(Parents Magazine, July 2005, page 144)Chemicals in everyday Products could make your kids sick. But there are ways to stay safe. By Rebecca Kahlenberg
A few years ago, Brenda Jones hired a lawn-care company to get rid of the weeds and bugs that had taken over the yard of her home in Bradenton, Florida. But shortly after the lawn was sprayed, everyone ion her family started feeling sick. Brenda got a burning sensation in her throat and began coughing. Her children, Jeffrey and Kara, who were 7 and 3, complained of headaches and nausea. Her husband, Wayne, thought he had the flu. Even the family dog, Amore, was vomiting and sneezing.
Several days later, their family doctor concluded that their symptoms had been caused by the pesticides the lawn company had used. "We were shocked," says Brenda, who has vowed never to use lawn chemicals again. "We thought we were protecting our kids from harmful insects, not doing something that could hurt them."
Fortunately, the Joneses’ experience is not very common. Most people do not have such severe reactions to the weed killers widely used on suburban lawns. But their story underscores an issue of growing concern to environmental-health experts: the fact that many common chemicals found in and around the average American home can be harmful to humans—especially to babies and young children.
Experts do know that babies and young children are much more vulnerable than adults to the effects of many toxins. Why? Children weigh less, so any harmful substances that they eat, breathe, or absorb through their skin have a bigger impact on their developing body. What’s more, "children live and play down on the floor, where toxic vapor and dust accumulate, and they’re constantly putting their fingers in their mouth," says pediatrician Philip Landrigan, M.D., director of the Center for Children’s Health and the Environment, based at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. He worries that exposure to toxins may be responsible, at least in part, for the increasing rates of asthma, developmental disorders and cancer in kids.
That’s why it’s important for parents to be aware of the potential dangers of household toxins and to seek out safer alternatives whenever possible.
Friday, July 20, 2007
No Gloves Required
Read the application instructions on the typical cleaner, and chances are one of the first steps will be "wear gloves when handling." Why?
Strong, alkaline formulas are pretty effective at removing dirt and stains. But, they're also pretty good at burning skin or causing red, itchy splotches. And the effects can be even worse on children's sensitive skin. That's why we've formulated M products to be non-alkaline. Most are pH neutral, meaning they have a pH nearly identical to skin. And that can offer real peace of mind.
Strong, alkaline formulas are pretty effective at removing dirt and stains. But, they're also pretty good at burning skin or causing red, itchy splotches. And the effects can be even worse on children's sensitive skin. That's why we've formulated M products to be non-alkaline. Most are pH neutral, meaning they have a pH nearly identical to skin. And that can offer real peace of mind.
Safer for Your Home
You're probably already aware of how M cleaners keep your home looking and feeling cleaner, but do you also know how they help keep your home safer? According to Poison Control Centers, there are over 2 million cases of exposure to household chemicals reported every year. Over 200,000 of them are for children, and nearly half of the affected children are under age six.2,3
Most of these exposures occur by one of three methods: inhalation, swallowing, and skin contact. We are mindful of the potential health risks to you and your family by these three routes of exposure, so we have developed EcoSense products to reduce these risks, allowing you and your family to breather easier.
Most of these exposures occur by one of three methods: inhalation, swallowing, and skin contact. We are mindful of the potential health risks to you and your family by these three routes of exposure, so we have developed EcoSense products to reduce these risks, allowing you and your family to breather easier.
All Sprayers are Not Created Equal
Take a look at any EcoSense spray bottle. What makes it different? Besides the fact that it's reusable and refillable, you'll also notice all EcoSense bottles are non-aerosol. Why? Beyond the risks associated with pressurized cans and propellants, the aerosol particles in many household cleaners can be nearly twenty times smaller than the particles created by EcoSense trigger sprayers. And, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the smaller a particle, the more easily it is inhaled.4
In addition, the smaller the particle, the longer it will linger in the air. In fact, particles from aerosol sprayers can linger in the air hundreds of times longer than particles from EcoSense trigger sprayers. In testing at an independent laboratory, EcoSense products (Tub & Tile and Tough & Tender) had approximately seven times lower levels of EPA emissions than did their competitive products (Lime-A-way® and Formula 409®, respectively). That helps keep EcoSense products out of the air and out of your body—two places no cleaner belongs.
4 Paul Baron, "Generation and Behavior of Airborne Particles (Aerosols)" Division of Applied Technology, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ aerosols/pdfs/Aerosol_101.pdf
In addition, the smaller the particle, the longer it will linger in the air. In fact, particles from aerosol sprayers can linger in the air hundreds of times longer than particles from EcoSense trigger sprayers. In testing at an independent laboratory, EcoSense products (Tub & Tile and Tough & Tender) had approximately seven times lower levels of EPA emissions than did their competitive products (Lime-A-way® and Formula 409®, respectively). That helps keep EcoSense products out of the air and out of your body—two places no cleaner belongs.
