Thanks to Madhavi Sanghmitra Bhatia for creating and sending us her excellent podcast, “Gary Cohen talks about Healthcare Without Harm”:

http://www.traydio.com/UserConsole/ViewArticle.aspx?Title=Gary_Cohen_talks_about_Healthcare_Without_Harm&ArticleID=1922

It’s just over five-minutes long, and well worth the time.

Overview: Gary Cohen is a founder and Co-Executive Director of Health Care Without Harm and is also the Executive Director of the Environmental Health Fund, which works on domestic and global chemical safety issues. According to him, Health Care Without Harm’s mission is to transform the health care sector into one that actually respects the Hippocratic Oath. But what does the Hippocratic Oath mean in this day and age? What does it mean to do no harm? Increasingly it’s clear that in order to prevent diseases in the general public, we need to understand the environmental links to those diseases and do whatever we can to reduce environmental exposures and move to a model of a high-performance healing environment – an environment that actually promotes healing, as opposed to contributing to further disease or exposure or infection.

For more of Madhavi Bhatia’s work, go here:

http://www.traydio.com/UserConsole/Portfolio.aspx?Username=madhavisb&UserID=12

“Fewer Children Outgrowing Allergies to Milk, Eggs”
Quotes: “Not only do more kids have allergies, but fewer of them outgrow their allergies, and those who do, do so later than before.”
“We may be dealing with a different disease process than we did 20 years ago. Why this is happening we just don’t know.”
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/HealthScout/090126/6012602AU.html

(HealthDay News) – Childhood milk and egg allergies may be more persistent and harder to outgrow than they were a generation ago, U.S. researchers report.

In two studies from the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, researchers followed more than 800 youngsters with milk allergy and almost 900 youngsters with egg allergy for more than 13 years.

They found that the allergies often persist well into the school years and beyond.

Earlier research suggested that about 75 per cent of children with milk allergy outgrew the allergy by age 3. But the Hopkins researchers found that only 20 per cent of children with milk allergy outgrew it by age 4, and 42 per cent outgrew it by age 8. By age 16, 79 per cent no longer had the allergy.

There were similar findings among the children with egg allergy. Only 4 per cent outgrew it by age 4, 37 per cent by age 10, and 68 per cent by age 16.

The studies were published in the November and December issues of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

“The bad news is that the prognosis for a child with a milk or egg allergy appears to be worse than it was 20 years ago,” lead investigator Dr. Robert Wood, head of allergy and immunology at Hopkins Children’s, said in a prepared statement. “Not only do more kids have allergies, but fewer of them outgrow their allergies, and those who do, do so later than before.”

The findings seem to confirm what many pediatricians have long suspected – that food allergies diagnosed in recent years behave more unpredictably and aggressively than food allergies in the past.

“We may be dealing with a different disease process than we did 20 years ago. Why this is happening we just don’t know,” Wood said.
More information:

The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/foodAllergy/understanding/whatIsIt.htm

“Phthalates worsen skin allergies in newborn mice exposed through their mothers.”
The study showed that exposure to phthalates via mother’s milk caused increased allergic reactions in offspring. Phthalates, of course, are found almost everywhere in the environment, and have been linked to reproductive defects, among other problems.

Synopsis by Benson T. Akingbemi:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/phthalte-exposure-raises-skin-allergies-in-mice

Newborn male mice exposed to a common phthalate plasticizer (DEHP) through their mothers developed more severe allergic skin reactions to allergens than unexposed mice.

Research with mice reveals that the phthalate DEHP can increase the severity of allergic reactions in young animals when they are exposed neonatally to the contaminant via their mother’s milk.

Rates of allergic skin conditions — called dermitits — are increasing in people. Generally, the skin becomes swollen, red and itchy after being exposed to an allergen. These new results may shed light on one of the drivers of this trend.

This study suggests that environmental chemicals like DEHP may increase the potency of reactions to allergens and thereby play a role in the development and/or enhancement of allergic diseases. According to the authors: “Our results support the novel hypothesis that maternal exposure to DEHP during neonatal periods via breast milk and/or infant formula may be responsible, at least in part, for the recent increase in atopic dermatitis in offspring.”

DEHP is added to plastics, usually to make them flexible. Because of its widespread use in polyvinyl plastics, it is found almost everywhere in the environment. The compound is present in some food packaging, many household products, soft plastic toys, auto upholstery and medical tubing/bags. Exposure occurs through food, water, air and medical procedures in which DEHP-containing products are used.  DEHP is a common contaminant of household dust, because it is commonly used in vinyl flooring and in the backing of carpets.

