoking among U.S. teens, which the CDC has now confirmed directly.

The Partnership’s report noted that almost half of American teens (47 percent) said they have used marijuana at least once, representing a 21 percent increase over their 2008 study. The CDC, on the other hand, noted in 2009 that 30 percent of high school students reported having experimented with cigarette smoking at least once, down from 39 percent in 2000, while about 24 percent had used a tobacco product (including chewing tobacco) recently, down from 34.5 percent.

There are several possible ways to contextualize the swing among American teens from cigarettes to marijuana, but one sticks out above all the rest: the economic recession.

Researchers at the University of New Hampshire reported in 2010 that they had debunked the “gateway drug” theory through scientific analysis of assorted risk factors that contribute to the desire to abuse more destructive drugs like heroin or prescription pills. Instead of early experiences with marijuana weighing significantly on that decision, researchers found that other stress factors like unemployment weigh much more in determining a teen’s likelihood to become addicted to harder, potentially lethal drugs.

“Employment in young adulthood can protect people by ‘closing’ the marijuana gateway, so over-criminalizing youth marijuana use might create more serious problems if it interferes with later employment opportunities,” one of the study’s authors said in a press release.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in April that teen unemployement was hovering around 25 percent, down from 27 percent in 2009 — its highest rate since the Great Depression, and roughly 10 percent higher than the teen unemployment rate in the years leading up to the near economic collapse of 2008.

Added: Since no such regulatory framework exists for marijuana, and since drug dealers do not tend to check IDs, most youths told the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse in 2009 (PDF) that pot is easier to purchase than regulated substances.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has consistently raised issue with “youth-penalty laws” (PDF) that punish kids for using tobacco, saying the laws are favored by tobacco companies because they oppose the truly effective means of control, like public education, restrictions on marketing and increased retail prices. By agreeing to penalize the end user, the Campaign claims that lawmakers ultimately just “divert the police from their efforts to stop retailers from illegally selling tobacco products to kids,” which results in breeding “disrespect for the law” among young people.

The Drug Policy Alliance, America’s leading drug policy reform group, says something startlingly similar about marijuana.

“It’s time to step back and ask ourselves what’s the best way to solve the problem we’re trying to solve—how to reduce drug abuse and addiction—and use the best available evidence to guide us,” Jag Davies, publications manager for The Drug Policy Alliance, said in a recent advisory. “And, ultimately, it’s time to bring marijuana out of the shadows and under the rule of law. The evidence shows that the most effective way to reduce teen marijuana use would be to regulate it in a manner similar to alcohol, with age limits, licensing controls, and other regulatory restrictions.”

CDC Warns Public to Prepare for 'Zombie Apocalypse'

(Zombies are both my monster and Apocalypse preference. Maybe it will coincide with the Rapture this Saturday. Wouldn't that be cool? A rapture followed by a Zombie Apocalypse for those of us left behind? I'm SO stocking up on ammo! Bring it on! Gotta love a clever ad campaign, I guess.--jef)

++++++++++++++

By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published May 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Are you prepared for the impending zombie invasion?

That's the question posed by the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention in a Monday blog posting gruesomely titled, "Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse." And while it's no joke, CDC officials say it's all about emergency preparation.

"There are all kinds of emergencies out there that we can prepare for," the posting reads. "Take a zombie apocalypse for example. That's right, I said z-o-m-b-i-e a-p-o-c-a-l-y-p-s-e. You may laugh now, but when it happens you'll be happy you read this, and hey, maybe you'll even learn a thing or two about how to prepare for a real emergency."

The post, written by Assistant Surgeon General Ali Khan, instructs readers how to prepare for "flesh-eating zombies" much like how they appeared in Hollywood hits like Night of the Living Dead and video games like Resident Evil. Perhaps surprisingly, the same steps you'd take in preparation for an onslaught of ravenous monsters are similar to those suggested in advance of a hurricane or pandemic.

"First of all, you should have an emergency kit in your house," the posting continues. "This includes things like water, food, and other supplies to get you through the first couple of days before you can locate a zombie-free refugee camp (or in the event of a natural disaster, it will buy you some time until you are able to make your way to an evacuation shelter or utility lines are restored)."

Other items to be stashed in such a kit include medications, duct tape, a battery-powered radio, clothes, copies of important documents and first aid supplies.

