April 17, 2007 by Larry.

Wherever you are reading this, look down and ask yourself if, under any circumstances you would be willing to get down on your knees and lick the floor. If the answer could ever be yes or even maybe, then you can stop reading right here - you might consider getting some professional help.

Almost everyone is familiar with the “Five Second Rule” which states that food that has fallen on the floor is safe to eat if it is picked up in 5 seconds or less. Most of us outgrow the urge to eat food off the floor or invoke the five second rule sometime before the second decade of life and yet the controversy remains. It is one of those odd little human behaviors that crosses age and cultural lines and touches on important issues relating to hygiene, health, risk taking behavior, and taste.

In 2005, Jillian Clarke was awarded the Ignoble Prize for her study of the scientific basis of the Five Second Rule which she undertook as a summer intern at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She measured the bacterial contamination on the floors, the transfer of bacteria to cookies and gully bears, and the beliefs of students around the five second rule. Here is what she found:

• Seventy percent of women and 56 percent of men are familiar with the 5-second rule and use it to make decisions about eating food off the floor.
• University floors are remarkably clean from a microbial standpoint.
• Women are more likely than men to eat food that’s been on the floor.
• Cookies and candy are much more likely to be picked up and eaten than cauliflower or broccoli.
• Food dropped on the floor is contaminated in 5 seconds or less.

If the floors at the University of Illinois are typical, your chances of getting a bacterial gastroenteritis like salmonella, campylobacter, or e. coli from eating food off the floor is relatively slim. This may not be the case everywhere and it doesn’t address the question of viral illness such as Norovirus. Also, you if you feel the need to eat food that has fallen on the floor you don’t need to dive after it - by five seconds bacterial contamination has already occurred.

These findings are supported by a second, a more comprehensive study reported in the Journal of Applied Microbiology last year in which pieces of bread and bologna were dropped on carpet, tile, and wood floors that had been contaminated with salmonella. They also found that by 5 seconds the food was just as contaminated as it was at 60 seconds, so again, if it is your bent to eat dropped cold cuts, you may as well take your time. They did find that the longer that they waited to drop the food after contaminating the floor with bacteria, the less that ended up on the food, so if you have any choice in the matter, wait as long as possible before dropping your food. It wasn’t much of a reduction but it might make the difference between getting sick and getting with it again.

If you do get sick from eating off the floor, it is very likely that you will get what is known as an acute Gastroenteritis or “stomach flu“. Most of these go unreported but estimates are that there are about 100 million cases in the US every year and that most of these are viral due to either Norovirus or rotavirus. There are several million cases that are bacterial and somewhere around 10,000 deaths are reported every year. All things being equal, (which they are not) this means that your chance of catching the stomach flu is about 1 in 4 every year and the risk of death from bacterial gastroenteritis is about 1 in 40,000. You take a much greater risk of death getting in your car and driving to dinner than you would if you chose to eat your dinner off the floor. Not very much of a risk as risk taking behavior goes.

That’s the state of the art in terms of the science of the five second rule. In the end it is a matter of personal choice. You may or may not get sick; that depends on what else has dropped on that particular patch of floor, how long it has been since it was dropped, and a lot of other things that we can group together and call luck. Even if you do get sick you probably won’t die as the result of invoking the five second rule. The good news is that the next time some tasty morsel or gummy worm escapes and hits the floor, you needn’t leap for it. You can take your time and consider exactly how much you want it, where you are, and what the floor looks like. Perhaps it will have picked up something else from the floor and won’t taste as good as you thought. Or perhaps the additional time will allow you to consider your embarrassment as you explain your behavior to those around you.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

March 4, 2007 by Larry.

Even if you can’t pronounce it, unless you are actively trying to avoid it, you have been buying products contain Triclosan and Triclocarban. Every year Americans buy several billion dollars of products that contain several million pounds of these synthetic antimicrobials. If you look carefully you will find them in a surprising range of products including antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpaste, mouthwash, even dish soap and cutting boards. You won’t have to look far; over 70% of the liquid soaps contain Triclosan. You will have to look carefully since the ingredients are generally listed in very small print, much smaller than the “antibacterial” claim on the front of the package.

The problem with Triclosan and Triclocarban is that this group of chemicals has a very troubling life cycle that begins in the chemical plant where they are created and continues even after the find their way into our groundwater, our tissues, and breast milk. To make matters worse, Triclosan and Triclocarban are readily converted into highly toxic and carcinogenic dioxins that also accumulate in our fatty tissues. If all of this was not enough, a recent study found that Triclosan interferes with thyroid hormone function.

