Scabies Testimonial letter.

Scabies Testimonial letter: The Lice R Gone shampoo was the ONLY thing that got rid of the Scabies. After many weeks of suffering, a friend recommended it. I had to drive 1-1/2 hours from San Diego to Riverside (Corona) to purchase their last two bottles. It was worth it, after 5 days they were all gone. I purchased more bottles to keep on hand in case it comes back. Wish you sold this in San Diego. If I can help with the distribution, let me know. If you go to the blog site where I've posted my story to help others by recommending your product, you can go to http://www.topix.com/forum/health/scabies/TK9L70A0LRNJAFIJT and select the last page and scroll back to look for my posts under LoriSaysHey. Thank you again so VERY much for inventing this amazing product! God Bless! Lori

Pesticides and Cancer

Pesticides and Cancer by Gwen Petreman http://www.livinggreen.info/library/pestices_and_cancer.cfm The most convincing evidence that pesticides are carcinogens comes from epidemiological studies. Farmers who frequently use 2,4-D have a six-fold increase in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Scientists believe that the use of lawn chemicals such as 2,4-D has been a significant factor in the 50% rise in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma over the past 20 years in the American population. (World health Organization. 2,4-D Environmental Aspects. Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.) 2,4-D has also been linked to malignant lymphoma in dogs. Pets are exposed to higher doses of pesticides because they are closer to the ground where concentrations are the highest. Parts of their bodies, such as their scrotum and armpits, are often directly exposed to pesticides. They also ingest pesticides when they are grooming themselves. Studies show that the risk of lymphomas doubled in dogs whose owners treated lawns four times a year. The lawn pesticides, mancozeb and chlorothalonil have been classified by the EPA as "probable" cancer causing chemicals in humans, as they have been found to cause cancer in animals. Mancozeb has also been found to react with sunlight to form a new compound the EPA categorizes as a "known" human carcinogen. The common lawn pesticide 2,4-D has been shown to increase the risk of lymphatic cancer in farmers six times the normal rate, according to a National Cancer Institute report. (Sinclair, W. 18 Studies Show Why Pesticides Are More Dangerous than Previously Realized. Tampa, Florida) A University of Iowa study found that working as a golf superintendent significantly increased one’s risk of getting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, brain cancer, lung cancer, large intestine cancer, and prostrate cancer. Other experts are starting to find that golfers, and non-golfers who live near golf courses, are experiencing similar health problems. A 1996 research project studied brain cancer rates among 600 people. The research demonstrated a twofold increase risk for developing brain cancer for people who lived within 2600 feet of an agricultural area. (American Journal of Public Health, 86(9): 1289-96, 1996.) In 1983 the National Cancer Institute studied 3,827 Florida pesticide applicators who had been spraying for more than 20 years. They found that these pesticide applicators had nearly 3 times the risk of developing lung cancer and 2 times the risk of developing brain cancer. There was no increased risk for pesticide applicators who had been spraying for only 5 years. (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 71(1), July 1983.) Beginning in the late 1970s there have been reports linking pesticides to leukemia in children. A 1987 study by the National Cancer Institute showed that children living in pesticide-treated homes had nearly a 4 times greater risk of developing leukemia (cancer of the blood). If the children lived in homes where pesticide was sprayed on lawns and gardens, the risk of developing leukemia was 6.5 times greater. All the children in the study were 10 years of age or younger. (Dr. John Peters, University of Southern California, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, July 1987.) Cancer rates in the US have increased by 37% between 1950 and 1986. Over a million people are diagnosed with cancer in the US reach year. 10,400 people in the US die each year from cancer related to pesticides. It is estimated that the cost of cancer in term of lost production, income, and medical expenses amount to over US $38 billion each year. One easy way that you can help reduce your chances of getting cancer is to reduce the toxic load in the environment by reducing your reliance on pesticides inside and outside your home. Also, support local initiatives to get a pesticide bylaw enacted in your community as quickly as possible. If you want to stop using any dangerous pesticide POISONS read my free book at: http://www.thebestcontrol2.com - Chapter 40 tells you how to Detox and heal cancer Chapter 41 tells you how to heal disease. All the best, Steve