The chemical’s link to reproductive effects in lab animals — specifically infertility and male reproductive defects — has led the European Union, Canada and the state of California to ban DEHP in toys and infant products.

To expose the developing mice, researchers gave pregnant dams DEHP at 0.8, 4, 20 or 100 micrograms on days 0, 7 and 14 of pregnancy. To expose newborns, a different set of mothers was injected with DEHP at the same doses on days 1, 8 and 15 after birth. The researchers then injected mite allergen into the pups on treatment days 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 16. They measured ear thickness, determined disease symptoms (dryness and wounding) and evaluated tissues for signs and severity of a type of skin allergy that resembles eczema.

Dermatitis-like skin problems were worse in newborn mice exposed to 100 micrograms of  DEHP through their mothers but not in any of the mice that were exposed while in the womb.  The scientist who carried out the research proposed this unexpected pattern could result from the fact that fetal immunity is largely dependent upon the mother’s immune system.  After birth, the newborn is increasingly dependent upon proper development of its own immune system.  These results suggest that this development is adversely affected by DEHP.

Original study:  “Effects of Maternal Exposure to Di-(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate during Fetal and/or Neonatal Periods on Atopic Dermatitis in Male Offspring”

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 116, Number 9, September 2008

“Study finds moms share phthalates with their babies”

Quote: “In the first study of its kind, researchers in Taiwan find that phthalates can pass from pregnant women to their unborn babies and affect reproductive development in their daughters.”

Synopsis, by Jennifer Adibi:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/phthalates-in-moms-and-babies/

In the first study of its kind, researchers in Taiwan find that phthalates can pass from pregnant women to their unborn babies and affect reproductive development in their daughters.

The paper reports an association between two types of the ubiquitous chemicals and permanent changes to the newborns’ genitals that point to hormonal interference.  Overall, the results provide more evidence that human exposure to these endocrine-disrupting chemicals before birth can alter how reproductive systems form.

Phthalates are a class of endocrine disrupting chemicals used extensively in PVC plastics, cosmetics, food packaging and medical devices. The chemicals pollute the environment and are found in the urine of 95 percent of US residents.

In many lab studies with rodents, phthalates block the actions of two important hormones — testosterone and estrogen — to produce feminized male offspring and infertile females. However, few studies examine their impact on humans. The ones that do have found evidence of feminizing effects on boys exposed before birth.

Amniotic fluid and urine samples from 65 pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis were analyzed for five kinds of phthalates. At birth, the researchers measured the distance from the anus to the genitals in both male and female babies. This measure is called the anogenital distance (AGD) and indicates abnormal sexual development (specifically, differentiation) in the womb.

The metabolite monobutyl phthalate (MBP) in the amniotic fluid and urine was correlated in all newborns. This means the pollutant was able to pass from the mother, through the placenta and into the fetal circulation system.

In females only, phthalates in the amniotic fluid were correlated with shorter AGD. The association was stronger with MBP than with monoethylhexyl phthalate (MEHP). This finding is consistent with a prior study from 2005 showing a similar relationship in boys.

Even though these results support past findings, the sample size was small. Small samples make it difficult to draw statistically definite conclusions from one study alone. However, the results agree with past studies, and the findings add to the growing weight of scientific evidence that suggest prebirth exposure to some phthalates can alter reproductive development in people.

The authors conclude that “although the endocrinological and physiological influence of prenatal MBP exposure on the fetus is still a puzzle, our findings clearly showed the anti-androgenic effects of MBP on the fetus during early pregnancy.”

The original study: “Association between prenatal exposure to phthalates and the health of newborns”

Quote: “…our data clearly show that in utero exposure to phthalates in general has anti-androgenic effects on the fetus.“

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7X-4T1SFM6-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d1af14ee9a35791ccc935faecfd35b05

[Fresh scents, toxic secrets - this should come as no surprise, but, again, it's good to have the scientific validation. Whatever could have made us think that covering up the odors of normal living with artificial chemicals was a good thing? Umm, I guess that would be millions of dollars in advertising by the chemical industry, laying a guilt trip on housekeepers: "better living through chemistry"... for the industry, that is. Note: for the original research, published by kind permission of the author, please go to our Chemical Research page. ]

Fresh scent may hide toxic secret

Innocuous-sounding ‘perfume’ in detergents, air fresheners made with dangerous chemicals

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER

The scented fabric sheet makes your shirts and socks smell flowery fresh and clean. That plug-in air freshener fills your home with inviting fragrances of apple and cinnamon or a country garden.

