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.
ISHI: Creating a Worldwide Community of Doctors Who Connect Through the Heart
Welcome page of ISHI's new Remembering the Heart of Medicine website for physicians (http://theheartofmedicine.org/)
ISHI’s long awaited new online community website for physicians, Remembering the Heart of Medicine (www.theheartofmedicine.org), launched this February. The website grew out of an ongoing long-term conversation between the many doctors who have attended ISHI’s programs over the past 20+ years, sharing with us their unmet needs, their dreams and hopes, their ongoing struggle to remain whole and committed to their work, their feeling of aloneness and their love of medicine. It is our hope that this website will offer any physician anywhere in the world an oasis of renewal where they can reconnect and remember the deep meaning of their work despite the stresses and pressures inherent in today’s health care system. As reported by a physician in a recent survey, “I go to the site when I need support, when I have had a particularly difficult period at work, when I need to remember why I am doing this.”
In consultation with hundreds of physicians, we have created a web environment that is interesting, innovative, interactive and healing. The site encourages self-discovery and personal reflection, promotes self-care, enables an in-depth multi-faceted exploration of the meaning of medicine and its lineage, and offers the opportunity for a genuine connection with other physicians worldwide. Website offerings include inspiring collections of poetry, art, stories and articles either about medicine or created by physicians; audio and visual recordings; guided meditations and other innovative and proven exercises for self-care; and nine discussion forums where doctors can connect with likeminded colleagues who are committed to practicing a medicine of human connection and compassionate healing. Ultimately, Remembering the Heart of Medicine offers physicians the opportunity to move beyond the divisiveness of their expertise and speak to each other physicians in new ways about what really matters, to offer one another the understanding and support that only one physician can offer another, and to share in the experience of belonging to a worldwide community of service.
The Institute for the Study of Health and Illness is supported by a generous grant from a foundation that prefers anonymity and many individual donors to whom we are very grateful.
Toxic Chemicals in Hollywood: The Toxies—Presented by Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
Timed for Oscars week, Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy (CHANGE) hosted its own red carpet event March 3, 2010, at the Egyptian Theater on Hollywood Blvd. in Los Angeles. The Toxies awards recognized "Bad Actor" chemicals, known for their dangers to human health and the environment.
Actors playing a "Dirty Dozen" chemicals arrived by limousine, curbside at the Egyptian, as surprised and delighted Hollywood tourists jostled for position to snap photos of an Oscars Week gala. Among the honorees were flame retardants, mercury, phthalates, formaldehyde, and perchlorate.
The rocket fuel Perchlorate-Toxies winner for Worst Special Effects
Special Toxies were given to the synthetic estrogen Bisphenol A for "Worst Breakthrough Performance;" and to lead for "Lifetime Achievement in Harm."
Speaking at the press conference following the awards ceremony was Dr. Sandra Aronberg, Environmental Health Ambassador with Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles. "We don’t get a 'second take' for our health. I have been biomonitored for chemicals in my body and discovered an alphabet soup of unwelcome industrial chemicals. Our bodies are becoming toxic dumps grounds," she said.
The toxic trio Formaldehyde, Toluene, and Dibutyl Phthalate, widely found in nail salons—Toxies winner for Worst Ensemble Performance
The event was produced to pressure California's nascent Green Chemistry Initiative, which is under development in Sacramento, to meet its promise of changing the current chemicals management paradigm. Currently only minimal information is required about chemicals, which are in essence assumed to be safe without sufficient scientific scrutiny.
"The Toxies highlight only a fraction of Bad Actor chemicals. We need a regulatory structure that can fast-track these high hazard chemicals and retire them quickly from commerce," said Davis Baltz of Commonweal.
See the whole story, complete with report and additional photos at http://changecalifornia.org/
Californians for a Healthy & Green Economy (CHANGE) is a state-wide coalition working to create a better system for regulating toxic chemicals in California. Commonweal is a founding member.
We are grateful to Health Care Without Harm, the Kresge Foundation, The San Francisco Foundation, and an anonymous foundation for their support of chemical policy reform, greening the health care industry, and increasing the profile of biomonitoring and its contribution to public health.