Mouthwash kills young woman at dentist

Mouthwash kills young woman at dentist http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8302925/mouthwash-kills-young-woman-at-dentist An English woman died in the dentist's chair after suffering a deadly reaction to mouthwash, an inquest has heard. Sacha Rumaner was receiving treatment for a suspected infected tooth at a Brighton dental clinic in February when she began complaining of feeling hot and itchy after rinsing with household mouthwash Corsodyl. She then suffered an anaphylactic shock and slid onto the floor, dying within minutes. Dentistry staff thought she had an epileptic shock or choked on vomit and followed instructions from an emergency call operator who told them to clear her airways and monitor her breathing. Paramedics arrived within minutes but could not resuscitate her. She was pronounced dead en route to Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital. The inquest heard how Miss Rumaner turned blue, had no pulse and stopped breathing after using the mouthwash. Staff should have given her adrenaline, oxygen and chest compressions. Dentist Labina Rahman admitted she missed the warning signs of anaphylactic shock despite the deputy coroner saying it is the main cause of cardiac arrest in dental patients. Miss Rumaner was later found to be allergic to a chemical called chlorhexidinel. The hearing has been adjourned

Monsanto's Corn Is Toppling Over

Monsanto's Corn Is Toppling Over "As the summer growing season draws to a close, 2011 is emerging as the year of the super insect - the year pests officially developed resistance to Monsanto's genetically engineered (ostensibly) bug-killing corn. "In late July scientists in Iowa documented the existence of corn rootworms (a ravenous pest that attacks the roots of corn plants) that can happily devour corn plants that were genetically tweaked specifically to kill them. Monsanto's corn, engineered to express a toxic gene from a bacterial insecticide called Bt, now accounts for 65 percent of the corn planted in the US. "The super insect scourge has also arisen in Illinois and Minnesota. "'Monsanto's insect-killing corn is toppling over in northwestern Illinois fields, a sign that rootworms outside of Iowa may have developed resistance to the genetically modified crop,' reports Bloomberg. In southern Minnesota, adds Minnesota Public Radio, an entomologist has found corn rootworms thriving, Bt corn plants drooping, in fields. "[A] 2008 study, conducted by University of Missouri researchers and published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that within three generations, rootworms munching Monsanto's Bt corn survived at the same rate as rootworms munching pesticide-free corn-meaning that complete resistance had been achieved. Takeaway message: rootworms are capable of evolving resistance to Monsanto's corn in 'rapid' fashion." - "Monsanto Denies Superinsect Science," by Tom Philpott, Mother Jones, September 8, 2011

Mercury Amalgams: The Surprising 32-Year Scandal That's Kept This Toxic Substance in Your Head