The industry argument is that there is no proof that exposure to these minute amounts of Triclosan, Triclocarban, or even the associated dioxins represents a significant health risk. They point to the volumes of required animal toxicity studies in further support of this position. As far as it goes, this argument is correct or at least it is for Triclosan and Triclocarban. (There is no argument in favor of dioxin at any level.) They conclude that the benefit to consumers from these antibacterial products justifies the minimal risk.

The flaw in this logic is that is expensive and difficult almost to the point of being impossible to prove a connection between illness or disease and a specific toxic exposure. This is made even more complicated since a 2002 CDC study found over 148 industrial chemicals and pesticides in the blood and urine of ordinary Americans. Each of these chemicals is represented by industry lawyers and lobbyists all insisting that there is no risk and even if there was a risk it is not their chemical that is a fault. Once a chemical is widespread in the environment, manufacturers have no incentive to look for problems and it falls to government and public health professionals to investigate any potential health hazard. From a simple liability standpoint, manufacturers cannot concede that their chemicals are at fault, even if they know it to be true. Accordingly, a company could continue to manufacture massive amounts of a potentially toxic chemical indefinitely or until it is proven conclusively that to be unsafe, at which point the damage is already done.

If consumers really washed their hands properly than they probably don’t gain any real benefit from antibacterial soaps, but few of adults and almost none of our children wash properly. There is reason to believe that for the way that most of us wash, a safe and effective antibacterial soap may indeed offer some health benefit. However, as long as this potential benefit remains unclear, the potential risks from widespread toxic contamination should guide our actions. Triclosan and Triclocarban are not the worst offenders we have encountered but as consumers of these products we must ask the hard questions and begin to take responsibility for our purchases.

If you believe that there is no antimicrobial benefit from using these products that outweighs the potential risk of Triclosan in breast milk and increased exposure to dioxins, than take a stand on Triclosan. Read the label carefully and vote where you shop. Find safer alternatives to Triclosan or stop buying these products entirely.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

February 10, 2007 by Larry.

“Finding a chemical in our bodies is merely finding evidence of an exposure. It doesn’t tell you anything about the source of the exposure or how big the exposure was that caused it. And it especially doesn’t tell you anything about what risk it might pose at that level.”

Sarah Brozena, PhD

Dr. Brozena’s remark is intended to reassure us that the traces of 148 industrial chemicals and pesticides found by the CDC in blood and urine are nothing to worry about. Her position is that until there is conclusive proof of a connection between these trace chemicals and subsequent health problems, no problem exists, and we have nothing to worry about. Absent from her remarks is the widely accepted view that, as a practical matter it may be difficult or impossible to ever prove such a connection exists. As a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, Ms. Brozena represents the interests of many of the chemical companies that manufacture the suspect chemicals. They want us to believe that the benefits of their products justify the risks of the symphony of toxic industrial chemicals that we all carry around in our bodies. I find her logic flawed and her argument unconvincing but you should read it yourself make your own decision.

In his excellent article in the January edition of Steve Ashkin’s Destination Green newsletter, Chemicals: What Cost To Our Bodies , Scott Streater makes the case that the we are already paying for the past mistakes and unless we make smarter decisions about the cleaning products that we use and the chemicals that they contain, we will pay much more in the future. l agree with his assessment and would add that this is as important a problem as Global Warming, another example of massive chemical indiscretion. The history of these experiments is literally written in our blood and the blood of our children, where traces of the accumulated burden of chemicals may be evident for decades. Because the consequences of this reckless practice may not become apparent for many years, by the time we realize what we have done, massive quantities of the chemicals will have been irreversibly released into the environment. If you have any doubt that our leaders and an entire industry would knowingly take us all to the brink of disaster in order to make money, again consider Global Warning.

Ironically, many of the worst offenders in the past have been chemicals originally manufactured and sold as “miracle” cleaners , disinfectants, and pesticides have had the worst records for long term toxicity and environmental pollution (DDT, Carbon Tetrachloride, hexachlorophene, phosphates, and now triclosan found in over 70% of liquid soaps). More information about the chemicals that we carry in our bodies can be found in The Toxics Within, an excellent article from National Geographic, and on the website of the Environmental Working Group. Recently, the European Union took a big step forward with the REACH program that will require that manufacturers of chemicals prove that they are safe prior to sale.
Not surprisingly, Reach has been vigorously opposed by the chemical industry trade organizations and the Bush administration claiming that it would be expensive to comply with the terms of REACH. This despite the staggering cost of environmental cleanup of past mistakes. Since we cannot reasonably expect industry to change as long as we continue to buy their toxic products, it is up to all of us to give them an incentive. Educate yourselves about the lifecycle of all of the chemicals in the products that you buy and use so that you can make informed decisions about the world that we leave to our children. Educated consumers, cleaning professionals, and institutions have the power to change the world.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 26, 2007 by Larry.