Throwing a Better Party
by Michael Lerner
“If you want social change, throw a better party,” says my friend Rick Ingrasci. The New School is Commonweal’s way of throwing a better party. The topics are often serious. But the experience of getting together to explore great questions of nature, culture, and the inner life is just a whole lot of fun. Jacquie Mallegni is a brilliant coordinator of all the pieces of The New School.
On March 14 we attracted the West Marin farm and garden crowd with John Wick and Peggy Rathman who described the work on their ranch co-creating the Marin Carbon Project:
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not enough to reverse global warming: we must also reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Marin Carbon Project is investigating the potential for specific land management practices to enhance sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as organic matter in rangeland and agricultural soils in California.
On March 7, beloved Bolinas physician Sadja Greenwood, MD, MPH, gave a great presentation on evidence-based nutritional supplementation. Sadja and I both knew that any recommendations on supplements would be controversial, but we wanted to establish a starting place for a shared appraisal of a reasonable supplementation program. We also hoped to create recommendations that health practitioners in the Coastal Health Alliance, our West Marin community clinics, could share with their 6000 patients. (See Sadja’s recommendations.)
On January 31, Thomas Kirsch, MD, talked with us about Carl Jung’s The Red Book. Kirsch, a Jungian analyst married to another Jungian analyst, was himself born to two first generation Jungian analysts. He knew Jung as a child. He was president of the C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco and the International Association of Analytical Psychology. He taught Jungian psychology at Stanford Medical Center for many years, and is the author of an acclaimed study, The Jungians. One of the most interesting facts to emerge from Kirsch’s work is the strong role of European Jewish Jungian analysts trained by Jung in making Jungian psychology a global movement—despite Jung’s well documented flirtations with Fascism.
Those are a handful of the events. We also continue to deepen our collection of telephone interviews. One stunning recent interview was with Colin Greer, Executive Director of The New World Foundation in New York. Greer is a polymath who combines exceptionally creative philanthropy with a simultaneous career as a playwright, poet, and essayist. We discussed his new play on Spinoza, the 17th century Portuguese-Jewish philosopher excommunicated by the Jewish community in Amsterdam who went on to become one of the founders of modern philosophical thought.
Because we are throwing a better party, The New School is outgrowing our Library, where we can seat about 60 people maximum. Listeners spill out onto the deck and into the hallway. So we are moving more events upstairs to the Commonweal Gallery and working hard to find funds to soundproof the room and install new lighting, new carpeting, and an elevator for better handicapped access.
You can download podcasts of all New School events on the Commonweal website (www.commonweal.org/ new-school/)—and sign up to receive podcasts and updates. We won’t abuse your email box. We always welcome contributions to The New School.
The New School is supported by grants from the Bet Lev Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Whitman Institute, as well as contributions from many individuals, for which we are profoundly grateful.
“If you want social change, throw a better party,” says my friend Rick Ingrasci. The New School is Commonweal’s way of throwing a better party. The topics are often serious. But the experience of getting together to explore great questions of nature, culture, and the inner life is just a whole lot of fun. Jacquie Mallegni is a brilliant coordinator of all the pieces of The New School.
On March 14 we attracted the West Marin farm and garden crowd with John Wick and Peggy Rathman who described the work on their ranch co-creating the Marin Carbon Project:
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not enough to reverse global warming: we must also reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Marin Carbon Project is investigating the potential for specific land management practices to enhance sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as organic matter in rangeland and agricultural soils in California.
On March 7, beloved Bolinas physician Sadja Greenwood, MD, MPH, gave a great presentation on evidence-based nutritional supplementation. Sadja and I both knew that any recommendations on supplements would be controversial, but we wanted to establish a starting place for a shared appraisal of a reasonable supplementation program. We also hoped to create recommendations that health practitioners in the Coastal Health Alliance, our West Marin community clinics, could share with their 6000 patients. (See Sadja’s recommendations.)
