NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
| * * * COMPANIES & PRODUCTS * * * |
|---|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
ECHOES OF VIETNAM
In July, President Clinton signed into law a $1.3 billion aid package to step up the "war on drugs" in Colombia and neighboring countries in South America. Of this sum, $860 million is designated for Colombia itself, mainly as aid to the military.[1] For three decades Colombia has been torn by civil war, and the Colombian military has a well-documented record of human rights abuses including disappearances, arbitrary detentions, kidnappings, and torture of civilians.[2, pg. 20] The U.S. Congress made its "drug war" military aid dependent upon the Colombian government improving its human rights profile, but in August President Clinton waived this requirement so that funds could begin to flow south. This month Mr. Clinton may waive the human rights requirements once again so a second installment of aid can be released.
For a number of years the U.S. has sponsored herbicide spraying in Colombia, intending to curb illegal drugs at their source. Starting in January 2001 under U.S. oversight, the Colombian government will escalate its "crop eradication" activities, in which aircraft spray herbicides containing glyphosate to kill opium poppy and coca plants. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the well-known herbicide called Roundup. Opium poppy and coca are the raw materials for making heroin and cocaine.
Representatives of Colombian indigenous communities recently traveled to Washington, D.C. to explain how they have been affected by spraying that has already occurred. Glyphosate, they said, kills more than drug crops -- it also kills food crops that many rural Colombians depend on for survival. In some places, the spraying has killed fish and livestock and has contaminated water supplies. One photograph from a sprayed area shows a group of banana trees killed by herbicides; nearby a plot of coca plants remains untouched.[3] Sometimes the spray also lands on schoolyards or people's homes. Many Colombians say they have become ill as a result.
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, in one case several spray victims traveled 55 miles by bus to visit a hospital. The doctor who treated them said their symptoms included dizziness, nausea, muscle and joint pain, and skin rashes. "We do not have the scientific means here to prove they suffered pesticide poisoning, but the symptoms they displayed were certainly consistent with that condition," he said. A nurse's aide in the local clinic said she had been instructed "not to talk to anyone about what happened here."
The U.S. State Department denies that there are human health effects from spraying glyphosate on the Colombian countryside. A U.S. embassy official in Colombia told the NEW YORK TIMES that glyphosate is "less toxic than table salt or aspirin" and said the spray victims' accounts of adverse effects were "scientifically impossible."[4] A question-and-answer fact sheet published by the State Department says that glyphosate does not "harm cattle, chickens, or other farm animals," is not "harmful to human beings," and will not contaminate water. The fact sheet asks the question, "If glyphosate is so benign, why are there complaints of damage from its use in Colombia?" and answers: "These reports have been largely based on unverified accounts provided by farmers whose illicit crops have been sprayed. Since their illegal livelihoods have been affected by the spraying, these persons do not offer objective information about the program.... "
But medical reports link exposure to glyphosate herbicides with short-term symptoms including blurred vision, skin problems, heart palpitations, and nausea. Studies have also found associations with increased risk of miscarriages, premature birth, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Formulations in which glyphosate is combined with other ingredients can be more acutely toxic than glyphosate alone.[6, pgs. 5-8] Monsanto, a major manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, was challenged by the Attorney General of New York State for making safety claims similar to those now being repeated by the U.S. State Department. In an out-of-court settlement in 1996, Monsanto agreed to stop advertising the product as "safe, non-toxic, harmless or free from risk."
Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, a vocal critic of the "drug war" military aid, visited Colombia last week. During his visit he was treated to a demonstration of aerial crop eradication, in the course of which the Colombian National Police managed to spray Senator Wellstone himself with herbicides. According to the Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, this accident occurred shortly after the U.S. Embassy in Colombia circulated materials explaining that the spray was guided by "precise geographical coordinates" calculated by computer. Colombian police said the accident had occurred because the wind blew the herbicide off course.