Are you label literate? Here is an easy way to find out. Put all the cleaning products that you use to clean your house in front of you and examine the labels. Now, take a few moments and read them carefully. If you are feeling a bit confused or you are seeing anything for the first time, you are not alone. In fact, if it is a product that you have used for years, you may never read the label.

In 1996, the EPA, was concerned enough about label literacy for consumer cleaning products that they formed a task force of government agencies and started a process known as the Consumer Labeling Initiative. After ten years, numerous studies, and 2 major reports, they the CLI has been the driving force behind efforts to simplify the language and standardize safety claims on cleaning product labels. In 2000 the CLI kicked off their “Read the Label First” program in an effort to get us, the consumer, to read the label on every cleaning product that we buy or use, before we buy or use it. However, despite their good efforts to simplify the label, consumer label literacy has not changed much so rather than learn the code, many avoid reading them entirely.

This is not to suggest that CLI was a failure, quite the opposite, it is much easier to read and understand the labels today because of the CLI. I suspect the difficulty that we have with these labels is that, like maps, trains schedules, or the instructions for your new cell phone, label literacy is a skill. And because labels are not compelling reading, containing “code” words and jargon, it is a skill that doesn’t come naturally to many consumers. When using products, or types of products, that we have been using for years, we tend to feel comfortable and studies by the EPA have found that we are much less likely to read the label. On the other hand, when considering new products, or a new product type, most consumers will make an effort to read the label but still find it a real challenge. Fortunately for you we live in an information age these challenges are easily overcome.

Label literacy an hour or less.

Here is a simple exercise that should take less than an hour and will make you a master of label literacy, clean up the clutter under your sink, and make your home safer and healthier for you and your family. First, there are many excellent resources on the web (Links). Start with the CLI, but also look through the industry trade organizations, and consumer advocacy groups have created excellent resources (Links provided). I would urge you to look through these and find those that work for you. Bookmark them or add them to your favorites. Take each of those cleaning products in front of you and read the label again, using the website(s) that you have chosen as a guide whenever you encounter code, jargon, or confusion. If you are still comfortable with it, keep it, if not, dispose of it according to the instructions on the label. When you are done, don’t be discouraged if you find that you are uncomfortable with many or most of the products that you have been using for years, there are better and safer alternatives and now that you have your masters in label literacy, you are ready to find them.

Upcoming Post: Cleaning Product Alphabet soup - EPA, FIFRA, TSCA

All cleaning products are required by one or more federal agencies to have a label that clearly identifies the product, the manufacturer, what it does, how to use it safely, and in plain language, any required safety warnings and a caution word. If the product is a disinfectant, sanitizer, or insecticide, or makes a public health or antimicrobial claims are regulated by the EPA and are required to list the “active” chemical ingredients by name. These are those long scary names you can’t possibly pronounce. All of this is on the label to help the consumer select and use the product safely, but the typical consumer finds most of it confusing.

Upcoming Post Topic: A Hunter-Gatherer in the Cleaner Aisle of the Supermarket

If you have a bit of time in the supermarket, stand in the aisle where cleaning products are sold and observe the other shoppers as they select products. Pay attention to what they do and notice how much (if any) time they spend reading the label. You will probably notice that there are just a few patterns of behavior that are repeated over and over, but most are very brief and the whole thing is over in just a few seconds. Before you jump to any conclusions, let’s consider what’s on the labels and why it is there. Then we can come back to the behavior patterns of shoppers.

Upcoming Post Topic: Do you really want 6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-2,3,4,5-tetrol in your brain? (Absolutely!)

Every time you bring a cleaning product into your house, you bring in all of the chemicals in the product. Within seconds of spraying the product, trace amounts are in your circulation.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 8, 2007 by Larry.

A major wave of outbreaks caused by food-borne diseases has hit the US throughout 2006. It has not been brought to our attention at the moment of this writing whether 2006 will break new record high like temperatures but a few indicators point in that direction.

For one the CDC’s Vessel Sanitation Program has been publishing all cases of outbreaks on board ships carrying over 100 passengers and cases in which 3% or more of passengers or crew reported symptoms of gastrointestinal illness. If 2005 saw a sharp decrease, 2006 has at least matched the alarming 2004 season of 36 outbreaks. Then, the number of produce-related outbreaks of food-borne illness has increased from 40 in 1999 to 86 in 2004. Over the past three months spinach, tomatoes and now possibly green onions have made the headlines and seem to confirm this trend. Finally, the cases of outbreaks reported by the media and the CDC seem to be hitting a larger number of people for a longer period of time as seen in Santa Rosa, CA and Tewksbury, MA.