On January 31, Thomas Kirsch, MD, talked with us about Carl Jung’s The Red Book. Kirsch, a Jungian analyst married to another Jungian analyst, was himself born to two first generation Jungian analysts. He knew Jung as a child. He was president of the C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco and the International Association of Analytical Psychology. He taught Jungian psychology at Stanford Medical Center for many years, and is the author of an acclaimed study, The Jungians. One of the most interesting facts to emerge from Kirsch’s work is the strong role of European Jewish Jungian analysts trained by Jung in making Jungian psychology a global movement—despite Jung’s well documented flirtations with Fascism.
Those are a handful of the events. We also continue to deepen our collection of telephone interviews. One stunning recent interview was with Colin Greer, Executive Director of The New World Foundation in New York. Greer is a polymath who combines exceptionally creative philanthropy with a simultaneous career as a playwright, poet, and essayist. We discussed his new play on Spinoza, the 17th century Portuguese-Jewish philosopher excommunicated by the Jewish community in Amsterdam who went on to become one of the founders of modern philosophical thought.
Because we are throwing a better party, The New School is outgrowing our Library, where we can seat about 60 people maximum. Listeners spill out onto the deck and into the hallway. So we are moving more events upstairs to the Commonweal Gallery and working hard to find funds to soundproof the room and install new lighting, new carpeting, and an elevator for better handicapped access.
You can download podcasts of all New School events on the Commonweal website (www.commonweal.org/ new-school/)—and sign up to receive podcasts and updates. We won’t abuse your email box. We always welcome contributions to The New School.
The New School is supported by grants from the Bet Lev Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Whitman Institute, as well as contributions from many individuals, for which we are profoundly grateful.
Love and Will: A Healing in the Cancer Help Program
by Michael Lerner
We sat in a circle in front of the fireplace at Pacific House our retreat center overlooking the Pacific at Commonweal. Forty alumni and staff of the Commonweal Cancer Help Program gathered in the sacred Easter Passover week for a CCHP Alumni Day. A white candle in a small cup burned at the center of the circle.
Commonweal Executive Director Susan Braun asked each of us to bring two objects to the circle. One would be symbolic of the challenge of this time in our lives. The other would be symbolic of the gift of this time.
One by one, we placed our two objects in the circle. We spoke, as we placed each object, of our challenge and our gift. Simple questions. Responses came from deep within us. Words spoken into a candle-lit circle resonated with memories of weeks together in the Cancer Help Program.
I wish I could tell you what others said. Stories of anguish, of hope, of loss, of courage, of gratitude. Stories of loves found and lost, of friends found and lost, of surgeries and chemotherapies, of being buoyed up by prayers, of children, of a new puppy. Circles of trust are confidential. I cannot say more.
I can tell you what I said. Or at least what I meant.
The gift in my life is the infinite preciousness of each day. Our Havanese puppy Rafi licking our faces when he decides it is time to get up. Early morning sun warming my face as I stand on the porch. Biking to work through birdsong and foxes. The beloved community of our work. Simple dinners, sharing stories of our days. And reading, often into early hours of the morning, those whose voices speak to us across the ages.
Then I spoke of the challenge in my life. For many years, I said, I have often experienced an acute sense of contradiction between love and will in my life. It is a conflict between how I feel in many situations and what I am called to do. The conflict goes back to college years. I wrote a poem then that started Must I give up love to act? Is to feel what you exact? That question has remained, quiescent at times, then insistent again. I have experienced this conflict as a barrier to a deeper wholeness in me.
Speaking of this conflict was not easy. I was taking a risk. But there was something in me that wanted to confess to this ancient struggle in my life. Others in the circle were taking risks. So would I.
When we had each said our piece, Susan Braun, who was conducting the circle, asked us to take one of our objects back out of the circle, hold it in our hands, and reflect on what it meant to us. Then she asked us to hand our object to the person on our left, and to receive our neighbor’s object from the person on our right. Slowly, our objects, symbolically charged with our greatest hopes and fears, passed through the hands of each person in the circle. When they came back to us, our objects were hallowed with the loving energy of the whole circle. We had been heard, and felt, and seen by each other. And we had wished each other well.
Weeks passed. Then one day in my study, reading a sacred text, I had an experience. The experience was that this book had fallen into my heart. I could see the book in my heart. It was a small golden volume opened to a middle page. A sense of peace and clarity flooded through me. Within minutes, I noticed something. Though I had not been thinking of my old conflict of love and will at all, it came to me that the conflict had resolved. A healing had mysteriously taken place.