But those common household items are potentially exposing your family and friends to dangerous chemicals, a University of Washington study has found.

Trouble is, you have no way of knowing it. Manufacturers of detergents, laundry sheets and air fresheners aren’t required to list all of their ingredients on their labels — or anywhere else. Laws protecting people from indoor air pollution from consumer products are limited.

When UW engineering professor Anne Steinemann analyzed of some of these popular items, she found 100 different volatile organic compounds measuring 300 parts per billion or more — some of which can be cancerous or cause harm to respiratory, reproductive, neurological and other organ systems.

Some of the chemicals are categorized as hazardous or toxic by federal regulatory agencies. But the labels tell a different story, naming only innocuous-sounding “perfume” or “biodegradable” contents.

“Consumers are breathing these chemicals,” she said. “No one is doing anything about it.”

Industry representatives say that isn’t so.

“Dr. Steinemann’s statement is misleading and disingenuous,” said Chris Cathcart, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Consumer Specialty Products Association, in a statement.

“Air fresheners, laundry products and other consumer specialty products are regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and subsequently have strict labeling requirements,” he said. “Companies producing products that are regulated under FHSA must name on the product label each component that contributes to the hazard.”

Millions are spent annually to ensure that fragrances in the products are safe, according to a joint statement from the Fragrance Materials Association, which represents fragrance manufacturers, and the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, which works closely with the association.

Ingredients are routinely tested, and chemicals that are considered dangerous are present at levels much too low to cause harm, according to the groups.

But there are numerous reports of people — particularly those with asthma, chemical sensitivities and allergies — having strong adverse reactions, researchers said.

That’s a problem when public restrooms in restaurants or airplanes use air fresheners, or when hotels wash towels and sheets in scented laundry supplies. And even when the concentrations are low in individual products, people are exposed to multiple sources on a daily basis.

Aileen Gagney, Asthma and Environmental Health Program manager with the American Lung Association in Seattle, herself an asthma sufferer, has a rule of thumb to help avoid exposure: “If it smells bad, it’s bad; if it smells good, it’s bad.”

But even that won’t always work.

According to Steinemann, even products labeled “unscented” sometimes contain a fragrance and a “masking” fragrance to make them odor-free.

People, Puget Sound at risk?

For Steinemann’s research, published Wednesday in Environmental Impact Assessment Review, she selected a top-selling item from six categories of products: dryer sheets, fabric softeners, detergents, and solid, spray and plug-in air fresheners.

Then she contracted with a lab to test the air around the items to identify the chemicals people could be breathing.

Ten of the 100 volatile organic compounds identified qualified under federal rules as toxic or hazardous, and three of those — 1,4-dioxane, acetaldehyde and chloromethane — are “hazardous air pollutants” considered unsafe to breathe at any concentration, according to the study.

The labels gave no indication that the irritating and potentially dangerous chemicals were present, so Steinemann checked the product’s Material Safety Data Sheets. These technical documents provide ingredient information for the safety of workers and emergency responders. They, too, disclosed little detail, mostly citing ingredients such as “essential oils” and “organic perfume.”

“It’s a reasonable expectation to think that laundry products and air fresheners would be free of chemicals that can cause cancer,” said Erika Schreder, a staff scientist with the Washington Toxics Coalition.

“But as this UW study shows, it’s disturbingly easy to find toxic chemicals in everyday products like these because companies don’t have to say what’s in their products.”

Cathcart, of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, said the information’s not on the package because the “chemicals are not present in the products at levels deemed hazardous under the law. Given the limited space on product labels, it is important to include the relevant information consumers need to make intelligent use, storage and disposal decisions.”

The threat isn’t limited to people. Steinemann and others worry that the chemicals in consumer products flow from homes to the outdoors.

“These chemicals get into our water systems and into Puget Sound,” she said. They are “extraordinarily hard to get out of the environment.”

Steinemann’s research was paid for using discretionary money awarded to her as a UW professor; she wanted to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. She has also submitted for publication a study that goes further to examine ingredients in cleaning and personal-care products.

Regulatory gaps

With fears growing over chemicals in consumer products — lead in toys, bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles, phthalates in shower curtains and cosmetics — environmentalists and health advocates are calling for stricter regulations of chemicals in everyday goods. They also want shoppers to have more readily accessible information.

