Science for Sale

No Longer Posting...

2011-06-30T13:57:00.002-05:00

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to let you know that for now I will no longer be posting updates on my Science for Sale blog, but I plan on keeping it online as a resource. The material found here remains up to date, and you can find information on anything from phthalates and parabens to BPA and lead. Never hesitate to ask a question. But for now, I'll be focusing my blogging energy on contributing to the Moms Who Vax blog.

Already retracted autism/MMR study now deemed an elaborate "fraud"

2011-01-06T00:05:00.010-06:00

*Note: sorry about the design issues. Trying to work them out...*

It would be irresponsible of me to let this go by without mention. The Associated Press, New York Times, CNN, and a host of other media outlets tonight are reporting on the discovery that disgraced researcher Andrew Wakefield's flawed and already redacted study suggesting a link between MMR vaccine and autism was actually more than bad science. It was fraud. And since this blog is about the manipulation of science, I must report on this, especially as that single study has done incalculable damage to public health, both in the United States and in England.

CNN reports that an investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible. I just need to highlight this. He misrepresented or altered the histories of ALL 12 of the patients he studied. The way he altered these histories only underscores the complete lack of merit of the paper to begin with: he didn't mention that a large percentage of the children he claimed "changed" right after they received the MMR shot had actually been suffering from documented developmental problems prior to the shot. This reminds me of the poor parents who tried to sue vaccine makers in Vaccine Court for their child's autism. A developmental psychologist for the defense viewed home movies of the child before the MMR vaccine had been administered, when the child was "perfectly normal," and quietly pointed out what, to him, were obvious signs of a burgeoning developmental disability.

Again, CNN: "It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data." Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May. "Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession," BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.

This issue about vaccines and autism isn't a battle of pride, like politics. All parents want what is best for their children. No one goes to bat for a theory about their child's health knowing consciously, or letting themselves understand, that following that theory might result in serious injury, disease, or even death--for their child or others. Like Ms. Godlee, I blame the media for doing an absolutely atrocious job of reporting on this issue. I cannot think of a single scientific topic in which a single paper, based on a sample size of 12 people, has received more press than Wakefield's study. Then, add to this the fact that the study was disavowed by 10 of its 13 authors, that the study itself was redacted from the journal in which it appeared, that the lead researcher lost his license to practice medicine because of fraud, and now this revelation of intentional altering of patients' medical histories, and you have irresponsible, dangerous journalism. There is no reason on earth this study should have been treated as anything more than a fringe piece of meaningless research. But it wasn't. And that's why we have measles outbreaks in this country. People have actually said to me: "Polio doesn't exist anymore." Or: "I've never seen measles in my lifetime." This is a testament to how wonderful public health measures have been, that some of us actually believe this. But in India, for example, and Africa, there are polio outbreaks fairly regularly. Measles outbreaks in our country have become much more common. Many of these outbreaks start from a traveler from one of these countries where these diseases are alive and well. Once passed on to an unvaccinated child, we're in trouble.

Across the country, doctors are finally speaking out about this (one of my pet peeves is the tolerance of pediatricians, and so tacit approval, of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children based on Wakefield's study). MinnPost reports:

In an e-mail, Greg Poland, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, who is also editor-in chief at the journal Vaccine, wrote that the so-called vaccine hypothesis put forth by Wakefield "has hurt individuals, families, communities, and the broader public health. Children whose parents made fear-based decisions based on these claims have died, and these families are forever damaged and broken."

And Robert Jacobson, MD, chair of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., blamed Wakefield for "worldwide drops in vaccination rates as well as a number of outbreaks of mumps and measles that centered in the British Isles but were felt the world over. In fact, the 2006 Iowan mumps epidemic and the 2009 New York mumps epidemic can both be traced to the British mumps virus that circulated as a result of loss of confidence in vaccination with MMR due to Wakefield."
Steve Lauer, MD, of the University of Kansas in Kansas City, had more blame to lay at Wakefield's feet: the ongoing pertussis epidemic in California. Lauer told ABC News/MedPage Today that the increase in pertussis deaths in California is "another example of completely preventable deaths linked to the decline in vaccination rates. Study after study in numerous countries involving hundreds of thousands of children have never shown any link between autism and any vaccination. That Dr. Wakefield's lies have led to increased illness and deaths among innocent infants and children is a social and medical disaster."
The damage inflicted by the Wakefield papers can be measured not only in disease and death, but also in time and anxiety, said Leonard Rappaport, MD, of Children's Hospital in Boston, who wrote in an e-mail that it was "impossible to quantify the amount of time wasted in pediatric practice discussing why we believe that the MMR does not cause autism and that children should be immunized. Second, the heartbreak and worry for parents of children with autism who have secretly believed in the quiet of the night that they were responsible for their child having an autism spectrum disorder and the anxiety of parents approaching immunization time with so much false information and fear flying around them is impossible to comprehend.

If you want to read an absolutely fascinating exchange between pediatricians on the topic of vaccinations, I highly recommend you visit Seattle Mama Doc's blog (I am having problems posting links right now). The following comment from a working pediatrician was so profoundly compelling to me, that I wanted to share it in its entirety. I had to take to my bed after reading about the two-year-old whose parents wanted a delayed vaccination schedule who then contracted pneumococcal meningitis, survived, but is now deaf for life. He would have been fine if he had been vaccinated on schedule...Read on.

I finished residency 11 years ago and have seen many. Like others have said, I also took care of a 6 week old infant that was on ECMO and went on to die from a pertussis infection she got from her father. Last year we had a 2 year old in our practice, whose parents wanted to take the “slow and careful” approach, who got pneumococcal meningitis. He survived, but is deaf for life. I would expect any pediatrician to have enough of a science background to understand the data, and avoid using personal anecdotes to dictate policy. I would not suggest that because I have not seen a case of HiB that it isn’t important to prevent, any more than I would suggest the diseases I have seen are the ones needing more treatment. We need to look at global incidence to protect our children.
I never turn a family away from my practice for refusing or delaying vaccines.
I have a 2 minute talk for parents. It comes up often. I totally understand parents questioning vaccines. They have been told by Dr. Gordon and others that vaccines cause all kinds of disease. If you search on the internet you will find people (like the ever FOS Dr. Tenpenny) who say vaccines cause diabetes, epilepsy, SIDS, ADHD, MS, cancer, autism, Parkinson’s disease, shaken baby syndrome, learning disabilities, IBD, lupus, allergies, arthritis, eczema, death and more. I think Frank Swain said it more clearly than I could, in his recent blog at scienceblogs.com.
“When mothers decide to not vaccinate their children, they are choosing to do so with only the very, very, very best intentions in the world. That they’ve been lead to believe not vaccinating is the best thing for them does not mean that they are stupid, evil, ill-intentioned, moronic. They’ve just been told a better story by ‘the other side’.”
We need to develop a relationship with parents that is based on trust. We do not recommend vaccines to make money. We do not recommend vaccines because “Big Pharma” tells us to. We recommend vaccines because we care about our patients and want to protect them.

So this news today makes me both happy and said. Happy that my children are both fully vaccinated and on schedule. But so sad for the parents who chose not to vaccinate their children or even altered the schedule because of fear of a link to autism that has, time and time again, been shown--in reputable scientific studies devoid of fraud--to be nonexistent. And I speak as someone who, with her first child, delayed an MMR vaccination by three months out of fear. My second child received her MMR at twelve months on the dot. And I am grateful every day that I have access to these vaccinations.

At the end of the day, though, despite my personal comments here, this story is about fraud and manipulation of science. In my opinion, this kind of deception is unforgivable, because those of us who are not scientists look to those who are to tell us what's safe and what's not. It's great to know that more than 90% of studies about BPA have found that there is some harmful effect to ingesting the chemical, even at low levels, because we can take steps to avoid it. What's so devious about this Wakefield study is that false information lead many people down a very dangerous road. What's worse is that so many people put their children on that road, literally out of the goodness of their hearts. And it's going to be hard for them to let go of this. I doubt we'll see Jenny McCarthy stepping forward in the next few days to apologize for encouraging people to listen to Wakefield, to take his science to the bank. That would be the human thing to do. For people who took this study to the bank to begin with, a designation of fraud will only solidify their views on this nonexistent link, will only strengthen their belief that Wakefield is somehow being persecuted. And, in fact, I see that this is exactly what is happening today. To me it is incomprehensible. What Wakefield should do, and maybe one day he will do this if his conscience bothers him enough, is to come forward and tell the truth about all this. The old Penguin editor in me wishes I was still working in publishing. I'd be on the phone so fast with a large offer for a book deal for Wakefield, if he writes about the fraud and the lies, and finally comes out and says "it was all smoke and mirrors."

Here is the link to the CNN article and Consume Intelligently!

Nova Naturals Toys and Crafts--Christmas, anyone?

2010-11-09T14:23:00.003-06:00

My babies are growing so fast--at three and one-years-old, they are no longer infants. And since my husband and I are done having children, that means I don't get to buy any more baby stuff for my own babies. Luckily, I'm going to be an aunt in February, so I can buy vicariously for my sister. I bring this up because in the last three years, I've looked for truly nontoxic toys, and have found few good outlets for them. An "all-wood" walker might contain a piece of particleboard or plywood. A bath toy is likely made of vinyl. The word "green" means nothing. If there's anything you walk away from this blog with, it should be the utter meaningless of this word. It is unregulated, it can be used to describe just about anything, and it can fool even the savviest shopper (see my Dura Supreme saga).

As a proud member of Catalog Choice, I opt-out of just about every unsolicited catalog I receive. But yesterday I received a catalog from Nova Natural Toys and Crafts. I read it the way I read good books. Add to that the drool factor. This company out of Vermont sells products for babies, parents, and kids that are truly nontoxic. They don't crow about it; they let the pictures do the talking. An all-wood rattle that looks like a fish (no eyes, no shiny scales, no useless lights) has a handful of rice built into it. A maple teething ring is made of hard maple and finished with beeswax and jojoba oil. Their cloth dolls, made by a women's collective in Peru, come in all different skin shades. Their quiet craftsmanship speaks for itself. Check out Nova Natural for yourself.

And please note, as always, I do not accept "free samples" or "giveaway" samples from any company, at any time. This allows me to remain 100% objective in my reviews of companies and their products. I only review if I feel moved to do so. I have absolutely no connection to Nova Natural, besides the fact that their catalog landed in my mailbox yesterday!

"Pottery Barn Smell"

2010-10-25T14:27:00.003-05:00

I recently received a spate of e-mails from new parents asking me what I knew about the smell emanating from their newly purchased Pottery Barn crib or changing table or dresser or whatever. In some cases, the smell was so overpowering, they couldn't stay in the room very long. My heart sank when I received these e-mails. Despite having beautifully designed furniture and giving me five minutes every few months to fantasize about the perfect interior design scheme in my hectic and often messy household, Pottery Barn continues to use components in its furniture that are not human-friendly. They have gone to great length, you may notice if you get their catalog, to talk about their commitment to "eco-friendly" practices and materials, but I have seen nothing that qualifies as "eco-friendly" (an undefined, completely unregulated term, by the way) in their products besides organic cotton and "sustainably harvested" wood. They still utilize particleboard in their products, which contains urea-formaldehyde--luckily California passed a law a couple years ago regulating the amount of formaldehyde off-gassing in particleboard, and my understanding is that Pottery Barn has complied. But I fear the smell that is causing all the headaches may be coming from the stain used on this furniture. The VOC levels in stain has not, to my knowledge, yet been regulated. A low-VOC stain would be a truly "eco-friendly" approach to take by Pottery Barn, but I fear we aren't there yet.

I post this in case you've stumbled upon this blog by searching Pottery Barn smell (many of my visitors do). We can't pinpoint with absolutely certainty what this smell is, though I suspect it is a high-VOC stain, paint, or even the particleboard itself if there is enough of it in the furniture you purchased. I recommend leaving these pieces in a well-ventilated space (basement with open windows, garage, your back yard) for two weeks, minimum, to get the worst of the smell out of the furniture. Another route for particleboard is to use SafeSeal (search this blog under SafeSeal and find some posts about the product). This isn't feasible with stain-related issues. Finally, this is so crucial: write a letter of complaint to Pottery Barn! The more people who do this, the more of a shot we have of getting them to begin using safer products. And don't be pacified. They may shoot back some form letter that talks about their eco-friendly this or eco-friendly that, or that they follow the California requirements for off-gassing in particleboard. The point is that you have a smelly piece of furniture in your house that is making things unpleasant, that perhaps this is going in a nursery, where your child will sleep, and that this is unacceptable. I guarantee that if enough people write, you will see some change.

In the meantime, those of us who want to stay away from high-VOC stains, particleboard, etc., but are on a budget, have to look elsewhere, and for the time being, it seems our choices are aesthetically limited. Ikea has a number of total hardwood furniture products, including beds. One thing I've done is purchased a night table for my son that was completely unfinished beech, and stained it myself with ultra low-VOC stain, purchased at a natural home store. I've done this with a number of items in my house, because I don't love the look of unfinished wood but I am not bringing a high-VOC stained item into my son's room. Good luck!!

"Natural Parabens"

2010-10-07T17:15:00.002-05:00

As you can see from the amount of time between posts, this has become more of an occasional blog than a daily one. I wanted to share a story from a shopping trip to Sephora that underscored the importance of consuming intelligently. I was looking for an eye cream, among other things, and a very nice young woman with whom I'd been working led me back to the L'Occitaine section. Another associate happened to be there, and when I said that I loved L'Occitaine products but had stopped using them because of the parabens in their lotions, the other associate waved away my concerns and said: "They now use only natural parabens." I was slackjawed. There is, of course, no such thing as a natural paraben. In fact, parabens have always been synthetic creations. Originally meant to mimic estrogen and now used mainly as a preservative, parabens cannot be natural. I wonder how many women have heard this "all natural parabens" line. Stay educated. Cosmetics are not under strict guidelines when it comes to labeling. The term "natural" isn't regulated at all. Look closely at the fine print. Even L'Occitaine's "natural line" is filled with nasty chemicals, including disodium EDTA.

I do want to mention this, though, to offer some perspective. Despite everything I've written about chemicals in cosmetics, I will occasionally use a product that contains EDTA, for example, if I am using it in small doses and since I am done bearing children and breastfeeding. I bought the L'Occitaine eye cream. ;-)

The Power of Half Measures

2010-06-08T21:55:00.004-05:00

Eight months after my second child was born, I ventured into the world of cloth diapers. Yes, I'd given gDiapers a try, and they hadn't worked for me. Cloth seemed overwhelming, a vortex that inhaled time that I simply didn't have. With the insouciance of a second-time mom, I thought I'd give bonafide cloth diapering a try, so long as I had the "training wheels" of disposables in case of emergency. I was compelled to do this because of Maria Montessori. I think it's safe to say we have joined the cult of true-blue Montessori (read: The Absorbent Mind). We were fumbling idiots during my son's first few years, until we got him in an AMI-certified Montessori environment. Armed with more knowledge of the method now, we are doing our best to create the best environment possible for our daughter. She doesn't have a crib, she has a floor bed. We got rid of our changing table. She doesn't have flashing toys that make noise. And she loves it. Our son was potty-trained in approximately three weeks after being put in cloth underwear all day instead of a diaper. The theory is that human beings are naturally averse to having their urine and feces close to their bodies. Cloth makes walking around with soiled underpants uncomfortable, noticeable, and, therefore, provides a child motivation to anticipate when he or she needs to evacuate. Disposables, with their otherworldly absorbency, makes wetness less noticeable and even creates a kind of "sauna-effect" that can feel nice.

Anyway, I got my diapers at Green Mountain Diapers, and I couldn't recommend them more highly. They simplify the truly overwhelming process of choosing from among the insane amounts and types of cloth diapers and even include a handy how-to packet with their orders. They're honest about what seems to work and what doesn't, and they are completely nonjudgmental, which I love. For me, the word was simplicity. I didn't want the expensive cloth diapers-but-really-look-like-disposables, with their removable inserts and super cool diaper covers. I wanted those old fashioned prefolds and a basic diaper cover. I chose the organic unbleached cotton prefolds and the Bummis snap and velcro diaper covers (two, to start).

After two weeks of doing this, I'm not sure what's worse for the environment--disposables or cloth. Either way, it's clear that pooping babies take a hell of a toll on the environment, at least in this day and age. I had to wash my prefolds approximately seven times before they were absorbent enough to be used. Once they were ready, I began using them by folding them into rectangles and placing them in the diaper cover. My daughter's diaper was huge, but didn't seem to interfere with her crawling. One of the first things I noticed was how much more often my daughter was wet--or rather, how much easier it was for me to notice. Disposable diapers are meant to be uber-absorbent. It's the guiding principle of the diaper companies to wick away as much moisture as possible so, let's be frank here, parents don't have to change diapers so often. I kept a lined trashcan in the bathroom, in addition to our regular bin, where I tossed dirty cloth diapers. I kept a trash can in her nursery where I threw my chlorine-free diaper wipes (I didn't go whole hog and buy cloth wipes). When she pooped, I shook it out in the toilet and, most of the time, put it right in the diaper pail. There was one time that I had to soak it in the toilet. It's quite difficult to use the toilet to rinse off a poopy diaper when the toilet is low-flush. Some mothers get a hose, but I didn't want to do that. The potential of spray-back was too much for me.

I feel as if I were twenty pounds lighter, knowing that I have cut down on my use of disposables by about 80%. That's 80% fewer diapers in the landfill from my household, where the diapers will outlive my great-great-great grandchildren, and likely beyond. I also feel better about the material that is so close to my daughter's private area. It can't be wonderful for chlorine-soaked plastic to be so close to her body. I am thrilled that she is feeling what it's like to be wet, setting the stage for potty training. In their book, Montessori from the Start, the Lillard mother and daughter team mention that in the fifties, before the advent of disposable diapers, babies were potty trained, on average, at eighteen months. Today, kids are often in diapers well into their fifth year. My own son potty-trained at two-and-a-half. We think his sister will be trained sometime during what Montessori called the sensitive period, between 12-18 months.

Now. The cleaning. This is where things get confusing for me. And I haven't seen my first month's water bill, so I can't tell you yet how much more my bill might be. When I have a load of diapers, for me, one a day, I have to put them through a cold rinse in the washer (I add a tiny bit of detergent). Then I put them through a hot wash with a few drops of bleach for disinfecting. Then I put them through another cold rinse to be sure the detergent has been sufficiently rinsed out, to avoid irritating my daughter's skin. Then I have to dry them at least two cycles, since the heavy organic cloth takes a long time to try. I could dry them outside, but I'm often crunched and need to have the diapers (I bought twelve). I do this once a day. How much energy does this take? How much fossil fuel consumption? How much water? I don't know yet. I am in the process of finding out.

Let me say this. I am a convert to cloth. They're good for my daughter. They're good for the earth in terms of landfill pollution. The idea of putting something into the landfill that will not decompose for 250-500 years, not once, but over and over and over and over and over again, is repellent to me. Yet I did just that for my first child, and for the first eight months of my second child's life. In addition, diapers contain noxious chemicals, like traces of Dioxin, a carcinogen that is a byproduct of paper-bleaching. I am a cloth diaper mama, but I use the occasional disposable. Often at night. Sometimes when I travel. When she spends the day at Grandma's. So, in truth, I am engaging in a half-measure (well, maybe a three-quarter measure). I am cloth diapering the majority of the day while still utilizing a disposable every once in a while.

But here's the thing. I don't see this as a failure. I believe there is power in half-measures when it comes to an either/or situation like this, which isn't, in fact, either/or. If more people tried to do some cloth diapering, instead of feeling like they had to go whole hog and, as a result, rejected it out of hand, we could more realistically tackle the landfill/diaper situation. The problem is that much of the cloth diaper contingent makes a mom who might be on the fence feel as if she'd be a failure if she used the occasional diaper from time to time. I think we have a better chance of converting people if we say: "Hey, go half-sies to start! We'll take it!"

Oil Spill Playbook

2010-05-01T20:32:00.004-05:00

There's a playbook for these things. Engage in what seems like respectable efforts at cleaning up. Talk about the contingency plans you had in place, even if you didn't have one. Welcome help from the government. Hire local fishermen and women to help clean up the oil. The oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is shaping up to an environmental disaster the likes of which we've never seen before.

Natural disasters are remarkably consistent in their pathology--the social fall-out looks the same regardless of where in the world they occur or whom they affect. A flood will require rebuilding, sometimes on a municipal level. Floodplains might be cleared, homes bought out by government entities, tough decisions made. Homeowners will cling to their houses, no matter how damaged, will fight City Hall, will want to punish whoever happens to be in office. The aftermath of a natural disaster is a study i human nature.

But the fallout from manmade disasters is perhaps even more consistent across the board--oil disasters, in particular. Today, BP--one of the "good guys" in the oil industry (unlike ExxonMobil until a year ago, they don't fund research to debunk global warming)--is opening the oil spill playbook, written by ExxonMobil during the Valdez disaster. A few days ago, BP met with local fishermen and women to talk about hiring them to clean up the oil as it washes through the coastal marshes and wetlands, just as Exxon met with fishers from Cordova and the rest of Prince William Sound, promising big bucks and offering a commitment to "make things right." Fifteen years later, fishers were still waiting for ExxonMobil to "make things right," as the oil giant used every tool at its disposal to avoid paying damages to fishers who, to this day, can't make ends meet by fishing alone, as they used to do.

I sincerely hope BP does not go down this road. I hope they understand that the damage they've done to the environment has not only hurt wildlife, sea life, precious ecosystems, and more; they will have taken away the livelihoods of countless individuals. This won't result in a single bad season for fishers, for oystermen and women. This will be something that goes on for years, perhaps even decades. The Valdez spill, which took place more than twenty years ago, is still affecting the people of the Sound--you can dig up pockets of oil easily on the beaches of islands in the Sound using a simple spade.

Chances are, folks from Louisiana to Florida will be able to do the same thing, twenty years from now. I can only hope they won't, like the people of Cordova, still be in a court room, waiting for BP to "make things right."

Cage-Free Egg McMuffin? "Science" Says No.

2010-04-15T16:06:00.005-05:00

Tis the season for proxy cards by the boatload and resolutions and proposals. If you own any mutual funds or stock, you are probably awash in the detritus of stock ownership right about now. I only own a little stock, through my pathetic little 401(K) rolled over from the days when I worked at Penguin, and my husband has a handful himself from the various 401(k)s from the companies where he worked in New York prior to our move. It's been fun to read through them and see which resolutions the "Board Recommends Voting Against." Invariably, this season, it's been requests from shareholders for compensation transparency and various oversight measures.

However, over at McDonalds, the Board has recommend a "no" vote against something more interesting: cage-free eggs. The resolution before shareholders is not very ambitious: it asks that McDonalds commit to buying 5% of its eggs from cage-free providers. McDonalds is currently the largest single buyers of eggs in the world. 5% would make a huge difference. But McDonalds has voted no on this because it claims the science simply isn't there to support such a shift. This is an interesting conclusion. As the New York Times points out, not only have Burger King, Wal-Mart, Subway, Wendy's, and Trader Joe's increased their buy of cage-free eggs (gramatically--eggs laid by cage-free hens, but I digress), but McDonalds' European operations are going 100% cage-free.

The science, at least according to some sources, is actually conclusive on this one. The European Union reached its decision to ban the battery cage in which chickens are usually held in this country (72 square inches--not enough room to open its wings--to put it in perspective, a piece of 8 1/2 by 11 papers is ) on the basis of a report from its Scientific Veterinary Committee. Birds kept in these cages spend most of their lives in a space so small they cannot perform the basic functions of existence. They never turn around, they don't walk--some have arthritis or osteoporis that is so severe their bones are malformed. Cage-free systems certainly require better husbandry skills, but an egg buyer with as much clout as McDonald's could certainly find suppliers for 5% of its egg needs.

For those concerned with the welfare and humane treatment of animals, this focus on the science of cage-free eggs must be maddening. Must science guide our decisions on something like this, which seems so straightforward? I am of the camp that believes battery cages are inhumane and needless. However, McDonald's claims there isn't enough demand here in the states on that count to change its behavior, and seems to suggest that "if only the science were conclusive" on whether cage-free eggs are healthier (they are, according to numerous studies), it would reconsider. "Science," to McDonalds, appears to be the results of a study by Michigan State University and the University of California, Davis, of different housing options for egg-laying hens. While McDonalds seems to be a sponsor of this study, along with Cargill--which, of course, sets alarms bells ringing for conflict of interest, the American Humane Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, Center for Food Integrity, and USDA are also involved.

More nutritious? Maybe. Safer? Absolutely.

2010-03-25T09:28:00.002-05:00

The other day my father mentioned that numerous studies had demonstrated that organic produce is not more nutritious than conventional produce. I had seen this research as well. I was unmoved.
"That's not why I go organic," I said. "I don't want pesticides in my body, or my children's bodies." He said nothing for a few moments. I anticipated a challenge (since I was twelve, we've engaged in "devil's advocate" debates, in which one of us, for the hell of it, takes up the mantle of the other side and argues passionately, just to see if the other's reasoning is sound.) But the challenge didn't come on this time.

He's challenged me before on this one, of course. Many huge agricultural conglomerates argue, sometimes convincingly, that without pesticides and herbicides, yield would not be able to meet global demand, and hunger would become even more of a problem. But I have not yet seen any science-based evidence that this is true. What I have seen is reports, like the one out today in the American Journal of Public Health (and linked below), that states that pesticides are, in fact, harmful to the human body--particularly the developing child. In this case, the study looked at chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used on fruits and vegetables. Interestingly, it has been outlawed for use in American households, but can be used freely in agriculture.

The dangers of pesticides have been evident for decades. Rachel Carson sacrificed her peace to bringing these truths to light. However, to this day, organic outfits can only say that pesticides "may" cause harm (I'm thinking of Earth's Best's baby food labels). So it's heartening to see that research on this continues, and continues toward the conclusive end of things. In the study I mention, 266 children in the South Bronx and Upper Manhattan (a battered, profoundly ill-used urban neighborhood, where the rates of asthma and obesity are staggering) were followed to determine if high exposure to chlorpyrifos affected development. The conclusion showed that in children exposed to levels of 6.17 pg/g (tested in umbilical cord blood at time of birth), they suffered a 6.5 point decrease in the Psychomotor Development Index score and a 3.3 point decrease in the Mental Development Index score (the children were three at the time of follow-up testing).
The study was published online March 18 in advance of print publication in the May issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

"Although this pesticide has been banned for residential use in the United States, chlorpyrifos and other organophosphorus insecticides are still commonly used for a variety of agricultural purposes, study co-author Virginia Rauh, co-deputy director for the Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health, said in the news release. "We hope that the results of this study, further demonstrating the neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos under a range of community conditions, may inform public health professionals and policy-makers about the potential hazards of exposure to this chemical for pregnant women and young children."

Now, the question of "high exposure" has always been a tricky one in scientific research of this type. No one is going to volunteer for high exposure to chemicals to help scientists determine if such exposure is risky. What makes this study so compelling was that the children (and their mothers, when they were pregnant) were exposed at these levels from the day-to-day, as a matter of course. Now, for other parents, the question might be, well, if I'm not exposed to chlorpyrifos in this way, am I at risk? The short answer, for now, is: I don't know. Perhaps over the course of years, the amount of residual pesticides on fruit will have an adverse affect on one's health. But choosing organic produce is not a risky use of the precautionary principle. Obviously we have not reached the point yet where regular purchase of organic produce is within reach of everyone. Hell, when I lived in Harlem, it was next to impossible to get fresh produce, period (and this remains a huge problem and a factor in the area's obesity levels). But for those of us who have a choice, even if we are, like me, on a pretty tight budget, it might be worth it to, as Michael Pollan states in Food Rules, to "spend more, eat less."

Letter to my Representative

2010-03-15T10:24:00.003-05:00

I won't be making it a habit to write much about vaccines here, since I've found that the topic is one that so divides people, despite objective science (which, because of its separation from opinion and emotion, is the kind of data I trust most), that there is no "convincing" and almost never any rational discussion or debate. I have already written about where I stand on this topic, and as I promised, I wanted to post the letter I finally got around to writing to my local representative in case anyone else needed a template. My letter is specific, in places, to Minnesota law. It does, however, cite New York State's "sincerity testing" for parents who opt-out of mandatory vaccinations for "philosophical reasons." I felt it was important to let my rep know that parents like me are out there, even if we aren't writing as many letters.

Dear Rep. Simon,

When my son started Montessori this fall, I was terrified. These were not the raw nerves of a mother sending her toddler off to school for the first time. This was the fear of a mother sending her child into a classroom in which vaccination is optional. Minnesota has one of the most lax, truly laughable policies regarding vaccination, and because of this, the entire community is at grave risk. The loophole in the vaccination policy for children is so wide that the 5% of the population who is not vaccinated (and who, therefore, have put our precious herd immunity at risk), could fall through it. It is of cold comfort to me, as a parent, that vaccinations are “mandatory”—unless there is a medical reason vaccination would be dangerous or a parent has a philosophical objection to vaccination.

When my son was an infant, I was concerned, like many new parents, about the information swirling around the Internet about vaccines. It's natural for an intelligent parent to question medication and vaccinations. In an ideal world, we would all have access to and the ability to understand the raw scientific data regarding the medications and vaccinations we get. However, it is reckless to ignore science in favor of celebrity advice and scare tactics used by doctors who rely so little on science that they have been ostracized by the medical community. As I’m sure you’ve heard, the sole piece of research that suggested a link between autism and vaccines was withdrawn by The Lancet, in which is appeared, due to error-filled data and unethical practices. In an article by Dr. John Snyder, who took anti-vaccine pediatrician Dr. Sears to task for his book The Vaccine Book (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=512), he responded to another physician who commented that he had decided simply to not see patients whose parents were not vaccinating them. I can't have you bringing pertussis or measles into my waiting room and infecting vulnerable patients (like babies too young for the vaccine, for example), he said. Dr. Snyder responded this way:

I can absolutely appreciate your stance with vaccine-refusing parents. I have opted to keep them in my practice as I think I am more likely to get them to vaccinate than others might be. I posted a sign the other day in my waiting room, referencing a recent local measles outbreak, asking parents of under/unvaccinated children to immediately notify the front desk as they enter, so that they can be removed from the waiting room. It makes it clear that they are a risk to the other families. We’ve reached a point at which it’s important for these parents to feel a bit ostracized, and for the other parents to feel some outrage.

 Dr. Snyder is right. It's time for the heretofore-quiet vaccinating parents to speak up and ask our representatives to change the current laws regarding vaccinations, to close that loophole or at least make it smaller. In New York State, parents who object on “philosophical” grounds must attend a court hearing, not simply get a form notarized. I’d like to see this sort of law enacted in Minnesota. Thankfully, the majority of us vaccinate our children (90%), which is the only reason the parents who don't vaccinate their children feel comfortable keeping their children unvaccinated, even as they put the rest of the population at risk. We need 95% vaccination rates, however, to keep diseases like measles, mumps, etc., at bay. As one physician said, vaccine rejectionism is dangerous. “It harms the children who are not vaccinated, and it harms unrelated children who are too young to be vaccinated. Parents who reject vaccines implicitly rely on other people being vaccinated. They are willing to accept the benefits, without partaking of the risk. They expose their own children to life threatening illness, and they expose other people’s children to life threatening illness. The government should act to restrict vaccine waivers to only those with medical indications for forgoing vaccination. The right to indulge one’s philosophical beliefs ends at the point where it threatens the life and health of other people’s children.” (italics are mine)

In Minnesota, we are nearing that threshold for several childhood diseases. Unvaccinated children may come in contact with the disease in many ways, including from children coming here from other countries where immunization is not standard or is unavailable and where these diseases still exist ( polio is still a huge issue in India for example) And this final thought is the most frightening to me, as the mother of a five-month-old: a vaccinated child might come in contact with an infected unvaccinated child in a preschool setting, carry home the virus and/or bacteria and remain immune: however, the infant sibling, who is too young to be vaccinated for these diseases, will not be immune and could fall seriously ill or even die. Representative Simon, please consider introducing legislation that tightens the loopholes in our vaccination requirements It’s unfeasible to simply eliminate the philosophical opt-out, but we can make it more difficult for parents to put their children, and ours, at risk. New York State insists on “sincerity testing” of all applicants for religious exemption. I’d like to see such safeguards put into place. I guarantee you that millions of Minnesota parents will thank you.

Not Sure What to Title This

2010-03-04T11:36:00.003-06:00

About three months ago, I wrote a "final post," which was a bit overdramatic--the exhausted writer, up at 3am working on her many projects, injecting a little too much pathos into her blogging. I'd just welcomed a beautiful baby girl into the family, joining our two-and-a-half year old son and my husband and me. It was a heady, but stressful time, and I was just embarking on a book project. I thought if I went too long between posts, my readers would grow annoyed, then leave for good. But after that last post, so many people e-mailed me wishing me well, including several who said, hey, we're moms, too. Don't sweat it if you let a few weeks go between posts.

With my book project well underway (I just received a Minnesota State Arts Board grant for it!), and my daughter nearing six months old, I turn again to this blog. In the hopes that my readers will forgive periods of silence, I will continue writing about my adventures in the toxic and nontoxic worlds. I'll probably be reimagining the blog as well. When I started the blog a couple years ago, it was designed mainly as an extension of a book project I was working on, titled Science for Sale: Politics, Profit, and the Manipulation of Science. That project was to have been a journalistic account of the machinations corporations and government use to thwart science and keep toxic products on the market. But as I became a mom, the blog took on a slightly different tone--one of an individual who was struggling to understand what products were safe for her family, using science as her benchmark.

I'll continue this blog in that spirit but I anticipate some changes, perhaps even a blog name change. We'll see. In the meantime, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to posting again.

Campbells loses a customer

2009-11-05T14:21:00.005-06:00

While I hate to keep beating the BPA drum, I couldn't let this pass without comment, since it is affecting my own consumer choices. ABC News had a reporter from Consumer Reports on air a couple days ago discussing the presence and levels of BPA in canned goods. This is nothing new, though it's nice to see mainstream media outlets covering the issue. However, I was shocked and disgusted by Campbell Soup's comment to ABC News regarding the amount of BPA leaching out of its own cans:

The Campbell Soup Co. told ABC News, "While the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the safety of BPA, Campbell is currently researching alternatives. To date, no satisfactory alternative has been identified for a broad range of products."

Really? "The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the safety of BPA..." Is this a joke? The exact opposite is true. This idiotic comment was enough to make me decide to boycott Campbell soup products. Not that I am a huge consumer of its products to begin with, but making a comment like this, which runs counter to science and which comes dangerously close to dismissive, is enough for me to say goodbye to any of the company's products. I would actually have more respect for a company that uses BPA and acknowledges its risks but continues using it than I do for a company that uses the chemical and then disavows any science linking BPA to a host of health problems--especially when that science is as close to conclusive as I think possible.

In some ways, I think a lot of companies are still operating in a Mad Man-esque milieu. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which companies will go to in order to disavow science that suggests their products might need...improvement. Typically, they'll spend huge amounts of money to discredit good science--money which would be better spent taking toxins out of their products. Their blind spot--and it is a huge one--is the one that misses the legions of consumers who would trample to the store to buy products from companies that honestly assess the science, make the adjustments necessary, where feasible, and that are candid about those adjustments they haven't made, for reasons of cost. It's a shame that the only canned food company currently using BPA-free lining is Eden Organics, despite the fact that the technology is already extant. I do not argue that linings are not important--crucial--to keep food safe. I only argue that linings containing BPA contain a chemical demonstrated to be unsafe at low levels and that there are alternatives.

UPDATE: New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof wrote this column in Sunday's New York Times about the latest information on BPA in canned goods. It's heartening to see the mainstream media treating this as the serious issue it is.

Applying Science to Dr. Sears

2009-09-20T19:04:00.016-05:00

UPDATE II. October 24th 2010: There is a pretty horrific outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) in California right now, with the beginning linked to a Waldorf school where a number of children are unvaccinated by parents who conscientiously object to vaccination. The tenth newborn just died after contracting the disease.

UPDATE: For anyone who wants a somewhat digested version of the article I mention below, The Stats Blog does an excellent review of Snyder's article.

This post has to do with something I have been feeling increasingly passionate about the longer I've been a mother. Unfortunately, parents with my point of view we are woefully underrepresented both in the media and in the blogosphere. Up until now, I've held back posting anything much about vaccines, besides the occasional flu shot post. However, I have come to see my reticence as irresponsibility. Let me explain.

My son recently started a Montessori program. He's about two and a half and has never been in daycare, so he has not been exposed to many "germs." Let's put it this way: until he started preschool, he never had so much as a cold. I don't think this is a good thing--kids need to be exposed to illness to build up immunity. So I wasn't surprised when he fell ill after beginning preschool and has been feverish on and off since then. He is also fully vaccinated, completely up to date, and he gets his flu shot. When he was an infant, I was concerned, like many new parents, about the information swirling around the Internet about vaccines. They're poisonous! They cause autism! We get too many! Of course these reports gave me pause, like they would anyone. However, I am someone who relies on science (as anyone who reads this blog can tell) to guide my decisions as a consumer. There are certainly big businesses with much at stake who try to distort science; however, in my years as a journalist and researcher, I have come to specialize in unearthing these conflicts of interest and looking at the science (and consulting scientists much, much smarter than me) to see if it holds up or is biased. Hence the subtitle of my blog: ...and the manipulation of science.

So I get a lot of people coming to my blog because they search "thimerosal" or "vaccines" or "toxicity." And I am grateful for that, because much of what we are surrounded by, much of what we consume, have toxic properties: high levels of formaldehyde in cabinetry; parabens and phthalates in personal products; BPA in baby bottles. So many people assume I am also anti-vaccine. Nothing could be further from the truth. Precisely because I do concern myself with science, I am passionate about vaccination. I live in a state where nearly 5% of the population chooses not to vaccinate their children, which brings us teetering to the edge of the loss of herd immunity. Which means children will die. I can't sit back and leave this uncommented upon.

When I enrolled my son in Montessori, I asked the Head of School the following question:
"So, vaccines--"
She interrupted me, smiling: "Oh, they're not mandatory."
"Actually, I was hoping they were. I am not comfortable having a child in my son's class who is not vaccinated." She seemed taken aback, at first, and then suddenly appeared more at ease. She explained to me that in Minnesota, vaccinations are mandatory for children entering a daycare or school settings--unless you conscientiously object to vaccines and can provide a notarized statement to that effect.
"So it's not really mandatory," I said to my pediatrician. She rolled her eyes and said nothing more. I stopped short of asking the Head of School to consider instituting her own mandatory vaccination requirement, but I've considered asking her about it several times.

This brings me to Dr. Sears. His book is the one I find cited to me by anti-vaccine parents as the "science-based" reason for their decision not to vaccinate. Taking him point by point on a scientific level is beyond my abilities, but thankfully a doctor did just that. In his article on Science-Based Medicine, a website I highly recommend, John Snyder, M.D. wrote a thoughtful, unbiased, and rational response to Dr. Sear's THE VACCINE BOOK. Dr. Snyder is the Chief of the Section of General Pediatrics and Medical Director of Pediatric Ambulatory Care at Saint Vincent's Hospital in New York City. He is also Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at New York Medical College.

It's natural for an intelligent parent to question medication and vaccinations. In an ideal world, we would all have access to and the ability to understand the raw scientific data regarding the medications and vaccinations we get. However, it is reckless to ignore science in favor of celebrity advice and scare tactics used by doctors who rely so little on science that they have been ostracized by the medical community. If you are a concerned parent, especially one who has read Dr. Sears' book, please read Dr. Snyder's scientific review of THE VACCINE BOOK. You will not find here a shrill attack, an "opinion," or admonishments. You will get a point-by-point examination of Dr. Sears' "science" and advice to parents regarding vaccination. Note: you will get some strong, and, frankly, fascinating opinions in the comment section mainly from other physicians and scientists. My son's pediatrician is very tight-lipped about her opinions regarding vaccinations--she doesn't judge but I'm not sure if she refuses to see children whose parents don't vaccinate. So it's terribly interesting to read these comments from doctors who, under cloak of semi-anonymity, can unburden themselves of their opinions on parents who listen to Sears.

What finally convinced me to "come clean" about my decision to fully vaccinate my child? Several things, one of which I'm including below. Dr. Snyder responded to another physician who commented that after several years of trying to deal with parents who came into his practice with Dr. Sears' book in hand, asking for an alternative vaccination schedule, he decided simply to not see patients whose parents were not vaccinating them. I can't have you bringing pertussis or measles into my waiting room and infecting vulnerable patients (like babies too young for the vaccine, for example). Dr. Snyder responded this way:

I can absolutely appreciate your stance with vaccine-refusing parents. I have opted to keep them in my practice as I think I am more likely to get them to vaccinate than others might be. I posted a sign the other day in my waiting room, referencing a recent local measles outbreak, asking parents of under/unvaccinated children to immediately notify the front desk as they enter, so that they can be removed from the waiting room. It makes it clear that they are a risk to the other families. We’ve reached a point at which it’s important for these parents to feel a bit ostracized, and for the other parents to feel some outrage.

Dr. Snyder is right. It's time for the heretofore-quiet vaccinating parents to speak up. I think we do feel outrage, but it's often not worth the trouble to argue with someone who eschews real science in favor of pseudo-science. And for a non-scientist, non-physician parent, it can be very difficult to parse out the difference, of course--one must understand statistics, epidemiology, and so on, to even detect the flaws in the science, which is why Dr. Snyder's piece is so important.

Finally, I plan on writing to my local representatives regarding the bogus mandatory vaccination requirements for preschool and school-age children. These folks have heard from far too few parents like me and far too many parents who don't vaccinate, giving these legislators a skewed idea of what the demographic is doing. Thankfully, the vast majority of us vaccinate our children, which is the only reason the parents who don't vaccinate their children do so. As Dr. Snyder points out in his review, Dr. Sears actually advises parents who are scared of the MMR vaccine and don't plan to get it for their child not to tell their neighbors. This is because Sears knows that the only thing standing between pertussis, measles, tetanus, etc., and your child is herd immunity. And if too many parents think like those who don't vaccinate their children, children are going to die. For anyone who thinks these diseases are dead, know that in addition to recent domestic outbreaks of pertussis and measles, polio is a serious global disease that is only a plane flight away.

I made my decision to vaccinate my child based on the following hypothetical question I asked myself one sleepless night: If I didn't vaccinate him because I was scared of side-effects that have been suggested on blogs and by celebrities but never backed up by science and he became seriously ill or died, would I ever forgive myself?

The answer was no. And as one physician, Dr. Amy Teuter, wrote on her own blog,

Vaccine rejectionism is dangerous. It harms the children who are not vaccinated, and it harms unrelated children who are too young to be vaccinated. Make no mistake about it, vaccine rejectionism is unethical as well as the result of scientific ignorance. Parents who reject vaccines implicitly rely on other people being vaccinated. They are willing to accept the benefits, without partaking of the risk. They expose their own children to life threatening illness, and they expose other people’s children to life threatening illness. The government should act to restrict vaccine waivers to only those with medical indications for forgoing vaccination. The right to indulge one’s philosophical beliefs ends at the point where it threatens the life and health of other people’s children.

One final note--and thanks to one of the commenters for posing this great question, unvaccinated children are a danger to vaccinated children, even though, in theory, vaccinated children should be immune and therefore safe. This is a dangerously false assumption for many reasons, among them: a.) herd immunity: it is an epidemiological fact that if more than 5% of a population is unvaccinated for any one disease, that disease will make a comeback and pose a threat to the population at large. In Minnesota, we are nearing that threshold for several childhood diseases. b.) unvaccinated children may come in contact with the disease in many ways, including from children coming here from other countries where immunization is not standard or is unavailable and where these diseases still exist. Take, for example, the outbreak in February 2010 of measles because an intentionally unvaccinated child picked up measles in Switzerland. His infection spread to 500 people in San Diego, and three babies, too young to be vaccinated, were hospitalized, including one who's temp skyrocketed to 106. The story is here. Sometimes, it's adults who contract the disease: as this 2009 measles outbreak reminds us. The Red Cross blog took this story up with this commentary:

Six people in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania contracted the highly-contagious disease from an infected Indian traveler. An adult male, who contracted measles during a visit to China, spread the disease to at least one adult and an infant in Montgomery County, Maryland upon his return. I wonder how long before people whose children fall dangerously ill because of unvaccinated children begin to take legal action.

Parents, living in the United States, have a choice whether to vaccinate their children. What they fail to realize is that until families everywhere have the opportunity to immunize their children, ours will face the threat of contracting this preventable disease.
If an unvaccinated person travels to a country where measles is still endemic or comes in contact with an infected visitor from such a country, they may be exposed to measles and become ill.