Gastrointestinal illnesses, also known as upset stomach, are fairly common. The main pathogens are Salmonella, E-coli, Listeria, Campylobacter (all bacteria), Rotavirus and Norovirus. Diarrhea is second only to the common cold as a cause of lost working time, with about 25 days lost from work or school each year for every 100 Americans. 4 out of 5 children under 5 will develop Rotavirus. The overall cost has been estimated at $6.9 billion for bacterial infections (Department of Agriculture) and $1 billion for Rotavirus alone. Although no estimate have been publicly released, the economic impact of Norovirus can be estimated between $4 and $8 billion, as the CDC believes that over 50% of all food-borne diseases are due to this virus.

A very good illustration of the snowball effect of the spreading and consequences of food-borne pathogens can be seen here, in the Bay Area that has been plagued with cases of gastrointestinal outbreaks, most of them attributed to Norovirus. This is happening “back East” as well, following a very similar pattern. A December 16^th, 2006 Boston Globe article does a very good job at describing the chain reaction.

A significant proportion of gastrointestinal outbreaks have also been linked to bacterial pathogens present in fresh produce. A surge of these cases that indicates this is more than an epiphenomenon. In its December 10^th, 2006 edition, the Washington Post describes the actual situation as worrisome to say the least for two main reasons: a) the FDA and the states are the main regulatory authorities in regards to the safety of fresh produce (Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over meat and diary products), and there is very little if no will to regulate that part of the industry (lack of resources and expertise). Second, if the presence of bacteria or virus in meat can be overcome by thorough cooking, it is different with fresh produce, which the American public consumes in greater quantity and more often than ever before.

The Royal Caribbean is one of many organizations that are factoring the costs of disease outbreaks that will require major clean-ups and delay sailing. The norovirus outbreak that was recently reported on board of Freedom of Seas will put the company’s earning per share down by about 3 cents.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 5, 2007 by Larry.

It is cold and flu season and with infectious disease, getting sick is like a really bad date – it takes two – a germ and a host. You’re the host. If you want to avoid getting sick – become a lousy host. (Don’t worry, your mother would approve.)

Here are five simple ways to be a lousy host and avoid getting sick:

• Be unavailable. Personal hygiene and avoiding high risk environments and behaviors. So what are high risk environments? If it is the height of the flu season, or there is a lot of coughing and sneezing around you, or you have a lot of contact with the public, you are probably in a high risk environment and you should respond accordingly. Wash your hands more frequently, ramp up your use of a hand sanitizer, avoid touching your face, and whenever possible keep your distance from anyone who looks like they have something you don’t want to catch.
• Be uninviting. By keeping your defenses up, you raise the bar for infection. No surprise here - getting enough sleep, exercise, and avoiding overindulgence and stress when possible. All of these things contribute to a healthy and active immune system.
• Shoot first. Take defensive action – get vaccinated. Vaccination for influenza is inexpensive, readily available, and on any given year does a pretty good job of protecting both the person who get the vaccine and the people around them. Although the topic vaccination is not without controversy, it is really a matter of public health and as flawed as our public health system may be, vaccines are a very effective tool to prevent illness and save lives. Most of the population understands and accepts that the benefits of vaccination more than offset the extremely rare risks. In fact, we all take much greater risks every time we get in a car.
• Eat well and don’t share. Eat good food and eat reasonably, take a good balanced multivitamin, and drink plenty of hot fluids. There is ample evidence for the benefits of good nutrition and green tea is a great source of antioxidants. Make a thermos of green tea and sip on it throughout the day or keep an insulated mug on your disk. And in case it wasn’t obvious don’t share drinks, utensils, lip balm, or cosmetics.
• Be selfish. This is one of these times when being selfish is good manners and it is better to neither give nor receive. Don’t introduce your germs to your friends. If you do get sick, stay home. If you are a manager, make it clear that you have a zero tolerance for any visibly sick employee in the workplace. Sent them home unless you want a whole lot more of them.

We all know that as simple as these may appear, it is never simple to follow through with our good intentions. This is especially true during the holidays and when winter makes everything harder. Find the middle ground, do what you can, and try not to beat yourself up over the rest. Remember, just because you can’t do everything doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do anything.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

December 17, 2006 by Larry.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »