Europe
The Times January 17, 2006

Household insecticides could double child leukaemia risk
By Sam Lister, Health Correspondent

CHILDREN frequently exposed to household insecticides used on plants, lawns and in head lice shampoos appear to run double the risk of developing childhood leukaemia, research suggests. A study by French doctors, published today in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, supports concerns raised in recent years about the use of toxic insecticides around the home and garden – including plant sprays, medication shampoos and mosquito repellents – and a possible correlation with increased rates of acute leukaemia in children.

The latest study by Inserm, France´s national institute for medical research, was based on 280 children who had acute leukaemia, newly diagnosed and 288 children matched for sex and age but disease free.

Detailed interviews were carried out with each mother. These included questions about the employment history of both parents, the use of insecticides in the home and garden and the use of insecticidal shampoos against head lice.

It showed that the risk of developing acute leukaemia was almost twice as likely in children whose mothers said that they had used insecticides in the home while pregnant and long after the birth.

Exposure to garden insecticides and fungicides as a child was associated with a more than doubling of disease occurrence. The use of insecticidal shampoos for head lice was associated with almost twice the risk.

Describing the links as “significant”, the authors said that preventive action should be considered to ensure that the health risks to children were as small as possible. A group of pesticides known as carbamates, which are present in plant treatments, lice shampoos and insect sprays, are most commonly linked to cases of leukaemia.

There are three main carbamates used in the UK – carbaryl, carbofuran and carbosulfan.

Head lice products containing carbaryl are now restricted to prescription after a report by a government committee that gave warning of potential carcinogenic properties.

Florence Menegaux, the lead researcher based at the Paris headquarters, and her fellow authors said that no one agent could be singled out and a causal relation between insecticides and the development of acute childhood leukaemia “remains questionable”. But they said that the patterns revealed suggested that the results should be acted on and “preventative action” considered.

Leukaemia is the term used to describe a number of cancers of the blood cells. In children about 85 per cent of these are acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and acute myeloid leukaemia accounts for most of the rest.

Leukaemia makes up about a third of all cancers in children and currently kills more than any other disease in the UK. Of the 500 children under the age of 15 who have the disease diagnosed each year, about 100 die. Research has shown that boys are 10 per cent more likely than girls to suffer the disease.

In the late 1960s, the mortality rate for leukaemia among children was about 26 deaths per million of the population in England and Wales. This dropped to about 10 by the late 1990s. But the incidence rate increased – from about 40 to 45 cases per million – over the same period.

The number of new cases being diagnosed has been rising for at least 40 years, particularly in the under-5s.

Scientists believe that the cancer starts in the womb, with a second event triggering the disease´s development in childhood. Studies are continuing to determine whether this trigger is genetic, environmental, dietary or related to other factors.

The possible link to pesticides remains hotly debated, with many scientists disputing the suggestion that it is a significant factor. Some have drawn attention to a potential “cocktail effect”, when apparently safe chemicals cause problems if combined with others.

Although products sold for use in homes and gardens are tested, mixtures of pesticides are not generally tested because of the number of permutations involved.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1988878,00.html

I LOVE Dr. Seuss….so when I ran across this poem for nursing moms that is written in the style of Dr. Seuss I had to publish it here. I hope all nursing moms can take it to heart and remember that breastfeeding is best for their baby…even if others would make us feel as though we are doing something wrong by doing it in public. It is a “natural” thing.

Dr. Seuss for Nursing Moms

Would you nurse her in the park?
Would you nurse him in the dark?
Would you nurse him with a Boppy?
And when your boobs are feeling floppy?

I would nurse him in the park,
I would nurse her in the dark.
I’d nurse with or without a Boppy.
Floppy boobs will never stop me.

Can you nurse with your seat belt on?
Can you nurse from dusk till dawn?
Though she may pinch me, bite me, pull,
I will nurse her `till she’s full!

Can you nurse and make some soup?
Can you nurse and feed the group?
It makes her healthy strong and smart,
Mommy’s milk is the best start!

Would you nurse him at the game?
Would you nurse her in the rain?
In front of those who dare complain?
I would nurse him at the game.
I would nurse her in the rain.

As for those who protest lactation,
I have the perfect explanation.
Mommy’s milk is tailor made
It’s the perfect food, you need no aid.

Some may scoff and some may wriggle,
Avert their eyes or even giggle.
To those who can be cruel and rude,
Remind them breast’s the perfect food!

