Fw: What Are The Effects Of A Media Campaign To Convince Us That Poisons Are Safe, April 15, 1993

[Guest guest]

From: " ilena rose " <ilena@...>

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 3:01 PM

Subject: What Are The Effects Of A Media Campaign To Convince Us That

Poisons Are Safe, April 15, 1993

> http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=796

>

> Environmental Research Foundation Home

> 's Environment & Health News

>

>

> #333 - What Are The Effects Of A Media Campaign To Convince Us That

> Poisons Are Safe, April 15, 1993

>

>

> What Are The Effects Of A Media Campaign To Convince Us That Poisons Are

Safe

>

> As chemical contamination of the natural environment continues to

> spread,[1] and public concern continues to grow,[2] a major effort has

> developed to try to convince the American people that industrial poisons

> in our food and water are safe.

>

> Mainstream scientific organizations like

> the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been

> recruited and are on board. The NEW YORK TIMES is on board. (See RHWN

> #330, #331, #332.) In an editorial February 26, 1993, SCIENCE magazine

> said, " Synthetic pesticides in marketed foods constitute no appreciable

> threat to human health. " (They did not define " appreciable. " ) SCIENCE went

> on to say that strict enforcement of the Delaney clause (see RHWN #324,

> #326), to force removal of 70 suspected or known carcinogens from the

> American food supply, would have " negligible " benefits.[3] Recently the

> NEW YORK TIMES, editorialized (in its news columns) that many unnamed

> " experts " are asking whether the nation is " wasting billions of dollars

> regulating substances that might pose little risk. " And: " Many experts...

> question the wisdom of spending billions of dollars to protect people from

> traces of toxic compounds. "

>

> Such media campaigns do have an effect. People are worried about intimate

> contact with industrial poisons for obvious reasons (common sense says you

> should keep them out of your food, if you can). Many people therefore find

> it reassuring to have established and usually- reliable sources of

> information telling them all is well, don't worry. It is evident that

> people are hungry for reassurance, even if it is not substantiated by any

> facts. Dozens of newspapers have reprinted the TIMES'S recent unsupported

> claims that low levels of chemicals harm no one. (One reader called from

> California to tell us that the TIMES'S series was handed out at a Regional

> Water Control Board meeting about leaking underground tanks. " The

> government is now using the NEW YORK TIMES to try to convince us we're

> overreacting to all instances of chemical contamination, " said Marie

> Stenberg.)

>

> Propaganda campaigns like this one serve to reassure people that

> industrial poisons are our friends, that it's OK to let poisons into our

> homes and have intimate contact with them. Such campaigns clearly work.

> Unsuspecting Americans brought 189 million pounds of pesticides into their

> homes in 1988, and spread them into and onto their closets, cabinets,

> floors and pets, then eventually into and onto their rugs, carpets,

> furniture, linens, towels, air, food, and children.

>

> Until very recently, surprisingly little has been known about actual

> patterns of use of pesticides in homes. A pioneering 1992 study of 238

> Missouri families revealed eye-opening new information about the way

> people use pesticides.[4] Of the 238 families studied, 98 percent used

> pesticides in home or garden at least once a year and 64 percent (two-

> thirds) used pesticides more than five times a year. Eighty percent of

> families used pesticides inside their homes at least once a year.

> Fifty-seven percent of families used herbicides to control weeds. Half of

> all families used insecticides to control fleas and ticks on pets.

>

> Flea collars were the most popular single pesticidal product (half the

> families used them). Carbaryl and Sevin were also popular, with 28.2

> percent of families using them. inon was another favorite with 8.4

> percent using it. No-pest strips (dichlorvos) and Kwell shampoo (lindane)

> were used by 10 percent.

>

> The study examined pesticide use in relation to the age of children in the

> home. (The families were selected partly because they had children under

> 10 years old, so these families are not representative of the general

> public.)

>

> During pregnancy, 46.6 percent of families used pesticides at least once,

> and 34.0 percent used them more than 5 times. Use of pesticides by the

> mother herself during pregnancy was more limited: 28.9 percent of pregnant

> women used pesticides at least once and 12.3 percent used pesticides more

> than 5 times. These numbers represent a substantial decrease of pesticide

> use during pregnancy, compared to other times; this probably reflects

> awareness that humans are particularly sensitive to toxins before birth.

>

> When the home had a baby aged 6 months or less, pesticide use dropped

> somewhat more, compared to the period of pregnancy. Only 10.2 percent of

> families used pesticides on the garden when the baby was less than 6

> months old (as opposed to 18.1 percent who put pesticides on the garden

> while the mother was pregnant). Likewise, yard use of herbicides dropped

> from 28.2 percent of families during pregnancy to 23.7 percent of families

> after the baby arrived. Authors of the study believe this reflects

> parental awareness that infants are especially sensitive to toxins.

>

> Spray cans and spray liquids are the most popular forms of pesticides.

> After the child reaches 7 months of age (or older), 50 percent of families

> apply pesticides by this method. Dusts, " bombs, " and no-pest strips were

> used by 5 percent to 15 percent of families.

>

> Use of flea collars remained constant regardless of pregnancy or age of

> the child. " This was in contrast to all other product types that showed

> substantially less use during pregnancy and birth to six months of age, "

> the study's authors said. Evidently most people do suspect the possibility

> of pesticidal effects on their young children but they do not seem to

> recognize that flea collars cover their pets with low levels of poison.