"Once you've made your emergency kit, you should sit down with your family and come up with an emergency plan," the posting continues. "This includes where you would go and who you would call if zombies started appearing outside your doorstep. You can also implement this plan if there is a flood, earthquake or other emergency."

The idea behind the campaign stemmed from concerns of radiation fears following the earthquake and tsunami that rocked Japan in March. CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told FoxNews.com that someone had asked CDC officials if zombies would be a concern due to radiation fears in Japan and traffic spiked following that mention.

"It's kind of a tongue-in-cheek campaign," Daigle said Wednesday. "We were talking about hurricane preparedness and someone bemoaned that we kept putting out the same messages."

While metrics for the post are not yet available, Daigle said it has become the most popular CDC blog entry in just two days.

"People are so tuned into zombies," he said. "People are really dialed in on zombies. The idea is we're reaching an audience or a segment we'd never reach with typical messages."

Editor's Note: The link to the posting at CDC.gov was not working as of Wednesday evening. Please check back for updates.

A Developing Health Crisis Across the Gulf Coast

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 by Inter Press Service
by Stephen Bradberry

NEW ORLEANS - Days after the BP oil disaster began, on Apr. 20, 2010, BP and the U.S. administration pledged that Gulf Coast communities would be made whole. One year later that promise remains unfulfilled: across the Gulf there is a developing health crisis as a result of the oil spill.

Our state and federal governments, and BP itself, must demonstrate the will to take actions promised a year ago.

The BP spill poured over 170 million gallons of crude oil and immeasurable amounts of toxic gases into the waters and atmosphere of the Gulf of Mexico, in addition to the two million gallons of chemical dispersants used in the response operations, the full impact of which is yet unknown. For coastal communities exposed to these poisons, and that continue to find oil in their marshes and fishing nets, the health impact, we can be sure, will be severe and long term.

Oil and chemical exposure is widespread among residents across the U.S. Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Fishermen were exposed during the cleanup; families have been exposed along the beaches, bayous, and canals; entire communities along the shores and marshes continue to be exposed.

Oil exposure causes health consequences that range from chronic issues, such as acute headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, irritation of the eyes and throat, and vomiting, to more severe conditions, including reproductive problems, respiratory and nervous system failure, liver and kidney disorders, blood disorders, and several types of cancer. We know that the life-threatening volatile chemicals (VOCs) found in BP's oil are carcinogens.

While the federal government has taken some important steps, such as reaching out to local residents through the Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and establishing the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, directed at compensating economic loss, coastal communities are still bearing the brunt of the costs of the disaster.

The Centers for Disease Control has developed a surveillance system to track the health of cleanup workers, but has no similar programme for the rest of the affected population. We have yet to see a systematic response by local, state, and federal governments, and BP, to treat those in our communities who are coming down with these symptoms.

Our doctors have not had the support needed to appropriately document and track these symptoms. Instead, our neighbours are told to take pain-relievers, and some say they have been discouraged by health professionals from attributing their conditions to the oil disaster. All the while, we continue to hear of cleanup workers and coastal residents suffering from a pattern of symptoms that includes skin rashes, vomiting, and respiratory problems.

Communities and organisations across the Gulf are pushing for greater leadership in responding to the developing health crisis. To date, there is no agency - state or federal - that is taking the lead in coordinating a regional initiative to screen, treat, care for, and support disaster victims.

Coastal communities - which are rural - are in need of immediate treatment that is adequate, affordable, and accessible. Such treatment is currently available in only very limited areas, such as in certain neighbourhoods of New Orleans. Funds are desperately needed to ensure the continuation, and expansion, of such care, especially for the uninsured.

There are also low-cost, community-based healthcare models that are being sparsely implemented at the local level, but for such initiatives to respond effectively to the magnitude of the BP disaster requires the political will of states and the federal government. BP can and should pay the bill, and the U.S. Congress should take the lead to ensure that sufficient Clean Water Act fine revenues go directly to affected Gulf Coast communities.

A disaster of such proportions also will certainly have an enormous impact on mental health among Gulf residents, including high levels of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and chronic anxiety. Making these communities whole requires both immediate treatment and a sustained medical intervention.

Volunteers, Gulf advocates, and healthcare professionals have tirelessly worked to document the impact themselves. Doctors and toxicologists testing the blood of disaster victims in coastal communities report alarmingly high levels of VOCs.

Dr. Wilma Subra, a MacArthur Fellow and chemist, reports finding amounts of VOCs at five to ten times in excess of the national average. One survey of 954 Louisiana residents found nearly half of the respondents reported an unusually sudden and severe increase in coughing, skin and eye irritation, and headaches following the BP spill. The dramatic appearance of such symptoms is consistent with chemical exposure.

