Allergies · Eco-Chick

Browsing all posts tagged with allergies

Is Melamine Safe for Kids?

If you ever needed another reason to breastfeed, here it is. Four babies have died and thousands are ill after melamine was found in contaminated dairy products in Asia.

The industrial toxin, which is high in nitrogen, is added to milk when producers want to artificially boost protein content. According to the Associated Press, one in five national dairy companies tested positive for the chemical. The hygiene practices of dairy farmers dates back to 80′s standardization and this lack of updated regulation has allowed the antiquated technology to go largely unchecked.

After the pet-food scare with melamine it leaves one wondering what, if any, form of melamine is safe. I was recently given some kids’ bowls made from melamine. Are they at risk? Obviously the substance is solidified, but as we now know with regard to plastics, it is best to err on the side of caution.

Melamine flatware is usually created by combining the chemical with formaldehyde. Formaldehyde has been linked to asthma and cancer. In a piece for the Green Guide, Alexandra Zissu (author of The Organic Pregnancy – a great book I reviewed last year,) discusses the concern surrounding melamine and other durable plastics used in baby and toddler wares. In her article on plastics Zissu notes:

Aside from sippy cups, most kidware isn’t made of polycarbonate but of durable, colorful melamine. Melamine is a questionable choice for food because it’s made with formaldehyde, which has been linked to allergies, asthma and cancer. There’s no evidence that formaldehyde leaches out of melamine every single time it’s used, but some studies, including one by the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, have shown that the chemical can migrate out of melamine and into food under certain circumstances, such as heat and when serving highly acidic foods.

In my home we have been using glass, stainless steel, #5 plastics and wood. As far as plastics go, it is wise to never use abrasive detergents or scrubby sponges as this can cause degeneration, which can lead to leaching. Zissu discusses what she feels are the best alternatives:

My daughter eats from our own lead-free ceramic dishes. She also eats from small stainless-steel prep bowls purchased at a kitchen supply store, and even the occasional glass bowl. I know some moms and dads worry about shattering glass, but she’s never broken one, despite the fact that the floor under our dining table is poured concrete (inherited from someone else’s renovation). It probably helped that we have firmly explained to her over and over and over that she may not toss the things.

Avoiding all things plastic is not a new concept. The idea of toddlers throwing glass and ceramic bowls at the dog can be daunting, but as Zissu says, teaching can help alleviate flying objects (at least ideally.) People go back and forth with the plastics debate. A few weeks ago a study was released saying “everything is OK – you can use BPA” and some of my friends told me they felt duped into buying BPA-free. But, here’s the thing. If we know we are already exposed to all of these chemicals in our environment and have a higher body-burden than our civilization has ever seen, isn’t it wise to err on the side of caution? When so many still use microwaves and plastics together, this just seems like a no-brainer to me. We put this stuff through the dishwasher (heating to high temps,) we serve hot food on it, and we bang it around and scratch it up. The attitude of “well, everything is dangerous – everything causes cancer” is resigning responsibility and leaving the well-being of our youth up to Dow and Monsanto, who as we know, have done a bang-up job so far.

allergies, Amazon, babies, Baby, book, BPA, bpa-free, Cancer, car, carbon, eating, farm, FDA, Food, formula, Home, kids, melamine, Milk, mom, moms, News, Organic, plastic, plastics, plates, Pregnancy, produce, spa, Tea, teaching, Technology, wood

Cell Towers and Health Effects: Cellular Disservice?

3 Comments

by Kimberly Jordan Allen · 07/08/08

This past week a local in my town contacted me to see if I would be interested in discussing the issues surrounding a potential cellular tower that would be constructed within one mile of my house. Some of us from the town had the chance to voice our concerns to the Connecticut Siting Council, which is the governing body that determines zoning for these towers in our state.

