Reaching out Beyond the Garden
On a mild day in mid-January, close to twenty elders, mentors, and leaders who work with youth gathered at Commonweal Garden. They came for an introduction to the Regenerative Design Institute’s (RDI) Ecology of Leadership training, and stayed for the next 24 hours to help plan an important new RDI initiative—the formation of a Youth Leadership Program.
Inspired by our desire to work with urban youth and support young leaders, the concept for the program evolved through many years of conversations, meetings, and discussions. Although there are a number of programs offering young people a chance to experience the natural world, there are few opportunities for young leaders who work with youth to receive the training and care they need to give fully of their hearts and souls. The intention of the Youth Leadership Program is to fill that need.
Funded through the generosity of the Kalliopeia Foundation, the Youth Leadership Program will bring together leaders, ranging in age from 21–35, who serve youth organizations throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. They will be invited to spend four days with the Regenerative Design Institute, participating in a retreat led by wise elders, RDI staff, and other guest instructors to collaborate, nurture themselves, and develop a strong connection to each other and the natural world.
Following the retreat, those participants willing to commit to working together for the next three years will dive into a five month Ecology of Leadership training. Each will develop a plan that will help the communities they serve to better connect with the natural world, and RDI will work with them to make their visions a reality.
The undertaking is ambitious and rewarding. The inspiration, for ourselves, the elders who gathered in January, and those who will participate in the retreat, comes from the amazing gardens and the wildlands that comprise Commonweal Garden. Vibrant and buzzing with life, the gifts they offer spread out far beyond the fenceline—breathing new energy into the corners of our cities and urban neighborhoods in need of nature and nurturing.
The Regenerative Design Institute at Commonweal Garden is supported through the generosity of the Jenifer Altman Foundation, Morning Glory Family Foundation, Stinson-Bolinas Community Fund, Kalliopeia Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration BWET program, and the donations and time of many individuals to whom we are very grateful.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Sadja Greenwood’s Supplement Recommendations
Dear Readers:
This is a summary of a talk I gave at Commonweal on March 7, 2010. Below are some suggested supplements that may help to give you maximum health. However, eating a good diet is the first key to health. This country is blessed to have great organic farmers giving us wonderful vegetables and fruits. Have these every day, along with local diary products and eggs, and small amounts of poultry, fish, and meat. Walk, run, or bike— And remember to give thanks to your local farmers, especially organic farmers, for their hard work and provisions.
WOMEN 18–50
*Multivitamin with iron: Take daily. For folic acid in case of pregnancy. Folic acid helps prevent birth defects. Multis should contain iron because of menstrual blood loss.
*Calcium: 600–1000 mg daily—to get 1200 mg from pills and diet. Calcium helps bone strength and may help with premenstrual tension.
*Magnesium: 300–350 mg daily. Magnesium helps bone strength and has numerous positive effects on the body.
*Vitamin D: Take daily. 1000–2000 IU—or enough to keep blood level of 25 hydroxy vitamin D 35–40 ng/ml. People with darker skin may need more D to get to these levels. Vitamin D helps with bone strength, prevention of infection and cancer, and keeps your brain sharp.
*Vitamin C: 500 mg daily—taking 250 mg twice a day is ideal.
*Fish oil: Capsule daily—or eat fish 2–3 times a week. The omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil help your heart and are important for your brain and mood.
*Probiotic: Daily on arising. These contain beneficial bacteria that help your immune system fight off colds, and infections of the vagina and bladder.
WOMEN OVER 50
*Multivitamin without iron: Take daily if diet is haphazard.
*Calcium and Magnesium: As above.
*Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Probiotic: The same as for women under 50.
*Fish Oil capsules: Two daily.
*Vitamin B12: 500–1000 mcg sublingually once or twice a week. A level of 500pg/ml is desirable. As you get older, you may not absorb this essential vitamin from the meat, fish, dairy, or eggs that you eat. B12 prevents anemia and keeps your brain sharp. Letting it dissolve under your tongue will take it directly into your bloodstream.
MEN 18–50
*Multivitamin without iron: Take daily if diet is haphazard.
*Vitamin D: Take daily. 1000–2000 IU—or enough to keep blood level of 25 hydroxy vitamin D 35–40 ng/ml. People with darker skin may need more D to get to these levels.
*Vitamin C: 500 mg daily—taking 250 twice a day is ideal.
*Fish oil: Capsule daily—or eat fish 2¬¬–3 times a week.
*Probiotic: Daily on arising.
MEN OVER 50
*Multivitamin without iron: Take daily if diet is haphazard.
*Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Probiotic: The same as for men under 50.
*Fish oil capsules: Two daily.
*Vitamin B12: 500–1000 mcg sublingually once or twice a week. A level of 500 pg/ml is desirable. As you get older, you may not absorb this essential vitamin from the meat, fish, dairy, or eggs that you eat. B12 prevents anemia and keeps your brain sharp. Letting it dissolve under your tongue will take it directly into your bloodstream.
Sadja Greenwood, MD, MPH
For more information, go to Sadjacolumns.blogspot.com
This is a summary of a talk I gave at Commonweal on March 7, 2010. Below are some suggested supplements that may help to give you maximum health. However, eating a good diet is the first key to health. This country is blessed to have great organic farmers giving us wonderful vegetables and fruits. Have these every day, along with local diary products and eggs, and small amounts of poultry, fish, and meat. Walk, run, or bike— And remember to give thanks to your local farmers, especially organic farmers, for their hard work and provisions.
WOMEN 18–50
*Multivitamin with iron: Take daily. For folic acid in case of pregnancy. Folic acid helps prevent birth defects. Multis should contain iron because of menstrual blood loss.
*Calcium: 600–1000 mg daily—to get 1200 mg from pills and diet. Calcium helps bone strength and may help with premenstrual tension.
*Magnesium: 300–350 mg daily. Magnesium helps bone strength and has numerous positive effects on the body.
*Vitamin D: Take daily. 1000–2000 IU—or enough to keep blood level of 25 hydroxy vitamin D 35–40 ng/ml. People with darker skin may need more D to get to these levels. Vitamin D helps with bone strength, prevention of infection and cancer, and keeps your brain sharp.
*Vitamin C: 500 mg daily—taking 250 mg twice a day is ideal.
*Fish oil: Capsule daily—or eat fish 2–3 times a week. The omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil help your heart and are important for your brain and mood.