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/09/fda-coverup-on-the-mercury-dentistry-issue.aspx?e_cid=20110909_DNL_art_1 Mercury Amalgams: The Surprising 32-Year Scandal That's Kept This Toxic Substance in Your Head By Dr. Mercola With Consumers for Dental Choice Story at-a-glance The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been concealing the mercury in amalgam dental fillings from the American public for more than 30 years A revolving door allows amalgam insiders to bounce between well-paid positions in industry and high-ranking FDA positions that regulate industry FDA's new commissioner Margaret Hamburg came straight from the boardroom of America's largest seller of amalgam, Henry Schein, Inc. Public outcry against the FDA's cover-up and lack of action in their amalgam rule, and the worldwide treaty addressing mercury, have the mercury issue poised for much-needed change Detailed action plan for Americans, Canadians, Australians, Britons, and Europeans to help remove mercury fillings from their countries The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), once the world's "gold standard" for food, drug, and device regulation, has evolved from industry regulator to industry captive. Political scientists are not surprised. The evolution from tough regulator to passive regulator to industry captive is a pattern in Washington. Unless an agency engages in a major system of reinvigoration, the spiral continues. But the FDA seems comfortable being the hand-maiden for industry; it has brought big bucks to the agency and lucrative jobs after time at the FDA. The big bucks are in the FDA's pay-to-play approval system. Drug companies pay seven-figure amounts into FDA coffers to gain approval of their drugs. FDA staff knows that the cash means higher salaries and more perks in the agency budget. The drug companies know the high fees prevent small competitors with good ideas from getting their products to market. The coziness between the FDA and major drug and device companies gets tighter, while innovative entrepreneurs are shut out and the public loses twice: good drugs aren't being considered, and controversial drugs are rubber-stamped. FDA: Captive of Corporate America Another bitter legacy of federal regulation is the "revolving door," where insiders bounce between well-paid positions in industry, to high-ranking FDA positions that regulate that industry. Those in the political party out of power hold cushy jobs awaiting their return to power, at which point – in the game of Washington musical chairs – those in the party leaving power in turn take the high-paying jobs in industry. The current FDA Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, coming to FDA from Henry Schein, Inc., the largest seller of dental products and a major seller of medical products too, is a perfect example. Hamburg was a high official in the Clinton Administration, so Schein's CEO Stanley Bergman, an active Democrat, tapped Hamburg for the light work of being a board member during the Bush II years, paying her millions of dollars to likey sit in meetings and file occasional reports. When Bergman's party returned to power in 2009, he escorted Hamburg back through the revolving door – as Commissioner of the world's most powerful food and drug regulator, the FDA. FDA Covers Up Amalgam's Mercury from Consumers – for 32 Years The dirty secret of conventional dentistry is this: those "silver fillings" aren't silver. They are mainly mercury – and mercury, of course, is a virulent neurotoxin that can kill babies in the womb, can cause permanent brain damage to children, and can cause irreversible kidney damage in adults (among many other things). When industry is engaged in a cover-up of a health problem, the solution for the past century in America has been to turn to the U.S. FDA. But on amalgam, like on many health issues affecting our lives in recent years, FDA has been AWOL – focusing on blocking Americans' access to products Americans want and need and which are not harmful, instead of doing its legal duties. In the case of amalgam, the violation of law was flagrant and continuing – and ultimately resulted in sharp language and a direct order from a United States federal judge. In 1976, Congress directed the FDA to classify (determine the risk of) every medical device. Dental fillings are a medical device. The FDA proceeded to classify all filling materials except the most common one – and the most controversial one – mercury amalgam. Despite letters, petitions, Congressional hearings, and a lawsuit, the FDA refused to budge. The FDA had no intention of doing what, by law, it was required to do. Why? Because by classifying amalgam, the FDA would have to address the dirty little secret of dentistry ---they FDA would have to tell the American people that amalgam is mainly mercury. So instead of letting parents know that their child is getting a dose of the most toxic and the most volatile of the heavy metals, the FDA stood as the silent partner of the pro-mercury American Dental Association. For 32 years, from 1976 to 2008, the FDA defied the law. And they would still be doing so had not Charlie Brown and Consumers for Dental Choice sued them. In 2008 Charlie Brown sued the FDA. United States District Judge Ellen Huvelle convened a hearing, and demanded to know why the FDA was refusing to classify amalgam. When the FDA's lawyer said the agency was working on it, the Judge was incredulous -- and ordered the parties into mediation to set a date to classify. Since the FDA had not really started its work, and since