Rachel's Precaution Reporter #107
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
From: The Independent (UK) ................................[This story printer-friendly]
September 7, 2007
GERMANY WARNS CITIZENS TO AVOID USING WI-FI
[Rachel's introduction: People should avoid using Wi-Fi wherever possible because of the risks it may pose to health, the German government has said. Germany's official radiation protection body also advises its citizens to use landlines instead of mobile phones, and warns of "electrosmog" from a wide range of other everyday products, from baby monitors to electric blankets.]
By Geoffrey Lean
People should avoid using Wi-Fi wherever possible because of the risks it may pose to health, the German government has said.
Its surprise ruling -- the most damning made by any government on the fast-growing technology -- will shake the industry and British ministers, and vindicates the questions that The Independent on Sunday has been raising over the past four months.
Germany's official radiation protection body also advises its citizens to use landlines instead of mobile phones, and warns of "electrosmog" from a wide range of other everyday products, from baby monitors to electric blankets.
The German government's ruling -- which contrasts sharply with the unquestioning promotion of the technology by British officials -- was made in response to a series of questions by Green members of the Bundestag, Germany's parliament.
The Environment Ministry recommended that people should keep their exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi "as low as possible" by choosing "conventional wired connections". It added that it is "actively informing people about possibilities for reducing personal exposure".
Its actions will provide vital support for Sir William Stewart, Britain's official health protection watchdog, who has produced two reports calling for caution in using mobile phones and who has also called for a review of the use of Wi-Fi in schools. His warnings have so far been ignored by ministers and even played down by the Health Protection Agency, which he chairs.
By contrast the agency's German equivalent -- the Federal Office for Radiation Protection -- is leading the calls for caution.
Florian Emrich, for the office, says Wi-Fi should be avoided "because people receive exposures from many sources and because it is a new technology and...research into its health effects has not yet been carried out".
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: BBC News ...........................................[This story printer-friendly]
September 12, 2007
Q&A: MOBILE PHONE SAFETY
The UK's biggest investigation into mobile safety has now drawn up its own conclusions.
[Rachel's introduction: A series of conflicting reports has led to suspicions that mobile phone usage and the accompanying base stations may harm health and increase the risk of cancers.]
What is the latest study?
The UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme was established in 2001 on the recommendations of the independent government-commissioned report chaired by Sir William Stewart.
The £8.8m programme has been jointly funded by government and the industry, although it has an independent management committee.
Members mainly include university academics.
The first of the 28 research projects into mobile phones, base stations and masts started at the end of 2001 and to date 23 have been completed.
What health effects have mobile phones been linked to?
Fears have been raised about a number of possible adverse effects to health.
The highest profile consequence, some research has suggested, has been an increased risk of brain and ear tumours.
But there have also been claims that radiofrequency fields affect brain function, which could lead to problems with blood pressure and heart rate.
And some argue that they are responsible for electrical hypersensitivity, sufferers of which report headaches, dizziness and tingling.
They attribute these problems to devices such as mobile phones, base stations, computers and televisions.
The 2000 Stewart report concluded that mobile phones did not appear to harm health, but recommended further research was carried out.
And in 2005 Sir William added that mobile phone use by children should be limited as a precaution -- and that under eights should not use them at all.
Does the latest report give mobiles a clean bill of health?
It does rule out short-term effects to brain function and links to electrical hypersensitivity and says further research is now not needed.
But on the issue of cancer, it is more ambiguous. No evidence of a greater short-term risk was found -- but researchers said the problem was that cancers do not generally emerge until 10 to 15 years after the event.
There were very few people in the study who had been using mobiles for longer than 10 years, the researchers said.
But they added those that had did show a "hint" of an excess risk, although this was only on the borderline of statistical significance.
Base stations were not looked at in as much detail as mobile phones.
But researchers said radio frequency exposure is much lower -- although there are problems measuring this exactly as it depends on where they are sited -- and there are no health risks.
The programme did not look at mobile phone use in children. Researchers said at the time mobile phone use by children was less common than it is now and there were ethical concerns about testing children.
What is happening next?
The programme has been given over £6m to expand its remit. It will now look at the effect of mobile phone technology on children as well as carry out longer term studies on the risk of serious disease.
This will include looking for links to cancers and degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
The research is likely to involve over 200,000 people and include researchers from Denmark, Finland and Sweden as well as the UK.
