Even on this glorious cloudless morning, the horizon hints of brown. :(
So as to avoid beating a dead horse, I will simply encourage you to read the article that I referred to before about phthalates linked to smaller penises and feminized male genitalia. (Who know s what the heck happens to the inside of girl babies.) The scientific article in whole is available only through purchase so this is the next best thing - a comprehensive summary.
Please note the reference by the ACC. At least the writer did justice to who the ACC actually represents and what their first priority is.
Please keep in mind that phthalates are everywhere. Please read the ingredients in personal care products, particularly lotions and hair products. Phthalates are added to plastics to make them soft. And most importantly, keep soft plastic toys away from kids who still put things in their mouth. Those damn rubber duckies...
Showing posts with label ACC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACC. Show all posts
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
EPA Choked by ACC
Glorious fall day. Dots of changing colors here and there.
The poor EPA - under staffed, over worked, under funded, disrespected and very vulnerable.
The EPA, born out of the 1969-1970 concern for the environment and propelled by the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, was formed by the Nixon Administration to address our exploding pollution issues. The unregulated industrial revolution and post war chemical tactics had finally caught up with us and our country was disgustingly polluted. The litter bug mentality needing reigning in.
Like many government agencies, they shovel against the wind but in particular it seems the EPA just can't keep up. With over 80,000 chemicals to keep track of and only 5,500 scientists employed, the ratio means there is so much to do with so little time and staff. The pace of added chemicals and industrial commitment has far exceeded the ability of the EPA to keep us safe.
Now throw in the additional reality of lobbying, bribes, and pressure by outsiders and you can see how things get really mucky. Back in April, a survey revealed that over 800 of the EPA scientists complained of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their research findings, pressure that has been escalating the last 5 years. Hhhmm. The Bush culture has blatantly succumb to the all too powerful oil and chemical companies and has even fired leading researchers after the lobbyists jumped up and down about conflict of interest. (Talk about conflict of interest!)
So as scientists are able to catch up to our polluted state, create instruments for testing and provide good research, not only on animals but also on humans, (most relevant eh?) we still have news reports sabotaged by the ACC. Yesterday's report about maternal phthalate levels and genital alterations in baby boys is of grave concern. Or at least it should be. Until of course you get to the end of the article and there it is, the doubt meister called the ACC, the American Chemistry Council gets quoted once again to set every one's mind at ease, applauding the safety of phthalates and that a messed up penis is no big deal.
How does the ACC get to even be in an article anyway? Was it to "balance" the reporting? Talk about conflict of interest. Shame on those reporters. The ACC is a 119 million dollar/year lobbying trade association, protecting their chemical industry's interests, who gets to be quoted on a regular basis. The ACC is NOT a or the professional organization of chemists, the American Chemists Society holds that honor. And how often do you hear the ACS quoted? I never have. The ACC seems interested in only protecting their profits. The ACC also carries a big stick in Washington and has set up camp inside the EPA. And I am tired of it. The article was well written right up until the "balancing" part. That's like reporting on global warming and then quoting someone who blogs about junk science.
Does this really matter? YES. I can't tell you how many times people have the come back "the levels probably aren't high enough to do any real harm" to the concerns about certain chemicals and recent findings. Define "real" harm anyway. This attitude is a result of the ACC spinning the doubts and unfortunately it is working. We, our children and our future can not afford the ACC damage control tactics. If you have the activist bug in you, hold these reporters accountable for their reporting. Explain to them that quoting the ACC is like asking the fox which chicken looks good. With any luck, that reporter won't take that free dinner any more.
The poor EPA - under staffed, over worked, under funded, disrespected and very vulnerable.
The EPA, born out of the 1969-1970 concern for the environment and propelled by the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, was formed by the Nixon Administration to address our exploding pollution issues. The unregulated industrial revolution and post war chemical tactics had finally caught up with us and our country was disgustingly polluted. The litter bug mentality needing reigning in.
Like many government agencies, they shovel against the wind but in particular it seems the EPA just can't keep up. With over 80,000 chemicals to keep track of and only 5,500 scientists employed, the ratio means there is so much to do with so little time and staff. The pace of added chemicals and industrial commitment has far exceeded the ability of the EPA to keep us safe.
Now throw in the additional reality of lobbying, bribes, and pressure by outsiders and you can see how things get really mucky. Back in April, a survey revealed that over 800 of the EPA scientists complained of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their research findings, pressure that has been escalating the last 5 years. Hhhmm. The Bush culture has blatantly succumb to the all too powerful oil and chemical companies and has even fired leading researchers after the lobbyists jumped up and down about conflict of interest. (Talk about conflict of interest!)
