Four Children Dead in Amarillo, TX in Pesticide Poisoning

Four children have died in Amarillo, TX after the aluminum phosphide was sprayed under their house. The other inhabitants of the home are still in treatment, and whether they make it or not, the effects of the gas will cause long-term health problems.

Aluminum phosphide is a restricted-use pesticide due to its volatile nature. It turns into phosphine gas when mixed with water. According to the Amarillo Fire Department, a license is required to purchase the pesticide. In this case, it was bought on the black market. It was applied during the day and the toxic fumes leeched into the house during the night.

How Aluminum Phosphide Works

Aluminum phosphide turns into toxic phosphine gas when it comes into contact with water, either deliberately or in the atmosphere. Once toxic phosphine gas has been ingested, it causes the circulatory system to shut down. There is no antidote for the gas, and close to 60% of people who develop aluminum phosphide poisoning die from multiple organ failure, myocarditis, and profound shock.

Aluminum Phosphide Use in the United States

Aluminum phosphide is used to kill rodents, bedbugs, and other pests. It is also used to fumigate cereal grains, usually in tablet form and mixed with other chemicals that help keep the aluminum phosphide from exploding. The use of aluminum phosphide without a professional is not recommended. Yet similar pesticides like zinc phosphide in the form of rodent pellets are available to purchase at Wal-mart.

The people who sell pesticides cannot keep you safe because let’s face it -pesticides aren’t safe. While the pesticide used here is without question more dangerous than the average pesticide, this doesn’t change the fact that pesticides used to kill rodents and other pests are meant to kill living things, and children are especially vulnerable.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


FDA Says to Avoid Repeated or Lengthy Sedation or Anesthesia for Pregnant Women and Children Under Three

Studies on childhood brain development in children under three have found that long or repeated exposure to general anesthesia has the potential to negatively affect that growth. The Food and Drug Administration has recently issued a warning regarding the use of general anesthesia and sedation drugs for children under three and pregnant women in their third trimester to make consumers aware of the possible side effects. The list of drugs includes commonly used anesthetics like lorazepam, ketamine, and midazolam, among others.

Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research released a statement regarding the FDA’s position on the new labeling requirements. “…based on the FDA’s comprehensive analysis of the latest published scientific studies, we are issuing a Drug Safety Communication to inform health care providers, parents and caregivers of children younger than three years, and pregnant women in their third trimester, that the repeated or lengthy (more than three hours) use of general anesthetic and sedation drugs may adversely affect children’s developing brains.”

Better Safe Than Sorry

Anesthesia or sedation are medically necessary in many cases and generally considered safe. Low-risk patients see a death rate of 1 in 300,000. Common non-emergency cases of sedation or anesthesia in small children include abdominal issues; nose, ear, and throat conditions; and dental procedures. The use of general anesthesia in emergency situations cannot always be avoided. The new warning label required by the FDA is intended to raise awareness of the potential effects of anesthesia on brain development during its crucial development years.

Obstetricians Have Objections

As of right now, no one has taken issue with the warning labels in regards to children. Extending the warning to pregnant women in their third trimester, however, has been more controversial. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) registered their disapproval on the inclusion of pregnant women in this warning, claiming they are “…unaware of data on pregnant women that support the FDA’s claims. These warnings may cause patients and providers to inappropriately reject the use of these medically indicated drugs.” Both animal and human clinical trials were studied for the safety advisory, but the actual human trials were only done on children.

Developing Brains Should Avoid Unnecessary Sedation

Babies have amazing, malleable brains that are developing by leaps and bounds. It’s often hard to see how much they’re learning and developing until much later in life. A caution advisory like the one issued by the FDA is designed to preserve that activity. While the ACOG makes a good point considering the clinical studies did not specifically test human pregnant women, it’s hard to see why exercising caution and sedating pregnant women only when necessary is such an issue.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Does Soda Tax Work?

The total number of cities in the United States that have voted to place a tax on beverages with added sugar like soda, sports drinks, and energy drinks grew from two cities (Philadelphia and Berkeley, CA) to six cities (San Francisco, Oakland, Albany, CA, and Boulder, CO) and one county (Cook County, which contains most of the city of Chicago). Relatively new to the United States, these “soda taxes” will or have also taken effect in France, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Much like tobacco taxes, the goal is to make the consumption of a key culprit (added sugars), which is associated with the rise of diabetes and other diseases, a less attractive choice. The effects of refined sugars on public health and healthcare costs are becoming one of the most important issues the world must face. But are taxes on sugary beverages the way to address it?