What is the advice on mobile phones?
Professor Lawrie Challis would not be drawn on whether people -- and in particular parents -- should restrict mobile phone use.
He said it was up to the government to offer advice, although in previous media interviews he has warned about letting children use them.
The Department of Health said the precautionary principle set out by Sir William still stands.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Province (Vancouver, B.C.) ......................[This story printer-friendly]
September 6, 2007
REPORT BUTTRESSES ARGUMENT AGAINST POWER LINES
[Rachel's introduction: A new scientific report joins others in raising serious public health concerns over long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage power lines.]
By Brian Lewis, The Province
A scientific report released late last week joins others in raising serious public-health concerns over long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage power lines.
This one was compiled by international scientists, researchers and public-health professionals from the University at Albany in New York state, and concludes that existing limits are inadequate for public health.
Such emissions are linked to increased cases of childhood leukemia and adult cancers later in life.
The new report recommends that allowable exposure to EMFs be limited to about one milligauss (an EMF measurement).
That got the attention of the Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Overhead Lines, a group trying to block the B.C. Transmission Corp.'s plan to replace two existing 138-kilovolt transmission lines that run through their back yards, parks and the local high school with 40-metre towers carrying 230-kilovolt power lines to Vancouver Island.
Evidence at last year's B.C. Utilities Commission hearing, which gave the project a green light, was that the new high-voltage lines will emit 149 milligauss -- or almost 150 times the report's recommended EMF levels.
The problem here is that the linkage of EMF exposure to cancer has not been proven absolutely, unlike tobacco use or exposure to asbestos.
But increasingly, studies conclude such links exist, and the Tsawwassen residents' group has turned to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it seeks leave to appeal on the grounds that if an EMF health risk is even suspected, the project shouldn't be built.
This is called the "precautionary principle," and it's been adopted by some governments and jurisdictions, including the United Nations.
But the residents' group says concerns reach beyond caution. During the utilities commission hearing, the group introduced affidavits from 58 households showing an above-average rate of cancer among family members -- and among household pets -- along the power-line route.
However, despite the residents offering a viable route or construction alternatives to reduce or eliminate these risks, the provincial Crown corporation and Gordon Campbell's government have refused to back down on the proposed routing.
The residents' group thinks it knows why.
"If we're successful in court, it'll set a huge precedent for the government and the BCTC because much more due diligence will have to be applied to these projects," says group co-chairman Cec Dunn.
Adds director Bernadette Kudzin: "Because the B.C. transmission grid is so old, the Tsawwassen project is only the start of a lot of upgrading -- this is all about money."
Kudzin is particularly concerned about the lines crossing South Delta Senior Secondary School's grounds.
"Most of the high-school kids in our neighbourhood go to that school, so they live under these power lines 24/7," she says.
Group members also point out that the existing 28-year-old limit of 833 milligauss, which the transmission corporation often cites, is only for short-term exposure. They say there are no EMF limits in Canada for long-term exposure.
For its part, the transmission corporation is fully aware of the studies but says it's sticking with the current EMF guidelines even though this latest report say they're not good enough.
Clearly, only the country's highest court will be able to decide this issue.
Copyright The Vancouver Province 2007
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Guardian .......................................[This story printer-friendly]
September 6, 2007
DANGER TO CHILDREN FROM FOOD AND DRINK ADDITIVES IS EXPOSED
[Rachel's introduction: In England, adults are being advised to check for harmful food additives by scrutinising labels, yet many sweets and cakes are sold loose without labels, as is ice cream. The move has confounded experts and health campaigners, who say the government had missed an opportunity to take a tougher line by banning the additives completely instead of placing a huge burden on parents.]
By Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
Parents are to be warned of the dangers of giving their young children drinks, sweets and cakes containing specified artificial additives, as a result of new findings being made public for the first time today which confirm their link with hyperactivity and disruptive behaviour.
The government's Food Standards Agency is taking the significant step of issuing revised guidance to consumers recommending that they steer clear of products containing certain E-numbers if their children are showing signs of hyperactivity or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
The release of the new public health advice follows the results of the biggest UK study into the links between hyper-activity and chemical food additives, which was commissioned by the government and published today in the medical journal the Lancet.