its rule was still in the public comment phase, requiring clearance of all legal hurdles would require over a year. Hence, the FDA agreed to re-write its website in addition to classifying by August 2009. FDA Associate Commissioner Randall Lutter and Charlie Brown negotiated the website line by line, and, for the first time, the FDA issued this frank and serious warning about amalgam: Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses." FDA's New Commissioner Enters from Boardroom of Nation's #1 Seller of Dental Amalgam During the time between the court settlement and final action, enter Margaret Hamburg as Commissioner – coming straight from the boardroom of America's largest seller of amalgam. To get appointed, Hamburg was required to sign an agreement promising: To sell her Schein stock and stock options Not to participate in regulator matters affecting Schein while owning these options Sign she did, but she apparently had her fingers crossed. Selling her stock, Hamburg retained her stock options, which in a few weeks gained from being "under water" (no value) to having market value. Promising to cut her ties with Schein, she allegedly continued regular correspondence with Schein's general counsel on her private e-mail. Charlie Brown wrote her June 1, 2009, to inquire whether she had recused (disqualified) herself from working on the amalgam rule. Not even answering, she convened a meeting with the American Dental Association's best friend at the FDA, dentist Susan Runner. On July 1, in a meeting whose notes are heavily expunged from public records requests, Henry Schein alumna Hamburg and pro-amalgam dentist Runner put together a disgraceful rule on amalgam, one that allowed continued concealment of the mercury, buried the warnings for children and unborn children so deep in the rule no one would find them, and allowed Runner to be the FDA's spokesperson to proclaim amalgam safe. At the end of July, Runner unveiled this monstrosity of a rule, along with a website that concealed all the language that Brown and Lutter had agreed to (Lutter by then having been shipped to another agency by Hamburg). Immediately after Runner's announcement, Schein's general counsel wrote Hamburg that Schein is "indebted" to her for her work as Commissioner. "Unprecedented" Public Outcry Against the FDA's Amalgam Rule Consumers worldwide reacted harshly to the FDA's decision to continue the amalgam cover-up. Such a massive number of letters, e-mails, telephone calls, and faxes were generated that a leading journalist in the trade press, Jim Dickinson of FDA Webview, wrote: "No final rule in FDA's modern history, or perhaps ever, has attracted this kind of organized opposition." The American Dental Association sought help from the FDA to overturn state and local fact sheets that plainly warn of amalgam's risks, but Consumers for Dental Choice turned back a second assault on our right to know. In early 2010, in a dramatic confrontation in Philadelphia, the FDA backed off any suggestion it sought to weaken that city's fact sheet – and in fact asked the city to hold off acting because the FDA was considering its options. The FDA threatened to retaliate against the leader of this grassroots opposition; its chief press officer wrote Commissioner Hamburg and Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein that the FDA needed to mount an "end game re: [Charlie] Brown." Enter Negotiations for a Worldwide Treaty Addressing Mercury Things turned our way in 2010. The nations of the world began a series of meetings to hammer out a treaty addressing all mercury. To its great credit, the United States not only was an active participant, but a leader as these negotiations began – negotiations to address all major uses of mercury, including amalgam. With the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality all seeking ways to phase out or at least reduce mercury in our society, the FDA became odd man out. A noted attorney, Ellen Brown, called the breach between the FDA's protection of amalgam and the Obama Administration's stand the "Mercury Mischief." Her article in the Huffington Post was headlined: " As Obama Warns of Hazards, The FDA Approves Mercury Dental Filling." In June 2010 the FDA retreated, announcing it would reconsider the amalgam rule it had issued only 10 months earlier. The FDA announced it would convene a scientific panel in December to determine what changes need to be made. December 2010 Hearings Two days of testimony that were alternatively scientific and emotional were utterly convincing, even to scientists handpicked by the FDA. With no dissent, they recommended that the FDA promptly: Make sure that all consumers and all parents know that amalgam is mainly mercury Stop amalgam use for children and pregnant women As panelist Dr. Suresh Kotagal – a pediatric neurologist at the Mayo Clinic – summed it up, there is "no place for mercury in children." Unprecedented press coverage accompanied these hearings, with every network and most major newspapers writing stories that the FDA is determining the health risk of amalgam. FDA Town Meetings But the FDA still did not act. Instead, Jeff Shuren, director of its Center for Devices (amalgam is a device), organized three "town meetings" in 2011 to hear concerns about FDA policies. At both Dallas and Orlando, the turnout was overwhelmingly about amalgam, and about the FDA's cover-up. Again, major press coverage about FDA inaction accompanied these meetings. The third "town meeting" will be in San Francisco on September 22; if you live in northern California and would