4 Paul Baron, "Generation and Behavior of Airborne Particles (Aerosols)" Division of Applied Technology, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ aerosols/pdfs/Aerosol_101.pdf
Partial List of Suggested Uses
1. Remove finger nail polish from counter tops and tables.
2. Remove grease spots from clothes (leave in for over an hour before washing.)
3. Remove permanent marker.
4. Diluted it can take the place of Fabreeze.
5. Remove ink spots from carpet.
6. Remove gum stuck in hair (let it soak).
7. Remove the goo left after removing a band-aid.
8. Remove silly putty stuck on sleeping bags.
2. Remove grease spots from clothes (leave in for over an hour before washing.)
3. Remove permanent marker.
4. Diluted it can take the place of Fabreeze.
5. Remove ink spots from carpet.
6. Remove gum stuck in hair (let it soak).
7. Remove the goo left after removing a band-aid.
8. Remove silly putty stuck on sleeping bags.
Affected by Toxins?
Fortunately, we are seldom exposed to sufficiently large doses of chemicals to suffer acute toxic effects. In most circumstances, a person is regularly exposed to a substance at levels significantly below the acutely toxic level. This is called chronic exposure.
Many people who are exposed to the variety of chemicals in our environment do not reach acute toxic exposure which leads to cancer or death. However, they may experience an array of subtle symptoms, including headaches, rashes, or breathing difficulties, which, while less dramatic, can be extremely debilitating. Compounding this problem is the difficulty of isolating which chemical present in your home, office or even car is causing the problem. Multiple chemical sensitivity is poorly understood and, therefore, hard to cure. Measuring the risks associated with chronic exposure to chemicals is no less difficult. The best data comes from occupational exposure to chemicals that result in unique malignancies.
For example, chimney sweeps in 19th century England developed cancer of the scrotum much more frequently than the general population. We now know this was due to exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the soot with which they had daily contact. Similarly, lung cancers in shipyard workers implicated asbestos as a carcinogen, as did liver cancers in workers manufacturing polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as well as a rare cancer that causes tumors to grow inside the liver's blood. Incidence among vinyl chloride workers of this form of cancer is 3,000 times higher than among the general population.There are strong links between increased cancer rates and life in the industrialized world, where we are exposed to high levels of suspected cancer-causing chemicals. A 15 year study in Oregon, comparing women who didn't work outside the home with women who did, found a 54% higher death rate from cancer in the women who stayed home. The study suggested that chronic exposure to cleaning products played a role.
In Sandra Steingraber's outstanding book Living Downstream, she documents some powerful information:
Breast cancer rates are 30 times higher in the United States than in parts of Africa.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that 80% of all cancer is attributable to environmental influences (these include lifestyle influences such as smoking, as well as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals).
One-half of the world's cancers occur among people in industrialized countries, even though these people are only one-fifth of the world's population.
Amazingly, only a dozen or so chemicals have been directly implicated in human cancers. Most of the other "suspected" carcinogens have been identified by feeding large doses of these chemicals to specially bred mice and rats. If a chemical produces tumors in one or more feeding studies, it is only considered a suspected carcinogen.The problem of extrapolating results of animal studies (high levels of exposure for short periods of time) to human exposure (low levels of exposure for long periods of time) has not yet been satisfactorily resolved for two reasons. First, because research methods don't accurately mirror the way ordinary people use a chemical in the "real world," it is difficult to assess potential problems that may exist with many of the chemicals we use every day.
If, for example, you ingest a pound of chemical X in a single sitting, one can safely assume that you will sicken and die. But what happens when you're exposed to just a few thousandths of a gram of chemical X every day for many, many years? Regulators who evaluate cancer risk assume the risk of cancer from exposure to a chemical decreases as one is exposed to less of the chemical, but that the risk is never zero. They set standards for exposure that attempt to assure that no more than one person in a million is likely to die of cancer when exposed to these chemicals.The second reason our research is unsatisfying is that whenever the test results come close to suggesting a certain chemical is dangerous enough to be removed from the market, the chemical's manufacturer is likely to spend millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars challenging the government's research. Claiming, in the case of dioxin for example, that even though hundreds of tests and studies indicate that dioxin does cause cancer, no actual tests were done on humans (and, of course, never will be), so we’ll never know for sure!
The above article was copied from www.seventhgeneration.com
Many people who are exposed to the variety of chemicals in our environment do not reach acute toxic exposure which leads to cancer or death. However, they may experience an array of subtle symptoms, including headaches, rashes, or breathing difficulties, which, while less dramatic, can be extremely debilitating. Compounding this problem is the difficulty of isolating which chemical present in your home, office or even car is causing the problem. Multiple chemical sensitivity is poorly understood and, therefore, hard to cure. Measuring the risks associated with chronic exposure to chemicals is no less difficult. The best data comes from occupational exposure to chemicals that result in unique malignancies.