But the move has confounded experts and health campaigners, who say the government had missed an opportunity to take a tougher line by banning the additives completely instead of placing a huge burden on parents. Adults are being advised to check for additives by scrutinising labels, yet many sweets and cakes are sold loose without labels, as is ice cream.
The FSA also said it would not be issuing any formal advice about the findings to headteachers about the content of school meals via the School Food Trust.
The agency said yesterday it was passing them to the European Food Safety Authority for it to make a decision about a ban as part of re- evaluation of the safety of all food colours.
Hyperactivity is a behaviour officially indicated by increased movement, impulsiveness and inattention, and can impair learning. It is unclear how many people in the UK are affected by hyperactivity conditions. In its more severe form ADHD is believed to affect between 2.4% and 5% of the population.
For their research, scientists from Southampton University recorded the responses of 153 three-year-olds and 144 eight to nine year-olds to mixes of additives placed in different drinks; they found that artificial food colour and additives were having "deleterious effects".
The children drank mixtures of additives, which included artificial colourings and the preservative sodium benzoate, which is commonly used in soft drinks. The mixtures were designed to reflect what a typical child might eat in the course of a normal day.
The results of the Southampton study show that when the children were given the drinks containing the test mixtures there was an increase in hyperactivity. However, the responses were not consistent; some children reacted significantly, others not at all.
The study found that the deterioration in behaviour after consuming the additives occurred in children in the general population, not just in those identified as suffering from hyperactivity.
Professor Jim Stevenson, who headed the Southampton study, said: "We now have clear evidence that mixtures of certain food colours and benzoate preservative can adversely influence the behaviour of children. There is some previous evidence that some children with behavioural disorders could benefit from the removal of certain food colours from their diet."
He said it was his "personal view" that the government could easily have taken a tougher line and banned the colours, although he admitted the issue of sodium benzoate was more complex.
Dr Andrew Wadge, the FSA's chief scientist, said: "We have revised our advice to consumers: if a child shows signs of hyperactivity or ADHD then eliminating the colours used in the Southampton study from their diet might have some beneficial effects."
He went on: "If parents are concerned about any additives they should remember that, by law, food additives must be listed on the label so they can make the choice to avoid the product if they want to."
A spokesman for the Hyperactive Children's Support Group said: "This research confirms what many of us have known for 30 years. But we seriously question the implementation of the new advice. Is it practical to expect parents to quiz headteachers about additives in school meals, or to ask parents about the contents of party bags?"
Popular drinks and sweets that still contain one or more of the named additives include Diet Coke, Irn-Bru, Orangina, Refreshers and Skittles.
Richard Watts, coordinator of the Children's Food Campaign, said: "The junk food diet turns out to be bad for children's mental health, as well as their physical health. We need to go further to make parents aware of the potential health problems created by additives, as well as do more to persuade children to eat less E-number-riddled junk food by restricting its marketing and labelling it clearly."
The food and drink additive industry is worth more than $25bn (£12.4bn) a year globally. But the impact of the research will be much wider, affecting the whole of the food and drink industry.
Julian Hunt, of the Food and Drink Federation, stressed the work it had already done to cut additives, and added: "As a responsible industry, we shall be studying the detail of the research and companies will clearly take account of these findings as part of their ongoing review of product formulations. The industry continues to respond to consumer demand by reducing the use of additives... many food and drink products on supermarket shelves contain no artificial colours."
The British Soft Drink Association said in a statement: "All additives, including colours used in food and drink, have been approved by the FSA as being safe for use and are carefully selected and monitored. They are included to meet the expectations of the public about the appearance and shelf-life of products and to enhance the choices that are available to them."
Copyright 2007 Guardian Unlimited
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Times (London, England) ........................[This story printer-friendly]
September 6, 2007
FOOD ALERT AS EVERY ADDITIVE COMES UNDER NEW SUSPICION
[Rachel's introduction: The safety of every food colouring and additive is being assessed independently by the European Food Safety Authority. Food safety experts expect most of these artificial colourings to be banned or phased out within two years.]
Valerie Elliott, Consumer Editor
The safety of every food colouring and additive is being assessed independently by the European Food Safety Authority. Food safety experts expect most of these artificial colourings to be banned or phased out within two years.
The Food Standards Agency made clear yesterday that it had the option to introduce a unilateral ban, but it believes that an EU-wide ban would be more effective, especially as many manufacturers operate across the Continent. Scientists at the food safety authority's headquarters in Palma, Italy, have examined the Southampton research findings and are preparing a report for the European Commission.
Some experts believe that action may be taken sooner on colourings than on the preservative sodium benzoate while manufacturers resolve technical difficulties. Sodium benzoate extends the shelf-life of drinks to about two years. Without it, many products would have to be refrigerated while in storage.
The links between artificial colours and hyperactivity in children have been known since the 1970s and companies have been lobbied by parents and health campaign groups to remove them. Nestle has removed artificial dyes from Smarties, and Burton's Foods removed them from its Jammie Dodgers after consumer concerns.
Leading brands, including super-market own-labels, are unlikely to contain many of these additives. Sainsbury's Kids range is already free from artificial flavourings, colours and sodium benzoate, and the company is reformulating more than 12,000 of its own-label items. A spokeswoman said that it was seeking natural alternatives in canned strawberries, raspberries, glace cherries, processed peas and angel cake. She said that any additives were clearly labelled.
Marks & Spencer has also removed all artificial colourants and flavourings from 99 per cent of products and has even introduced a new range of gourmet jelly beans, using natural colours such as beetroot red, concentrated plum, pear and pineapple juices or banana, peach and raspberry fruit purees.
Consumers should be suspicious of any brightly coloured food and drink products, especially in cheaper products. Icing on cakes and biscuits, sweet desserts, instant pudding mixes, some jellies and confectionery are the most likely candidates for E numbers. Sweets that are sold loose and are frequently found in children's birthday party bags are also prime suspects.
Malcolm Kane, a food technology consultant, campaigns for the removal of additives. He said that after the war there were hundreds of artificial colourings but these had been whittled down over the years by health concerns. "What we are left with is about 12 azo dyes still found and deemed safe to use in foods. But now is the time to ban them from foods in the precautionary principle. We need to do this for food security.
"Everyone will remember the illegal use of Sudan I red dye in scores of products. There are other illegal azo dyes but the testing procedure makes it difficult to distinguish between a lawful and illegal dye.
"It would make the control of such illicit dyes much better. We could test for azo dyes and if any were found, food would immediately be removed from human consumption."
Copyright Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Halifax (Nova Scotia) Chronicle ....................[This story printer-friendly]
September 10, 2007
SAFETY WARNING IGNORED
[Rachel's introduction: The chemical known as diacetyl was identified by scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2002 as the cause of a debilitating and sometimes fatal lung disease among workers in the plants where it is produced, as well as plants where it is added to popcorn. Now a popcorn consumer been reported ill.]
By Jeff Nesmith
Over a year after they were given the secret results of an Environmental Protection Agency study of potential health risks of a chemical in microwave popcorn, major popcorn producers have begun removing the substance from their product.
The results of the EPA study still have not been made public.
The chemical, known as diacetyl, was identified by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2002 as the cause of a debilitating and sometimes fatal lung disease among workers in the plants where it is produced, as well as plants where it is added to popcorn.
CDC's National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has called the condition bronchiolitis obliterans, or "popcorn lung."
Diacetyl is used to make popcorn smell "buttery." An EPA study of whether that appetizing smell endangers consumers was launched in the aftermath of the CDC report.
In April 2006, EPA scientists at Research Triangle Park, N.C., completed an analysis of air released from bags of microwaved popcorn, internal agency documents indicate.
Copies of the results were provided to popcorn producers three months later, but for the following 13 months EPA has refused to make a report containing data available to the general public.
During that time, Americans have consumed more than 750 million pounds of home-popped popcorn, according to statistics posted online by an industry group.
Last week, a health advocacy organization at George Washington University here revealed that a Colorado physician had notified the Food and Drug Administration in July that she had a patient who had developed "significant lung disease whose clinical findings are similar to those described in affected workers."
The patient had eaten "several bags of extra-butter-flavored microwave popcorn" per day for several years, said the physician, Dr. Cecile Rose of the University of Colorado School of Medicine.
David Michaels, an associate professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University and director of the university's Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, last week posted a copy of Rose's letter on his blog, the Pump Handle.
On Aug. 28, Weaver Popcorn Co. of Indianapolis became the first microwave popcorn company to announce that it was removing diacetyl from its product.