consider going, write Charlie Brown, charlie@toxicteeth.org On July 29 Director Shuren signaled he may act soon. In a letter to those who had petitioned FDA to act, Shuren wrote: "We agree that the Panel [of scientists in December] raised issues concerning uncertainties with previous risk assessments on mercury vapor and sensitivities in certain populations to mercury released from dental amalgam. Note that we are currently considering our regulatory options for determining what steps the agency will take to address these concerns." Help Consumers for Dental Choice Fight the FDA Consumers for Dental Choice is challenging the world's most powerful health regulator and the well-funded corporate interests that back it -- and you can help! During this Mercury-Free Dentistry Awareness Week, I urge you to take action. Here's what you can do: Americans: Our number one problem is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has partnered with the American Dental Association (ADA) to cover up the mercury; to make you think you are getting silver instead of toxic mercury in your mouth. The FDA intentionally conceals the warnings about amalgam deep in its regulation -- so parents will never see them. On its website, the FDA gives dentists the green light to continue to deceive consumers with the term "silver fillings" "Americans are ready for the end of amalgam." This was the theme of the testimony to the U.S. Department of State on August 18 by former West Virginia state Senator Charlotte Pritt. Yes, Americans are ready. But FDA is not. So let's send them a message.Nine months ago, FDA scientists advised the agency to disclose the mercury to all patients and parents, and to stop amalgam for children and pregnant women. Yet FDA sits – sits actually in the pocket of the American Dental Association – ignoring its own scientists. Please write the Director of FDA's Center for Devices, Jeff Shuren, jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov Ask Dr Shuren why the FDA continues to ignore scientists and covers up the mercury from American parents and consumers. Ask when the FDA is going to get in step with the world on mercury. Dr. Jeff Shuren, Director Center for Devices, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. 10903 New Hampshire Ave. WO66-5431, Room 5442 Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 Telephone: 301-796-5900 Fax: 301-847-8149 Fax: 301-847-8109 Californians: Dr. Shuren is coming to San Francisco for a "town meeting" on September 22. We urge Northern Californians to attend. It will go from 8 am to 12 noon, at the Embassy Suites Hotel, San Francisco Airport (telephone: 650.589.3400) In Southern California, Consumers for Dental Choice is organizing a city-by-city attack on amalgam --- and needs volunteers. If you wish to help with the grassroots work of organizing for city council hearings, gathering petitions, and telephoning, volunteer by writing announcements@toxicteeth.org Australians: Your government, Aussies, is now in last place on the mercury treaty, asking the world to throw in the towel instead of working to phase out dental mercury. A great new group has started, Australians for Mercury-Free Dentistry, led by dentist Lisa Matriste and consumer activist Anna Priest. We urge you to go to its website and join: http://www.mercuryfreedentistry.com.au/ Canadians: The chief dental officer of Health Canada doubles as a lobbyist for the pro-mercury World Dental Federation. Pretty outrageous, eh? We ask that you write Minister of Environment Canada Peter Kent at Minister@ec.gc.ca, and tell him that you as a taxpayer are amazed that Environment Canada is letting someone with such a conflict of interest influence the nation's treaty policy on amalgam. Ask him why Environment Canada is silent on amalgam, and if this is due to the fact that Canada's Chief Dental Officer was at the treaty sessions boasting that he "wears two hats," paid government employee and lobbyist for a special interest group. Brits and other Europeans: The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution this spring calling for the end of amalgam. The Council of Europe is not the European Union -- it is every European nation, all 47 of them. Deputy Jean Huss drafted the meticulously-researched report upon which this resolution was based. This ground-breaking report explained that "[A]malgams are the prime source of exposure to mercury for developed countries, also affecting embryos, fetuses (through the placenta) and children (through breastfeeding)… Exposure to mercury can seriously affect the health of patients and dental professionals…[B]etween 60 and 90 tonnes of mercury from dental surgeries are released into and contaminate Europe's atmosphere, surface waters and soil every year." Please thank Deputy Huss for his excellent work at Jhuss@chd.lu. Folks worldwide: If you aren't on that list, there's plenty to do – for example, Dominique Bally, an outstanding young advocate from the Ivory Coast, runs the Amalgam-Free Africa Campaign. If you want to help somewhere, anywhere, and there's nothing on the list above for you, write Charlie Brown at charlie@toxicteeth.org Last but certainly not least, I encourage you to contribute to Consumers for Dental Choice. The Natural Health Research Foundation, founded by me, Dr. Mercola, will double match whatever you give this week. I believe that strongly in the mission, the commitment, and the quality of work of Consumers for Dental Choice and its Campaign for Mercury-Free Dentistry. Consumers for Dental Choice 316 F St., N.E., Suite 210 Washington DC 20002