Do They Even Work?

…it’s possible the increased awareness campaigns are doing as much, if not more…

Short answer: probably. Of all of the local governments that have passed a tax on beverages with added sugar, there is only one that has any actual data: Berkeley. That measure was passed in 2014, and it took effect in January of 2015. With Berkeley as the sample size, the numbers are promising. For minority and low-income residents in Berkeley (the population most likely to drink sugary drinks), consumption fell 21 percent once the tax was implemented. But those numbers are not the entire story.

While the increase in the price of soda likely deterred many regular customers, that wasn’t the only way the Berkeley community achieved its positive results. The first objective of the campaign is to raise awareness. The tax has been earmarked for community programs specifically designed to promote health education and diet awareness, like the Berkeley YMCA’s Diabetes Prevention and Reduce Obesity campaign and the Unified school districts gardening and nutritional education programs. As the Berkeley tax is applied to beverage distributors, not consumers, it’s possible the increased awareness campaigns are doing as much, if not more than the actual tax.

In looking at the results of the Berkeley sugary beverage tax, it’s easy to see why it’s succeeding. The tax raises awareness of the issue and the education delivers resources and strategies to make better choices. A small, progressively minded, and wealthy community like Berkeley has the infrastructure to implement this program. But the tax itself is not without issues.

Why It’s Problematic

What’s the biggest issue with a soda tax? The people enforcing it – if you can call government people. There are two hurdles to worry about that combine and amplify one other. Reason one? Any time things are taxed, governments begin to expect and rely on that money. The second question is whether the government agency that is regulating this tax and other similar taxes actually knows anything about health.

Seriously…Does It Work?

Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes. But we don’t know if it does work without the education. Education makes a difference. The low-income populations (or people likely to have less access to quality health education) are responsible for a large percentage of sugary beverage consumption. Replacing unhealthy choices with better alternatives will always create a more lasting impact on habits than merely raising the price of soda ever could. One way or the other, the world is waking up to the truth about sugar.

Sources:


GMO Study Finds Altered Amino Acids May Increase Histamine Reactions

One of the criteria the Food and Drug Administration considers when deciding whether or not to approve a GMO is called “substantial equivalence.” This means the nutritional profile and toxicity levels of the modified plant are within the same range as a non-modified plant. When a new strain of corn is similar enough to the original to demonstrate substantial equivalence, the product is free to pass to market with fewer safety checks. A new study looking more closely at the differences between a specific variety of GM corn, Monsanto’s NK603, and the non-modified corn it is derived from is challenging that principle.

Substantial equivalence is a standard practice in the industry. The GM crop database notes that

…small statistical differences between NK603 and control lines were observed only in: six amino acids (alanine, arginine, glutamic acid, histidine, lysine, and methionine) as measured in grain from European trials (no differences were observed in material from U.S. trials); and stearic (C18:0) acid levels. Overall, these differences were not consistent across all trial sites and they were considered to reflect random variation. All compositional results were within the ranges observed for commercial non-transformed lines.”

Peer reviewed research from Dr. Michael Antionou at King’s College in London has found that the differences in those amino acids are more important than Monsanto has considered or is disclosing.

Amino Acid Differences May Increase Allergic Reactions

In the words of Dr. Antionou,

Our study clearly shows that the GM transformation process results in profound compositional differences in NK603, demonstrating that this GMO corn is not substantially equivalent to its non-GMO counterpart. The marked increase in putrescine and especially cadaverine is a concern since these substances are potentially toxic, being reported as enhancers of the effects of histamines, thus heightening allergic reactions, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrates in meat products.”

GMOs have been cited several times as a factor in the increase in allergies worldwide, though many scientists and researchers have remained firm in their conviction that GMOs do not contain any known allergens. The differences in amino acids found in this study suggest that while NK603 may not be derived from a substance known to cause allergies, the specific amino acids it enhances increase the likelihood of allergies occurring. Both putrescine and cadaverine are considered toxic in large doses. One could argue that GMO corn has such small amounts that it doesn’t matter, but does that argument take into account the amount of those compounds accumulating in the body over time? Without knowing the quantity of GMOs being consumed on a daily basis and the amount of chemical compound build up, it’s impossible to rule out the NK603 as a cause in increased allergic reactions.