In the days that followed, I sensed that something had opened within me. Surely I would again face times when the claims of love and will would resurface. But I was, somehow, no longer stuck in inner anguish over the tension between compassion and action. If I could remember to act with a wise heart, I thought, I would be doing the best I could.
I cannot know how this healing took place in me. I know in the Cancer Help Program that when we share our deepest wounds, they often begin to transform—and sometimes even to heal. Is it simply, as is often thought, that speaking our truth into a circle of trust causes the healing? I have no doubt that is sufficient in itself. But I wonder—may it not also be that the love and prayers with which we are received also actively contribute to the healing?
This conflict of love and will is not mine alone. Truth be told, it permeates many of our lives. How many of us struggle with the competing demands of family and work? How many of us, balancing work and family, give short shrift to the equally urgent question of our true purpose in life—and who we really are?
Existential psychologist Rollo May wrote, in Love and Will, “the striking thing about love and will in our time is that, whereas in the past they were always held up to us as the answer to life’s predicaments, they have now themselves become the problem.” May saw our failure to understand the relationship between love and will as the heart of our present dilemma.
The great Italian psychologist Roberto Assagioli saw love and will, along with creativity and wisdom, as cornerstones of his transpersonal psychology—called Psychosynthesis. Assagioli noted that people with a preponderance of will in their personalities are often deficient in the expression of love, while those in whom love predominates are often deficient in the development of will. Wisdom is finding the right relationship between the two.
In truth, the conflict between love and will goes back to the beginning of human history. Arjuna felt it in the Bhagavad Gita as he stood in his chariot on the battlefield facing friends and family. He did not want to fight and kill those he admired and loved. Krishna had to explain to him why it was necessary. Krishna’s explanation became one of the greatest sacred texts of all time.
As for the sacred book that sank into my heart—naming it would be a disservice to this story. Many sacred books have nourished my heart through the years—the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, the Bible, the Dao Te Ching, to name a few. Leibnitz and Aldous Huxley called the universal teachings within all the great traditions the perennial philosophy. My experience was that the book that dropped into my heart contained them all. You may have a book that you carry in your heart. If you do, know that was the book that dropped into mine.
I have been through these mountain top experiences before. I know they often fade. To serve life you may have to turn your back on the light and walk back down into the valley. Our acts, rather than a mountain high, define who we are. But the teachings we carry in our heart guide our hands and feet. How powerfully the teachings remain in our hearts—and how we conduct ourselves in the dark times when we feel abandoned by the light—these are the great questions of the inner life. Yet I sense that each time we go to the mountain, some residue of the light we experience there clings to us. We change in lasting ways, even if the numinous power of that moment fades. When the light returns, we can welcome it back, the sign of the peace of the spirit.
This is why I love the Commonweal Cancer Help Program. I have met most of my teachers in a circle of trust with a candle burning bright in the center.
The Cancer Help Program is supported by generous grants from the Kresge Foundation, the Morning Glory Family Foundation, and an extraordinary number of individual contributions from Cancer Help Program alumni and other Commonweal friends.
We sat in a circle in front of the fireplace at Pacific House our retreat center overlooking the Pacific at Commonweal. Forty alumni and staff of the Commonweal Cancer Help Program gathered in the sacred Easter Passover week for a CCHP Alumni Day. A white candle in a small cup burned at the center of the circle.
Commonweal Executive Director Susan Braun asked each of us to bring two objects to the circle. One would be symbolic of the challenge of this time in our lives. The other would be symbolic of the gift of this time.
One by one, we placed our two objects in the circle. We spoke, as we placed each object, of our challenge and our gift. Simple questions. Responses came from deep within us. Words spoken into a candle-lit circle resonated with memories of weeks together in the Cancer Help Program.
I wish I could tell you what others said. Stories of anguish, of hope, of loss, of courage, of gratitude. Stories of loves found and lost, of friends found and lost, of surgeries and chemotherapies, of being buoyed up by prayers, of children, of a new puppy. Circles of trust are confidential. I cannot say more.