Banned pesticide use remains high in California strawberry fields.

Banned pesticide use remains high in California strawberry fields. In some of California’s top strawberry-growing counties, levels of banned methyl bromide remain nearly as high as they were a decade ago, despite a mandated phaseout, according to an analysis by New America Media. New America Media http://newamericamedia.org/2011/09/banned-pesticide-remains-high-as-ever-in-california.php

Testing the Dose Addition Hypothesis: The Impact of Pyrethroid Insecticide Mixtures on Neurons.

Testing the Dose Addition Hypothesis: The Impact of Pyrethroid Insecticide Mixtures on Neurons Kris S. Freeman Kris S. Freeman has written for Encarta encyclopedia, NIH, ABCNews.com, and the National Park Service. Her research on the credibility of online health information appeared in the June 2009 IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. Citation: Freeman KS 2011. Testing the Dose Addition Hypothesis: The Impact of Pyrethroid Insecticide Mixtures on Neurons. Environ Health Perspect 119:a399-a399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.119-a399a Online: 01 September 2011 Pyrethroid insecticides are used extensively in agriculture and in homes to control fleas, cockroaches, bedbugs, and other insects. In a new in vitro study researchers tested the hypothesis that mixtures of pyrethroids have a dose-additive effect—that is, that pyrethroids as a chemical group produce toxicity in mammals via a common mode of action and that the combined toxicity of a pyrethroid mixture reflects the sum of its constituents’ toxicities [EHP 119(9):1239–1246; Cao et al.]. Using increased sodium ion influx as a specific functional measure of toxicity, the researchers found that effects of a mixture of commonly used pyrethroids were consistent with a dose-additive effect on mammalian neurons. Pyrethroids act on the nervous system by disrupting the normal function of voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs), which control the influx of sodium ions into neurons to transmit nerve signals. When VGSCs open, the influx of sodium generates the nerve signal; when they close, the electrical signal halts abruptly. Pyrethroids bind to VGSCs and delay their closing, which causes repetitive nerve stimulation that can lead to muscle tremors as well as interfere with the ability of the channels to respond to stimulation. Previous research demonstrated that a mixture of 11 pyrethroids had a dose-additive effect on the rat nervous system, decreasing the animals’ motor activity at doses below the threshold dose of each constituent compound. The authors of the current study exposed neurons cultured from the cerebral cortices of embryonic mice to the same 11 pyrethroids, then examined how VGSCs responded. To measure sodium influx without disrupting cell function, neurons were treated with a sodium-sensitive dye that fluoresced when VGSCs were open. Seven of the pyrethroids tested increased sodium influx in a dose-dependent manner (from highest to lowest potency: deltamethrin, S-bioallethrin, β-cyfluthrin, λ-cyhalothrin, esfenvalerate, telfluthrin, fenpropathrin). Cypermethrin and bifenthrin had only a marginal effect on sodium influx, whereas permethrin and resmethrin had no effect. Despite these variations in activity, the results when neurons were exposed to all 11 compounds together were consistent with a cumulative, dose-additive effect on neuronal sodium influx. People are commonly exposed to low doses of pyrethroid mixtures, which tend to persist as residues on treated surfaces and in household dust. Currently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is determining whether a cumulative dose-additive model is appropriate to evaluate potential human health effects of pyrethroid mixtures. This model shows that simultaneous exposure to multiple compounds will produce an effect that is consistent with additivity at the VGSC molecular target. http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.119-a399a

Household spray warning- problems with pyrethroids.