GMO Regulation is Missing a Big Puzzle Piece

Getting a GMO approved in the United States involves three different government agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It’s a tremendous undertaking, with the average development and approval process from four years ago costing 136 million and taking 13 years. Once the company presenting the product has proved “substantial equivalence” though, it is assumed that the crop is safe and ready for market. From that point, there is no longer any incentive to continue safety testing and research. These companies are fundamentally altering the building blocks of the food we eat. Valid, peer-reviewed studies showing the negative effects of these manipulations continue to appear. Saying a product has been safety tested before its initial release is different from saying something is safe when released with incomplete information and saying that it is safe after more than a decade of data has suggested otherwise.

The companies seeing billion dollar profits from the product are left to correct the negative long term effects, often to the detriment of profits. What company is willing to do that? Regulatory systems are allowing one of the necessities of life to be irrevocably altered. A system that does not force a company to at least acknowledge (let alone fix) that alteration and its negative effects is a broken system.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Roundup Resistance is a Growing Problem and Syngenta Offers a Problematic Solution

Tolerance to things is built up over time, although some tolerances develop more quickly than others. The development of Roundup resistance in weeds is a quick one, in large part due to the popularity and frequent usage of the chemical. From the release of Roundup in 1974, it took 15 years for the first documented case of Roundup-resistant weeds to appear. The response to that resistance didn’t actually address the problem. The introduction of genetically modified, Roundup resistant crops allowed farmers to increase the amount of the herbicide sprayed, therefore increasing the opportunities for naturally resistant weeds to thrive and pass on their wayward genes. The growth of Roundup-resistant weeds is upon us, and Big Agriculture needs an answer.

Paraquat – A Potential Answer

Paraquat is a controversial product. While one of the most popular herbicides in the world, it has been banned in the European Union due to its toxicity. Paraquat is so toxic to mammals that it’s often said, “just one sip will kill you.” It has been used to commit suicide in many third world countries due to its easy availability and low price. Despite the fact that it has been banned in the European Union, the herbicide is still manufactured there. The E.U. is not the only country that has reservations regarding paraquat, as China is also in the process of phasing out paraquat for agricultural use. Countries like the U.S. and Australia are still using the herbicide, as it’s a fast-acting product that kills a wide range of weeds.

The Herbicide Always Knocks Twice

If one is good, two must be better…or something like that. One of the suggested uses of paraquat is to use it as a clean up herbicide after glyphosate. This is known as the “double knock” system, and it’s commonly used in Australia. Many scientists and insiders have predicted that this system has the potential to double the amount of time before herbicide resistant weeds appear again. While this system might be ideal from the manufacturer’s standpoint (twice as many products bought), the health and environmental concerns are more worrying.

Everyone Agrees That Paraquat is Toxic

The E.P.A. has classified paraquat as category I, the highest level of toxicity. So we know it’s toxic. That itself is not up for debate. What is in debate is whether or not paraquat causes Parkinson’s. And by debate, that is to say Syngenta is not willing to publicly accept the role of paraquat in increasing the rates of Parkinson’s and the company has subsequently funded studies refuting that link.

But Seriously, Everyone Knows

Syngenta continues to defend paraquat in the face of 20 years of studies presenting increasing links between the herbicide and Parkinson’s. As the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds continues to increase, the agricultural market is looking for the next option in herbicides. With nature as it is, who knows how long before that herbicide will cease to work and the next chemical in line will step up?

One of the advantages of paraquat is the fact that it is partially inactivated once it hits the ground. But what about the part that isn’t? Imagine the rings of a mature oak tree. At what point will we be able to tell the age of our soil by the layers of herbicides and pesticides built up throughout?

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


GMO Pink Pineapple Is Coming – Ever Heard of Pink Pineapple Disease?

The newest addition to the pineapple marketplace, which will be grown in Costa Rica, is a genetically modified pineapple dubbed the Rosé. Are consumers are just clamoring for a sweeter pineapple with a more pleasing, pink color?

Although a new and “improved” pineapple doesn’t seem to be high on our priority list, The Food and Drug Administration has given Del Monte Fresh Produce the go-ahead for their new, genetically engineered, pink pineapple. According to the FDA:

(Del Monte’s) new pineapple has been genetically engineered to produce lower levels of the enzymes already in conventional pineapple that convert the pink pigment lycopene to the yellow pigment beta carotene. Lycopene is the pigment that makes tomatoes red and watermelons pink, so it is commonly and safely consumed.”

The statement from the FDA gives the pineapple (and genetically engineered crops in general) a glowing review. But why a pink pineapple?