Both common sense and scientific studies tell us that wind can be expected to blow aerially sprayed chemicals off course. For example, a 1992 study in Canada calculated that a buffer zone of 75 to 1200 meters (243 to 3900 feet) could be needed to protect non-target vegetation from damage during aerial spraying of glyphosate.[8] And a 1985 article on glyphosate says, "damage due to drift is likely to be more common and more severe with glyphosate than with other herbicides."
Proponents of the "war on drugs" would like us to believe that the more acres of South American countryside we spray with herbicides, the fewer North American children will fall prey to drug pushers. But studies show that herbicide spray campaigns are ineffective at stemming the flow of drugs. So long as there is a demand for drugs, someone somewhere will supply them. Therefore crop eradication programs simply waste tax dollars. Furthermore, a 1999 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), a federal agency, concluded that crop eradication efforts to date have failed.[2, pg. 16] According to the GAO, the U.S. State Department escalated its support for aerial spray campaigns in 1996, and during the 1997-98 period, over 100,000 hectares (254,000 acres) of the Colombian countryside were sprayed. But during this same period, net coca cultivation in Colombia increased 50 percent.
On the other hand, tackling the drug problem within the U.S. by reducing drug use can succeed. A study by the RAND corporation found that drug treatment programs for cocaine users in the U.S. are 23 times as cost effective as efforts to eradicate drugs at their source.[10] And yet, according to a 1999 U.S. government report, the majority of Americans needing drug treatment went untreated between 1991 and 1996.
If dousing the Colombian countryside with herbicides is not an effective way to diminish the drug problem in the U.S., it is worth asking what drives our government's enthusiasm for this costly and destructive approach. One explanation is that the "war on drugs" is a pretext for policies that have little to do with drugs. Several U.S. industries stand to gain from U.S. intervention in Colombia's civil war. The Occidental Petroleum Corporation, for example, lobbied hard for the "drug war" military aid; and U.S. companies that manufacture the military helicopters used in Colombia were major supporters of the aid package.
Waging an ineffective "war on drugs" abroad also helps to divert attention away from the political role of drug policy within the U.S. A recent report by Human Rights Watch, an organization that monitors and documents human rights abuses throughout the world, says that drug control policies within the U.S. have been the primary driver of this country's incarceration crisis, in which the prison population has quadrupled since 1980. The U.S. now has more than 2 million citizens behind bars. Rates of conviction and imprisonment are much higher among nonviolent drug offenders who are black than among their white counterparts.[13] Thirteen percent of black men in the U.S. -- more than one in ten -- are not allowed to vote because they are in jail or were previously convicted of a felony.
Without the rhetoric of "fighting drugs," U.S. officials would
have to admit to the American public that we are intervening in
another country's civil war -- bringing back memories of Vietnam
and other disastrous failures of U.S. foreign policy.
Unfortunately, the analogy to Vietnam is appropriate as U.S.
military involvement in Colombia deepens. During the Vietnam war,
the U.S. defoliated and contaminated Vietnam's forests with Agent
Orange, a herbicide composed of the chemicals 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T
and routinely contaminated with the carcinogen dioxin. American
veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange suffer elevated rates
of diabetes and certain cancers, and veterans' children have
elevated rates of major birth defects (see REHW #212 and #250).
Under the banner of the "war on drugs," in Colombia once again we
are waging a toxic war against another country's unique
ecosystems and the health of innocent civilians.
by Rachel Massey
CHILDREN IN HARM'S WAY
A new report by a group of physicians says that millions of children in the U.S. exhibit learning disabilities, reduced IQ and destructive, aggressive behavior because of exposures to toxic chemicals.[1] "Neurodevelopmental disabilities are widespread, and chemical exposures are important and preventable contributors to these conditions," the report says (pg. 117).
Titled IN HARM'S WAY, the report was written by physicians Ted Schettler and Jill Stein and two of their colleagues and was published by Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility in partnership with the Clean Water Fund. IN HARM'S WAY links toxic exposures during early childhood, or even before birth, to lifelong disabilities including attention disorders, reduced IQ and poorly-controlled aggression.