Household spray warning- problems with pyrethroids Mounting concern in Germany over the health effects of synthetic pyrethroids used as household insecticide sprays may lead to a ban on their use. A study earlier this year indicated a link between cancer and these sprays (see PN 28) and a new study suggests that pyrethroid poisoning may be affecting people using pyrethroid sprays. Symptoms have included damage to the central nervous system, dizziness, headaches, diarrhoea and panic attacks. The German Ministry of Health has drafted a proposal to ban these products, which is awaiting a departmental vote. Heike Schmitt investigates these issues. Synthetic pyrethroids have been on the market for several decades. They are derived from pyrethrins, extracted from a variety of the Chrysanthemum flower native to Kenya. Synthetic pyrethroids were designed with greater persistence to enhance shelf-life. The perceived advantage was their relatively low mammalian toxicity, but a broad spectrum of activity against insects has meant they can kill not only pests but also the natural predators of pests. New German research raises further concern, linking synthetic pyrethroids to chronic health effects. The German Federal Institute of Public Health has advised consumers to keep use as low as possible. If confirmed, the results of this study will have considerable significance, as synthetic pyrethroids are widely used in the home and in closed environments such as glasshouses and horticulture. A recent US survey draws further attention to the problems of home use of pesticides, and particularly the effect on children(1). “Indoor air use of pesticide products in the home is the main source of exposure for children,” says toxicologist William Pease of the University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health, who also believes exposures from household use exceed those from pesticide residues in food. New study—chronic concern At a seminar of experts in Berlin in March 1995, Professor H. Müller-Mohnssen summarised the symptoms of one hundred patients suffering from pyrethroid poisoning. Some had acute symtoms and some had chronic symyoms lasting over a period of years(2). The cases were selected from 500 patients according to a number of criteria. Chronic exposure was measured by residues in either in urine or dust. The effects of other types of pesticide active ingredient were eliminated by selecting cases where exposure could be restricted to formulations containing pyrethroids only. Cases were used only where there was an appropriate interval between exposure and the onset of symptoms, or between cessation of exposure and the reduction of symptoms. Only cases involving adults were considered. The patients comprised pest controllers and private users, including owners of treated textiles, especially carpets, users of electric vaporisers (small boxes containing pyrethroid formulations) and users of wood preservatives. A total of 24% suffered acute poisoning symptoms following application of pyrethroids. Although air concentration decreases rapidly after spraying, initial concentrations can be as high as 500µg/m3 (parts per billion)(3). Sub-acute poisoning, with a latency period of 2-6 days, occurs when electric vaporisers, are used within distances of less than 50 cm from the face. Poisoning can also occur when working in a room that was sprayed two days previously. Just over half of the cases (57%) showed symptoms of poisoning after repeated or even single exposure following spraying or use of a vaporiser. Although air concentrations may be as small as 0.01 µg/m3, concentrations may be greater in dust and on textiles—generally more than 10 mg/kg in dust. Poisoning symptoms Typically synthetic pyrethroids affect the nervous system and acute exposure can lead to parasthaesia and irritation of the eyes, mouth, and the respiratory system. Disorders of the central and autonomic nervous system can follow: nausea, dizziness, headaches, diarrhoea, sweating and panic attacks. The condition can worsen for 2-6 weeks afterwards, giving rheumatic pains, squinting, asthma-like symptoms and difficulties in walking, writing and speaking. In a plateau phase (lasting 2-6 weeks), lethargy, aggression and depression may occur. Chronic effects can include multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) and neurological damage: some 40% of cases resulted in MCS. Inert ingredients, as a possible cause of ill-effects in sprays, have been discounted because symptoms were similar for sprays and electric vaporisers (which do not contain inerts). Interpretation of the results would be assisted by further details of case selection and statistical analysis. We understand that the latter aspect cannot yet be published because of issues of confidentiality. Nevertheless, the results are of sufficient significance that further research should be treated as a matter of urgency. The German agrochemical industry association disagrees, saying that the proposed ban on synthetic pyrethroids is politically motivated and is not based on scientific evidence(4). The ban suggested by the German Ministry of Health would not extend to ‘short-life’ pyrethroids, nor professional use of pyrethroid products. Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] comment As the study by Professor Müller-Mohnssen is yet to be corroborated, it would be prudent to wait before making a final judgement. Clearly a public airing on this research would facilitate open discussion. In the meantime, less toxic alternatives can be used in the home and public demand for alternatives is increasing. In many cases effective alternatives are yet to be developed. For other pests they exist, for example, silicon dioxide provides an effective and safer control against household and pet animal pests (see p16). There is need for a comprehensive research programme into the chronic effects of widely-used household pesticides and development of non-toxic replacements. 1. Grossman, J., Dangers of Household Pesticides, Env. Health Perspectives, 103:6, 550-54, 1995. 2. Müller-Mohnssen, H., Über eine Methode zur Früherkennung neurotoxischer Erankungen (am Beispiel der Pyrethroidintoxikation), Gesundh.-Wes. 57, 214-222, 1995. 3. Walter, G., Keller, R., Beckert, J., and Budde, W., Anreichung von Bioziden in Innenräumen am Beispiel der Pyrethroide. Zbl. Hygiene 195, 450-456, 1994. 4. Agrow 30 June 1995. Heike Schmitt is from Germany and is currently seconded to the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK]. http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn29/pn29p3.htm

State scientists ignored in pesticide's approval.