Having written about microwave energy and electromagnetic fields a few years ago, I remembered interviewing Carl Blackman, a research scientist in the Environmental Carcinogenesis Division of the EPA, and asking him about cell phones and cellular base stations in relation to electromagnetic fields and the possible health impact. Blackman was one among quite a few scientists and researchers I interviewed who reiterated the same sentiment: “We just don’t know yet. The science is not in.” The fact that the jury is still out on this vast topic, in a field (pardon the pun) that is ever-expanding, is enough, for some, to warrant grassroots action.

The subject is controversial and highly debated, although the issue is one that people are dealing with world-wide. The fear is that without mobile phones and cell towers covering every inch of land, emergency services will be left without connection, leaving us, “with a hole big enough to drive a hearse through…” as I recently read in a concerned citizen’s letter to the NYTimes. One concern is that the proliferation of these towers and devices has gone largely unmonitored, unregulated, and, according to some scientists, could potentially lead to serious health issues.

The World Health Organization has advised that the “precautionary principle” be enacted as a preemptive move before certainty of harm is verified by science. This essentially means that when any new technology is evolving beyond the scope of scientific research, it is advisable to protect oneself through risk management. So, while some still think that those who discuss this topic with seriousness are delusional and should be stuttering through the park, wearing a tinfoil hat, others, including the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, and member countries of the European union feel it is worth serious discussion.

In Europe, some governments have set exposure standards below those of the standardizing agencies, in order to try to protect their citizens. In India, towers were recently banned from school and residential areas to protect people following studies that showed potential harm to the brain. The United States Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704(a) removes environmental considerations from the tower siting process, which denies citizens the opportunity to protest based on ecological concerns (zoning) or health issues.

In 2006, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF,) the largest union of first responders in North America, passed a resolution banning cellular towers from firehouses until more research is done, because firefighters were suffering from ill health. Internationally, the concern regarding the exponential proliferation of wireless devices and base stations to support them has provoked scientific studies and prompted legislators to err on the side of caution when it comes to regulations. Many scientists are discussing the potential impact on DNA, neurological function, and human health while others study migratory birds and the reproduction patterns of all animal populations in the vicinity of strong electromagnetic fields.

In my town, in NW Connecticut, we are currently experiencing the battle. The cellular tower has been proposed to be on Route 7, a scenic highway that runs parallel with the Appalachian Trail. The AT park manager has sent a letter in response to the proposed tower stating that they had no problem with it, so long as Cellco/Verizon makes the tower look like a tree and plants 25 white pines along the trail.

The tower site is also within one mile of two schools and is next door to the largest employer of the town. The site abuts a friend’s property. Both he and his wife are cancer survivors and fear the tower could affect their health. At the public hearing, where town members were allowed to voice their opinions to the siting commission (who ultimately decides whether the tower goes up or not,) people expressed various concerns:
More »

allergies, Animals, birds, Cancer, car, children, death, Energy, epa, Europe, farm, health, India, interview, local, magazine, media, mom, News, NYTimes, oil, opinion, Outdoors, Plants, schools, skin, spring, Technology, Teens, trees

Got Allergies? Blame Global Warming

6 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 04/22/08

The latest Vogue (May, with the ever-princessey- in a good way- Gwyneth Paltrow on the cover) has a great piece entitled, “Spring Awakening” wherein writer Ginny Graves does some great round-up reporting regarding the causes of allergies and what the heck to do about them. It’s not online yet, but I excerpted below.

While I’ve never had a tiny waist (I was born with a belly, and have held onto it ever since) or good eyesight, I have one awesome physical trait- I’m not allergic to anything- not even poison ivy! BUT I have many friends who suffer from seasonal (and even year-round) allergies, and watching them suffer is no fun. So I was interested to read this with all my ever-so-sniffly amies in mind:

The latest suspect behind seasonal sneezing is rising levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is affecting plants and trees in ways no one predicted. When researchers at Harvard University grew allergy-causing ragweed under two conditions–current levels of carbon dioxide and double that (the amount that could be in the air mid-century)–they found that the plants exposed to more CO2 grew 10 percent bigger but produced 60 percent more pollen, a finding that would account for the fact that real-world pollen levels are soaring.
“Health officials typically issue warnings when the count is about 150 grams per cubic meter, but we’re seeing levels in the thousands, especially in cities, which have higher levels of CO2,” says Paul R. Epstein, M.D., associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. “The more pollen, the more allergies. It’s pretty simple.”

Writer Graves goes on to bring up that because Spring comes earlier than ever (thanks again, global warming!), pollen is floating around for ever-longer periods of time, aggravating sinuses everywhere. AND we may be more susceptible to pollen as an irritant because we disinfect so much, which means we’re exposed to fewer germs, which some scientists think actually causes allergies to be more severe (since our bodies don’t have to fight real pathogens, it turns upon benign substances–this idea is called the hygiene hypothesis). Take-home message? Our modern lives and unsustainable choices are to blame for our wheeziness.

I think I need to make a t-shirt. “Problems? Blame Global Warming?”

allergies, health, hygiene hypothesis, women's health

My Cosmetics and Yours…

8 Comments

by Ann Benoit · 09/01/07

aved

In a recent search to uncover exactly what i’ve been putting on my skin/hair, I came across the cosmetic safety database, a great website created by the researchers at the environmental working group. On this site, thousands of products have been tested and you can type in any of your products and check to see the degree of toxicity that it contains.

The results of a search will tell you if ingredients in that product are linked to: cancer; developmental/reproductive toxicity; violations, restrictions & warnings; allergies/immunotoxicity; and other concerns for ingredients used in the product. It will also let you know if the manufacturer has signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics or conducts animal testing.

Frankly, I was shocked to look up some of the products currently living in my medicine cabinet. For example, I typed in Aveda Botanical Exfoliant. I had assumed that a company like Aveda would be using fairly ok ingredients, right? Well ingredients in it are linked to: cancer; developmental/reproductive toxicity; violations, restrictions & warnings; allergies/immunotoxicity; organ system toxicity and contamination concerns just to name a few! Not to mention that Aveda (now owned by Este Lauder) hasn’t signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics. This product scored a 6 out of 10 (10 being the worst) hazard rating.

Although I’m not necessarily going to throw out all of my products and rush to buy new ones (that seems like a huge waste and financial commitment), finding better alternatives to my current products and replacing them when I’ve finished is the new plan. When the database brings up a rating of a product, there is a link that tells you which other products have less toxicity.

allergies, Cancer, cosmetics, farm, Hair, skin, waste

Party Pooper

No Comments

by Jennifer Veilleux · 07/06/07

firework

Biking to work on the morning of July 5^th I noticed scattered remnants of brightly colored paper. In some places boxes were piled and charred remains of something were close by. Fireworks. There was litter from exploded fireworks everywhere. The night before, in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, it sounded like a warzone…not unfitting for this present moment! And it was not easy to catch some rest through that noise which raged into the night.

In Chinatown in NYC one year I attended a day of the Chinese New Year celebration and it began to rain. The water that snaked along the edges of the streets to the gutters was a kaleidoscope of color from the confetti filled explosive sticks you can buy at any small Chinese store. The confetti, once exploded (really impressive site), littered the street.

So then I thought, things that blow up for our entertainment, are they super damaging one or two or three days in a year? I looked up news reports and found that indeed, fireworks are bad for the environment. But the articles I found suggested rather than the actual visual litter or noise levels being a problem, fireworks caused other concerns for the environment: they increase ambient temperatures (where ignited), deposit perchlorate in water resources (perchlorate, yes the carcinogen, but, not to worry, the amount reduces back to background levels within 3 to 12 weeks), and compound air pollution levels (there were actual warnings for people with allergies and respiratory problems about going outside during the firework display period).

No kidding. Even fireworks, such beautiful and awe-inspiring displays, have a negative environmental impact. Good to keep in mind on our next firework-filled holiday…

Here are some news reports from around the country:

water

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/science/03obse1.html?ref=science

air

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6310145

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/jul/06/guess-what-fireworks-pollute/

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=local&id=5447560

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070704/NEWS01/707040332

heat

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_6296507