IN HARM'S WAY reviews scientific and medical information on a range of toxins to which most or all American children are exposed, and draws links to the rising number of children diagnosed each year with abnormal brain development or function. The report is a call to action for everyone interested in children's welfare and the future of our society. To avert brain damage in growing numbers of children, we have to reclaim our government from corporate special interests, the report concludes.
Developmental disabilities such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and uncontrollable aggression currently affect an estimated 12 million children under age 18 in the U.S. -- almost one child in five. Furthermore, the incidence of some of these disabilities appears to have increased dramatically in recent decades. For example, nationwide, the number of children classified with learning disabilities and placed in special education programs increased 191% between 1977 and 1994. The number of children taking the drug Ritalin to combat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has approximately doubled every 4 to 7 years since 1971. Experts estimate that autism rates have risen from around 4 per 10,000 in the early 1980s to between 12 and 20 per 10,000 in the 1990s. According to a recent article in US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, the number of children in New York classified with learning disabilities rose 55 percent between 1983 and 1996. [2]
Some argue that reported disabilities are increasing because of improved diagnosis and rising expectations as children are required to learn more complicated skills at younger ages. But many parents, teachers, and physicians who work with children think these explanations are only partially correct because "they can not imagine that such disabilities escaped notice in the past," the report says. (pg. 11)
Experts may argue about the exact number of children suffering from individual disorders, but the undisputed reality is that huge numbers of children currently suffer with serious developmental disabilities and they are exposed to many toxic chemicals that are known to produce such disabilities. "We believe we can no longer ignore the mounting evidence that chemical exposures contribute to the epidemic of developmental disabilities," the report says. (pg. 9)
IN HARM'S WAY walks us through a sampling of neurotoxic substances to which many or all American children are exposed -- metals (lead, mercury, manganese); nicotine; pesticides; persistent organochlorine compounds (e.g., dioxin and PCBs); solvents, including alcohol; fluoride; and food additives -- and reviews existing human and animal data on developmental effects of these chemicals. These effects can vary dramatically depending on the exact timing of exposures. Tiny exposures that would have no noticeable effect at most stages of development can produce devastating permanent damage if they occur during a "window of vulnerability" when certain organs are developing rapidly. (pg. 9)
Here is a sampling of the toxins that can misdirect the development of a child's brain.
-- Lead exposure in infants and children is associated with attention deficit, aggression, and reduced IQ. Blood lead levels below those labeled "safe" by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are associated with learning problems, and no threshold has been identified below which adverse effects do not occur. Young monkeys exposed to lead show symptoms including heightened distractability and inappropriate responses to stimuli. One million American children currently live with blood lead levels above the threshold recognized by EPA as affecting behavior and cognition. Millions more would be added to this list if EPA's threshold were updated to take account of the most current science on the effects of lead in children.
-- At low doses, mercury exposure can produce impairments in language ability, attention, and memory; at high doses it can cause mental retardation, vision problems, and problems walking. Mercury enters the environment through waste incinerators and coal-burning power plants. It bioaccumulates in fish in its most toxic form, methylmercury (see REHW #597). The EPA estimates that 1.16 million women of childbearing age "eat sufficient amounts of mercury-contaminated fish to pose a risk of harm to their future children." (pg. 64)
-- Many pesticides kill insects by exerting a toxic effect on cells in the nervous system. Not surprisingly, such pesticides can disrupt the development and functioning of the human nervous system by the same mechanisms. Animal studies show that neurotoxic pesticides can produce permanent changes in brain structure and functioning when exposures occur on a single critical day of development. For example, some effects occurred in newborn mice if exposures occurred on day 10 of development, but not if exposures occurred on day 3 or 19. (pg. 82) Short-lived "pulse" exposures may have devastating developmental effects and yet can be difficult or impossible to identify after the fact.