For example, chimney sweeps in 19th century England developed cancer of the scrotum much more frequently than the general population. We now know this was due to exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the soot with which they had daily contact. Similarly, lung cancers in shipyard workers implicated asbestos as a carcinogen, as did liver cancers in workers manufacturing polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as well as a rare cancer that causes tumors to grow inside the liver's blood. Incidence among vinyl chloride workers of this form of cancer is 3,000 times higher than among the general population.There are strong links between increased cancer rates and life in the industrialized world, where we are exposed to high levels of suspected cancer-causing chemicals. A 15 year study in Oregon, comparing women who didn't work outside the home with women who did, found a 54% higher death rate from cancer in the women who stayed home. The study suggested that chronic exposure to cleaning products played a role.
In Sandra Steingraber's outstanding book Living Downstream, she documents some powerful information:
Breast cancer rates are 30 times higher in the United States than in parts of Africa.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that 80% of all cancer is attributable to environmental influences (these include lifestyle influences such as smoking, as well as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals).
One-half of the world's cancers occur among people in industrialized countries, even though these people are only one-fifth of the world's population.
Amazingly, only a dozen or so chemicals have been directly implicated in human cancers. Most of the other "suspected" carcinogens have been identified by feeding large doses of these chemicals to specially bred mice and rats. If a chemical produces tumors in one or more feeding studies, it is only considered a suspected carcinogen.The problem of extrapolating results of animal studies (high levels of exposure for short periods of time) to human exposure (low levels of exposure for long periods of time) has not yet been satisfactorily resolved for two reasons. First, because research methods don't accurately mirror the way ordinary people use a chemical in the "real world," it is difficult to assess potential problems that may exist with many of the chemicals we use every day.
If, for example, you ingest a pound of chemical X in a single sitting, one can safely assume that you will sicken and die. But what happens when you're exposed to just a few thousandths of a gram of chemical X every day for many, many years? Regulators who evaluate cancer risk assume the risk of cancer from exposure to a chemical decreases as one is exposed to less of the chemical, but that the risk is never zero. They set standards for exposure that attempt to assure that no more than one person in a million is likely to die of cancer when exposed to these chemicals.The second reason our research is unsatisfying is that whenever the test results come close to suggesting a certain chemical is dangerous enough to be removed from the market, the chemical's manufacturer is likely to spend millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars challenging the government's research. Claiming, in the case of dioxin for example, that even though hundreds of tests and studies indicate that dioxin does cause cancer, no actual tests were done on humans (and, of course, never will be), so we’ll never know for sure!
The above article was copied from www.seventhgeneration.com
The Kitchen and the Multinational Corporation
Article
Journal of Business Ethics
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
ISSN: 0167-4544 (Paper) 1573-0697 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/BF00382862
Issue: Volume 6, Number 3
Pages: 179 - 194
The Kitchen and the Multinational Corporation: An Analysis of the Links Between the Household and Global Corporations.
Harriet Rosenberg, Social Science Division, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada
Abstract: The paper examines relationships between multinational corporations and the unwaged work women do in their homes. It is argued that far from being a sanctuary, the home has become a dumpsite for unnecessary and unsafe products. Women in North America and the Third World are now dealing with health and safety issues in their neighborhoods and households. Consciousness of these dangers has resulted in mobilization and the formation of alliances aimed at confronting multinationals and securing more government regulation. The experience of one group of women in a small Ontario community is described.
Harriet Rosenberg is Assistant Professor in the Social Science Division at York University. She is the Principal Investigator of a SSHRC Grant for her Aging and Caregiving in an African Population . She is the co-author of Through the Kitchen Window: The Politics of Home and Family, with M. Luxton, Network Basic Series, Garamond Press, Toronto; and co-author with M. FitzGerald of Surviving in the City: Urbanization in the Third World, Oxfam, Toronto.
Journal of Business Ethics
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
ISSN: 0167-4544 (Paper) 1573-0697 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/BF00382862
Issue: Volume 6, Number 3
Pages: 179 - 194
The Kitchen and the Multinational Corporation: An Analysis of the Links Between the Household and Global Corporations.
Harriet Rosenberg, Social Science Division, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada
Abstract: The paper examines relationships between multinational corporations and the unwaged work women do in their homes. It is argued that far from being a sanctuary, the home has become a dumpsite for unnecessary and unsafe products. Women in North America and the Third World are now dealing with health and safety issues in their neighborhoods and households. Consciousness of these dangers has resulted in mobilization and the formation of alliances aimed at confronting multinationals and securing more government regulation. The experience of one group of women in a small Ontario community is described.
Harriet Rosenberg is Assistant Professor in the Social Science Division at York University. She is the Principal Investigator of a SSHRC Grant for her Aging and Caregiving in an African Population . She is the co-author of Through the Kitchen Window: The Politics of Home and Family, with M. Luxton, Network Basic Series, Garamond Press, Toronto; and co-author with M. FitzGerald of Surviving in the City: Urbanization in the Third World, Oxfam, Toronto.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)