Pineapple Consumption

Pineapple is the third most consumed fruit in the world, after mangos and bananas, with 24.8 million tons of pineapples produced each year. That may seem like a lot, but when compared to other GMO crops like corn (over a billion tons a year), soybeans (278 million), and sugar beets (247 million), pineapple is not a commodity product.

When you consider the amount of time and money that goes into obtaining approval for a new GMO product, the actual demand for pineapple doesn’t make it seem to be a good choice. Are we really getting a new pineapple because we need a sweeter pineapple? So why pineapple? Is it the demand?

 Pink Pineapple Disease

If you have ever eaten canned pineapple, chances are you’ve seen or eaten a piece of pineapple with a reddish or pink hue.

In fruit cocktail, it’s easy to assume cherry juice stained the pineapple, but that might not be the case at all.

Pineapples are susceptible to a disease called pink disease, which is caused by the bacteria Pantoea citrea. When this bacteria infects the pineapple fruit it turns pink in canned preparations. Manufacturers can’t tell if the fruit has been infected until it has been canned and the disease is expensive to treat.  The new pink pineapple is a brilliant solution to this problem. Rather than wonder why their canned pineapple is pink, red, or rust colored instead of the familiar yellow, consumers will see the Rosé pineapple. It will never occur to them to investigate, to discover they are eating fruit infected with a disease. This subtle deception will allow those who sell canned pineapple to normalize and pass off diseased pineapples as something else.

The bottom line? Pink is pleasing to the eye. But more importantly, pink is profitable (as Susan G. Komen knows). As each new GMO is released it becomes aching clear (if it wasn’t already) that the innovations sold as a way to feed the world are actually meant to feed wallets. We see the pink pineapple as a cosmetic choice made to protect and boost profit margins by selling diseased fruit unbeknownst to the customer.

P.S. Don’t confuse red pineapple with pink pineapple. Much of the media is making the mistake of showing the “red pineapple” (see image on the right). Genetically modified pink pineapple is supposed to be indistinguishable from regular pineapple on the outside. 

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


176,000 Gallons+ Pipeline Leak Less than Three Hours From Standing Rock Protests

Activists in Standing Rock have been protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline for months now, claiming the pipeline will pollute the Missouri River, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s source of drinking water. The scenario that the Water Protectors are protesting is taking place less than three hours away in Billings County, ND. According to CNN:

State officials estimate 4,200 barrels of crude oil, or 176,000 gallons, have leaked from the Belle Fourche Pipeline in Billings County. Of that amount, 130,000 gallons of oil has flowed into Ash Coulee Creek, while the rest leaked onto a hillside, said Bill Suess, spill investigation program manager at the North Dakota Department of Health. Built in the 1980s, the pipeline is 6 inches in diameter and transports about 1,000 barrels of oil daily, he said. The leak happened December 5.”

The North Dakota Department of Health says the cause of the break is not known. The pipeline was immediately shut down upon the discovery of the leak. According to Belle Fourche Pipeline spokeswoman Wendy Owen, “Electronic monitoring equipment failed to detect the leak… and the pipeline may have ruptured when the hillside slumped.”

Proving the Protesters’ Point

An electronically undetected pipeline spill so close to the Standing Rock protests reinforces the protesters’ argument. With the operating company unable to detect the spill, who knows how long it might have continued and how much environmental contamination could have happened?

Supporters of the DAPL and the oil companies have claimed that this is a not indicative of the overall industry, claiming True Companies (the owner of Belle Fourche Pipeline) is unsafe, citing their record of 50 environmental incidents and over 200,000 gallons of oil leaked in the last 10 years. Ironically, throwing True Companies under the bus due to their safety record also proves the protesters’ point. If a company with 50 leaks and spills in 10 years doesn’t represent the industry’s safety standards, then where in that those standards does a company with over 200 incidents in the last six years fit? That second company is Sunoco, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, the company responsible for building the DAPL. Sunoco, one of the largest gasoline distribution companies in the U.S., is also the company responsible for an October leak of 55,000 gallons into a tributary of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania and is the leader in spilling crude oil in the U.S.

Just Because the Pipeline is Moved Does Not Mean It’s Safe

In a victory for the Water Protectors at Standing Rock, the U.S. Department of Army does not approve of building the pipeline underneath the Missouri river. But the pipeline is almost built. The damage will be done, and if Sunoco’s safety record is accurate, that damage will occur over and over again. Is “reducing the U.S. dependence on foreign oil” worth this certain environmental degradation? Why aren’t we working toward reducing our dependence on oil, period?

Sources