State scientists ignored in pesticide's approval http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/state-scientists-ignored-pesticides-approval-12357 California’s former top pesticide regulatory official dismissed safety guidelines suggested by her own staff scientists on the grounds that they were "excessive" and too onerous for the pesticide manufacturer, recently released internal documents show. In response, the scientists lodged a formal protest, calling the official’s actions “not scientifically credible,” according to the documents released by court order last week. The documents amount to a “smoking gun,” says Paul Blanc, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at UC San Francisco. Last year, Blanc helped advise the staff scientists on their evaluation of the pesticide, methyl iodide. “The decision by the regulatory superiors was not science-based," Blanc said. In one of the documents, Mary-Ann Warmerdam, who led the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation until this year, weighs a recommendation from her staff that farm workers be exposed to no more than a trace amount of methyl iodide per day. The recommendation – intended to protect farm workers from cancer and miscarriage – is "excessive and difficult to enforce," Warmerdam wrote in April 2010, about two weeks before the department made its recommendation that California approve methyl iodide. If the restrictions on methyl iodide were approved, she wrote, the pesticide manufacturer might find the recommendations "unacceptable, due to economic viability." "(Warmerdam's) method was to consult with the pesticide manufacturer and determine what was acceptable to them, and then decide on what an acceptable level of exposure was," said Susan Kegley, a consulting scientist for the Pesticide Action Network, a group suing the state. Department spokeswoman Lea Brooks declined to comment on the documents, citing the pending litigation. "It is inappropriate to try this case in the media," Brooks said. Warmerdam resigned from the department in January. Gov. Jerry Brown has yet to appoint a successor. Methyl iodide was approved in December 2010, at the tail end of the Schwarzenegger administration. It's a chemical fumigant used primarily by strawberry growers. A coalition of environmental and farm-worker groups has sued the state to try to ban the chemical. As part of the suit, the groups asked the Department of Pesticide Regulation to release documents explaining how the agency decided to approve the chemical. The plaintiffs wanted to know how the agency had settled on exposure levels more than 100 times higher than what scientists within the agency believed were safe. When pressed for documents that might reveal the agency's rationale, Warmerdam declined to release them, citing the "deliberative process" exemption, which allows government agencies to keep the thought process behind a decision private. A public records act request filed by California Watch and KQED QUEST elicited the same response. Earlier this month, a judge disagreed, ordering the department to release the documents, which plaintiffs shared with reporters on Thursday. "DPR has an obligation to explain to the public the basis for its decision," said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie, who is representing the plaintiffs. "The public has every right to know that DPR approved methyl iodide over the objections of its own staff scientists." That rift between scientists and regulators first became public last year, in an e-mail exchange unearthed by KQED QUEST and California Watch's Public Records Act request. In the e-mails, two staff toxicologists – Lori Lim and Ruby Reed – said they had not been part of the decision to approve methyl iodide, and they stood by their original work. "We had to read between the lines to figure out how the target levels were calculated," they wrote. Both Lim and Reed have since resigned from the department. The new documents show staff scientists sending their complaints up the department’s chain of command. "I am puzzled by the numbers," staff scientist Jay Schreider wrote in a memo to the state's top toxicologist, Gary Patterson. Approving methyl iodide was "management's prerogative," Schreider wrote. But he said managers should not imply that the scientists' findings "are the basis for that decision, or that the apparent 'mix and match' approach provides a scientifically credible basis for the decision." In his order, Judge Frank Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court found that the "great majority" of the department’s documents should never have been withheld in the first place. As for the rest, Roesch found "the interest in public disclosure clearly outweighs agency interest in non-disclosure." The documents reveal a rare point of agreement between the department’s scientists and its managers: that methyl iodide may cause brain damage in developing fetuses. When California first began evaluating methyl iodide, it took the unusual step of bringing in an outside group of scientists, hired to work alongside department scientists, as an independent peer-review group. The scientists, including UCSF’s Blanc, worried that methyl iodide could drift up from strawberry fields and be inhaled by pregnant farm workers or children playing nearby, causing subtle effects such as IQ loss, which might never be detected or traced back to the chemical. "Methyl iodide concentrates in the fetal brain to levels well above those in the mother," they wrote in their assessment. "There is a high likelihood that methyl iodide is a developmental neurotoxin." The new documents show department managers also contending with the lack of data about methyl iodide's potential effects on developing brains. In animal tests, they wrote, "several measures of neurological deficiency were measured. … Overall, there is a need for a more thorough investigation into developmental neurotoxicity in pre- and post-natal exposures to methyl iodide, because the existing data do not address these exposures." Given the lack of data, the panel scientists recommended that a 10-fold "uncertainty factor" be added into the calculations about how much methyl iodide to which a worker could be safely be exposed. Toxicologists use uncertainty factors to help them quantify the amount of a chemical that might be determined “safe.” In this case, the added uncertainty factor would have left managers with a lower number, which would have put greater restrictions on methyl iodide’s use. Department managers chose to drop the uncertainty factor. An internal document shows that they debated where, and how, to explain that decision. "Hello Gary!" reads a memo from Marylou Verder-Carlos to Patterson, the lead toxicologist. "If you could please look over this document and see how and where we could explain dropping the additional 10X for the lack of DNT (developmental neurotoxicity) study." Ultimately, department managers chose not to mention the uncertainty factor in the approval notice at all. Ted Slotkin, a pharmacology and cancer biology professor at Duke University who served on the peer-review panel, says the documents show that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has no way of knowing whether methyl iodide is safe. "DPR has no benchmark with which to establish the limits of exposures that could be deemed as 'safe' for pregnant women and children living in agricultural communities or attending schools adjacent to fields where methyl iodide will be applied," he said. Some farmers in California already are starting to use the chemical, and they are expected to ramp up its use sharply in the fall, during strawberry planting season.