Manufacturers and trade groups representing consumer products routinely counter that there’s plenty of testing and oversight from within the industries and from government regulations to ensure safety.

In the fragranced-products arena, they point to industry Web sites with information on product ingredients and suggest contacting companies with specific questions.

Critics maintain that’s not enough.

“There’s obviously a loophole,” said Michael Robinson-Dorn, a UW law professor who aided Steinemann’s research. “We regulate many of these chemicals in other circumstances, yet when they’re in products that we’re in contact with daily, in some cases, we don’t wind up finding out about them.”

He said the items can slip between regulatory cracks by falling into the jurisdiction of multiple government agencies, none taking ownership.

“Any time you have a product that is regulated by many different agencies, it’s easy for them not to react,” he said.

In the absence of strong laws, the marketplace is starting to regulate itself.

After the Natural Resources Defense Council last fall found troubling levels of phthalates — plasticizing chemicals that can potentially harm developing babies — in air fresheners, Walgreens pulled the products from its shelves.

Last month, NRDC and other environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency to force manufacturers to test air freshener safety and label products with a full ingredient list.

Steinemann’s study could push the process along.

“Consumer demand for less-toxic products will encourage companies to reformulate their products,” she said. “This is a case where a little information could have a great public benefit.”

P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com. Read her blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[You might think "well, duh" after reading the title, but keep in mind that this is the popular press. And at least a genetic connection has been made. Quote from a doctor:  "This is almost certainly a genetic issue."]

Does mold make you sick? Doctors seek answers

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE49R7A720081028

Tue Oct 28, 2:40 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Fungus expert Joan Bennett did not believe in so-called toxic mold — the cause of “sick building syndrome” and many lawsuits — until her New Orleans home was flooded during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

When she got a whiff of the foul air that the black goo had created in her home, she decided to change her research focus and try to find out how and if the fungi that took over most of the flooded homes on the Gulf Coast might make people ill.

“The overwhelming obnoxiousness of the odor and of the enveloping air made me start to believe in something that I had never believed in before — sick building syndrome,” Bennett, of Rutgers University in New Jersey, told a news conference.

But it has been more difficult than she thought.

Bennett believes that molds could potentially cause illness in certain susceptible people via volatile organic compounds — gassy versions of chemicals produced as the organisms metabolize food.

She has been unable to show this in the lab so far. But she told a joint meeting of the American Society for Microbiology and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

She has tested various molds on the laboratory roundworm C. elegans. “Sometimes the worm swims away and sometimes the worm does nothing and sometimes the worm eats the fungus,” Bennett said.

“I am actually looking for something that has never been discovered by methods that have never been worked out.”

Yet hundreds of lawsuits have been filed — and some won — by people claiming mold in their homes or workplaces has made them ill.

Dr. David Denning of the University of Manchester in Britain said it is plausible that molds and fungi would emit volatile organic compounds.

GENETIC SENSITIVITY

If these can be found, they could form the basis of diagnosing fungal illness as well — perhaps using a breath test. People with fungal infections of the lungs, such as aspergillosis, would release these chemicals when they breathed.

“A certain group of severe asthmatics — about a million people — are sensitive to a number of different fungi,” Denning told the news conference. These include Aspergillis and Candida.

“This is almost certainly a genetic issue,” he added. “If you have (a) predisposition (to asthma), you probably have an additional predisposition to fungal sensitization.”

Dr. David Goldman, a pediatrician in the Bronx, New York, said asthma rates in his borough are disproportionately high, and he blames in part Cryptococcus neoformins, a microbe found in pigeon droppings that causes disease in immune-compromised people.

“We believe this fungus contributes to asthma by modulating the immune response,” Goldman told the news conference.

Both Goldman and Denning said treating patients with antifungal drugs such as itraconozole and fluconazole helped relieve the symptoms of patients with severe asthma. This supports evidence that fungi are contributing to symptoms.

All three experts agreed it would likely take a combination of factors — including a person genetically susceptible to molds and unusual fungal activity — to cause any disease.

“It is probably a relatively temporary disease, not a life-threatening disease,” Denning said.

“As we sit here we are probably breathing in hundreds of spores,” Bennett added. “Usually we only get sick if our immune systems are compromised or if we have this genetic susceptibility to allergy.”

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Julie Steenhuysen and Philip Barbara)

Novel treatment for autism uses ‘clean room’

Submitted by SHNS on Mon, 05/12/2008 – 15:33.
By TIMOTHY MCNULTY, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette health/fitness
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/33093

With childhood autism cases skyrocketing and no cure in sight, doctors at the Children’s Institute in Pittsburgh are planning on a Hail Mary pass approach to the mysterious disorder — housing young patients for weeks at a time in a pollutant-free “clean room,” in an attempt to detoxify their bodies.