I can tell you what I said. Or at least what I meant.
The gift in my life is the infinite preciousness of each day. Our Havanese puppy Rafi licking our faces when he decides it is time to get up. Early morning sun warming my face as I stand on the porch. Biking to work through birdsong and foxes. The beloved community of our work. Simple dinners, sharing stories of our days. And reading, often into early hours of the morning, those whose voices speak to us across the ages.
Then I spoke of the challenge in my life. For many years, I said, I have often experienced an acute sense of contradiction between love and will in my life. It is a conflict between how I feel in many situations and what I am called to do. The conflict goes back to college years. I wrote a poem then that started Must I give up love to act? Is to feel what you exact? That question has remained, quiescent at times, then insistent again. I have experienced this conflict as a barrier to a deeper wholeness in me.
Speaking of this conflict was not easy. I was taking a risk. But there was something in me that wanted to confess to this ancient struggle in my life. Others in the circle were taking risks. So would I.
When we had each said our piece, Susan Braun, who was conducting the circle, asked us to take one of our objects back out of the circle, hold it in our hands, and reflect on what it meant to us. Then she asked us to hand our object to the person on our left, and to receive our neighbor’s object from the person on our right. Slowly, our objects, symbolically charged with our greatest hopes and fears, passed through the hands of each person in the circle. When they came back to us, our objects were hallowed with the loving energy of the whole circle. We had been heard, and felt, and seen by each other. And we had wished each other well.
Weeks passed. Then one day in my study, reading a sacred text, I had an experience. The experience was that this book had fallen into my heart. I could see the book in my heart. It was a small golden volume opened to a middle page. A sense of peace and clarity flooded through me. Within minutes, I noticed something. Though I had not been thinking of my old conflict of love and will at all, it came to me that the conflict had resolved. A healing had mysteriously taken place.
In the days that followed, I sensed that something had opened within me. Surely I would again face times when the claims of love and will would resurface. But I was, somehow, no longer stuck in inner anguish over the tension between compassion and action. If I could remember to act with a wise heart, I thought, I would be doing the best I could.
I cannot know how this healing took place in me. I know in the Cancer Help Program that when we share our deepest wounds, they often begin to transform—and sometimes even to heal. Is it simply, as is often thought, that speaking our truth into a circle of trust causes the healing? I have no doubt that is sufficient in itself. But I wonder—may it not also be that the love and prayers with which we are received also actively contribute to the healing?
This conflict of love and will is not mine alone. Truth be told, it permeates many of our lives. How many of us struggle with the competing demands of family and work? How many of us, balancing work and family, give short shrift to the equally urgent question of our true purpose in life—and who we really are?
Existential psychologist Rollo May wrote, in Love and Will, “the striking thing about love and will in our time is that, whereas in the past they were always held up to us as the answer to life’s predicaments, they have now themselves become the problem.” May saw our failure to understand the relationship between love and will as the heart of our present dilemma.
The great Italian psychologist Roberto Assagioli saw love and will, along with creativity and wisdom, as cornerstones of his transpersonal psychology—called Psychosynthesis. Assagioli noted that people with a preponderance of will in their personalities are often deficient in the expression of love, while those in whom love predominates are often deficient in the development of will. Wisdom is finding the right relationship between the two.
In truth, the conflict between love and will goes back to the beginning of human history. Arjuna felt it in the Bhagavad Gita as he stood in his chariot on the battlefield facing friends and family. He did not want to fight and kill those he admired and loved. Krishna had to explain to him why it was necessary. Krishna’s explanation became one of the greatest sacred texts of all time.
As for the sacred book that sank into my heart—naming it would be a disservice to this story. Many sacred books have nourished my heart through the years—the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, the Bible, the Dao Te Ching, to name a few. Leibnitz and Aldous Huxley called the universal teachings within all the great traditions the perennial philosophy. My experience was that the book that dropped into my heart contained them all. You may have a book that you carry in your heart. If you do, know that was the book that dropped into mine.