*Probiotic: Daily on arising. These contain beneficial bacteria that help your immune system fight off colds, and infections of the vagina and bladder.
WOMEN OVER 50
*Multivitamin without iron: Take daily if diet is haphazard.
*Calcium and Magnesium: As above.
*Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Probiotic: The same as for women under 50.
*Fish Oil capsules: Two daily.
*Vitamin B12: 500–1000 mcg sublingually once or twice a week. A level of 500pg/ml is desirable. As you get older, you may not absorb this essential vitamin from the meat, fish, dairy, or eggs that you eat. B12 prevents anemia and keeps your brain sharp. Letting it dissolve under your tongue will take it directly into your bloodstream.
MEN 18–50
*Multivitamin without iron: Take daily if diet is haphazard.
*Vitamin D: Take daily. 1000–2000 IU—or enough to keep blood level of 25 hydroxy vitamin D 35–40 ng/ml. People with darker skin may need more D to get to these levels.
*Vitamin C: 500 mg daily—taking 250 twice a day is ideal.
*Fish oil: Capsule daily—or eat fish 2¬¬–3 times a week.
*Probiotic: Daily on arising.
MEN OVER 50
*Multivitamin without iron: Take daily if diet is haphazard.
*Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Probiotic: The same as for men under 50.
*Fish oil capsules: Two daily.
*Vitamin B12: 500–1000 mcg sublingually once or twice a week. A level of 500 pg/ml is desirable. As you get older, you may not absorb this essential vitamin from the meat, fish, dairy, or eggs that you eat. B12 prevents anemia and keeps your brain sharp. Letting it dissolve under your tongue will take it directly into your bloodstream.
Sadja Greenwood, MD, MPH
For more information, go to Sadjacolumns.blogspot.com
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
ANTIBIOTICS (STILL) AT RISK
How You Gonna Keep ‘em Down on the Farm?
[San Francisco Medicine, April 2010]
by Steve Heilig, MPH, Director of Public Health and Education
Bacteria are likely the best creatures known for teaching and demonstrating evolution in action. They reproduce so fast and are so responsive to environmental selection pressures that one can alter a colony’s genetics in very little time. It’s literally a textbook case of Darwinian survival of the fittest.
Of course, that’s not always a good thing for other species. And with bacteria and antibiotics it has been war from the start. Drug-resistant strains and colonies began to arise as soon as antibiotics came online; the race to keep ahead of them is constant and escalating. In fact, Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, warned about just this threat in his 1945 Nobel Prize address.
Efforts to develop new antibiotics, coupled with ever-vigilant efforts to refine prescribing to avoid unnecessary use, are crucial and ongoing. Still, at this point, antibiotic-resistant infections kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and have been estimated to cost the U.S. up to $34 billion annually. Brad Spellberg, MD, infectious disease specialist and author of Rising Plague, warns, “We are seeing infections ... that are literally resistant to every antibiotic that is FDA approved. These are untreatable infections. This is the first time since 1936, the year sulfa hit the market in the U.S., that we have had this problem.” Dr. Fred Tenover of the CDC added in Science in 2008 that “this is a major blooming public health crisis.”
As far back as the 1970s, some experts were warning that we were using too many antibiotics in agriculture; namely, as growth promoters and infection pro¬phylaxis in meat production. The concern was that this other reservoir of selective pressure might spill over into human infections, worsening the overall threat. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 70 percent of antibiotics used in this country are fed to healthy livestock; another 14 percent treat sick livestock. The remaining 16 percent go to people and pets. And about that time, newer molecular tracking techniques started indicating that indeed, some resistant strains of human pathogens were finding their way from feedlots and farms into hospitals and humans. As an old song asked, “How you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm?”
Apparently, we cannot. A 2002 Clinical Infectious Diseases meta-analysis of more than 500 studies found that “many lines of evidence link antibiotic resistant human infections to foodborne pathogens of animal origin.” The Institute of Medicine concluded in 2003, “Clearly, a decrease in the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in human medicine alone is not enough. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse in animals and agriculture as well.” In 2004, the World Health Organization reported that increasing resistance was linked to “nonhuman usage of antimicrobials.”
That’s a brief summary of expert opinion and evidence. In light of this, the European Union has banned the use of antibiotics in livestock except to treat illness—and the evidence grew stronger. The most intensively studied country, Denmark, saw a 50% decrease in total antibiotic use without negative impacts on farmers or consumers but a large public health benefit. But what about here in the USA?
Back in 2002, the San Francisco Medical Society convened a conference (co-sponsored by Commonweal) on this issue, co-chaired by two living legends of American medicine and public health, Philip Lee, MD, and Lester Breslow, MD. One result of that meeting was a policy resolution urging the phaseout of routine use of antibiotics in agriculture; this policy was adopted by the SFMS, CMA, and AMA. But, to be frank, not much has changed in practice.
The latest federal legislation introduced to stop the use of important human antibiotics in the feed and water of animals that are not sick is called PAMTA—the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (HR 1549/S.619). Hundreds of health, medical, and consumer and environmental groups have endorsed it. In a Congressional hearing, a former FDA Commissioner held that using antibiotics on healthy farm animals has to stop.
And what do farmers think? Many smaller producers, especially in the “organic”-type sector, already forego antibiotics unless absolutely necessary. But “big agriculture” lobbyists fight any restrictions. They have argued that restrictions in Europe have led to outbreaks and higher costs, but again, authorities there say that this is a “creative” and untrue rumor. And now even the USDA holds that the cost savings of using antibiotics is a mirage in most cases.
Once again, the sad precedent of the “tobacco wars” is conjured. The evidence of a severe health threat is strong; corrective measures are proposed and endorsed; political lobbying gridlocks the remedy. The risk keeps growing, and people suffer and die. PAMTA (Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act), at a minimum, needs to be enacted. Even more regulation is likely warranted. Will our leaders listen before uncontrollable disaster strikes?
Martin Blaser, MD, a past president of the Infectious Disease Society of America, warns of “lethal pandemics” if antibiotic resistance is not brought under control. In fact, some longtime observers of this threat fear that, rather than a nuclear or other threat, it might well be our smallest, longtime, invisible enemies that prove the end of humanity, coming “not with a bang, but with a whimper.”