No cause for autism has been found, and debates rage as to whether the brain development disorder is purely genetic or caused in part by environmental factors, including air and food-borne chemicals.

With roots in autism treatment theories that until now have lived mostly on the Internet, the pediatric clean room plan would be the first of its kind in a mainstream American hospital environment.

The Children Institute’s Scott Faber, a pediatrician with several hundred autistic patients and a waiting list six months long, is one of the believers in toxic causes, and the institute is trying to back him with a multimillion dollar test of the novel theory.

Under the plans — developed with help from Duquesne University — autistic patients would live for more than six weeks in a 1,000-square-foot room kept mostly free of harmful chemicals and pollutants, using special air-filtering systems, ultraviolet lights and air locks on doorways.

Furniture, paints, toys and floor coverings would be designed to be toxin-free, and food, clothing and water organic and clean. Doctors would seek to rid patients’ bodies of chemicals and boost their immune systems through natural means such as nutritional supplements and dietary changes.

Basically, it would be pushing a “reset” button on the child’s body, with the hope of wiping autistic symptoms away.

“What we would like to do is have kids live in this wonderful environment where they are exposed to almost none of the Industrial Revolution. And we wonder, if the chemicals come out and the heavy metals come out, will the children start improving?” Faber said.

“Will they start showing signs of clinical improvement, such as language improvement and socialization improvement? Will they become less obsessive? Less fascinated?”

Autism is one of a group of developmental disabilities disorders that cause substantial impairments in social interaction and communication, and are characterized by unusual behaviors and interests. Many people with these disorders also have unusual ways of learning, paying attention and reacting to sensation. Rates have greatly increased in recent years, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though some of the rise may be due to changes in reporting and diagnosing the disorder.

It will require an estimated $500,000 to fully design and at least $1 million in yearly operating support its first three years.

The Children’s Institute plan would be taking what is arguably a fringe movement into the mainstream: It would be the first autism treatment of this kind staged in an American hospital setting. It will be matched with scientific analysis, sensors and video cameras to study the real impacts of detoxification. The data and findings will be shared openly, he said.

The room would house only one patient at a time and have educational and play spaces, and a table for dining. Medical staff, teachers and family would have regular access to the room through an air-locked entrance, and another air lock would separate the room from a kitchen and laundry area. There will be a small bedroom for the child and a couch for a family member to stay overnight.

At the outset, patients would be only the sickest children, who have not responded to other treatments. They would stay six to 12 weeks, allowing an estimated four to six children to be treated per year. (Twenty families have already expressed interest.) After leaving, spaces at each patient’s home would be equipped with lower-level clean technology, such as ultraviolet lights and air filters, and children would continue with special diets.

With so many doubts — and so few answers — about effective autism treatments among the growing community of families affected by the condition, the institute said openness is vital to the experimental method’s success.

“We’re not saying this is the full cause” of autism and related illnesses, Faber said. “Obviously there are multiple causes, and there are going to be found many genetic causes, many environmental causes and many genetic-environmental interactions. But we wonder — we speculate — that it’s possible if we have children living in a unique environment that has not (previously) been created scientifically that we can make a difference.”

Educational, physical, speech and behavioral therapies have long been the traditional treatments for autism, but a growing number of families and researchers have called for further biomedical treatments as well, suspecting there is a chemical side to the disorder.

Parents “research anything they can get their hands on and there are so many things saying ‘Try this or try that’ that aren’t necessarily safe. It’s a frightening thing,” said Kim Aburachis, of Peters, Pa., who has twin 10-year-old boys, Nathan and Tyler, with severe cases of autism. Her boys have seen Faber for more than seven years and are likely to take part in the clean room treatment.

“We’re so excited, so enthusiastic, just for the hope of this,” she said.

Reach Tim McNulty at tmcnulty(at)post-gazette.com.

Quote: “You don’t become disabled because of your illness. You become disabled because of poverty. You lose everything to this disease.”

‘Reasonable’ accommodations?
Palo Alto woman, housing corporation battle over disability, responsibility

Friday, May 9, 2008
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=7981

by Sue Dremann
Palo Alto Weekly Staff

A disabled woman is being evicted from her apartment by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation after 15 years of battling over what constitutes “reasonable accommodation” for her disability.

