[GreenYes Archives] -
[Thread Index] -
[Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]
|
[This second of a three part series on the unrecognized threats from chemicals and pollution in the Wall Street Journal -- yes the Wall Street Journal -- suggests two lessons for us, discussed at the end.... peter] WALL STREET JOURNAL - August 1, 2005 Fish Line Mercury and Tuna: U.S. Advice Leaves Lots of Questions Balancing Interests, Agencies Issue Guidance at Odds With EPA Risk Assessment A Schoolboy's Sudden Setback By PETER WALDMAN SAN FRANCISCO -- One by one, Matthew Davis's fifth-grade teachers went around the table describing the 10-year-old boy. He wasn't focused in class and often missed assignments, they said. He labored at basic addition. He could barely write a simple sentence. "Our jaws dropped," says his mother, Joan Elan Davis, describing a teachers' meeting she had requested in late 2003, when her son abruptly lost interest in homework. Matthew had always excelled in school. In the fourth grade, he had written and illustrated a series of stories about a superhero named Dog Man. Ms. Davis noticed something else: Her son's fingers were starting to curl, as if he were gripping a melon. And he could no longer catch a football. A neurologist ordered tests. They showed Matthew's blood was laced with mercury in amounts nearly double what the Environmental Protection Agency says is the safe level for exposure to the metal. Matthew had mercury poisoning, his doctors said. The Davises had pinpointed the suspected source: tuna fish. For a year or so, starting in late 2002, Matthew had gobbled three to six ounces a day of white albacore tuna. Based on Food and Drug Administration data for canned albacore, he was consuming a daily dose of mercury at least 12 times what the EPA considered a safe level for a 60-pound child. The Davises' doctors' prescription was simple: Matthew should stop eating canned tuna. Ms. Davis, an artist, says she and her husband, a corporate executive, had been proud of their son for choosing tuna over junk food. Now, she asks herself: "Was I a bad parent? Was it my fault I didn't know there was mercury in tuna?" One reason she didn't know was that the government had never said so. The FDA had known for many years that canned tuna contained mercury, which studies link to learning impairment in children. Consumer groups long urged the agency to address the issue. But it wasn't until March 2004, after regulatory tussles between health advocates and the tuna industry and between clashing scientists for the FDA and EPA, that those agencies issued a mercury advisory that cited tuna. That joint EPA and FDA advisory urged limits on how much tuna children and some women should eat. But the limits set in the advisory may exceed safe levels for some people, judging by a mercury risk assessment that the EPA produced on its own years earlier. "... "... "... "... "... "... People vary in how they react to mercury they ingest and how fast they purge it. The EPA's exposure limit is based on its calculation that mercury above 5.8 parts per billion in young women's bloodstreams may pose a danger to their babies. By this measure, 5.7% of U.S. infants, or 228,000 a year, could be at risk of mercury poisoning during gestation, based on the latest blood survey of women of childbearing age by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The maximum safe level might be lower still, says the EPA's top mercury risk assessor, Kathryn Mahaffey, based on recent evidence that fetuses concentrate more mercury in their blood than do their pregnant mothers. Former EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt says the reason the government didn't make the mercury-in-fish advisory tougher was to avoid scaring people away from fish. "Mercury is bad and fish is good. We needed to choose the right words that would give people a sense of knowledge without creating unwarranted fear," says Mr. Leavitt, now head of the Health and Human Services Department. He adds that scientists, not bureaucrats, worked out the guidelines, reconciling the varying views of FDA and EPA researchers. The EPA senior scientist handling that reconciliation, Rita Schoeny, says there is no way to know for sure whether people who follow the fish advisory and consume more mercury than the EPA's limit are actually safe. Asked whether she agreed with what the advisory said about tuna, she didn't respond except to say: "I think what we have in the advisory is good public-health advice." "... "... "... "... "... "... The FDA stood by its 1979 mercury-consumption limit that was much higher than the EPA's. Some EPA scientists griped that FDA officials were coddling food companies. "They really consider the fish industry to be their clients, rather than the U.S. public," charges Deborah Rice, a former EPA toxicologist now working for the state of Maine. The FDA's Dr. Acheson denies that commercial concerns played a role in the agency's decision making. "... "... "... "... "... "... "... FOR FULL ARTICLE: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112268169016100484,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one The first thing that this says to me is that even though things have gotten so bad in Washington -- or rather because they have gotten SO bad -- even the leading newspaper of the investment class (which is supposed to be only interested in making a quick buck) has found things have gone too far. The second is the irony that, in this context, the EPA, for the first time in years, comes across as the tough guy in regulatory terms instead of being rolled over. How is that, I ask myself? And the answer that suggests itself is that in this context, the EPA has no decision making power, which instead lies with the FDA. That is to say, when they're not responsible and hence the heat is not on them, then the natural environmentally concerned instincts of the non-political staff can rise to the surface. It's nice to know that its still there, ready to be plumbed were a sensitive administration to ever take control of the White House. p _________________________ Peter Anderson, President RECYCLEWORLDS CONSULTING 4513 Vernon Blvd. Suite 15 Madison, WI 53705-4964 Ph: (608) 231-1100 Fax: (608) 233-0011 Cell: (608) 698-1314 eMail: anderson@no.address web: www.recycleworlds.net CONFIDENTIAL This message, and all attachments thereto, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2521. This message is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, then any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify me if you received this message in error at anderson@no.address and then delete it. |
[GreenYes Archives] -
[Date Index] -
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]