For more information, see http://www. keepantibioticsworking.com
[San Francisco Medicine, April 2010]
by Steve Heilig, MPH, Director of Public Health and Education
Bacteria are likely the best creatures known for teaching and demonstrating evolution in action. They reproduce so fast and are so responsive to environmental selection pressures that one can alter a colony’s genetics in very little time. It’s literally a textbook case of Darwinian survival of the fittest.
Of course, that’s not always a good thing for other species. And with bacteria and antibiotics it has been war from the start. Drug-resistant strains and colonies began to arise as soon as antibiotics came online; the race to keep ahead of them is constant and escalating. In fact, Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, warned about just this threat in his 1945 Nobel Prize address.
Efforts to develop new antibiotics, coupled with ever-vigilant efforts to refine prescribing to avoid unnecessary use, are crucial and ongoing. Still, at this point, antibiotic-resistant infections kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and have been estimated to cost the U.S. up to $34 billion annually. Brad Spellberg, MD, infectious disease specialist and author of Rising Plague, warns, “We are seeing infections ... that are literally resistant to every antibiotic that is FDA approved. These are untreatable infections. This is the first time since 1936, the year sulfa hit the market in the U.S., that we have had this problem.” Dr. Fred Tenover of the CDC added in Science in 2008 that “this is a major blooming public health crisis.”
As far back as the 1970s, some experts were warning that we were using too many antibiotics in agriculture; namely, as growth promoters and infection pro¬phylaxis in meat production. The concern was that this other reservoir of selective pressure might spill over into human infections, worsening the overall threat. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 70 percent of antibiotics used in this country are fed to healthy livestock; another 14 percent treat sick livestock. The remaining 16 percent go to people and pets. And about that time, newer molecular tracking techniques started indicating that indeed, some resistant strains of human pathogens were finding their way from feedlots and farms into hospitals and humans. As an old song asked, “How you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm?”
Apparently, we cannot. A 2002 Clinical Infectious Diseases meta-analysis of more than 500 studies found that “many lines of evidence link antibiotic resistant human infections to foodborne pathogens of animal origin.” The Institute of Medicine concluded in 2003, “Clearly, a decrease in the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in human medicine alone is not enough. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse in animals and agriculture as well.” In 2004, the World Health Organization reported that increasing resistance was linked to “nonhuman usage of antimicrobials.”
That’s a brief summary of expert opinion and evidence. In light of this, the European Union has banned the use of antibiotics in livestock except to treat illness—and the evidence grew stronger. The most intensively studied country, Denmark, saw a 50% decrease in total antibiotic use without negative impacts on farmers or consumers but a large public health benefit. But what about here in the USA?
Back in 2002, the San Francisco Medical Society convened a conference (co-sponsored by Commonweal) on this issue, co-chaired by two living legends of American medicine and public health, Philip Lee, MD, and Lester Breslow, MD. One result of that meeting was a policy resolution urging the phaseout of routine use of antibiotics in agriculture; this policy was adopted by the SFMS, CMA, and AMA. But, to be frank, not much has changed in practice.
The latest federal legislation introduced to stop the use of important human antibiotics in the feed and water of animals that are not sick is called PAMTA—the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (HR 1549/S.619). Hundreds of health, medical, and consumer and environmental groups have endorsed it. In a Congressional hearing, a former FDA Commissioner held that using antibiotics on healthy farm animals has to stop.
And what do farmers think? Many smaller producers, especially in the “organic”-type sector, already forego antibiotics unless absolutely necessary. But “big agriculture” lobbyists fight any restrictions. They have argued that restrictions in Europe have led to outbreaks and higher costs, but again, authorities there say that this is a “creative” and untrue rumor. And now even the USDA holds that the cost savings of using antibiotics is a mirage in most cases.
Once again, the sad precedent of the “tobacco wars” is conjured. The evidence of a severe health threat is strong; corrective measures are proposed and endorsed; political lobbying gridlocks the remedy. The risk keeps growing, and people suffer and die. PAMTA (Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act), at a minimum, needs to be enacted. Even more regulation is likely warranted. Will our leaders listen before uncontrollable disaster strikes?
Martin Blaser, MD, a past president of the Infectious Disease Society of America, warns of “lethal pandemics” if antibiotic resistance is not brought under control. In fact, some longtime observers of this threat fear that, rather than a nuclear or other threat, it might well be our smallest, longtime, invisible enemies that prove the end of humanity, coming “not with a bang, but with a whimper.”
For more information, see http://www. keepantibioticsworking.com
AmeriCorps Volunteer at Commonweal
Photo right: The spirit of AmeriCorps reflects the dedication and enthusiasm of our Commonweal volunteers, like Chuck Oakander, seen here. Chuck generously shared his knowledge and expertise in forest management, fuel-load reduction, and local habitat with the AmeriCorps team members.
Above: Team Member Dane (Jadi) Miller refurbished and cleaned windows
“Service is renewing. When we serve, our work itself sustains us…We are servers of the wholeness and mystery in life.” Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D., ISHI Director
Service-learning is the concept that AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) is built around—making connections between service, social issues, and the greater community need for long-term solutions. With deep gratitude and appreciation Commonweal welcomed 12 members of AmeriCorps NCCC Silver Team One for three rainy weeks in January. Here are some of their outstanding accomplishments:
• Removed fire ladders (brush and hanging dead limbs) and reduced the fuel load (dead wood); a major contribution to our fire prevention efforts.
• Restored paths throughout the Retreat Center grounds with chips created from their tree work.
• Scrubbed and power-washed the Retreat Center Buildings.
• Painted Building Number Nine next to the Main Office.
• Catalogued over 1600 books in the Julie Hopkins Neilson Library.
• Painted and renovated a previously unusable storage area, creating a beautiful room.
• Lovingly and carefully relocated thousands of items from the Sandtray Room to their new home in the conference room and cleaned and painted the old Sandtray Room, creating a new office space.
Their enthusiasm, hard work, and wonderful energy made it a delight and honor to host these young volunteers. Commonweal sends a heart-felt “thank you” to our AmeriCorps team and to the AmeriCorps NCCC Pacific Region for making their stay with us possible.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Cancer: Outside and Within
by Susan Braun
Around the world, more than 12 million human beings are diagnosed with cancer each year, and nearly 8 million die. That’s more than 20,000 dying EACH DAY from cancer. The numbers are staggering. Think of losing a small town each day. Or a mid-sized university campus full of students. Six times more people die from cancer than from car accidents. Six times more individual lives are lost to cancer than to malaria. And if statistics hold, it will be the number one cause of human death on this planet within this decade.