Partnerships of community and national groups are developing programmes to bring low-cost and immediate treatment to those who need it most. An initiative by the Jefferson healthcare clinic, the Alliance Institute, and the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights is one such effort - but making coastal communities whole requires intervention on a much larger scale.

Countries around the world recognise a right to adequate healthcare for all; when a corporation violates that right and does so in an egregious manner, it is our obligation to ensure that the full harm is remedied.

Our government and BP must carry through on their promise that coastal communities will be fully compensated for what has been imposed on them, and this must include provision of adequate, affordable, and accessible healthcare.

CDC Admits Adding Fluoride to Water is Damaging Teeth

41% of US Adolescents' Teeth Damaged by Flourosis
Tuesday, 15 February 2011

http://www.spotsonmyteeth.com

The Overuse of Antibiotics

One of the Three Most Serious Health Risks of the 21st Century
By RALPH NADER

Reading a recent issue of Public Citizen's excellent Health Letter titled "Know When Antibiotics Work," I recalled the recent tragic loss of a healthy history professor who was rushed to a fine urban hospital, with a leading infectious disease specialist by his side. No antibiotics could treat his mysterious "superbug." He died in 36 hours.

Wrongful or overuse of antibiotics has a perverse effect—causing the kinds of bacteria that these drugs can no longer destroy. The World Health Organization has cited antibiotic resistance as one of the three most serious public health threats of the 21st century.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that just in hospitals, where between 5 and 10 percent of all patients develop an infection, about 90,000 of these patients die each year as a result of their infection. This toll is up from 13,300 patient deaths in 1992. Some percentage of these people have problems because of antibiotic resistance.

No matter how many national and global public health organizations warn about this silent, deadly epidemic, no matter how many official recognitions and definition of the problems and demands for local and international action, the fatality toll and the economic costs keep growing.

As Dr. Sidney Wolfe, editor of the Health Letter says: "We've known about this problem for and the needed solutions for well over 30 years but almost nothing is being done about it!" The drug companies keep pushing these drugs while investing too little in truly new antibiotics that can overtake resistant bacteria. Too many doctors still prescribe antibiotics for viral infections that should not be treated with antibiotics. They don't work on viruses. These include, says Dr. Wolfe, "colds, flu—in the absence of bacterial complications, most coughs and bronchitis, sore throats (except those resulting from strep throat) and some ear infections.

Doctors say that patients demand antibiotics—its part of the culture. But doctors should be there to inform patients in those instances when antibiotics are inappropriate.

The CDC states that "many infectious diseases are increasingly difficult to treat because of antimicrobial-resistant organisms, including HIV infection, staphylococcal infection, tuberculosis, influenza, gonorrhea, candida infection and malaria."

Dr. Wolfe writes that "drug resistant infections also spread in the community at large. Examples include drug-resistant pneumonias, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and skin and soft tissue infections."

Let us pause for a puzzling question. How many elected representatives, whose chore they say is America's safety, spend any time on this devastating taking of lives because of preventable antibiotic resistant infections, compared to the daily focus on terrorism and the trillions of dollars spent on arms, surveillance, searching of tens of millions of Americans (at airports, for example) and sending soldiers all over the world to kill and be killed?

"Smart use of antibiotics," says Dr. Wolfe, "is the key to controlling the spread of resistance. Too many types of bacteria have become stronger and less responsive to antibiotic treatment when it is really needed. These antibiotic resistant bacteria can quickly spread to family members, schoolmates and co-workers—threatening the community with a new strain of infectious diseases that is more difficult to cure and more expensive to treat."

The veterinary medical community as well is showing a growing concern of too many antibiotics in domesticated animals which enter the human food supply.

"Repeated and improper uses of antibiotics are primary causes of the increase in drug-resistant bacteria," says the Public Citizen Health Letter, adding that bacteria that survive an antibiotic change so as to "neutralize or escape the effect of the antibiotic" then multiply rapidly.

There are lots to be done by many participants in the production, prescription, sale and use of these drugs. You can start by questioning your doctor and not buying soaps, handwipes and cleaning agents whose vendors lure you with the label "antibacterial."

For more about what you can do, visit citizen.org/hrg.

