Lead Lurks in Lunch Boxes

Pollution and Activism (by Toban Black)

The Environmental Law foundation (ELF) in Oakland plans to file suit today over lead contamination in dozens of brands of bottled juice, packaged fruit and baby food, according to a report today on the California Report. The foods are commonly fed to children, sent to school with them in their lunchboxes or sold in cafeterias. Children are particularly susceptible to the effects of lead and other toxins because of their smaller bodies and rapidly growing bodies and brains.

Jim Wheaton, President of ELF, said that their tests indicated that dozens of major companies are violating the state’s Prop 65 by selling products containing lead without providing the required warning labels. One reason for this may be that there is no safe level of lead. Therefore, a warning label would likely result in a dramatic drop in sales, which is certainly what should happen.

Lead poisoning can cause cognitive impairment and lead to learning disabilities. Poor children are particularly vulnerable, as they are more likely to have additional environmental exposures from lead based paint, pipes and pollutants that are less common in affluent homes and communities.

While the lead in processed fruit should be of concern to parents, the report is not really news. Our environment is full of dangerous contaminants, some of which are mandated by law. For example, furniture and bedding in California and many other states were required to contain flame retardants which are toxic to humans. A recent study found the children in California have seven times the level of PBDEs in their blood than their counterparts in Mexico.

There are also other sources of food-borne contamination besides the lead found in processed fruits. Canned fruits, juices, tomatoes and beans are all lined with coatings that contain bisphenol A. Fish, particularly large predators like tuna, halibut, shark, spearfish, typically have high levels of mercury that have entered the food chain primarily as pollution from coal plants. Fruits and vegetables that are not produced organically are often sprayed with pesticides and grown in fertilizers that are toxic. Some of these are known human hormone disrupters or mimics and are thought to contribute to decreased sperm count, gynecomastia and premature puberty.

The fact is that there are hundreds of known carcinogens, neurotoxins and hormone disrupters that are commonly used in food production and commercial products and thousands more chemicals that are commonly used by industry that are unregulated and not thoroughly tested. Many of these chemicals make their way into our bodies through our food, air and water. Children take them in through breast milk. They accrue in dust. Pollutants like cigarette smoke can adsorb to our walls and react with chemicals in the air, producing even deadlier toxins that can desorb from the walls and enter people’s bloodstreams.

Concerned parents can probably reduce the toxic load by avoiding packaged processed foods and purchasing more organically produced products. However, people also need to consider the types of cosmetics and toiletries they consume, the types of packaging their goods come in, their electronic devices, indoor ventilation, flooring, siding, driving habits and numerous other lifestyle decisions.

Starving in the Land of Plenty

Recent data from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) shows that 25% of California households with children are experiencing food hardship (from New America Media).

Latinos and rural residents were most affected. In agricultural Fresno County, for example, 68.6% of public school students were receiving free or reduced lunches, which means their families were suffering from material (and likely food) insecurity. The county is also 59% Latino. In Los Angeles County, which is over 63% Latino, 65.6% of students were receiving free or reduced lunches.

California also has four of the nation’s 20 metropolitan areas with the worst food hardship.  Fresno was fifth in the nation, with 32.6% of its residents facing food insecurity. The Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario area ranked eighth (30.4%), the Bakersfield area ranked 11th (29.5%) and the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area ranked 18th (28.3%).

Starving In Front of Gratuitous Wealth

With over 15 million people, at a rate of 28.3% the LA area alone has over 4,300,000 residents suffering food insecurity. This statistic is particularly stark when juxtaposed with the phenomenal wealth found in Los Angeles. Here is a list of just its billionaires (all 34 of them), from the Forbes list of 400 wealthiest people on the planet:

19. Kirk Kerkorian, $10 billion

25. Sumner Redstone, $8.4 billion

38. Donald Bren, $5.7 billion

39. Eli Broad, $5.5 billion

45. David Geffen, $4.5 billion

52. Barbara Davis, and Family, $4 billion

52. David Murdock, $4 billion

70. Bradley Wayne Hughes, $3.2 billion

78. Haim Saban, $2.8 billion

83. Stephen Spielberg, $2.7 billion

89. Jerold Perenchio, $2.6 billion

112. Ronald Burkle, $2.3 billion

116. Patrick Soon-Shiong, $2.2 billion

125. Alfred Mann, $2.1 billion

125. Steven Udvar-Hazy, $2.1 billion

133. Michael Milken, $2 billion

153. David Hearst, $1.9 billion

153. George Hearst, $1.9 billion

181. Franklin Booth, $1.7 billion

181. Louis Gonda, $1.7 billion

181. Anthony Pritzker, $1.7 billion

181. Tom Gores, $1.7 billion

198. Ming Hsieh, $1.6 billion

235. John Anderson, $1.4 billion

235. Charles Munger, $1.4 billion

258. Gary Michelson, $1.3 billion

283. Alan Casden, $1.2 billion

283. Robert Day, $1.2 billion

283. Roy Disney, $1.2 billion

283. Leslie Gonda, $1.2 billion

283. Alec Gores, $1.2 billion

283. George Joseph, $1.2 billion

320. Edward Roski, $1.1 billion

346. William Hilton, $1 billion

Insult to Injury
As terrible as it is to have so many hungry children, the problem is exacerbated by the draconian eligibility requirements for CalFresh, the California version of the federal food program. Many are no doubt discouraged from participating because of the finger-imaging requirement, particularly those concerned about being deported.