I would never scoff or giggle,
Roll my eyes or even wiggle!
I would not be so crass or crude,
I KNOW that this milk’s the perfect food!

We make the amount we need
The perfect temp for every feed.
There’s no compare to milk from breast-
The perfect food, above the rest.

Those sweet nursing smiles are oh so sweet,
Mommy’s milk is such a treat.
Human milk just can’t be beat.

I will nurse, in any case,
On the street or in your face.
I will not let my baby cry,
I’ll meet her needs, I’ll always try.
It’s not about what’s good for you,
It’s best for babies, through and through.

I will nurse her in my home,
I will nurse her when I roam.
Leave me be lads and ma’am.
I will nurse her, Mom I am.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Study finds toxic threat in auto interiors
Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — A report by an Ann Arbor environmental group that says toxic chemicals are present in automobile interiors at levels five to 10 times higher than those found in homes and offices has sparked protests from the chemical industry and interest from automakers.

The report, “Toxic at Any Speed,” was released by the Ecology Center on Jan. 11, amid the din of the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

The report, based on samples of windshield film and dust samples from randomly selected cars made by 11 leading manufacturers, concludes there is a pervasive safety threat that few consumers know about: Cars can expose their occupants to worrisome levels of toxic chemicals, emitted from the materials used to make seating, carpets, arm rests and wire coverings.

The Environmental Protection Agency has called indoor air pollution one of the top five environmental risks to public health, said Jeff Gearhart, an Ecology Center researcher who co-wrote the report. According to the center’s tests, car air quality is worse than what is typically found in buildings and far worse than outdoor air — at least as far as two types of toxic chemicals are concerned.

The pattern of one of the chemicals cited in the report, a flame-retardant named decabrominated diphenyl ether, or deca-BDE, has been accumulating in the environment and is the subject of a growing number of studies, Gearhart said. The chemical has been linked to health effects in laboratory animals similar to other toxic chemicals, like slowing brain development and causing reproductive problems and cancer.

“They could create a legacy like PCBs,” Gearhart said of the flame retardant BDE, referring to a now-banned toxic chemical that found its way up the food chain. “They have all the lineage of that type of environmental disaster. We think the writing is on the wall. The smart people within the auto industry know that.”

The Ecology Center cited Ford subsidiary Volvo Car Corp. as an industry leader in following a policy to reduce flame-retardant chemicals as concern has grown in Europe. Volvo and other well-performing companies prove the feasibility of providing safer alternatives, Gearhart said.

After the report, Volvo issued a statement touting its models’ “best interior air quality.” The test scores were the result of a conscious company policy to reduce interior emissions and improve air filtering, the company said.

“In an age when many people suffer from asthma and allergies, it is only natural for Volvo cars to offer its customers a good environment even inside the car,” said Anders Karrberg, Volvo’s environmental director.

General Motors Corp. and BMW vehicles performed better than average for all chemicals tested. Mercedes, Chrysler, Toyota and Subaru had higher than average concentrations of both kinds of toxic chemicals.

Some companies had dramatically different results for different chemicals. Hyundai had the lowest score of the 11 auto companies tested for flame retardants — with only a tiny trace equivalent to what is found outdoors. But it had the highest score for a toxic plastic softening group of chemicals called phthalates.

The Ecology Center said these chemicals have been linked to liver, kidney and reproductive problems in lab animals. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said phthalates could cause developmental problems in children.

Hyundai officials met with the Ecology Center last week to explore ways to reduce their use of phthalates, Gearhart said.

But not everyone is convinced the chemicals cited in the study present a problem.

The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, the industry association representing the four manufacturers of bromine-based flame retardants, said the Ecology Center was asking manufacturers to abandon a proven chemical for alternatives that may not be as effective. There were 297,000 car fires in the U.S. in 2004, the group said.

“Automobiles are significant heat sources and therefore require the most effective flame retardants available,” forum chairman Raymond Dawson said in a statement.

And automakers have already agreed to phase out two of the three flame retardant chemicals cited in the report, said Eron Shosteck, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spokesman. The remaining chemical has been studied by the European Union for 10 years and has been proven safe, Shosteck said.

Even so, lawmakers and manufacturers around the world have attempted to reduce exposure to some of the chemicals cited by the Ecology Center.

Read the entire article here.