And should we need a reminder of how close more serious measles outbreaks are, take a look at this story from February, out of Germany.

c.) And this is the most frightening to me, as the mother of a two-week old: a vaccinated child might come in contact with an infected unvaccinated child in a preschool setting, carry home the virus and/or bacteria and remain immune: however, the infant, who is too young to be vaccinated for these diseases, will not be immune and could fall seriously ill or even die.
NOTE: I've chosen to moderate comments for this posting in this way: if you post something that has to do with claims of toxicity, mortality, and other scientific information, I will not post it unless you have cited your information. I will check that citation to be sure it is accurate and will then post it.

Mistin' It this Flu Season

2009-09-10T19:52:00.005-05:00

Being preggers in fall means that the admonishments to get your flu vaccine come showering down on you as soon as the vaccines are made available. I had every intention of getting my flu shot, of course, to protect my toddler and my baby, due in three weeks. However, this year I am not eligible for the great FluMist nasal spray vaccine, which I got at Target Clinic last year. When I wrote about getting the nasal mist last year there seemed to be a lot of confusion and misinformation even among the nurses administering the mist. The woman who gave me my mist vaccine at first claimed it was not thimerosal-free, brushing off my questions without even looking up from her paperwork. Then, when she realized that their own brochures said the mist was thimerosal-free, she tried to scare me by saying it was a live flu virus and could make me sick. This, of course, is untrue. While the mist is a live flu virus, it is attenuated, or profoundly weakened. What's more, evidence shows that the flu mist is much more effective than the shot in preventing flu, particularly among toddlers. In fact, the study, which followed 8000 toddlers, showed that the mist was 55% more effective in preventing flu than the shot, which I find mind-blowing. It was actually this study that prompted the FDA to approve use of the mist in children under five (but older than two).

Happily, my son is now two and a half and will be getting his FluMist on Saturday. It is thimerosal-free, for those who are worried about the preservative. My flu shot this year, administered at the midwife's office, was also thimerosal-free, but that's because it was not from a multi-dose vial. It did, however, contain formaldehyde. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am basically obsessed with formaldehyde. However, deeper research showed that the amount of formaldehyde used in the manufacturing process for the flu vaccine is so minimal that it actually dilutes the amount of naturally occuring formaldehyde in our bodies. Another mind-blowing fact. An aside: continuing the trend of assistants who don't know much about vaccines, the woman who gave me the shot at the midwife's office seemed flummoxed when I asked if this particular shot contained thimerosal. I happened to read the consent form closely and realized that unless it was from a multi-dose vial pack, it would be thimerosal-free, and this was not from one of those packs. However, as she prepped my arm, she said, "Yeah, it's weird that they put thimerosal in so many children's vaccines now." I couldn't believe my ears--thimerosal has been out of all children's vaccines since 2001 (except for some flu shots). This, I told myself, is how we lose herd immunity. But I digress...

Then we turn our attention to H1N1 flu. We are told that this vaccination will require two shots, three weeks apart, and that it will be available in mid-October. Everyone in my family will be immunized (as they are for seasonal flu), but it looks as if this will be a shot-only deal.

I implore everyone to get their flu shots, but I also want those who object, for whatever reason, to the injection to consider FluMist. It is safe, exceptionaly effective, and much more widely available. Ask for it wherever you choose to get vaccinated. I got mine last year at a walk-in Target clinic. This year my son will be getting it at Park Nicollet Clinic in the Twin Cities. The more people who ask for this type of vaccine, the more doses will become available, and perhaps we'll be able to phase out the injection all together.

UPDATE: My husband went into our local Target clinic this weekend to get the FluMist and, as I predicted before he walked in, he was talked out of the mist because the administrator said, "Oh, since your wife is pregnant you're much better off getting the flu shot because it contains only dead viruses." Information from the CDC, including on the handouts Target Clinic gives to its customers, says that only those working with people whose immune systems are severely (their italics, not mine) compromised--those in bubbles or restricted access areas of hospitals--should get the flu shot instead of the mist. Anyone working with HIV-positive patients, for example, are perfectly fine getting the mist, according to the CDC paperwork. I am appalled by the uninformed crap medical personnel in clinics like this spout off. When she asked my husband why he didn't want the shot, he said he wanted to avoid thimerosal--she said, oh, we offer preservative-containing AND preservative-free shots. This sounds fishy to me--why would anyone choose a shot containing thimerosal if one that doesn't contain the preservative is available?

Sigh. Anyway, I just want to exhort everyone to be his or her own advocate, have the information at hand, and don't be afraid to challenge medical staff--typically the assistants who have to administer these shots.

UPDATE #2: Today a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the Mist was less effective in adults than the flu shot. I want to clarify this study, since I've been hearing news about it on local broadcasts and there is some missing context. Injectable vaccines containing inactivated viruses prevent about 50% more seasonal flu in healthy adults than the intranasal vaccine. However, multiple studies have shown that in children FluMist works better against seasonal flu. From the Los Angeles Times: "Three large head-to-head studies showed that those who received FluMist had 35% to 53% fewer cases of flu than those who received injectable vaccines. But the results in adults have been much more inconsistent, with some studies showing FluMist to be better and others showing injectables to be superior." Just something to be aware of!

A (Corporate) Rude Awakening: The SIGG bomb

2009-08-28T17:31:00.006-05:00

By this time, most of you have probably heard about the controversy swirling around the Swiss water bottle company SIGG. If you haven't, check out this article by the folks over at EWG regarding the company's big lie about the lining of its aluminum water bottles. For several years, it has sought to capitalize on the consumer backlash against BPA in food and drink containers by assuring those consumers that SIGG bottles are BPA-free. Well--at least that's what their advertising sounded like. In fact, they were claiming that their bottles did not leach BPA--but that its epoxy resin liner did, in fact, contain the chemical. Regardless, word is out that the resin did leach BPA and, duh. As Professor Fred Vom Sall, of the University of Missouri's biology department said, if the liner is made of BPA then of course it is going to leach. That's what BPA does.

But what is most disturbing about this story is the manipulation of the science "backing up" the SIGG claims for so long. SIGG did their testing of BPA leaching in the parts per billion instead of the industry standard of parts per trillion. What's the big deal? The current standard of parts per trillion is a test that is 1000 times more sensitive. Passing off PPB as a legitimate test for leached BPA is underhanded; consumers cannot be expected, at this point, to understand the difference. And SIGG knew this.

What this all comes down to is this: we have no standard currently for the terms "green" and "nontoxic." Yet consumers have made it clear that they are sick of being poisoned by noxious components. As much as the plastics industry and even mainstream media and blogs (I'm thinking of The Consumerist)tries to downplay and even make fun of consumer concern about BPA and phthalates, the tide is turning. The scientific evidence is conclusive. And we need this out of consumer products. I've been amazed at how quickly companies and manufacturers have responded. The problem now is keeping these companies honest. There are the old stand-bys, the Born Frees, for example. But there will always be interlopers in the "green" arena.

As before, my advice is to take the time to do research on products that make claims to being "natural," "nontoxic," or "green." At this point, a product using the term "green" is one to be suspicious of, in my opinion. It suggests a lack of sophistication--and it suggests it is reaching for the least sophisticated consumer of the "green bunch." That's the person who wants to make an effort to choose safe products but who hasn't yet had the time to do the research and might not even know to do it. I know. I was that consumer for many years.

Science for Sale: Wyeth Paid for Positive Reviews of HRT

2009-08-06T07:39:00.004-05:00

More on this later today, but I wanted to post this article from today's New York Times about Wyeth's use of ghostwriters to pen positive reviews of its hormone replacement therapy drugs, which were later shown by a large federal study to cause invasive breast cancer and a host of other serious problems. These weren't any old reviews--these were articles in respected journals. Ghostwriting in the pharmaceutical industry is itself invasive and appallingly unethical, and yet journal editors are still being blindsided by these compromised reviews.

Read the article here.

BPA in BPA-Free Bottles? A mystery in Canada

2009-08-03T21:58:00.002-05:00

Some very strange news out of Canada today. Scientists there claim to have found BPA leaching out of polypropylene bottles. While they haven't named names, their documents suggest that when subjected to high temperatures, such as in a dishwasher, these bottles leach trace amounts of BPA, which is baffling to parents who assumed that non-polycarbonate bottles contained zero BPA. These results are also baffling to some of the most trusted manufacturers of BPA-free bottles, including ThinkBaby and BornFree.

"We have not only three major global testing labs that test our products, but we also do biologic testing on our bottles, and the biologic type of testing is even more sensitive than anything that Health Canada could ever pull off, and it would pick up anything that even behaved like BPA," said Kevin Brodwick, founder and president of thinkbaby, whose products are made with medical-grade plastic specifically formulated to be free of bisphenol A, PVC, nitrosamines, phthalates, lead, melamine and biologically toxic chemicals.

Test results, conducted at least every quarter, consistently show "zero, complete non-detect for BPA," said Brodwick

Indeed, Alicia over at The Soft Landing posted this thoughtful commentary on the test results, suggesting that perhaps cross-contamination, particularly in the dishwashers used, could be partly to blame for these test results, which have not yet been duplicated.

I agree with Alicia that we need to take a step back and wait for more explanation and context regarding these results. As with all scientific results, until there is at least replication of results, we can't jump to any conclusions. I, for one, remain quite confident in my Born Frees and believe, as Brodwick does, that there is a plausible explanation for these strange results. As always, I will keep you posted.

Johnson & Johnson Irritates Me Again

2009-07-26T21:39:00.005-05:00

Just a quick post tonight. It might be the fact that at seven and a half months pregnant, I am just in a perpetual sour mood--this pregnancy has been a lot harder on the old body than the first one was--but I am becoming more and more irritated by Johnson & Johnson's baby wash commercials and sponsorships, and have lost my patience completely with blogs and television shows that accept its advertising dollars and, in my opinion, misleading ads. Case in point, as I was sitting on the couch finishing up some work on my laptop, I flipped on "Amazing Wedding Cakes" on We TV, the "Women's Network." Don't ask why, but ever since my wedding, in which artiste extraordinaire Robin of Gateux, Inc., made my "pile of books" cake, I have been transfixed by the artistry of cakemaking. Anyway, a commercial comes on for a new WE show, called The Mom Show. Sounded dumb almost from the start, but I had to keep looking. Apparently the network is putting together some show that is a thinly veiled paid advertisement for various baby products, most notably Johnson & Johnson's Baby Wash.

J&J's Baby Wash. Sigh. Yes, if you're around my age--thirty or so--then you were probably bathed in this stuff as an infant. Like me, you've probably grown to love the smell of it. But, if you're on this blog, you might already know that it is one nasty chemical soup that, in my opinion, should be nowhere near a baby. In 2008, the journal Pediatrics effectively agreed with me, publishing research that linked phthalates to a host of health issues in little ones and women, in particular. Johnson & Johnson's Baby Wash contains, among other things, a phthalate. Of course, as soon as the study came out, the company scrambled to convince moms that the phthalate they use is safe, that the research done by the folks in the Pediatrics article was flawed, and then, most laughably, they offered the "expert advice" of a panel of "scientists and physicians" known collectively as the CIP, who claimed products containing phthalates are safe. The CIP--Cosmetics Ingredient Review--was founded and is funded by the cosmetics, toiletries, and fragrance industries, which live and die by phthalates. For concerned parents, if you hear from a company that an "independent panel" has made a finding that sound suspiciously convenient for that company's bottom line, check into the acronyms--chances are you'll find a front group.

Anyway, I was so aggravated by this "Mom Show" host singing the praises of Johnson & Johnson's baby wash, "as gentle to the eyes as water" that I wanted to kick in the TV, but my pregnancy heft wouldn't allow me to get off the couch in time. It's one thing to see ads that sing chemically problematic products' praises--at least we know they are ads and know to be skeptical. But television shows that masquerade as concept programs but are really just venues for advertisers to sell their products are gross and misleading.

Luckily, most of us are too smart for this. One of the most heartening things that I've seen happen in the three years since I started this blog is the way moms have done their research and are becoming skeptical to corporate claims of safety and nontoxicity. We are seeing that chemical companies, for example, have underestimated the average mother's intelligence--the BPA fiasco is an example, as is the companies' desperate attempt to convince us that BPA is safe. It's time we talk about Johnson & Johnson's "safe as water" bullshit and stop buying the product until they remove phthalates from their list of ingredients. Some truly wonderful options are available, including my favorite, Burt's Bees Baby Bee Shampoo and Baby Wash (whose formulation has not changed since Clorox bought the company). I will be taking a bottle to the hospital this September so my second baby isn't doused in J&J's baby wash, as my first, unfortunately was, during his first bath. I suggest everyone who is expecting consider doing the same. One note about Burt's Bees Baby Bee Shampoo and Body Wash: it is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, paraben, and phthalate-free. However, it does include "fragrance," which suggests a small amount of synthetic fragrance. However, I am completely comfortable with it because the fragrance doesn't contain SLS or phthalates, which are the chemicals of concern when you see "fragrance." In addition, my son, whose skin is uber-sensitive (he broke out in horrible eczema after using California Baby!), has zero reaction to BB. However, it's important to know that even this product isn't 100% natural (I think it's 98.2%).

Test Kits for Melamine in Baby Formula!?

2009-07-23T08:19:00.002-05:00

Yes, it's come to this. We now need a test kit that will test baby formula for the presence of melamine. University of Minnesota researchers identified an enzyme that can create a color change in milk or formula that has been laced with melamine. As a reminder, last year, six Chinese babies died and more than 150,000 were hospitalized after drinking formula that had been treated with melamine, in order to fool protein tests (melamine can look like protein when added to milk and formula).

This is good news for a really sad problem. BIOO Scientific, which specializes in food safety testing equipment, is going to test the kit in the near future. It sounds like the test will be used mainly by companies and corporations, but I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, a home test kit becomes available.

Sometimes a Comment Launches a Post

2009-06-22T12:40:00.006-05:00

I had to share this comment I received on my latest posting about nontoxic cribs and BPA-free baby bottles. Miranda wrote:

Isn't a better solution just not buying all this crap in the first place? If you cosleep, you don't need a crib or crib mattress. A bed with a towel thrown on is just as effective as buying a changing table. You don't need BPA-free bottles if you breastfeed exclusively.

I don't think she meant it to sound quite as harsh as it sounds, but I'm glad she posted this comment because it brings up an argument I find maddening. First of all, women who breastfeed exclusively also utilize bottles. As I told her in my reply, I breastfed my son exclusively for twelve months. He self-weaned and was moved directly on to cow's milk. However, I also pumped extensively (ask my husband--the sound of the motor kept him up at night) because I also had to leave the house from time to time without my son--client meetings, hair appointments, doctor's appointments, and so on. My mother watched him during these times and certainly couldn't breastfeed him herself. My son ate every two hours. I had to leave bottles of expressed breast milk for him, hence the BornFree baby bottles.

However, what I find much more disturbing is this idea (and I don't know that Miranda meant this idea to come across, but it's there) that if we'd only breastfeed our babies, we wouldn't have to worry about BPA or if we'd only change our babies on our mattresses, we wouldn't have to worry about formaldehyde. Such an argument lets chemical companies off the hook--let them continue using BPA, we'll just breastfeed our babies. And to hell with the babies who have to use baby bottles because, oh, their mothers are, say, single mothers who have to work in order to feed and shelter that baby. Or because their breastfeeding mama had to run out to do a chore and grandma needed a bottle. Such an argument is so inward looking that it rings horribly unfair. I would hazard a guess that the majority of mothers up in arms about BPA in baby bottles are breastfeeding mothers who care about all babies--formula fed or breast fed. We come together as a community to get rid of these toxins because they are what's best for all of us, not just those of us who chose (or even had the luxury) to breastfeed or co-sleep.

And it goes without saying, of course, that the vast majority of canned foods contain a BPA lining. If only we'd stop eating canned foods, then we wouldn't have to worry about this, right? What about the people who eat food from cans--pretty much everybody in the world, at least once in a while? Damn 'em. Let us not pressure the bottle makers and the furniture makers to use different components. What's left unsaid in this argument, too, is that the obstacles to breastfeeding are most numerous in the poorer classes of this society. Single mothers have to work; few workplaces make lactation rooms available. Two income households--same problem. Believe it or not, many women have to work in order to provide for their children, and they do not have the luxury at McDonald's or even at big firms, to retire to a lactation room and pump out a supply of breastmilk. Telling them that if only the'd breastfeed their children would be safe is disingeous and ungenerous. And this comes from a woman who was lucky enough to be able to breastfeed her baby for as long as he wanted.

Miranda's comment, innocent though it may be, did give me an excuse to post about this idea as well as the more minor issue of baby bottles = formula and breastfeeding = no baby bottles. Not only are those equations false, but a comment like hers suggests that we shouldn't even worry about the babies being fed formula for whatever reason--let them ingest the chemicals due to their mothers' "bad behavior."

The Frugal Nontoxic Mama

2009-06-20T22:01:00.003-05:00

NOTE: The Alpha Crib about which I write here was just recalled by the CPSC, along with almost every other dropside crib. DO NOT BUY THIS CRIB.

I was Safe Seal-ing my bassinet the other day and thought about a conversation I had with my youngest sister, who is hoping to become a mother soon. I was telling her about the new No Compromise crib mattress I had had to purchase for my baby's room--re-using my son's crib--and told her that Mom and I would chip in to buy her one for her nursery when the time came. She looked at me and said: "Just so you know, I won't be doing all the nontoxic stuff you do." I just stared at her: "What do you mean?" She responded: "I just can't afford it."

At first I bristled--wait, I can "afford it"? No, I'm part of a young family with only one member who is employed full-time. However, as I continued sealing my bassinet, I thought to myself--my sister is not the only one who thinks a nontoxic nursery is out of reach. The truth is, I can't afford "it" either, when "it" is the $2000 totally nontoxic nursing rocker from Q Collection Junior, their companion crib, which runs $1100, the Pacific Rim Crib at $750 plus, and so on. While I think it's very important that people buy these products so that there is demonstrated interest in the marketplace and, ideally, more products produced at affordable prices, I know few (no one, really) who can afford a nontoxic nursery at that price.

But it's actually really easy to provide a safe environment for your baby, and it's actually less expensive than buying new: used furniture. I just bought a different changing table off Craig's List, a Pali natural wood changer which contains particleboard. However, it has been owned by two different families over the course of about four years. It has sufficiently off-gassed. My son's crib was actually nontoxic to begin with, with zero particleboard or formaldehyde glue--but it was new and cost less than just about every other crib I looked at (the Alpha Crib from Dax Stores, manufactured by Million Dollar Baby, which makes lots of formaldehyde-free cribs). My new baby will be using this crib. Baby bottles without BPA are now the norm, and no more expensive than the old BPA-containing bottles. Yes, Burt's Bees baby wash is more expensive than Johnson & Johnson's, but spending eight bucks for a bottle that lasts about two months seems feasible when we are talking about the difference between a load of phthalates and zero phthalates. And of course, the one big "expensive" thing is the crib mattress. It was a big purchase for me with my first, and it was a big one for my second. In my case, I worked extra editing jobs to pay for it. For others, the answer might be setting aside $25-30 a month over the course of your pregnancy--that will bring you to the purchase price of about $259. When looked at from that perspective, it seems completely doable.

What isn't necessary, in my opinion, are organic fabrics. I urge the use of cotton, not polyester, because when it comes to baby items, polyester is often doused in PBDEs or fire retardant. But I just bought a crib set that has polyester bumpers. They "off-gassing" as I type.

I can't emphasize enough how great used furniture is when you're trying to construct a nontoxic nursery. Stores like Once Upon a Child stock used cribs that look like new, are not on the recall list, and are safe for your baby to sleep in. Craig's List is another great resource. Let's keep this stuff out of the landfill and keep the toxic fumes of formaldehyde-containing particleboard out of our nurseries. I can't tell you how many e-mails I get from parents saying--"so THAT is what the smell is."

Here we go again...

2009-06-09T12:34:00.003-05:00

My second baby is due at the end of September and we have just finished moving our toddler into his new "big boy" room with his new "big boy bed." We bought a used toddler bed at a thrift store, which solves any off-gassing issues (although this bed was made entirely of solid wood, there was a dark stain that I can only assume was rather odoriferous when it was first purchased). He did take with him his No-Compromise crib mattress, the one I've gone on and on about. The recap: the No-Compromise crib mattress by Naturpedic is free of PVC/vinyl, PBDEs (toxic fire retardants), dust mite barrier, organic cottn, meets all standards, fits all cribs (and toddler beds), and is just all around wonderful. From one of my earlier posts about this mattress:

Crib Mattress
This one is easy. No-Compromise Crib Mattress. This one is widely available; I recently bought one as a baby gift for my sister-in-law off Amazon. They are PVC/vinyl-free, utilizing polyethylene instead (food-grade). They do not contain noxious fire retardants found in most crib mattress; instead the compay uses a fire protection system (detailed in exhaustive detail on the website) that is free from those possibly carcinogenic toxins. This is an expensive mattress. There is no question about that. But for me, it was what I splurged on because it gave me peace of mind. Maybe I didn't get that ridiculously expensive diaper bag, and I guess I didn't buy all the wall decorations and nursery accessories that I might have otherwise. But this mattress was, to me, far more important than any of those other nursery furnishings. One note: I noticed at Babies R Us that Serta is selling a "safe" baby mattress. I'm glad large companies are taking note of the dangers of polyurethane foam mattresses; but be sure to read the fine print and note if these companies are still dousing their mattresses in fire retardant.

Anyway, the new baby needs a new mattress, so I just ordered another No Compromise crib mattress, though this time I ordered their new "seamless" crib mattress--it was the same price but is more of a square shape and doesn't have the high side seams that my son's mattress has. I don't really see any advantage to this, but I thought I'd mix it up a little. I also decided to buy a No Compromise bassinet mattress this time around. My son didn't like to spend any time in the bassinet but I'm hoping my little girl will. I ordered both from Baby Earth, which offers free shipping.

In other nursery news, I've decided to repaint and will be using Olympic no-VOC paints (available exclusively at Lowes) as they are cheaper than other no-VOC paints and I have used them successfully in the past.

Notes from a Desperate Industry

2009-06-01T23:23:00.002-05:00

Some heroic soul who attended a brainstorming session between plastics industry executives gave the notes of that meeting to a reporter at the Washington Post. Concerned about the viability of BPA-containing plastics, they apparently huddled for hours and tried to figure out how to keep more states from legislating bans, keep consumers from learning about (or believing)the research that links BPA to a host of negative health effects, and how to essentially keep BPA on the market. The notes are both chilling and pathetic.

An example for how to scare mothers--whom they identified as their key target because of their passionate concern for the health of their babies--was particularly absurd: ask them "do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" This is linked to the potential BPA ban many states are considering for food containers. The industry is even more trouble than one might think if they actually believe this would be an effective strategy. The term "fear tactics" was used in the meeting, unsurprisingly.

One of the more heinous details is this one: "Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA,' " the notes said."

Words fail me. Read more about this inside baseball on the Washington Post, linked here.

Minnesota Bans BPA (Or: Why I'm Proud to Be a Minnesotan Today)

2009-05-08T20:55:00.004-05:00

Some of you may have followed the saga of the Toxic-Free Kids Act and BPA Ban that has been ongoing here in the state of Minnesota for a few years now. Healthy Legacy, an advocacy nonprofit out of Minnesota that has worked tirelessly--and I do mean tirelessly--to keep BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups, and to limit our children's exposure to phthalates can take credit for helping Minnesota become the first state in America to ban, outright, the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. In addition, the Toxic-Free Kids Act creates a system by which the state must address the problem of toxins found in children's products (a daunting task, one that the FDA has not been up to).

The reason this victory is so sweet is because the last time the Minnesota legislature passed legislation like this, our governor, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed it, for reasons that still remain unclear to me. However, this time, the bill passed again, overwhelmingly, and it when it reached his desk, Pawlenty signed it into law. I applaud him for reversing course on this. I believe he said, last time, that the "science wasn't in." In the year that has passed, the science has proven almost conclusively that Bisphenol-A is leached from baby bottles and sippy cups containing it in amounts that are clearly problematic. In fact, more than 200 studies have shown that even in low doses, BPA is linked to reproductive problems, cancer, heart disease, and neurological issues. As you are probably well aware, the Bush-era FDA found BPA risk-free--but that finding was blasted when it became known that the agency, for some truly bizarre reason, chose to use only American Chemistry Council-funded studies of the chemical. The American Chemistry Council is the industry group for the chemical industry, which has a huge stake in keeping BPA on the market.

The Toxin-Free Kids Act is another groundbreaking piece of legislation. There is currently near-zero federal oversight in the use of new chemicals in household products, including, amazingly, children's products. That's why you end up with formaldehyde in children's bath soap or 1, 4 dioxane. That's why you end up with lead in toys and phthalates in everything from lotions to teething rings. This key piece of legislation, which Pawlenty signed into law, forces the Minnesota Department of Health to evaluate chemicals used in consumer products and gauge their toxicity levels.

What makes all of this so exciting is the push these laws in Minnesota will undoubtedly give Feinstein and Markey's bills in Congress, banning BPA from food and beverage containers.

I Want This...

2009-04-30T22:12:00.005-05:00

Trying to escape news of Swine Flu, I have been looking for an "eco-friendly" (read: formaldehyde-free) nursery rocker. I didn't have one of these when I nursed my son, and as a result, was always trying to find a comfortable position in which to nurse. Most often, I ended up in bed, which is fine. But we just finished up my two-year-old son's new room, moving him out of the nursery and into his big boy room, and I am thinking about the new baby's room. We've got the crib covered--the excellent nontoxic Alpha Crib from Dax Stores, which I've written about before. We have a leftover changing table (Jardine, I think?) which was not a "green" product but which has probably off-gassed more than enough. Now I want that glider I never had.

And of course, I have to find one that is $2,000 and gorgeous. And I want it. Bad. It's the Alberto Winged Glider, part of the very cool Q Collection Junior line. The company makes truly eco-friendly and lung-healthy furniture products for nurseries, and they are priced accordingly. Even their changing tables top $1,000. But they know their stuff. This isn't simply "We use FSC-certified wood (but use formaldeyde-containing glue to put it together!)". It's the whole she-bang.

So I see this gorgeous piece of furniture and now I'm trying to think of all the ways I can make some extra money to make this mine. Even with the fiction prize and two fellowships I recently won (yes, after several drought years, someone finally took pity on me)I can't funnel the money to this purchase; considering the fact that we just learned how much we're going to have to shell out for Hudson's first year at Montessori school, I can safely say this will remain a chair of my dreams. But for anyone out there who can drop $2,000 on a nursery rocker and wants one that is beautiful and truly nontoxic, check out the Alberto Winged Glider. Know that each one is made to order, so you need to order 6-8 weeks in advance. There is also a $200+ delivery fee.