The New America Media article also suggested that the new federal Super Committee that is set to propose solutions to the federal deficit will slash federal food programs. Considering that state governments have been gutting programs for children, seniors and the poor in order to close their deficits, this fear is not at all unrealistic. In fact, it could be argued that the Super Committee’s mandate is precisely to impose austerity on the most vulnerable and politically least powerful members of society so that the wealthiest can continue to enjoy their privilege and luxury.

Health and Education Implications
Under- and malnourished mothers are much more likely to have babies born prematurely, with low birth weights or with significant health problems. Children who are not receiving adequate nutrition can suffer from iron deficiency anemia and are at risk for a host of developmental and cognitive impairments. Any of these can have a large impact on school-readiness and academic achievement.

However, it is not just hunger and lack of calories that places children at risk. Families that cannot afford to eat nutritious foods will often compensate with food that is cheaper but less nutritious, particularly junk foods, increasing the risks for obesity and diabetes. Such diets tend to be rich in sweets, particularly sugary drinks, and increase the risk of cavities and dental problems. This, too, can hinder academic achievement as students without insurance may be missing class and have trouble concentrating due to pain.

Study Finds High Toxin Levels in Pregnant Women

Image by Justin Marty

A new study by the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) has found over 40 toxins in the blood and urine of pregnant women. Many of the toxins have been banned in the U.S. since the 1970s, before many of the women were even born, indicating just how pervasive they are in the environment. Others are found in common household products, cooking utensils, beauty aids and processed food.

The study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and is the first that actually counted the number of toxic chemicals in the bodies of pregnant women. 163 chemicals were studied and 43 of them were found in nearly every one of the 268 women tested.

The researchers also looked at non-pregnant women and found even higher levels for some chemicals, suggesting that pregnant women may be exercising greater precaution in what they eat and use in their homes. Nevertheless, even at the relatively low levels found in the women, many of these chemicals can have serious consequences for their babies, increasing the risk of birth defects, cancer, cognitive impairment and possibly even obesity.

Below is a list of some of the 43 chemicals found in the majority of the women along with their likely sources and potential health consequences:

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used to be used to insulate high voltage transformers

  

  PCBs, Massachusetts Dept. Environmental Protection

  and capacitors. They were used as flame retardants, plasticizers and mineral oils. Most PCB manufacturing in the U.S. was done by Monsanto. Production was banned in the U.S. in 1979. High exposure can cause skin and liver damage, cancer or death. They can also cause cognitive impairment and neurological damage to children. PCBs both inhibit and mimic the female hormone estradiol, contributing to their mutagenic effects.

• Organochlorine pesticides are a group of chemicals used primarily as insecticides, and include chemicals like DDT, which has been banned for decades in the U.S. However, because they break down very slowly in the environment they continue to contaminate our food supply. These chemicals have been linked to cancer, as well as liver, kidney and neurological damage.
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are a class of banned flamed retardants that are chemically similar to PCBs. While this class of chemicals has been banned in some states (California, 2006), similar toxic flame retardants continue to be used and are actually required by law as a flame retardant in the foam of furniture and mattresses, and as insulation in electrical devices. Therefore, all Americans are continually exposed to these chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens. They can also leach into the food supply. A study in Canada found them in salmon, beef, cheese and butter. According to the EPA, they can cause thyroid, liver and neurological damage and reduce fertility.
• Bisphenol A is used to line canned foods and to make some plastics and epoxy resins. It is an endocrine disrupter that may cause neurological damage and cause mutations. It is not yet clear what health effects can be attributed to the substance. However, several preliminary studies suggest that it may have negative effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human expo­sure levels.
• Phthalates are used to soften plastics, especially PVC, but have also been used as a coating for pills, as lubricants and in eye shadow, nail polish and hairspray. This class of chemicals also causes hormone disruption and has been linked to premature puberty in girls. Some scientists believe there is a link between neonatal phthalate exposure and undescended testis in boys, though link has not yet been confirmed. Phthalates have also been linked to obesity.



Second Hand Smoke, by hsufehmi

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a common class of chemicals found in smoke and are be produced by cigarettes, campfires, barbecues, candles, incense and plug-in air fresheners. Even when women avoid smoking during pregnancy, exposure can still occur from these other sources as well as from the secondhand smoke of friends, family and neighbors. Shockingly, recent research suggests that even third-hand smoke (residues that stick to walls and furniture and slowly desorb over time to enter the ambient air of a room) can persist in building for years after all smoking has ceased. Not surprisingly, third hand smoke also contains a host of toxic and carcinogenic compounds.In one study, researchers examined the homes of smokers who had moved out and that had remained empty for several months before nonsmoking renters moved in. Not only did they find higher levels of third hand smoke on the walls compared with nonsmoking homes, but the new nonsmoking renters had elevated levels of nicotine in their bodies.

The good news is that our exposures to many of these substances can be significantly reduced. For example, exposure to Bisphenol A can be minimized by avoiding the use of plastic bottles and aluminum cans made with the substance. And exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can be reduced by avoiding smoke, especially tobacco smoke, but also candles, incense and air fresheners.