So as scientists are able to catch up to our polluted state, create instruments for testing and provide good research, not only on animals but also on humans, (most relevant eh?) we still have news reports sabotaged by the ACC. Yesterday's report about maternal phthalate levels and genital alterations in baby boys is of grave concern. Or at least it should be. Until of course you get to the end of the article and there it is, the doubt meister called the ACC, the American Chemistry Council gets quoted once again to set every one's mind at ease, applauding the safety of phthalates and that a messed up penis is no big deal.
How does the ACC get to even be in an article anyway? Was it to "balance" the reporting? Talk about conflict of interest. Shame on those reporters. The ACC is a 119 million dollar/year lobbying trade association, protecting their chemical industry's interests, who gets to be quoted on a regular basis. The ACC is NOT a or the professional organization of chemists, the American Chemists Society holds that honor. And how often do you hear the ACS quoted? I never have. The ACC seems interested in only protecting their profits. The ACC also carries a big stick in Washington and has set up camp inside the EPA. And I am tired of it. The article was well written right up until the "balancing" part. That's like reporting on global warming and then quoting someone who blogs about junk science.
Does this really matter? YES. I can't tell you how many times people have the come back "the levels probably aren't high enough to do any real harm" to the concerns about certain chemicals and recent findings. Define "real" harm anyway. This attitude is a result of the ACC spinning the doubts and unfortunately it is working. We, our children and our future can not afford the ACC damage control tactics. If you have the activist bug in you, hold these reporters accountable for their reporting. Explain to them that quoting the ACC is like asking the fox which chicken looks good. With any luck, that reporter won't take that free dinner any more.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
FDA Says BPA Okay - FDA Wimps Out
Pea soup this morning, can't see 50 feet.
The same day the Journal of the American Medical Association releases their largest adult human study regarding BPA, leaving no doubt that there is serious doubt about BPA, our FDA declares BPA safe. What's wrong with this picture?
I was mad yesterday and I am even more mad today. This is deja vu of the tobacco industry's decades of deception all over again, this time being lead by the American Chemistry Counsel. The ACC has continued to cast doubt and is the biggest and most powerful lobbyist for the plastic and oil industry. Without this organization, BPA would probably have been banned years ago. The ACC is the bully on the block and has pulled some pretty scary and unethical behavior.
I strongly urge you to read the links I have provided. They are hot off the press and you can draw your own conclusion. The FDA's and EPA's own scientific advisory program called The National Toxicology Program advised BPA caution after reviewing 261 scientific publications. The FDA drew its conclusion based only on animal studies, a few at that, and studies produced by researchers tied to the chemical industry. (talk about 10 foxes guarding the chicken coop)
With over 83,000 chemicals available for human contact, and many known for their questionable safety issues, it is unbelievable that we are ignoring top scientists and hundreds of research projects. Again, I urge you to review the links provided.
The ACC is the mouthy parent in the stands playing the ref, so the ref (FDA and EPA) can't do their job and succumb to pressure. Pretty wimpy if you ask me.
The same day the Journal of the American Medical Association releases their largest adult human study regarding BPA, leaving no doubt that there is serious doubt about BPA, our FDA declares BPA safe. What's wrong with this picture?
I was mad yesterday and I am even more mad today. This is deja vu of the tobacco industry's decades of deception all over again, this time being lead by the American Chemistry Counsel. The ACC has continued to cast doubt and is the biggest and most powerful lobbyist for the plastic and oil industry. Without this organization, BPA would probably have been banned years ago. The ACC is the bully on the block and has pulled some pretty scary and unethical behavior.
I strongly urge you to read the links I have provided. They are hot off the press and you can draw your own conclusion. The FDA's and EPA's own scientific advisory program called The National Toxicology Program advised BPA caution after reviewing 261 scientific publications. The FDA drew its conclusion based only on animal studies, a few at that, and studies produced by researchers tied to the chemical industry. (talk about 10 foxes guarding the chicken coop)
With over 83,000 chemicals available for human contact, and many known for their questionable safety issues, it is unbelievable that we are ignoring top scientists and hundreds of research projects. Again, I urge you to review the links provided.
The ACC is the mouthy parent in the stands playing the ref, so the ref (FDA and EPA) can't do their job and succumb to pressure. Pretty wimpy if you ask me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)