Beth Bradach, 53, has three conditions — chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction (CFIDS) myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), and combined immune deficiency — that cause her to become ill when exposed to tiny amounts of chemicals.

Everything from molds to pesticides to laundry soap make Bradach’s throat close down and could lead to lung infections, diarrhea and sores, she said. Her caregivers must wash their clothes and themselves in water free of detergents before visiting her.

But years of accommodating her disability have created an unreasonable administrative and financial burden on the Housing Corporation, which provides affordable rental and ownership housing, according to its staff.

They have put in natural-fiber rugs without toxic glues in adjacent apartments and used paints low in volatile organic compounds when refurbishing other units at the Plum Tree Apartments on Emerson Street, they said. When they needed to spray for pesticides, they found a place for Bradach to move to until the work was completed. And they have refrained from renting out units adjacent to Bradach’s for the past two years.

But adjusting to her needs has created an unreasonable accommodation to other tenants, staff now say, and it is time for Bradach to move out.

The controversy illustrates the difficult dilemma individuals with chemical sensitivities, such as Bradach, have in getting housing — and housing providers have in accommodating them without creating significant hardship for themselves and their other tenants.

The dividing line between what is “reasonable” and what is not is not that easy to define, according to experts.

Reasonable accommodation law was created to give people with disabilities equal access to employment and housing. But there are limits, the experts say.

In general, reasonable accommodation is defined as any changes in rules, policies, practices or services that may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, according to Bill Branch, deputy director of communications for the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

“A request for accommodation made by a tenant with a disability is presumptively reasonable unless a housing provider can demonstrate that it would result in an undue administrative or financial burden. In that instance the law requires that the tenant and the landlord engage in an ‘interactive process’ in an attempt to arrive at a mutually acceptable conclusion,” he added.

But reasonable accommodation is decided on a case-by-case basis, according to Stanford Law School Professor Richard Thompson Ford.

“There are limits even when there is no doubt that a plaintiff needs accommodation. It’s not as if a landlord is required to spare no expense,” he said.

Advocates for people with CFIDS say that housing accommodations are among the hardest cases to resolve, according to Gail Kansky, president of the National CFIDS Foundation.

“We’ve encountered this over and over again,” she said.

Bradach alleges the housing corporation has repeatedly violated her legal rights, even though she notified staff of her disability when she moved in in 1992. When the apartments were sprayed for pesticides that year, Bradach developed ocular and rectal sores and her hair fell out two weeks afterward.

“I was in so much pain, I was just looking for a cold, dark place to hide,” she said.

In February 2002, a California Department of Fair Employment & Housing investigator concluded, and another investigator agreed, that housing corporation officials had violated her reasonable accommodation through inconsistent and vague notices or accounts of the substances to be used at the apartments.

Bradach proposed in 2005 that the housing group could dedicate the five units in her building to “green housing” for the chemically sensitive, similar to Ecology House in San Rafael.

But housing corporation officials said they don’t see their role as supporting such housing <0×2014> particularly since there are so many other tenants in need.

The final straw for the housing group involved building repair and termite control.

Staff wanted to spray orange oil and other chemicals they said a pest-control company deemed safe to eradicate the insects. But Bradach’s doctor, Randy S. Baker of Soquel, Calif., said the oil and other chemicals would not be safe alternatives for Bradach.

Bradach pushed for a super-heating method to eradicate the insects, but housing corporation officials said it is not effective and could risk setting the building on fire.

On May 1, the housing corporation sent Bradach a 90-day notice to vacate her apartment.

“We have tenants in need of housing, and we have an obligation to provide it. We’re risking the welfare of other tenants — we can’t let our building fall apart. We’ve exhausted our resources with trying to find her other housing,” Candice Gonzalez, the corporation’s executive director said. “We don’t know what else to do at this point.”

The group, which rents out 600 units, also claims it has lost $75,000 by not renting out the neighboring apartments.

Bradach says she has nowhere to go.

“They’ve always got me between a rock and a hard place,” Bradach said, her voice reedy and rattling on the phone. “I’m supposed to find my own place but most days I’m too sick to even get up off my couch.”

Ann Marquart, executive director of Project Sentinel, a Palo Alto fair-housing agency that has been trying to help Bradach, said the only viable solutions are to find a stand-alone unit that meets Bradach’s needs or to create a building for the chemically sensitive.

Kansky said her organization has a donor who has offered to pay the difference above reasonable costs to use “fully green” alternatives in the building’s renovations. She estimated the costs above the housing corporation’s share to be $5,000 to $8,000.