What causes cancer? At a meeting at the National Cancer Institute last month, experts talked about somatic changes, epigenetic changes, and genetic mutations. Layers of assault that cumulatively lead the body to be unable to control unusual growth of damaged cells. What are some of the assaults?
The public often hears about smoking, poor diet, a sedentary lifestyle. One layer of assault. When combined with a genetic predisposition—a second layer—each becomes even more likely to lead to cancer. But genetic predispositions are less common than most people believe: in the most common cancers—those in the lung, breast, colon, and prostate gland, it’s estimated that 20 percent or fewer cases are linked to family history. Stress, inflammation, and viruses are being studied to see what role they play. Another layer. These are all things we can assess in an individual; they are individual risk factors. Those related to our personal lifestyle we can try to change. Increasingly, our genetic predisposition is something we can measure and understand. And, as individuals, we can take steps to reduce risks related to our personal lifestyle.
But what of those things beyond our individual control? We’ve all heard the stories about asbestos, a common building material until it was banned in many countries in the 1980s. It is directly linked to a horrible form of lung cancer called mesothelioma. People didn’t choose to live in a home that had asbestos in the walls and ceilings. They didn’t even know. Radiation is also directly linked to many forms of cancer. But the people of Chernobyl didn’t choose to live in a region that was going to be the site of one of the world’s worst nuclear power plant accidents and become one of the thousands that developed cancer because of it. Some of the causes of cancer—another layer of assault—come from things in our air and water that we don’t know to avoid or simply cannot. Many people without cancer in their family, people with a healthy lifestyle, people who “did it all right,” develop cancer. And all too often they die. We can’t point to choices that they made and shake our fingers and our heads. These are our parents, our children, our friends. Can we protect them? Can we prevent their suffering?
For years, many believed that the environment played a minor role in most cancers. We believed that our air and water were kept safe. That the food we ate didn’t contain things known to cause cancer. That chemicals in the shampoo we used for our babies were tested by the government before being put in products. And now, the more we know, the more we realize that what we believed isn’t necessarily true.
After a year-long process of looking at the data and hearing from experts across the country, the President’s Cancer Panel has concluded that what some thought was a very small contribution of environmental factors to cancer may be quite significant. The President’s Cancer Panel is composed of three highly regarded individuals (one position is vacant at present), generally a physician, a scientist, and an advocate, appointed by the President of the United States to advise her or him on the status of cancer in our country. They work with a staff of experts to gather information on and draw conclusions about the most pressing concerns about cancer. They have the ear of the President and the attention of the public.
Many scientists, clinicians, researchers, journalists, and activists have long recognized the critical role of the environment in cancer causation. When a body of experts that speaks directly to the President—and has a significant reach into the public—makes strong conclusions about links between the environment and cancer, it helps us to better understand the critical role of a very important layer of assault in the web of cancer causation. It calls us to action.
(To read the report of the President’s Cancer Panel, see: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm)
Cancer is an enigmatic disease. It is complex. There isn’t one cause. Multiple assaults on one human being—genes, lifestyle, environment—lead to the formation of a cancer. Prevention will mean making our environments, both internally and externally, as healthy as we can. Fewer assaults will mean fewer cases of cancer. And to this end, we work at Commonweal through the Collaborative on Health and the Environment, the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Health Care Without Harm, and other programs and initiatives to help inform the public about how and why environmental change is critical if we are ever to prevent cancer.
As evidence mounts about things in our environment that lead to cancer, we’re learning that the road to cancer prevention isn’t all about who we are as individuals and what we can do ourselves. It’s not just about our genes and our lifestyle. It’s also about knowing what’s in our food and air and water, what’s in the products we use around our homes and on our bodies, and working in community to effect changes. Changes in what we buy, changes in laws and regulations that are meant to keep us safe, changes in what we agree is acceptable for our children and for our earth if we are to continue as a species.
But the story doesn’t end there. What of the 30,000 people who will be told TODAY that they have cancer? What of the children and parents, husbands, wives, friends? Some will do well and go on to live long lives. And some will not. Irrespective of diagnosis or prognosis, an individual person with cancer can heal. In his book Choices in Healing, Commonweal’s President, Michael Lerner, defines healing as follows:
Healing…is an inner process through which a person becomes whole. Healing can take place at the physical level, as when a wound or broken bone heals. It can take place at an emotional level, as when we recover from terrible childhood traumas or from a death or a divorce. It can take place at a mental level, as when we learn to reframe or restructure destructive ideas about ourselves and the world that we carried in the past. And it can take place at what some would call a spiritual level, as when we move toward God, toward a deeper connection with nature, or toward inner peace and a sense of connectedness.
Healing…goes beyond curing and may take place when curing is not at issue or has proved impossible. Although the capacity to heal physically is necessary to any successful cure, healing can also take place on deeper levels, whether or not physical recovery occurs.
For 25 years, Commonweal’s Cancer Help Program (CCHP) has been helping people with cancer to heal. The program is perhaps the most respected residential support program for people with cancer and their significant others in the United States. Bill Moyers featured the CCHP in his award-winning PBS series Healing and the Mind. The CCHP is a week-long program of support groups, yoga, meditation, relaxation, massage, healing arts, primarily vegetarian whole foods cooking, individual counseling, and explorations of choices in healing, therapy, and facing death and dying if and when that time comes. Hundreds of participants report enduring transformative effects. They find healing.
As I write, we have just concluded Commonweal’s 152nd week-long Cancer Help Program. Eight people have shared with us their stories, their pain, their sadness, their joy. They often arrive stressed, frightened, angry, overwhelmed. And most often they leave calmer and stronger. They leave with a changed outlook on the meaning of their life. They leave not knowing how long the road ahead may be, but with a commitment to make that road as beautiful as it can be.
Cancer statistics paint the big and distressing picture. Cancer is rampant. Many good people are devoting their lives to change the course of the myriad diseases that comprise the collective term cancer and to deconstruct the layers of causation. While we do this, we cannot lose sight of those people who today are in the midst of one of the most difficult and frightening journeys that life can present. For each individual, each child, father, sister, friend, there is always a possibility for healing. In this there is joy. In this there is hope.