>

> * * *

>

> A 1993 study of brain cancer in Missouri children shows statistically

> significant associations between childhood brain cancer and several types

> of pesticide use in the home, including no-pest strips, flea and tick

> collars on pets, and chemicals for controlling nuisance pests (roaches,

> ants, spiders, mosquitoes), termites, lice, garden and orchard pests, yard

> weeds and pet pests (ticks and fleas).[5]

>

> The case-control study examined 45 Missouri children with brain cancer,

> plus two control groups (85 healthy friends of the cancer-stricken

> children, and 108 children with other types of cancers besides brain

> cancer).

>

> Cancer is the second leading cause of death in children under 14 and brain

> tumors are the second most frequent type of cancer, accounting for

> approximately 20 percent of all cancers in children. The survival rate of

> children with brain cancer has not improved in recent years (35 percent

> survive five years or longer).[6]

>

> According to data compiled by the National Cancer Institute, during the

> past 15 years there has been a " dramatic rise " in brain cancers among two

> age-groups in the U.S.: old people and children. Brain cancer in children

> aged 0-4 is rising at a steady 2.6 percent each year (thus doubling in

> incidence every 27 years, or doubling each generation).[7] Between 1973

> and 1988, brain cancer in children under 14 increased 47% (from 2.3 per

> 100,000 to 3.4 per 100,000).[8]

>

> Families of the children with brain cancer seemed like ordinary people.

> Fifteen percent had only a high school education; another 40 percent had

> high school plus additional training; 24 percent had graduated from

> college. Thirty-eight percent had a family income between $20,001 and

> $30,000; 16 percent had family incomes between $30,001 and $40,000; 16

> percent had family incomes above $40,001.

>

> In making the comparisons between the brain cancer cases and the controls,

> researchers took into account the child's exposure to environmental

> tobacco smoke, family income, family members working in construction

> trades (among adults, brain cancer is associated with exposure to many

> industrial chemicals, especially paint--see RHWN #266), father's education

> and mother's education, among other things.

>

> What chiefly distinguishes the " case " families from the " control " families

> is that the " case " families used chemical pesticides in their homes more

> often than did families whose children have not developed brain tumors.

>

> In all, the study found 15 separate statistically significant associations

> between one type or another of pesticide use and childhood brain cancer.

> Types of pesticide use are such things as " use of no-pest strips for

> nuisance pests " and " inon used in the garden or orchard. "

>

> This study has several limitations. The number of cases is small; many

> associations were tested, so a few of the 15 positive associations may be

> due to random chance. The study may suffer from " recall bias " because the

> data were supplied by mothers whose recall may have been been biased by

> their emotional reaction to their child's experience.

>

> The authors say, " Although our findings are not conclusive, they are

> suggestive of an association between childhood brain cancer and several

> pesticide use situations, product types, and specific products. The

> results of this study highlight the need for expanded research on the

> health effects of pesticides. " And, it seems to us, the need for some

> common-sense steps like PREVENTION.

>

> -- Montague

>

> =====

>

> [1] Curtis C. and Sheri T. Hester, " Global Chemical Pollution, "

> ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Vol. 25, No. 5 (May, 1991), pgs.

> 814-819.

>

> [2] o Suro, " Pollution-Weary Minorities Try Civil Rights Tack, " NEW

> YORK TIMES January 11, 1993, pgs. 1, B7.

>

> [3] Philip H. Abelson, " Pesticides and Food, " SCIENCE Vol. 259 (February

> 26, 1993), pg. 1235.

>

> [4] R. and others, " Family Pesticide Use in the Home, Garden,

> Orchard and Yard, " ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY

> Vol. 22 (1992), pgs. 260-266.

>

> [5] R. and others, " Family Pesticide Use and Childhood Brain

> Cancer, " ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY Vol. 24

> (1993), pgs. 87-92.

>

> [6] Ellen Gold and others, " Risk Factors for Brain Tumors in Children, "

> AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 109 (1979), pgs. 309-319.

>

> [7] Nigel H. Greig, Lynn G. Ries, Rosemary Rancik, and Stanley I.

> Rapoport. " Increasing Annual Incidence of Primary Malignant Tumors in the

> Elderly, " JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, Vol. 82 (October 17,

> 1990), pgs. 1621-1624.

>

> [8] Lynn A. Gloeckler Ries and others, CANCER STATISTICS REVIEW 1973- 1988

> [National Institutes of Health Publication No. 91-2789]. Bethesda, Md.:

> National Cancer Institute, 1991, pg. II.[32].

>

> Descriptor terms: pesticides; journalism; propaganda; new york times;

> science magazine; aaas; mo; pesticide use data; insecticides; herbicides;

> pets; flea collars; carbaryl; diazinon; dichlorvos; kwell shampoo;

> lindane; brain cancer; childhood cancer; mortality statistics; morbidity

> statistics; no pest strips;

>

>

> 's Environment & Health News is a publication of the Environmental

> Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403. Fax (410)

> 263-8944; E-mail: erf@.... Back issues available by E-mail; to get

> instructions, send Email to INFO@... with the single word HELP in

> the message. Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, E-mail the words

> SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME to: listserv@... NOTICE:

> Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of

> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS free of charge even though it costs our

> organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to

> continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a

> tax-deductible contribution(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or

> $500.00). Please send your tax- deductible contribution to: Environmental

> Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403-7036. Please do

> not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about

> making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone

> us toll free at 1-888- 2RACHEL. -- Montague, Editor

>

>