“The problem is she shouldn’t really have to get out. Yes, it’s difficult, but it isn’t insurmountable,” Kansky said.

The question of reasonable accommodation is almost a question in itself, according to Marquart.

“Do we have a question of reasonable accommodation if this is a person’s life?” she said.

Bradach recalled when she was a vibrant, contributing member of society with a degree in botanical taxonomy and a potential job at the Smithsonian Institution. Then, people didn’t find her annoying. On good days, she is a better advocate for others than she is for herself, she said. She has helped people with bipolar disorder get the treatment and benefits they need.

“It’s easier to get what you need if someone else is an advocate for you. People don’t want to hear it — and they don’t want to hear it from the person who’s asking for help for themselves. We’re shrill. People think you are crazy.

“I got sick with the disease, but the way I got disabled is that I lost all my money to this disease. You don’t become disabled because of your illness. You become disabled because of poverty. You lose everything to this disease,” she said.

Next, federal government will weigh in on safety of printer inks, cosmetics

Last Updated: Monday, August 18, 2008 |
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/08/18/f-health-chemicals-batch3.html

The federal government is expected to release a draft assessment on Saturday of chemicals that includes a pigment used in some printer cartridges, a colouring agent used in cosmetics, and a dye used in detergents and cleaners.

The review is part of the government’s Chemical Management Plan, in which 200 chemicals are assessed in batches. The program, run by Environment Canada and Health Canada, was announced on Dec. 8, 2006.

It was under the same program that Health Minister Tony Clement announced a ban on April 18 of the import and sale of polycarbonate baby bottles containing bisphenol A. Clement said the chemical could affect early development in infants and newborns.

Studies in peer-reviewed journals had indicated that even at low doses, the chemical can increase breast and ovarian cancer-cell growth and the growth of some prostate cancer cells in animals.

The plastics industry vigorously defended the safety of the chemical, noting it has been used in a range of products for 50 years.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently said the chemical was safe to use in food containers, as only trace amounts of bisphenol were found to leach into the food. Critics suggested the federal agency relied on industry-funded studies in its evaluation.

The following chemicals, included in Batch 3, are not believed to pose any risks to human health but may pose harm to the environment in low concentrations:

Disperse Red 86 is used in some textile products and Disperse Violet 57 is used to colour certain plastics.

Pigment Red 3 is used in printing inks and cartridges, paints, adhesives, wallpapers, linoleum, carbon papers, typewriter ribbons, artists’ materials and grout products.

Pigment Orange 5 is synthetic colorant used in paints, coatings, adhesives and inks.

Pigment Red 4 is a synthetic organic pigment. Environment Canada notes information on use of the chemical is confidential.

Disperse Blue 19 is used in the manufacturing of products including oils, waxes, greases, fats, emulsions and pesticide products.

Pigment Orange 2 is used to colour plastics and inks.

Pigment Red 6 can be found in chemical products including solvents, carriers, strippers and etchers.

Pigment Red 5 is used as a colorant in cosmetic goods, stationary, wood stains, paints, varnishes, latex and synthetic fibres.

Acid Blue 127, a synthetic dye, is used in soap and cleaning products.

Disperse Blue 77 is a man-made organic dye that can be found to make textile fabrics.

PBMBDP is used to make synthetic rubber for hoses, rubber seals and gaskets.

PDDAM, an organic colorant, is used to manufacture pigment, stain, dye and ink.

Acid Violet 48 is used as a dye to colour detergents and cleaners and is used to manufacture textiles.

Pigment Red 251 is used as a colorant in printing ink, pesticides, fuel additives, lubricants, paints, lacquers and construction materials.

Batch 3 also includes these chemicals which are being evaluated for their effect on unborn offspring as well as the environment:

2-Methoxyethanol acetate is used in products including paints, lacquers, glues, adhesives, waxes, oils, textile printing, film, nail polish and dry cleaning products.

2-ethoxyethanol acetate is used as a solvent in paints, varnishes, silkscreen printing inks, wood stain and leather finishing dyes.

2-(2-Methoxyethoxy)ethanol, a synthetic organic chemical, is used in a wide range of products including stamp pads, ball point and felt tip pens, hydraulic brake fluids, wood stains, household and commercial cleaners and cosmetics.

2-Methoxy-1-propanol is used as a solvent or agent in coatings, sealants, adhesives, agricultural pesticides, various types of inks, hydraulic brake fluids and lubricants, and household and industrial cleaners.