We are deeply grateful to the Alberta S. Kimball Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Jenifer Altman Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, the Lia Fund, two anonymous foundations, and many individual donors for their generous core support of Commonweal.
Around the world, more than 12 million human beings are diagnosed with cancer each year, and nearly 8 million die. That’s more than 20,000 dying EACH DAY from cancer. The numbers are staggering. Think of losing a small town each day. Or a mid-sized university campus full of students. Six times more people die from cancer than from car accidents. Six times more individual lives are lost to cancer than to malaria. And if statistics hold, it will be the number one cause of human death on this planet within this decade.
What causes cancer? At a meeting at the National Cancer Institute last month, experts talked about somatic changes, epigenetic changes, and genetic mutations. Layers of assault that cumulatively lead the body to be unable to control unusual growth of damaged cells. What are some of the assaults?
The public often hears about smoking, poor diet, a sedentary lifestyle. One layer of assault. When combined with a genetic predisposition—a second layer—each becomes even more likely to lead to cancer. But genetic predispositions are less common than most people believe: in the most common cancers—those in the lung, breast, colon, and prostate gland, it’s estimated that 20 percent or fewer cases are linked to family history. Stress, inflammation, and viruses are being studied to see what role they play. Another layer. These are all things we can assess in an individual; they are individual risk factors. Those related to our personal lifestyle we can try to change. Increasingly, our genetic predisposition is something we can measure and understand. And, as individuals, we can take steps to reduce risks related to our personal lifestyle.
But what of those things beyond our individual control? We’ve all heard the stories about asbestos, a common building material until it was banned in many countries in the 1980s. It is directly linked to a horrible form of lung cancer called mesothelioma. People didn’t choose to live in a home that had asbestos in the walls and ceilings. They didn’t even know. Radiation is also directly linked to many forms of cancer. But the people of Chernobyl didn’t choose to live in a region that was going to be the site of one of the world’s worst nuclear power plant accidents and become one of the thousands that developed cancer because of it. Some of the causes of cancer—another layer of assault—come from things in our air and water that we don’t know to avoid or simply cannot. Many people without cancer in their family, people with a healthy lifestyle, people who “did it all right,” develop cancer. And all too often they die. We can’t point to choices that they made and shake our fingers and our heads. These are our parents, our children, our friends. Can we protect them? Can we prevent their suffering?
For years, many believed that the environment played a minor role in most cancers. We believed that our air and water were kept safe. That the food we ate didn’t contain things known to cause cancer. That chemicals in the shampoo we used for our babies were tested by the government before being put in products. And now, the more we know, the more we realize that what we believed isn’t necessarily true.
After a year-long process of looking at the data and hearing from experts across the country, the President’s Cancer Panel has concluded that what some thought was a very small contribution of environmental factors to cancer may be quite significant. The President’s Cancer Panel is composed of three highly regarded individuals (one position is vacant at present), generally a physician, a scientist, and an advocate, appointed by the President of the United States to advise her or him on the status of cancer in our country. They work with a staff of experts to gather information on and draw conclusions about the most pressing concerns about cancer. They have the ear of the President and the attention of the public.
Many scientists, clinicians, researchers, journalists, and activists have long recognized the critical role of the environment in cancer causation. When a body of experts that speaks directly to the President—and has a significant reach into the public—makes strong conclusions about links between the environment and cancer, it helps us to better understand the critical role of a very important layer of assault in the web of cancer causation. It calls us to action.
(To read the report of the President’s Cancer Panel, see: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm)
Cancer is an enigmatic disease. It is complex. There isn’t one cause. Multiple assaults on one human being—genes, lifestyle, environment—lead to the formation of a cancer. Prevention will mean making our environments, both internally and externally, as healthy as we can. Fewer assaults will mean fewer cases of cancer. And to this end, we work at Commonweal through the Collaborative on Health and the Environment, the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Health Care Without Harm, and other programs and initiatives to help inform the public about how and why environmental change is critical if we are ever to prevent cancer.
As evidence mounts about things in our environment that lead to cancer, we’re learning that the road to cancer prevention isn’t all about who we are as individuals and what we can do ourselves. It’s not just about our genes and our lifestyle. It’s also about knowing what’s in our food and air and water, what’s in the products we use around our homes and on our bodies, and working in community to effect changes. Changes in what we buy, changes in laws and regulations that are meant to keep us safe, changes in what we agree is acceptable for our children and for our earth if we are to continue as a species.
But the story doesn’t end there. What of the 30,000 people who will be told TODAY that they have cancer? What of the children and parents, husbands, wives, friends? Some will do well and go on to live long lives. And some will not. Irrespective of diagnosis or prognosis, an individual person with cancer can heal. In his book Choices in Healing, Commonweal’s President, Michael Lerner, defines healing as follows:
Healing…is an inner process through which a person becomes whole. Healing can take place at the physical level, as when a wound or broken bone heals. It can take place at an emotional level, as when we recover from terrible childhood traumas or from a death or a divorce. It can take place at a mental level, as when we learn to reframe or restructure destructive ideas about ourselves and the world that we carried in the past. And it can take place at what some would call a spiritual level, as when we move toward God, toward a deeper connection with nature, or toward inner peace and a sense of connectedness.
Healing…goes beyond curing and may take place when curing is not at issue or has proved impossible. Although the capacity to heal physically is necessary to any successful cure, healing can also take place on deeper levels, whether or not physical recovery occurs.
For 25 years, Commonweal’s Cancer Help Program (CCHP) has been helping people with cancer to heal. The program is perhaps the most respected residential support program for people with cancer and their significant others in the United States. Bill Moyers featured the CCHP in his award-winning PBS series Healing and the Mind. The CCHP is a week-long program of support groups, yoga, meditation, relaxation, massage, healing arts, primarily vegetarian whole foods cooking, individual counseling, and explorations of choices in healing, therapy, and facing death and dying if and when that time comes. Hundreds of participants report enduring transformative effects. They find healing.
As I write, we have just concluded Commonweal’s 152nd week-long Cancer Help Program. Eight people have shared with us their stories, their pain, their sadness, their joy. They often arrive stressed, frightened, angry, overwhelmed. And most often they leave calmer and stronger. They leave with a changed outlook on the meaning of their life. They leave not knowing how long the road ahead may be, but with a commitment to make that road as beautiful as it can be.