I have been through these mountain top experiences before. I know they often fade. To serve life you may have to turn your back on the light and walk back down into the valley. Our acts, rather than a mountain high, define who we are. But the teachings we carry in our heart guide our hands and feet. How powerfully the teachings remain in our hearts—and how we conduct ourselves in the dark times when we feel abandoned by the light—these are the great questions of the inner life. Yet I sense that each time we go to the mountain, some residue of the light we experience there clings to us. We change in lasting ways, even if the numinous power of that moment fades. When the light returns, we can welcome it back, the sign of the peace of the spirit.
This is why I love the Commonweal Cancer Help Program. I have met most of my teachers in a circle of trust with a candle burning bright in the center.
The Cancer Help Program is supported by generous grants from the Kresge Foundation, the Morning Glory Family Foundation, and an extraordinary number of individual contributions from Cancer Help Program alumni and other Commonweal friends.
The Collaborative on Health and the Environment
by Elise Miller, Director
“I happen to be a believer in the Precautionary Principle used appropriately, which I think really goes with the CHE definition…when you have a decent amount of (scientific) information that suggests that there may be harm, you don’t wait for certainty before action.”
This was not said by a seasoned environmental health activist nor one of CHE’s core advisors. Instead, this cogent comment was made on a CHE national partner call in March by Linda Birnbaum, PhD, MS, the highly respected Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Birnbaum has received numerous awards for her scientific research and is the author of more than 700 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, abstracts, and reports. On that same call, she underscored health concerns associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals and cumulative impacts. She also praised CHE for translating the emerging environmental health science for diverse constituencies.
In short, Dr. Birnbaum’s statements on this CHE call captured the extraordinary shift we are seeing in the thinking and actions of some people at the highest levels of government. Twenty-first century environmental health science is being taken more seriously than ever in circles that only a few years ago would have ignored or downplayed the significance of this research. And without doubt, CHE partners have played a role in making that happen.
For example, leading CHE partners reached influential audiences with the publication of a major national biomonitoring report, Mind, Disrupted: How Toxic Chemicals May Affect How We Think and Who We Are. This report was released in conjunction with a Senate hearing on chemical policy reform in February. The New York Times, Forbes, and over 20 other media outlets picked it up (see: www.disabilityandenvironment. org). The Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (LDDI), one of CHE’s major working groups, partnered with the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center (CBRC) and leading national environmental health organiza¬tions to undertake this study.
For more details about Mind, Disrupted, follow this link: http://www.minddisrupted.org/index.php
CHE partners also recently weighed in on the obesity epidemic. In a letter drafted by CHE to First Lady Michelle Obama, a dozen prominent researchers and health professionals expressed their appreciation for Mrs. Obama’s leadership on reducing the prevalence of obesity and underscored the need to address more systemic factors beyond lifestyle changes that emerging science suggests contribute to obesity, including exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals known as “obesogens.”
Other CHE working groups have been very active, including members of CHE Cancer, who are preparing to respond to the release of the President’s Cancer Panel report on environmental contributors to cancer later this spring. The Electromagnetic Field (EMF) working group has had robust listserv exchanges as more and more science on the impacts of EMFs on health emerges.
The Mental Health working group published two new downloadable resources (see: http://www.healthandenvironment. org/working_groups/mh) regarding associations between pesticide exposures and mental health disorders. CHE has also launched a new working group on autism and is helping develop the agenda for a science symposium on environmental contributors to autism that will dovetail with the Autism Society of America’s annual meeting in July.
Also of note, CHE’s Initiative on Children’s Environmental Health is organizing a one-day symposium on pediatric integrative health with the Whole Child Center and University of California, San Francisco. The conference will feature notable speakers from a wide range of fields relevant to children’s health. It will be held on October 1, to coincide with the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in San Francisco.
More behind the scenes, but no less significant, has been an overhaul of the CHE Fertility and Reproductive Health working group online library. This effort has made hundreds of articles and other resources more accessible and searchable (see: http:// www.healthandenvironment.org/ working_groups/fertility). Much of the CHE website has been updated, and CHE has just launched a blog and a Facebook page (visit: http://www. healthandenvironment.org and click on those new features).