-- One pesticide exposure study examined children in two Mexican communities. The two communities were very similar in ethnic composition and culture, but one community practiced chemical-intensive agriculture while the other used few farm chemicals. Children in the community with chemical-intensive agriculture scored substantially lower on measures of memory, physical stamina and coordination, and had trouble with ordinary children's activities such as drawing a simple picture of a person. (pgs. 82-83) Children in the pesticide-exposed group also displayed more aggressive behavior than their unexposed counterparts.
-- Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are organochlorine compounds that bioaccumulate in fatty tissue and are found at significant levels in human breast milk. Both animal and human studies show strong links between these pollutants and developmental disorders. Monkeys exposed before birth to dioxin in the range of human breast milk contamination levels were impaired in their ability to reverse a learned behavior in response to new stimuli. Young monkeys exposed to PCBs at levels typically found in human breast milk showed retarded learning as well as abnormally repetitive behavior. Studies of human children have found lowered IQs associated with PCB exposure in the womb, and a study of babies whose mothers ate PCB-contaminated fish from Lake Ontario found impaired development including abnormal reflexes and startle responses. (pgs. 76-79) These are just a few of the studies covered in IN HARM'S WAY.
Government officials set "safe" exposure levels based on individual chemicals. But in the real world children are exposed to many chemicals simultaneously. Such multiple exposures can be far more damaging than exposure to single chemicals. For example, one study found that certain combinations of pesticides produce changes in thyroid levels that are not observed when the chemicals are tested individually, and thus the combination may produce unexpected developmental effects (see REHW #648). Proper thyroid levels are essential for brain development. Other studies reveal that exposure to a combination of mercury and PCBs, two pollutants that accumulate in fish, can produce even greater effects on neurological development than either pollutant alone. (pg. 67)
Under our current regulatory system, industrial chemicals need not be tested for toxicity before they are marketed. (pg. 108) EPA estimates that somewhere between 2400 and 4000 industrial chemicals now on the market are neurotoxic. (pg. 107) However, this number is "highly speculative" (pg. 107) because most chemicals in commercial use have not been tested for neurotoxicity. EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) -- which covers just 625 out of 80,000 industrial chemicals -- reported that nearly a billion pounds of known neurotoxins were released directly into air and water in 1997. (pg. 103) Pesticides must be tested before marketing, but not for toxicity to the nervous system. Of 890 pesticide "active ingredients" EPA believes 140 are neurotoxins. Some 20 million U.S. children under age 5 eat an average of 8 different pesticides on their food each day. (pg. 106)
The authors of IN HARM'S WAY point out that there is no reason to delay protecting our children; we don't need more scientific information before taking precautionary action. "We should not need to identify with certainty exactly how much and through what mechanism a neurotoxic pesticide impairs brain development before coming to the conclusion that public health is not protected when the urine of virtually every child in this country contains residues of these chemicals. ... We do not need to exhaustively understand the mechanism by which methylmercury interferes with normal fetal brain development before concluding that it is not acceptable for freshwater and many ocean fish to be sufficiently contaminated with mercury to threaten developing brains. We know how to reduce the environmental releases of mercury so that fish are once again safe to eat regularly. We can modify manufacturing practices so that lead use in products goes steadily down instead of up. We can eliminate or modify outmoded technologies that produce the dioxin that contaminates fetuses and breast milk. We know how to do these things." (pgs. 121-122)
In order to do these things, we have to take back control of our regulatory system. As things stand now, corporations that benefit financially by exposing children to toxic substances are accepted -- even by most environmentalists -- as valid "stakeholders" in the process that determines "safe" levels of exposure. As a result, we have failed to protect our children from industrial poisons. As the authors of IN HARM'S WAY put it, "The role of special interests in the regulation of environmental chemicals is an important matter for public debate, as it has direct relevance to the neurological development of children now and in the future." (pg. 121) In sum, our current regulatory system is like a trial in which the criminal defendant gets to serve on the jury. If we want to have children who can play, think and learn normally, we will have to change corporations and our government so that protecting brain development comes ahead of protecting profits.
* Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research Foundation.
NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
| * * * COMPANIES & PRODUCTS * * * |
|---|
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|