Cancer statistics paint the big and distressing picture. Cancer is rampant. Many good people are devoting their lives to change the course of the myriad diseases that comprise the collective term cancer and to deconstruct the layers of causation. While we do this, we cannot lose sight of those people who today are in the midst of one of the most difficult and frightening journeys that life can present. For each individual, each child, father, sister, friend, there is always a possibility for healing. In this there is joy. In this there is hope.
We are deeply grateful to the Alberta S. Kimball Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Jenifer Altman Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, the Lia Fund, two anonymous foundations, and many individual donors for their generous core support of Commonweal.
The Toxic Truth: How Everyday Products Threaten Healthy Pregnancies
By: Erika Schreder and Sharyle Patton
First published by Mothering at www.mothering.com
Amy Ellings knows a lot about being healthy. In fact, she has worked to teach others about health and nutrition for the past ten years. So when she agreed to have her blood and urine tested for toxic chemicals as part of a study by the Washington Toxics Coalition and Commonweal on chemicals in pregnant women, she wasn’t expecting a lot of bad news.
In her own words, “When I found out I was pregnant, my priorities suddenly became all about making sure the baby was healthy. I did a lot of reading on having a healthy pregnancy, and quit drinking coffee, ate a lot of organic foods, ate a healthy diet, exercised, took vitamins, got regular check-ups, and took classes.”
She was in for a surprise. Amy’s test results showed sky-high levels of toxic bisphenol A and phthalates, which can interfere with hormone function. Her body was also contaminated with mercury, which can damage brain development, and other chemicals that build up in our bodies and breast milk.
The study, Earliest Exposures, found that babies enter the world already having been exposed to toxic chemicals. The study was a joint project led by the Washington Toxics Coalition and Commonweal, two organizations that have been on the forefront of testing people for toxic chemicals in their bodies. These kinds of tests have been made possible in the plast decade by major leaps in the abilities of certain specialized laboratories to detect chemicals in people.
For this study, the researchers wanted to look at exposures to toxic chemicals during the very most vulnerable period of life—when a fetus is developing in the womb. Researchers tested nine women from Washington, Oregon, and California who volunteered to donate samples of blood and urine during their second trimester of pregnancy.
The tests measured levels of five chemical groups in the blood and urine of pregnant women. The chemicals include phthalates, mercury, perfluorinated compounds (or “Teflon chemicals”), bisphenol A, and the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A. Tests also measured levels of thyroid hormones, which are important for a healthy pregnancy.
What our results show is that fetuses develop in an environment that exposes them to known toxic chemicals, with chemicals from everyday products contaminating their mothers’ bodies.
The study detected 11 to 13 chemicals in each of the pregnant women. The chemicals found include:
•phthalates, used in vinyl (PVC) plastic items like shower curtains, floors, and toys;
•bisphenol A (BPA), found in polycarbonate water bottles and food and beverage cans;
•mercury, which contaminates healthy food like fish;
•and “Teflon chemicals,” used to make stain proofing treatments for clothing, carpeting, and food packaging.
These chemicals can cause reproductive problems and cancer, disrupt hormonal systems such as the thyroid, and impair brain development. For more details on the study, see http://www.watoxics.org/earliestexposures.
Exposures before birth are of special concern because the developing fetus is highly vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals. The fetus develops quickly in the womb, and that development is easily derailed by toxic chemicals. The fetus also has a very limited ability to detoxify foreign chemicals.
Amy’s baby was born in good health, and Amy continues to make the same kinds of healthy choices she made during her pregnancy. After learning her results, she is even more careful. “I know it’s difficult to know the sources of the toxic chemicals in my body,” she said, “but once I learned more about some of the products we are using, I got a new shower curtain, non-plastic, just in case the old one was exposing me and my family to phthalates. I am breastfeeding my son, but when I’m at work he drinks from bottles that are BPA-free. Also, I shop for baby personal care products that are free from artificial fragrances or ‘parfum.’” And Amy always looks for baby toys from trusted companies whose products have tested free of toxic chemicals.
The moms in the study were universally frustrated that their healthy choices hadn’t worked to keep toxic chemicals out of the womb. Connie Galambos Malloy, a study participant from Oakland, California, complained, “Despite my best efforts, my body has been invaded by toxics from all angles. I’m angry that chemical companies can get away with putting harmful chemicals on the market.” Choosing safer products is important, but busy moms don’t always have the time to research which products are most likely to be free of toxic chemicals. And most manufacturers don’t list the chemicals they use to produce their goods, so research can be frustrating.
Companies get away with using harmful chemicals in their products because, by and large, no one’s minding the store. It comes as a shock to most people that manufacturers of everyday products don’t have to make sure the chemicals they’re using are safe. They don’t even have to tell anyone what those chemicals are.
That’s because U.S. chemical regulations are stuck in the 1970s, when we still allowed smoking on airplanes and kids didn’t wear seatbelts. Since the U.S. toxics law was passed, in 1976, the Environmental Protection Agency has required testing of only 200 of the approximately 80,000 chemicals now on the market.
More and more scientists and physicians are coming to the conclusion that a substantial part of the blame for rising rates of learning disabilities, cancer, and other chronic problems lies with these unprecedented chemical exposures.
“As this study shows, even the most careful mother can’t protect herself from exposures to chemicals, so the answer is to phase them out of products,” said Dr. Ted Schettler, a physician and toxics expert. “With increasing rates of chronic diseases, like asthma, diabetes, and breast cancer, we need to update our country’s laws to ensure that harmful chemicals aren’t used in products mothers and children use every day.”
More than 100 organizations, made up of nurses, physicians, cancer specialists, environmental health advocates, and parents’, have banded together to change these laws. They have formed the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, brought together by common concern about toxic chemicals in our homes, places of work, and products we use every day.
What they’re asking for probably won’t sound revolutionary to the average parent, but it’s a whole new way of dealing with the thousands of chemicals in everyday products. It starts with getting rid of the worst of the worst chemicals, ones like mercury that don’t degrade but instead build up in our bodies and last for many years in the environment.
Besides tackling the worst of the worst, their strategy calls for replacing chemicals that can cause serious health problems, like cancer, learning disabilities, and infertility. Instead, companies should use only chemicals they have tested fully for safety—and they should tell people what chemicals they’re using.