"It was a challenge to eliminate diacetyl from our flavorings and still maintain the great buttery taste that consumers love, but we've done it," Mike Weaver, president of the company, said in a news release.
He said the action was taken because "we know consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about this issue."
The Associated Press reported that other large popcorn producers, together responsible for more than 80 per cent of the U.S.'s supply, said they would follow suit.
In response to a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act, EPA recently released to Cox Newspapers several hundred pages of documents related to the diacetyl study. However, it withheld the study report, as well as comments the agency received from popcorn companies after they were allowed to see the document.
The industry comments were withheld under a provision that exempts confidential business information from mandatory disclosure.
The study itself was withheld under a FOIA provision that allows agencies to withhold documents that are part of their pre-decisional, deliberative processes.
EPA public relations personnel have said the study was being held back so that it could be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication. That has not yet taken place.
The records released to Cox show that EPA bowed in 2004 to industry pressure regarding the manner in which the study results would be released.
This happened after an official of one company -- Weaver Popcorn - warned that media attention resulting from the study "could irreparably damage the industry."
Andrew Miller, then a Weaver vice-president and now director of the Indiana Department of Agriculture, appealed to EPA scientist Jacky Ann Rosati to withhold preliminary results until the final study was completed.
"If this is combined with the issues surrounding worker safety and the popularity of popcorn, the media could have a field day," Miller said in an e-mail.
He said he expected media coverage would "go something like this: "The EPA completed its research on America's favorite microwave popcorn and found that 11 nasty compounds circulate through your microwave when it cooks.' "
He warned that "any misstep could have a sizeable economic impact," adding: "I can only imagine what will happen to sales and subsequently jobs and companies if consumers start believing that microwave popcorn is turning their kitchen into a gas chamber."
A few days later Rosati, a principal investigator on the study, replied that "after lengthy discussion with our public relations staff, we will likely publish one complete paper on this study."
Copyright 2007 The Halifax Herald Limited
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: BBC News ............................................[This story printer-friendly]
September 11, 2007
RESERVE BAN ON MUSHROOM PICKING
[Rachel's introduction: A nature reserve in mid Wales is banning all visitors from picking wild mushrooms because it says some species are in decline.]
The Elan Valley Trust which is responsible for flora and fauna at the reserve said any lesser restrictions would be impossible to police.
The trust's head ranger said some people were "cashing in" by selling car boot loads of the mushrooms.
But it is unclear how the trust intends to prevent mushroom picking.
Chairman John Evans defended the blanket ban at the site known as the Elan Estate.
"Our feeling is that if you permit some people to take some fungi, some of the time, in some places, that it is impossible to police that," he said.
========================================================
I have been doing this for nine years without any problems, and there is no scientific evidence that I'm causing any damage whatsoever by picking mushrooms. -- Daniel Butler, tour guide
========================================================
"Applying a precautionary principle, we think it is wiser to have a total prohibition on the removal of any fungi on the estate.
"To study fungi, we do not believe it is necessary to remove the fungi."
To illustrate the problems faced by the trust, Mr Evans said a rare bog orchid had been picked to extinction on the estate.
Head ranger Peter Jennings said there were no plans to erect warning signs on the 70 square mile (181.3 square kms), 42,000-acre (16,997 hectares) estate which is in the counties of Powys and Ceredigion.
He claimed that some people were "cashing in" on the mushrooms as well.
He said: "We have had people from eastern Europe picking whole (car) boot loads for commercial purposes.
Fantastically edible
"I have been here 20 years and in my time numbers have declined and some species have disappeared from some sites, and it's no coincidence it's the ones that sell for the most money."
However, Daniel Butler, a mushroom tour guide at the reserve, questioned the ban.
"I have been doing this for nine years without any problems, and there is no scientific evidence that I'm causing any damage whatsoever by picking mushrooms," he said.
Asked why he had to pick the mushrooms instead of just looking at them, he added: "They are fantastically edible, but some are only about an inch off the ground and difficult to see without picking.
"I'm not commercially exploiting the valley, but I want to open people's eyes to mushrooms."
Mr Butler claimed that his fungi tours generated about £25,000 for the local economy, and this year 84 people are expected to take part.
He said there were about 10,000 species of mushroom in Britain and about 1,000 were found on the estate.
Copyright BBC MMVII
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
Table of Contents edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::