I will end by noting that, in addition to these specific actions, core advisors and staff of CHE continue to wrestle with some deeper questions about enhancing and sustaining human and ecological health. Perhaps one question that is most often at the heart of our discussions is how to best articulate a systems model of health—one that includes a range of interacting factors impacting health over the human lifespan—so that we can implement more effective, upstream interventions and improve the resiliency of current and future generations. With our plans to look more carefully at cumulative impacts on health, climate change, and healthy aging, we hope to uncover more clues that will help us address that question and many others.
The Collaborative on Health and the Environment is grateful for generous support from Cedar Tree Foundation, Community Funds, Inc, John Merck Fund, The Johnson Family Foundation, Kresge Foundation, Passport Foundation, V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation, an anonymous foundation, and individual donors.
“I happen to be a believer in the Precautionary Principle used appropriately, which I think really goes with the CHE definition…when you have a decent amount of (scientific) information that suggests that there may be harm, you don’t wait for certainty before action.”
This was not said by a seasoned environmental health activist nor one of CHE’s core advisors. Instead, this cogent comment was made on a CHE national partner call in March by Linda Birnbaum, PhD, MS, the highly respected Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Birnbaum has received numerous awards for her scientific research and is the author of more than 700 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, abstracts, and reports. On that same call, she underscored health concerns associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals and cumulative impacts. She also praised CHE for translating the emerging environmental health science for diverse constituencies.
In short, Dr. Birnbaum’s statements on this CHE call captured the extraordinary shift we are seeing in the thinking and actions of some people at the highest levels of government. Twenty-first century environmental health science is being taken more seriously than ever in circles that only a few years ago would have ignored or downplayed the significance of this research. And without doubt, CHE partners have played a role in making that happen.
For example, leading CHE partners reached influential audiences with the publication of a major national biomonitoring report, Mind, Disrupted: How Toxic Chemicals May Affect How We Think and Who We Are. This report was released in conjunction with a Senate hearing on chemical policy reform in February. The New York Times, Forbes, and over 20 other media outlets picked it up (see: www.disabilityandenvironment. org). The Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (LDDI), one of CHE’s major working groups, partnered with the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center (CBRC) and leading national environmental health organiza¬tions to undertake this study.
For more details about Mind, Disrupted, follow this link: http://www.minddisrupted.org/index.php
CHE partners also recently weighed in on the obesity epidemic. In a letter drafted by CHE to First Lady Michelle Obama, a dozen prominent researchers and health professionals expressed their appreciation for Mrs. Obama’s leadership on reducing the prevalence of obesity and underscored the need to address more systemic factors beyond lifestyle changes that emerging science suggests contribute to obesity, including exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals known as “obesogens.”
Other CHE working groups have been very active, including members of CHE Cancer, who are preparing to respond to the release of the President’s Cancer Panel report on environmental contributors to cancer later this spring. The Electromagnetic Field (EMF) working group has had robust listserv exchanges as more and more science on the impacts of EMFs on health emerges.
The Mental Health working group published two new downloadable resources (see: http://www.healthandenvironment. org/working_groups/mh) regarding associations between pesticide exposures and mental health disorders. CHE has also launched a new working group on autism and is helping develop the agenda for a science symposium on environmental contributors to autism that will dovetail with the Autism Society of America’s annual meeting in July.
Also of note, CHE’s Initiative on Children’s Environmental Health is organizing a one-day symposium on pediatric integrative health with the Whole Child Center and University of California, San Francisco. The conference will feature notable speakers from a wide range of fields relevant to children’s health. It will be held on October 1, to coincide with the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in San Francisco.
More behind the scenes, but no less significant, has been an overhaul of the CHE Fertility and Reproductive Health working group online library. This effort has made hundreds of articles and other resources more accessible and searchable (see: http:// www.healthandenvironment.org/ working_groups/fertility). Much of the CHE website has been updated, and CHE has just launched a blog and a Facebook page (visit: http://www. healthandenvironment.org and click on those new features).
I will end by noting that, in addition to these specific actions, core advisors and staff of CHE continue to wrestle with some deeper questions about enhancing and sustaining human and ecological health. Perhaps one question that is most often at the heart of our discussions is how to best articulate a systems model of health—one that includes a range of interacting factors impacting health over the human lifespan—so that we can implement more effective, upstream interventions and improve the resiliency of current and future generations. With our plans to look more carefully at cumulative impacts on health, climate change, and healthy aging, we hope to uncover more clues that will help us address that question and many others.
The Collaborative on Health and the Environment is grateful for generous support from Cedar Tree Foundation, Community Funds, Inc, John Merck Fund, The Johnson Family Foundation, Kresge Foundation, Passport Foundation, V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation, an anonymous foundation, and individual donors.
Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center: Earliest Exposures Project
by Sharyle Patton, Director
“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.”
Dr. Molly Gray made this statement at the February 4th Congressional hearing sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg who, following the testimonies of panelists, announced his intention to introduce a bill reforming the nation’s toxic chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Molly, a first time mother, had been biomonitored during her second trimester along with eight other new moms from California, Oregon, and Washington for the presence of toxic chemicals. The Earliest Exposures biomonitoring project, coordinated by the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center, Washington State Toxics Coalition, and the Toxics Free Legacy Coalition, conducted the testing.
Like all the moms in the project, Molly was careful during her pregnancy to avoid exposures to chemicals that have the potential to cause harm to her developing fetus. And like all the moms in the project, Molly was surprised to find that her body contained bisphenol A, the hormone disrupting chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic and the lining for food cans; “Teflon chemicals,” or perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), chemicals used to create stain-protection products and non-stick cookware; and phthalates, the plasticizers and fragrance carriers found in consumer products from shower curtains to shampoo.
Molly’s words of concern as a participant in the Earliest Exposures biomonitoring project places a very personal story alongside the Center for Disease Control’s statistics that indicate levels of toxic chemicals in women of childbearing age in the US population. Her story as an individual who has been biomonitored and who has chosen to speak about her results reverberated throughout the Lautenberg hearing, driving home deep concerns about the unnecessary contamination of all our bodies and the critical need for safer chemicals and better policies. For more information about the project and the campaign to reform TSCA, Earliest Exposures can be found at http://watoxics.org/%20and%20www.saferchemicals.org
The projects of the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center have been made possible by generous funding from the John Merck Fund, the Kresge Foundation, the New York Community Trust, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and an anonymous foundation.
Dr. Molly Gray, a participant in the Earliest Exposures biomonitoring project, testified before Congress about her experience of being biomonitored. Her testimony, and those of other biomonitoring participants, was influential in a bill being proposed to reform national toxics chemical law.
“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.”
Dr. Molly Gray made this statement at the February 4th Congressional hearing sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg who, following the testimonies of panelists, announced his intention to introduce a bill reforming the nation’s toxic chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Molly, a first time mother, had been biomonitored during her second trimester along with eight other new moms from California, Oregon, and Washington for the presence of toxic chemicals. The Earliest Exposures biomonitoring project, coordinated by the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center, Washington State Toxics Coalition, and the Toxics Free Legacy Coalition, conducted the testing.
Like all the moms in the project, Molly was careful during her pregnancy to avoid exposures to chemicals that have the potential to cause harm to her developing fetus. And like all the moms in the project, Molly was surprised to find that her body contained bisphenol A, the hormone disrupting chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic and the lining for food cans; “Teflon chemicals,” or perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), chemicals used to create stain-protection products and non-stick cookware; and phthalates, the plasticizers and fragrance carriers found in consumer products from shower curtains to shampoo.
Molly’s words of concern as a participant in the Earliest Exposures biomonitoring project places a very personal story alongside the Center for Disease Control’s statistics that indicate levels of toxic chemicals in women of childbearing age in the US population. Her story as an individual who has been biomonitored and who has chosen to speak about her results reverberated throughout the Lautenberg hearing, driving home deep concerns about the unnecessary contamination of all our bodies and the critical need for safer chemicals and better policies. For more information about the project and the campaign to reform TSCA, Earliest Exposures can be found at http://watoxics.org/%20and%20www.saferchemicals.org
The projects of the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center have been made possible by generous funding from the John Merck Fund, the Kresge Foundation, the New York Community Trust, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and an anonymous foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)