And since states like Washington, Maine, California, and Connecticut have been on the forefront of addressing toxic threats, new federal laws should make sure states can still set higher chemical safety standards.
Molly Gray, a study mom who tested positive for 13 toxic chemicals, took her story of struggling for years with miscarriages before her successful pregnancy. In February, she delivered her message at a Senate hearing,. saying, “Something is wrong when I, as an educated consumer, am unable to protect my baby from toxic chemicals. I and all other parents should be able to walk into stores and buy what we need without winding up with products that put our families' health at risk.”
The moms in the study are doing more than getting angry—and so can you. Let your representatives in Congress know that the only way to protect the most vulnerable, including young children and developing fetuses, is to ensure that only the safest chemicals are used in products, and that you want a major update to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
For up-to-date information on progress in changing federal laws and how you can get involved, follow http://www.saferchemicals.org.
In the meantime, there is plenty that each person can do to minimize our own and our kids’ exposures to toxic chemicals. The Washington Toxics Coalition’s “Safe Start for Kids,” at http://watoxics.org/healthy-families/safe-start-for-kids-1, makes it easy to make the best decisions for our families while we wait for Congress to get our toxics laws out of the ’70s and into a safer, healthier future.
Tips for Avoiding Toxins in Pregnancy
- Choose your fish wisely. Avoid high-mercury fish, such as king mackerel, marlin, shark, swordfish, tilefish, and tuna steaks. Instead, choose wild salmon, sardines, anchovies, Atlantic herring, Dungeness crab, Pacific cod, Alaskan black cod, tilapia, farmed catfish, clams, mussels, and Pacific oysters.
- Avoid canned foods and fast foods to limit your exposure to bisphenol A and “Teflon chemicals.”
- Eat organic food as much as possible, especially these foods found to be most contaminated with pesticides: peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, pears, grapes (imported), spinach, lettuce, and potatoes.
- Stay away from PVC/vinyl products, as they often contain phthalates.
- Choose fragrance-free personal care products, and consider giving up perfumes, nail polish, and hair dye, which may contain harmful chemicals.
First published by Mothering at www.mothering.com
Amy Ellings knows a lot about being healthy. In fact, she has worked to teach others about health and nutrition for the past ten years. So when she agreed to have her blood and urine tested for toxic chemicals as part of a study by the Washington Toxics Coalition and Commonweal on chemicals in pregnant women, she wasn’t expecting a lot of bad news.
In her own words, “When I found out I was pregnant, my priorities suddenly became all about making sure the baby was healthy. I did a lot of reading on having a healthy pregnancy, and quit drinking coffee, ate a lot of organic foods, ate a healthy diet, exercised, took vitamins, got regular check-ups, and took classes.”
She was in for a surprise. Amy’s test results showed sky-high levels of toxic bisphenol A and phthalates, which can interfere with hormone function. Her body was also contaminated with mercury, which can damage brain development, and other chemicals that build up in our bodies and breast milk.
The study, Earliest Exposures, found that babies enter the world already having been exposed to toxic chemicals. The study was a joint project led by the Washington Toxics Coalition and Commonweal, two organizations that have been on the forefront of testing people for toxic chemicals in their bodies. These kinds of tests have been made possible in the plast decade by major leaps in the abilities of certain specialized laboratories to detect chemicals in people.
For this study, the researchers wanted to look at exposures to toxic chemicals during the very most vulnerable period of life—when a fetus is developing in the womb. Researchers tested nine women from Washington, Oregon, and California who volunteered to donate samples of blood and urine during their second trimester of pregnancy.
The tests measured levels of five chemical groups in the blood and urine of pregnant women. The chemicals include phthalates, mercury, perfluorinated compounds (or “Teflon chemicals”), bisphenol A, and the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A. Tests also measured levels of thyroid hormones, which are important for a healthy pregnancy.
What our results show is that fetuses develop in an environment that exposes them to known toxic chemicals, with chemicals from everyday products contaminating their mothers’ bodies.
The study detected 11 to 13 chemicals in each of the pregnant women. The chemicals found include:
•phthalates, used in vinyl (PVC) plastic items like shower curtains, floors, and toys;
•bisphenol A (BPA), found in polycarbonate water bottles and food and beverage cans;
•mercury, which contaminates healthy food like fish;
•and “Teflon chemicals,” used to make stain proofing treatments for clothing, carpeting, and food packaging.
These chemicals can cause reproductive problems and cancer, disrupt hormonal systems such as the thyroid, and impair brain development. For more details on the study, see http://www.watoxics.org/earliestexposures.
Exposures before birth are of special concern because the developing fetus is highly vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals. The fetus develops quickly in the womb, and that development is easily derailed by toxic chemicals. The fetus also has a very limited ability to detoxify foreign chemicals.
Amy’s baby was born in good health, and Amy continues to make the same kinds of healthy choices she made during her pregnancy. After learning her results, she is even more careful. “I know it’s difficult to know the sources of the toxic chemicals in my body,” she said, “but once I learned more about some of the products we are using, I got a new shower curtain, non-plastic, just in case the old one was exposing me and my family to phthalates. I am breastfeeding my son, but when I’m at work he drinks from bottles that are BPA-free. Also, I shop for baby personal care products that are free from artificial fragrances or ‘parfum.’” And Amy always looks for baby toys from trusted companies whose products have tested free of toxic chemicals.
The moms in the study were universally frustrated that their healthy choices hadn’t worked to keep toxic chemicals out of the womb. Connie Galambos Malloy, a study participant from Oakland, California, complained, “Despite my best efforts, my body has been invaded by toxics from all angles. I’m angry that chemical companies can get away with putting harmful chemicals on the market.” Choosing safer products is important, but busy moms don’t always have the time to research which products are most likely to be free of toxic chemicals. And most manufacturers don’t list the chemicals they use to produce their goods, so research can be frustrating.
Companies get away with using harmful chemicals in their products because, by and large, no one’s minding the store. It comes as a shock to most people that manufacturers of everyday products don’t have to make sure the chemicals they’re using are safe. They don’t even have to tell anyone what those chemicals are.
That’s because U.S. chemical regulations are stuck in the 1970s, when we still allowed smoking on airplanes and kids didn’t wear seatbelts. Since the U.S. toxics law was passed, in 1976, the Environmental Protection Agency has required testing of only 200 of the approximately 80,000 chemicals now on the market.