Environment Canada and Health Canada are expected to release its draft assessment of Batch 4 chemicals which include an antimicrobial used in some shampoos and deodorants and an organic compound used in certain toiletries on Nov. 15.

Lawmakers Agree to Ban Toxins in Children’s Items

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2008; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072802586_pf.html

Congressional negotiators agreed yesterday to a ban on a family of toxins found in children’s products, handing a major victory to parents and health experts who have been clamoring for the government to remove harmful chemicals from toys.

The ban, which would take effect in six months, would have significant implications for U.S. consumers, whose homes are filled with hundreds of plastic products designed for children that may be causing dangerous health effects.

The rare action by Congress reflects a growing body of scientific research showing that children ingest the toxins by acts as simple as chewing on a rubber duck. Used for decades in plastic production, the chemicals are now thought to act as hormones and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys.

It also signals an important crack in the chemical industry’s ability to fend off federal regulation and suggests that the landscape may be shifting to favor consumers. The movement to ban the toxins accelerated last year when California prohibited their use in children’s products.

Earlier this year, the country’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart; the biggest toy seller, Toys R Us; and Babies R Us told their suppliers that they will no longer carry products containing the chemicals, known as phthalates, as of Jan. 1, 2009. Toys containing these chemicals, however, will still be on many retail shelves during the holiday season.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes the ban but that it is too early to say whether he will veto the measure, which is part of popular legislation to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Among other things, the legislation would ban lead in children’s products and would give consumers access to a new database of complaints or accident reports for goods. The measure also allows stiffer fines for violations and enhanced enforcement of consumer safety laws.

Under language finalized yesterday, House and Senate lawmakers agreed to permanently ban three types of phthalates from children’s toys and to outlaw three other phthalates from products pending an extensive study of their health effects in children and pregnant women.

Phthalates make plastics softer and more durable and also are added to perfumes, lotions, shampoos and other items. They are so ubiquitous that in one 1999 study, the Food and Drug Administration found traces in all of its 1,000 subjects.

The measure had wide support in the Senate, but it bogged down in the House, where the chemical industry waged a costly battle to defeat it. The campaign was led by Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, the phthalate most frequently found in children’s toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent any ban.

Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law, said industry viewed the ban as a benchmark that might signal a shift in Congress’s willingness to toughen restrictions on toxins.

“The great fear is that if a big, established chemical like this can be driven from the market, what’s next?” he said.

Said Andy Igrejas of the Pew Charitable Trusts: “The debate over this one set of chemicals is a referendum on a broken system. Congress saw just how screwed up the system is in protecting people from chemicals, especially children.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the measure, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market.

“Chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign,” she said.

U.S. companies manufacture $1.4 billion worth of phthalates annually, and less than 5 percent of that is used in children’s products, according to the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical makers.

Sharon Kneiss, a vice president at the trade group, said Congress acted prematurely. “There is no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children’s products. With over 50 years of research, phthalates are among the most thoroughly studied products in the world, and have been reviewed by multiple regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe,” she said.

Exxon Mobil contended that banning phthalates may inadvertently expose children to greater risks, because manufacturers will be forced to use substitute chemicals that may be even more hazardous.

“What’s at stake is, in fact, children’s safety,” said Elissa Sterry, a vice president at Exxon Mobil Chemicals. “If DINP is replaced by alternative products, that’s a potential risk to children.”

The industry’s position was repeated by Keith Hennessey, director of Bush’s Economic Policy Council, who wrote to the Senate saying that a ban could hurt children.

“Banning a product before a conclusive, scientific determination is reached is short-sighted and may result in the introduction of unregulated substitute chemicals that harm children’s health,” he wrote.

Most research on phthalates has been performed on rodents, and chemical makers say there is no evidence that humans are similarly affected. They also contend that children are exposed to phthalate levels far below the doses administered to laboratory rats.

But the first study involving human babies in 2005 raised questions about those arguments. Federally funded research by the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester Medical School found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited changes related to low sperm count, undescended testicles and other reproductive problems. In that study, the infants were exposed to phthalate levels way below the doses administered in rat experiments. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer.

Health experts argue that dangers may be more significant from cumulative exposure, because phthalates surround babies not only in toys and products but also in breast milk if the mother has been exposed to the chemicals.

The European Union banned six phthalates from children’s products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same.

California’s ban has been followed by legislation in Washington state and Vermont.

Staff writer Annys Shin contributed to this report.