CDC and ADA Now Advise "Avoid Using Fluoride"

By Dr. Mercola | November 13 2010 |

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association finds once again that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride results in a condition known as fluorosis, in which tooth enamel becomes discolored. The condition can eventually lead to badly damaged teeth. The new study found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis."

Sources:

  Journal of the American Dental Association October 14, 2010; 141(10):1190-1201

  CDC May 28, 2010

Another Epidemic? Half of US teens ‘meet criteria for mental disorder’

(God, this is so transparent... Pharmaceutical Drug Cos. fund a "study" that *SURPRISE* determines half of all teens are mentally ill and would need to be prescribed *SURPRISE SURPRISE* drugs they manufacture! What a coincidence! I mean, the odds of this happening? And you know, it's all about those kids' mental health, not the huge new profit source their study created for them.


I imagine the study resembled this:

1. Are you ever sad?


2. Have you ever been depressed?


3. Do you ever wear black colored clothing?


4. Have you ever heard a sad song or seen a sad movie?


5. Has anyone of whom you've ever been aware ever died?


6. Has anyone ever broken up with you or you them?


If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you are likely mentally ill. Take this survey to your local government approved corporate drug distribution center and pick up your total immersion Paxil/Zoloft/Prozac booster pack immediately. School admission is dependent upon student having been administered booster pack. A blood test may be necessary for confirmation.)

(It blows me away that they are trying to categorize puberty and all its fun emotions, hormone levels, and confusion as a mental illness!--jef )

***

By Agence France-Presse - Thursday, October 14th, 2010

WASHINGTON — Around half of US teens meet the criteria for a mental disorder and nearly one in four report having a mood, behavior or anxiety disorder that interferes with daily life, American researchers say.

Fifty-one percent of boys and 49 percent of girls aged 13-19 have a mood, behavior, anxiety or substance use disorder, according to the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

In 22.2 percent of teens, the disorder was so severe it impaired their daily activities and caused great distress, says the study led by Kathleen Merikangas of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH). (NIMH? Really? Don't guess these shrinks ever read the books with the same name?--jef)

"The prevalence of severe emotional and behavior disorders is even higher than the most frequent major physical conditions in adolescence, including asthma or diabetes," the study says.

Mental problems do not get the same attention from public health authorities even though they cost US families around a quarter of a trillion dollars a year, according to the study.

Around nine percent of all US children have asthma and less than a quarter of one percent of all people under the age of 20 have diabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Merikangas and a team of researchers analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Study-Adolescent Supplement, which surveyed more than 10,000 US teens.

The study is the first to track the prevalence of a broad range of mental disorders in a nationally representative sample of US teens.

They found that nearly a third of the teens met the criteria for the most common mental disorder among US youth, anxiety disorders, which include social phobia and panic "attacks".

This class of disorder also had the earliest median onset age, occurring in children as young as six years old.

Behavior disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, were the next most common condition (19.1 percent), followed by mood disorders (14.3 percent) such as depression.

Eleven percent of teens with a mood disorder, 10 percent with behavior disorders and eight percent who had anxiety disorders, especially social phobics, met the criteria for severe impairment, meaning their condition affected their day-to-day life and caused them great distress.

Teen mental disorder rates mirror those seen in adults, suggesting that most adults develop a mental disorder before adulthood, say the researchers, calling for earlier intervention and prevention, and more research to determine what the risk factors are for mental disorders in youth.

Why Is an Epidemic of Blood-Sucking Bed Bugs Sweeping the Nation?

It's confirmed: bed bugs are back. Here's what you can do about them.
By Katherine Butler, EcoSalon
Posted on August 30, 2010, Printed on August 31, 2010

This story originally appeared on EcoSalon.

There’s a plague sweeping across the United States, and this one has nothing to do with sparkly vampires. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just confirmed – bed bugs are back!

Bed bugs are small insects that feed on sleeping animals – namely, us. They are expert hiders and tend to live within eight feet of where people sleep. The intrepid little suckers are making a comeback and it is leading to heightened levels of scratching and anxiety.

The blood-sucking insects were more common in the mid-twentieth century and were mostly eradicated by the end of the century. But experts think world travel and the lack of effective pesticides have led to their resurgence. DDT and its cancer-causing agents were credited with the initial demise of bed bugs. But DDT was banned in 1972, and so the bugs have returned.

Bed bugs are showing up across the country, but they have received the most attention for their appearances in New York City. From movie theaters to Upper East Side penthouses, bed bugs are carrying both their eggs and stigma all over the city. As the New York Times reports, “In the most recent fiscal year, which ended on June 30, the city’s 311 help line recorded 12,768 bedbug complaints, 16% more than the previous year and 39% above the year before.”

In 2009, one in fifteen New Yorkers had bed bugs. And the numbers are probably higher now. As one woman told the NY Times, “It’s like terrorism, you just cross your fingers and keep going.”

They are really difficult to stop. Bed bugs ride around in luggage, clothing seams, overnight bags, bedding, furniture, and basically anywhere else. They do not transmit disease, but they do leave nasty, itchy red welts all over you.

So yes, bed bugs bite the big one. But what’s to be done? Are there any viable eco-friendly solutions - that is, treatments not involving pesticides that will make you grow a third ear? The CDC has a few recommendations. You can use a monitoring device – in NYC, many are turning to dogs to sniff out the pesky pests. The CDC also suggests removing as much clutter as possible to cut down on the bug’s hiding spaces. Vacuuming, steam cleaning, sealing cracks, and heat treatments may work. Some are even putting sticky-side-up masking tape around their beds in hopes to trap the insects.

Another natural remedy is sprinkling diatomaceous earth around corners and beds. Diatomaceous earth is “made from soil that is composed of little tiny fossils of single-celled algae. These have jagged edges that will cut an insect, causing them to gradually bleed to death if they crawl across it. They are too small to hurt a mammal, however, and they are non-toxic (it’s basically just dirt).” Okay, sure, it doesn’t sound like the most pleasant way to get rid of bed bugs. But remember, these critters survive by feasting on your blood.

The Bed Bugs Guide labels lavender oil and bleach as duds in terms of killing the insects. They also do not suggest trying to freeze or burn the animals out of your home by fiddling with the thermostat. It takes 120 Fahrenheit smoke them out, or 32 Fahrenheit to kill them with cold – for a couple of weeks.

And in the meantime? Sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite!

Meet the Food Industry Front Groups That Push for Carcinogens in Your Food

Pseudoscience, front groups and smear campaigns against scientists questioning industrial agriculture are used to convince the public that chemical-ridden food is safe.
By Jill Richardson, AlterNet, July 12, 2010

"You've probably heard of the 'Dirty Dozen' -- a list of produce items identified by the Environmental Working Group that reportedly contain too many pesticide residues. I thought you might like to know about this webinar that provides perspective on pesticide residues," said an email sent by Elizabeth Pivonka, a registered dietitian who serves as the president and CEO for the Produce for Better Health Foundation.

She sent the email to a few employees of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), who then forwarded it on to employees of state health departments. The webinar, which claimed to expose the "real" danger of the "Dirty Dozen" ("scaring consumers away from eating fresh fruits and vegetables" and having a "negative impact on public health at a time when we are facing an obesity epidemic"), was put on by the Alliance for Food and Farming -- a self-described non-profit organization made up of agricultural groups seeking to "educate and inform consumers and the media on issues of food safety and farming."

Sounds benign, right? In fact, it sounds downright helpful. Fortunately, after the CDC employees failed to question the webinar, an employee of the New York State Department of Health shot the webinar invitation out to a listserv asking, "Is this an industry group promoting conventional farming?" One look at the Alliance's Web site is enough to answer that with a qualified yes! The front page of the site touts in large font that "U.S. farmers produce the safest, most abundant food supply in the world" -- that's industry codespeak for "please don't question us -- just buy and eat the food we give you no matter how we choose to produce it." But who does the alliance represent? The Web site does not say, and when asked, the organization refuses to divulge its members -- a common tactic of industry front groups.

In fact, the Alliance for Food and Farming represents a number of mostly California-based farm and pesticide groups including the California Strawberry Commission, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Association of Pest Control Advisers, Western Growers, Sunkist Growers, the Produce Marketing Association, the California Tomato Farmers, and the California Table Grape Commission.

You might remember the California Farm Bureau from the movie Food, Inc., in which they were caught on film arguing that foods containing clones should not be labeled. Or perhaps you've heard of the California Strawberry Commission's pet cause du jour: legalizing the pesticide methyl iodide, a carcinogen so potent it is used to induce cancer in the lab. In other words, this is not the bunch that government regulators and health professionals should turn to for unbiased, factual information about the danger of pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables.

Front groups are a common vehicle industry uses to delude, confuse, and sometimes overtly defraud the public. In her book, Diet for a Hot Planet, Anna Lappé explains how the food industry learned its tactics from the tobacco industry, citing a 1969 tobacco industry internal memo: "Doubt is our product. It is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

Lappé says, "The food industry long ago saw the benefits in fomenting confusion; confusion defuses public outcry about our toxic food system. Long after the discovery of the neurotoxic, carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting effects of farm chemicals, we're still debating the merits of organic agriculture." In addition to front groups, she lists industry-funded pseudoscience and well-financed smear campaigns against scientists questioning industrial agriculture as other tactics often used to convince the public they are providing us with unbiased facts.

With its relatively meager budget and unfinished Web site, the Alliance for Food and Farming is just an amateur among a field of more established, well-funded front groups like the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Center for Consumer Freedom (each with budgets in the millions). These groups are regularly quoted in the media as if they were legitimate sources of information and not astroturf organizations for the chemical and food industries. With its authoritative-sounding name, ACSH even managed to have itself listed as a "Resource" on the official Web site for a recent CNN special called "Toxic America," despite the fact that ACSH put out its own press release blasting the special as "bizarrely unscientific." As part of its strategy, the Center for Consumer Freedom maintains a number of issue-specific Web sites with names sure to guarantee search engines will find them like FishScam.com and MercuryFacts.org, both to counter the notion that some fish contain dangerous levels of mercury and humans should limit consumption of them.

The organizations named above are non-profits, which means a certain amount of information about them can be uncovered by looking at the financial disclosures they file with the IRS, but industry fronts can take other forms. For example, the Web site TruthInFood.com is maintained by Food-Chain Communications, a marketing firm that clearly specializes in promoting industrial agriculture and processed foods. While a list of its clients are not easily obtained, its founder, Kevin Murphy, has connections with many large beef and dairy industry organizations, including the National Grocer's Association and the National Council of Chain Restaurants.

Then there's the American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT), a group founded solely to defend the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH). When AFACT was founded, Monsanto owned rbGH (it has since been sold to Elanco, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly). Conveniently, a consultant to Monsanto helped organize AFACT and the marketing firm Osborn & Barr (which includes a former Monsanto executive among its founders) gave the group money. AFACT calls itself "grassroots," but it is about as grassroots as a smokers' rights group organized by a tobacco company.

These front groups serve as one piece in a much larger puzzle intended to influence government, the media, health professionals and consumers. Members of Congress and their staff wake up to Capitol Hill metro stations plastered with advertisements from industries wishing to influence them, receive invitations to fancy events and educational briefings, and meet with lobbyists who provide them with industry-funded research and whitepapers. One industry group might lobby the government to allow the use of a pesticide, for example, and then turn around and claim (directly or through a front group) that the pesticide is safe because the government allows it.

Journalists, seeking to add "balance" or controversy to their stories, can always go to these organizations for quotes countering the statements of environmentalists, physicians and consumer advocates. And even when journalists -- or even universities -- are not seeking to feature the industry point of view, industry or its front groups are always there to insist they are given a chance to make their case. (In the case of universities, this often occurs when major donors threaten to withhold funding if certain speakers are invited to campus or professors teach courses on topics the donor finds inconvenient. And, unfortunately, the universities often side with the donors.)

With all of this misinformation, how can an average citizen discern between truth and propaganda? The most important thing to do is to consider the source of any message. One handy tool for this is Sourcewatch.org, a wiki maintained by the Center for Media and Democracy. Often, when a front group will not tell you which organizations or corporations are behind it, Sourcewatch* will. (Full disclosure: I am currently working with the Center for Media and Democracy, but I've used the site as my go-to on front groups for several years now.)

Another method is checking with organizations you know you can trust. In the case of the safety of pesticide residues on produce, the Produce for Better Health Foundation (whose donors include nearly every fruit and vegetable industry group and corporation imaginable) claims that pesticide residues on the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list fall within the amount EPA and FDA say is "generally regarded as safe." I attempted to register for the Alliance for Food and Farming's webinar (twice!) but was not permitted to participate, so I can only imagine its message is similar to this one.

So does that make pesticide residues safe? Consider a quote from the recently released President's Cancer Panel: "We have sprayed pesticides which are inherent poisons throughout our shared environment. They are now in amniotic fluid. They are in our blood. They are in our urine. They are in our exhaled breath. They are in our mother's milk. What is the burden of cancer that we can attribute to this use of poisons throughout our agricultural system? We won't really know that answer until we do another experiment, which is to take the poisons out of our food chain, embrace a different kind of agriculture, a healthier agriculture, and see what happens."

Fighting Pollution with Pollution

June 18, 2010 by Scientific America

It remains unclear what impact chemical dispersants will have on sea life--and only the massive, uncontrolled experiment being run in the Gulf of Mexico will tell
by David Biello

Roughly five million liters of dispersants have now been used to break up the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, making this the largest use of such chemicals in U.S. history. If it continues for 10 months, as long as Mexico's Ixtoc 1 blowout in 1979 in the same region, the Macondo well disaster has a good chance of achieving the largest global use of these chemicals, surpassing 10 million liters.

And there is no doubt that dispersants are toxic: Both types of the dispersal compound COREXIT used in the Gulf so far are capable of killing or depressing the growth of a wide range of aquatic species, ranging from phytoplankton to fish. "It's a trade-off decision to lessen the overall environmental impact," explained marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), at apress conference on May 12. "When an oil spill occurs, there are no good outcomes."

The trade-off in this case is the addition of toxic chemicals in a bid to protect the marshes of Louisiana and the beaches of Florida. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for one, has become concerned about the toxicity of the most-used dispersant at the Gulf of Mexico spill-COREXIT 9500-and ordered BP to look at alternatives. (COREXIT 9527 was used earlier during the spill, but it was discontinued because it was considered too toxic.)

The problem? The EPA's industry-generated data is unclear as to the relative toxicity of various dispersants. "If you think the data on COREXIT is bad, try to find any decent toxicology data on the alternatives," says toxicologist Carys Mitchelmore of the University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, who helped write a 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report on dispersants. "I couldn't compare and contrast which one was more toxic than the other based on that."

Dispersed oil Both COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are produced by Naperville, Ill.-based Nalco, a company better known for its water purification work with the oil industry. "For every barrel of oil produced, 3.5 barrels of water are produced," explains chemist Mani Ramesh, chief technology officer for Nalco. "That needs to be treated before it can be released. That water treatment has been a core area for us."

But at the same time Nalco keeps busy cleaning the oil industry's water, it also provides COREXIT, a product to minimize the impact of any oil that spills into the water. Developed in a joint venture with ExxonMobil, the compound is largely made at facilities in Sugarland, Tex., and Garyville, La. The company expects to sell some $40-million worth of COREXIT as a result of the latest spill. "What the dispersant process enables is to prevent the oil from reaching the shore and converts that oil to easy food for naturally occurring microbes," Ramesh says. "If the oil reaches the shore the decomposition rate of oil is so low it would remain on the shore for probably 100 years."

By last week, the EPA and Nalco had both released the ingredient list for COREXIT 9500 in response to widespread public concern. Its constituents include butanedioic acid (a wetting agent in cosmetics), sorbitan (found in everything from baby bath to food), and petroleum distillates in varying proportions-and it decomposes almost entirely in 28 days. "All six [ingredients] are used in day-to-day life-in mouthwash, toothpaste, ice cream, pickles," Ramesh argues. "We believe COREXIT 9500 is very safe."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees, noting in a document for health professionals that "the dispersants contain proven, biodegradable and low-toxicity surfactants," which are "detergentlike" and "in low toxicity solvents."

However, those solvents-petroleum distillates-are also known animal carcinogens, according to toxicology data, and make up 10 to 30 percent of a given volume of COREXIT. And those same everyday products can be deadly to wildlife. "It's the same products in Dawn dishwasher soap," Mitchelmore notes, which is being used widely to clean up oiled birds and other animals. "I wouldn't want to put a fish in Dawn dishwashing soap either. That would kill it."

As a result, the EPA ordered BP to stop spraying dispersants on the oil slick on May 26. The EPA also ordered BP to look for less toxic alternatives on May 20, and the company responded in a letter dated that same day that "BP continues to believe that COREXIT EC9500A is the best alternative." The dispersant continues to be sprayed onto the ongoing oil spill.

No alternative One reason BP can make such claims is due to a lack of clear data on any of the alternative dispersants. As part of the National Contingency Plan required for offshore drilling, one of 18 EPA-approved dispersants must be on hand to handle spilled oil. Each of those dispersants has been preapproved for use, and each of those dispersants has been tested-by the companies that make them-for toxicity using representative species of estuarine shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) and fish (Menidia beryllina). Specifically, these animals are exposed to a mix of one liter of dispersant for every 10 liters of heavy fuel oil in water.

Yet, the results of those tests vary wildly, from toxic impacts occurring at levels of just 2.6 parts per million for COREXIT to 100 ppm for another dispersant, NOKOMIS 3-F4. That suggests to experts that the tests which showed lower toxicity may have employedheavy fuel oil that had lost its potency. After all, volatile organic compounds in oil evaporate quickly when exposed to air and can even wash off in water. "These are order of magnitude differences," Mitchelmore notes. "A lot of that can relate to how those tests were set up."

Adds Nalco toxicologist Sergio Alex Villalobos, "If the oil is aged, then the oil loses its toxicity. Using an oil that is not very toxic, if you disperse that oil you are going to get very favorable numbers. Do those numbers really exist?"

EPA, for its part, did not show the best understanding of toxicological data in making its recommendations, urging BP to use dispersants with less than a certain cutoff of toxicity (pdf). Of course, in toxicology the lower the concentration the more toxic a given substance is. "They completely got that wrong," Mitchelmore says. EPA is now undertaking its own toxicology testing of COREXIT and Louisiana crude oil, but results are pending.

Nevertheless, just 20 ppm of COREXIT 9500-or one drop in 2.5 liters of water-inhibits growth of Skeletonema costatum, a Gulf of Mexico diatom, according to toxicology test data presented in the 2005 NRC report. It appears to inhibit the phytoplankton's ability to perform photosynthesis, specifically blocking part of the biochemistry that enables the photosystem II complex, Villalobos says. "Skeletonema seems to fall among the most sensitive ones," he says. "Like many aquatic plants, these are organisms that are resilient, that tend to come back even though you wipe them out in some cases chemically."

COREXIT is also not approved for use in U.K. waters because it fails the so-called "limpet test". That test involves spraying the dispersant and oil on rocks and seeing iflimpets (a type of small mollusk) can still cling to them, a test which COREXIT and many other dispersants with slippery surfactants fail. "This is not a product for rocky shores," Villalobos says. "These are only for open sea waters."

Novel use Of course, in the case of the oil spewing from BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, COREXIT is being used in another unapproved way. A wand from one of theremote-operated robots has sprayed more than 1.5 million liters of dispersants directly onto the escaping oil and natural gas roughly 1,500 meters beneath the ocean's surface. "I don't think anybody knows what would happen by applying the dispersants at depth," Ramesh says. "We do not have any knowledge that would allow us to predict what would happen."

In addition to creating subsurface plumes (and providing a rich feast for oil-eating microbes), it remains unclear what kind of dosage of dispersed oil sea life throughout the water column is facing. NOAA measurements show that levels reach 100 ppm of dispersed oil in the first half-meter of water, dropping to 12.5 ppm at 10 meters and unknown levels even deeper. "There isn't any information on what is the environmentally relevant level of dispersant," Mitchelmore notes. "Dispersed oils are going to be toxic, particularly in the top 10 meters that contains all the sensitive life stages. Anything that has sensitive membranes can be affected by dispersants and dispersed oil."

Sunlight falling on the dispersed oil may make the problem worse through a phenomenon known as phototoxicity. Compounds in the oil act as a catalyst to transfer some of the sun's energy into oxygen, converting the latter to a more reactive state that can literally burn up cells. And as fish and other sea life ingest the dispersed oil, it can be broken down into more toxic by-products. "What do these things break down into?" Mitchelmore says. "In toxicology it's quite often not the original compound that's the toxic entity."

Ultimately, the problem is that too little is known about the dispersants and the dispersed oil. "Given that this is a billion-dollar industry, why were those data gaps not filled?" Mitchelmore asks. "The whole issue regarding limited toxicity data-that's not just common to dispersants, that's common to tens of thousands of chemicals we're putting out into the environment daily."

After all, it was only after decades of using bisphenol A, polybrominated flame retardants and other chemicals that significant concerns began to manifest. In effect, usage replaced safety testing-and that's exactly what is happening with dispersants and the massive spill in the Gulf. Different regulation of chemicals and the chemical industry might forestall toxicological mysteries like those surrounding dispersants-and their thousands of chemical cousins-in the future.

"We're using an awful lot of dispersants," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson during the same May 12 press briefing on the chemical's use at which NOAA's Lubchenco spoke. "This is going on longer than one might have known on day three or four. We're still dealing with a constant release of fresh oil and we need to continue to disperse."