More and more scientists and physicians are coming to the conclusion that a substantial part of the blame for rising rates of learning disabilities, cancer, and other chronic problems lies with these unprecedented chemical exposures.
“As this study shows, even the most careful mother can’t protect herself from exposures to chemicals, so the answer is to phase them out of products,” said Dr. Ted Schettler, a physician and toxics expert. “With increasing rates of chronic diseases, like asthma, diabetes, and breast cancer, we need to update our country’s laws to ensure that harmful chemicals aren’t used in products mothers and children use every day.”
More than 100 organizations, made up of nurses, physicians, cancer specialists, environmental health advocates, and parents’, have banded together to change these laws. They have formed the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, brought together by common concern about toxic chemicals in our homes, places of work, and products we use every day.
What they’re asking for probably won’t sound revolutionary to the average parent, but it’s a whole new way of dealing with the thousands of chemicals in everyday products. It starts with getting rid of the worst of the worst chemicals, ones like mercury that don’t degrade but instead build up in our bodies and last for many years in the environment.
Besides tackling the worst of the worst, their strategy calls for replacing chemicals that can cause serious health problems, like cancer, learning disabilities, and infertility. Instead, companies should use only chemicals they have tested fully for safety—and they should tell people what chemicals they’re using.
And since states like Washington, Maine, California, and Connecticut have been on the forefront of addressing toxic threats, new federal laws should make sure states can still set higher chemical safety standards.
Molly Gray, a study mom who tested positive for 13 toxic chemicals, took her story of struggling for years with miscarriages before her successful pregnancy. In February, she delivered her message at a Senate hearing,. saying, “Something is wrong when I, as an educated consumer, am unable to protect my baby from toxic chemicals. I and all other parents should be able to walk into stores and buy what we need without winding up with products that put our families' health at risk.”
The moms in the study are doing more than getting angry—and so can you. Let your representatives in Congress know that the only way to protect the most vulnerable, including young children and developing fetuses, is to ensure that only the safest chemicals are used in products, and that you want a major update to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
For up-to-date information on progress in changing federal laws and how you can get involved, follow http://www.saferchemicals.org.
In the meantime, there is plenty that each person can do to minimize our own and our kids’ exposures to toxic chemicals. The Washington Toxics Coalition’s “Safe Start for Kids,” at http://watoxics.org/healthy-families/safe-start-for-kids-1, makes it easy to make the best decisions for our families while we wait for Congress to get our toxics laws out of the ’70s and into a safer, healthier future.
Tips for Avoiding Toxins in Pregnancy
- Choose your fish wisely. Avoid high-mercury fish, such as king mackerel, marlin, shark, swordfish, tilefish, and tuna steaks. Instead, choose wild salmon, sardines, anchovies, Atlantic herring, Dungeness crab, Pacific cod, Alaskan black cod, tilapia, farmed catfish, clams, mussels, and Pacific oysters.
- Avoid canned foods and fast foods to limit your exposure to bisphenol A and “Teflon chemicals.”
- Eat organic food as much as possible, especially these foods found to be most contaminated with pesticides: peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, pears, grapes (imported), spinach, lettuce, and potatoes.
- Stay away from PVC/vinyl products, as they often contain phthalates.
- Choose fragrance-free personal care products, and consider giving up perfumes, nail polish, and hair dye, which may contain harmful chemicals.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
California Budget Crunch Drives New Juvenile Justice Reforms—Like ‘Em or Not
California’s still dismal budget picture has persuaded Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to propose further changes in the state’s youth correctional system. Now, the Governor wants to lower the age of jurisdiction at the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). California is unique among states in that it permits youthful offenders to remain in rehabilitative programs at DJJ until age 25. The Governor is now asking the Legislature to drop the maximum DJJ custody age from 25 to 21. His goal: cut the DJJ population and save nearly $50 million per year in state funds. It is now costing the state about $225,000 per year to incarcerate a single youth in a DJJ facility.
Many youth advocates oppose the Governor’s age-reduction proposal. Why? Because it means that more youthful offenders will be sent to state prisons to serve the full adult term, instead of going to DJJ. In order to avoid a “short sentence” capped at age 21, prosecutors will file more eligible cases in adult court in order to get the longer adult prison sentence. Minors convicted as adults in California can be (and often are) sentenced to state prison for the full adult term.
How many youth would be sacrificed in this manner to the adult prison system? Based on a review of the available DJJ commitment data, Commonweal estimates that 50 to 60 youth per year would lose their access to DJJ and its rehabilitative programs under the Governor’s plan. The number would be even larger, but for the fact that prosecutors have already pushed more and more youth into the adult system over the last several years.
From the youth advocacy perspective, the Governor’s age reduction proposal is not all bad. First of all, limiting the DJJ population to those under 21 would transform the California system into a more traditional juvenile justice model, allowing programs to be tailored to a younger overall population. Lowering the age also means cutting the DJJ population by another 15 percent or so—a result that meets the “downsizing” goals espoused by DJJ reform advocates. Already, SB 81—the major California realignment law adopted in 2007—has removed non-violent youth from DJJ, dropping the population by about 40 percent from pre-2007 levels (to under 1500 by March 2010, down from about 2,500 in 2007). These benefits of capping DJJ jurisdiction at age 21 are, nevertheless, dismissed by a core of youth advocates who say that we should not force one single young person into state prison if that can be avoided.
So far, California lawmakers have not rushed to embrace the DJJ age change proposal. Cutting state corrections cost, including DJJ cost, remains a top legislative priority. Along these lines, legislative Budget Committees have already adopted the Governor’s cost savings target for DJJ (a $48 million cut), but without specifically endorsing the DJJ age cap. Some of the more liberal lawmakers do not want to terminate DJJ as an option for older youth. County stakeholders, too, are broadly skeptical of the proposal. Among their concerns: higher local cost due to more jury trials of juveniles in adult courts, if DJJ is capped at 21. If DJJ and legislative decision makers cannot find other ways to cut DJJ cost, the age change may wind up being adopted as the “lesser evil” among various cost cutting strategies. Final decisions on DJJ age will likely be made by June of this year, in time to be included in the state budget and budget trailer bills for FY 2010–11.
The Juvenile Justice Program is supported by grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, the California Wellness Foundation, the van Loben Sels/RembeRock Foundation, and the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)