An op-ed in the Baltimore Sun introduced me to a new use for the term “Iron Triangle,” this one pertains industries and organizations involved in food aid.  In “It’s Time to Stop a Tragic Waste,” David Kohn writes how hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. food aid is squandered on subsidies to “corporate agribusinesses, shipping companies and large aid agencies.”  Unlike other wealthy countries, he writes, the U.S.

“insists on buying 99 percent of its food aid from U.S. farmers, at U.S. market prices, and then sending this food overseas.”

There are a multitude of reasons why this arrangement is impractical and inexpensive.  Setting that aside, we undermine local farmers by not buying food locally—as other wealthy countries do as part of their food aid programs.  When U.S. food aid shipments hit a local market at cheap (subsidized prices), farmers from the local region can’t compete; ultimately, our food aid destablizes local agricultural efforts, damaging local food security and food sovereignty.

Certainly during crises, like the disasater today in Myanmar, direct shipments of food may be most appropriate answer in the short-run.  In the long-run, however, our agricultural policies need to be reformed to promote sustainable methods of farming, local needs and cultures, economic justice and public health.   

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy provides more information and insight on global agriculture and the influence of U.S. agribusinesses on food-aid policies.  These firms include Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and Tyson Foods.  To help inform the dialogue on the Farm Bill currently being considered in Congress, the Institute issued “A Fair Farm Bill for the World”.  The report includes recommendations for an “International Farm Bill”, with reforms such as:

• Commodity programs that ensure a fair market price for farmers and eliminate export dumping
• Stronger anti-trust enforcement and improved price transparency in the food and agricultural industry
• Support for local food economies, smaller farmers and greater food security, which would help diversity U.S. cropping systems and reduce agricultural exports
• A transition to untied, cash-based food aid and a phase-out of sales of food aid by NGO’s.

A recent feature on PBS’ News Hour entitled “Malawi Food Programs Face Cash or Crop Dilemma” provides more insight on US food aid policies and programs; a longer segment of this report was broadcast on PBS’ Religion and Ethics News Weekly .

A vote in the U.S. House on the Farm Bill (one-page summary) (full bill) may come this week, with the Senate vote to follow.

—

Celeste Monforton would like to thank Roni Neff, PhD of the Center for a Livable Future for her helpful guidance understanding these critically important public health issues.

In the final leg of a long and costly lawsuit against the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), U.S. district judge Hugh Lawson ruled in favor of ACGIH, dismissing claims by the National Mining Association and others* that the non-profit, scientific organization violated Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  (A complete case study on this matter appears at DefendingScience.org.)  The court also rejected the industry-plaintiff’s attempt to resurrect related claims against the Department of Labor, reprimanding them with: 

“The Court disagrees with the Plaintiffs’ asssessment that this case somehow breathes life into expired claims and will not entertain any discussions towards a count already dismissed.”

The Court defended ACGIH, saying it is:

“a non-profit association comprised of a group of scientists…more like an entity designed to promote ideas than one that engages in deceptive advertising in an effort to derive a financial benefit.”

Earlier claims by the industry groups against ACGIH as well as the Secretaries of HHS and Labor were also dismissed in federal court.  These legal assaults concerned silica, n-propyl bromide (nPB), copper, and diesel particulate matter, which were listed on ACGIH’s Notice of Intended Change; industry plaintiffs want to prohibit ACGIH from:

“…considering, creating, publishing, promulgating, adopting, using, or recommending TLVs”

and DOL and HHS from

“allowing their officials and employees to seek, suggest, use, adopt, rely upon, promulgate, or enforce TLVs” for them.”(1)

In a news release issued by ACGIH, the organization’s chair stated:

“This ruling confirms our long-held position that ACGIH has the right to publish its scientific opinions that make the workplace safer.  Occupational and environmental health professionals need to know they can rely on the information we provide.

“After almost four years of enormous expenditure of ACGIH financial and human resources in defending against this litigation, we view this as great news for the association, for the continued freedom of expression of scientific opinion, and for the entire occupational and environmental health profession.”

When I read the original charges made against ACGIH, DOL and HHS back in 1999, I thought they were baseless and indeed “frivolous.”  Yet, these industry-plaintiffs’ legal attack on ACGIH was anything but ”frivolous.”  The non-profit, volunteer science organization was forced to raise and spend significant sums of money in order to defend itself against this lawsuit.  It surely wasn’t a trivial matter for ACGIH.

 *The petitioners in the lawsuit against ACGIH were the International Brominated Solvents Association (IBSA), the National Mining Association (NMA), Aerosafe Products, Inc., and Anchor Glass Container Products, Inc. .

(1) See case study, reference: [25], [26] Complaint, submitted to the US District Court, Middle District of Georgia, November 17, 2004. In: International Brominated Solvents Association, et al v. ACGIH et al (5:04CV394).

—

Celeste Monforton, MPH is a Lecturer and Researcher at the George Washington University School of Public Health.  She joined ACGIH in 2006 and contributed to its legal defense fund.

A few days ago, researchers at West Virginia School of Medicine who are involved in the C8 Health Project provided some initial results from the 69,030 participants who live in the vicinity of DuPont’s Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, WV.  The information was presented at a May 7 public lecture entitled “The C8 Health Project: How a Class Action Lawsuit Can Interact with Public Health: History of Events” (Slides here), and was reported in the Charleston Gazette (here). 

The data to-date indicate that participants have serum concentrations of C8 (perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)) which are substantially higher than the general population, and these concentrations differ based on participants’ age, gender and the district in which they receive their drinking water.  Preliminary univariate analyses show associations between C8 and measures of immune, liver and thyroid function, and cholesterol levels.

The presentation prepared by the WVU researchers (with 63 slides) explains the history of the C8 Health Study, the role of the Science Panel, the WVU Project Team and Brookmar, Inc. in the project, a timeline of the legal events and study activities, as well as maps of the area from which study participants reside. 

The SKAPP website offers a case study on PFOA; a previous blog post on this topic was called “How’d that C8 get into your blood?”

By Olga Naidenko

After lead, asbestos, aromatic amine dyes, Minamata disease, Bhopal, and fluorochemicals, we presumably have learned something about worker safety, especially when it comes to large-scale production in cutting-edge chemical industries. So here comes the test: can we use this knowledge to ensure worker safety in the up-and-coming nanotechnology industry?

An international survey published in the May issue of Environmental Science and Technology addressed precisely this question: are nanomaterials firms and laboratories installing adequate, nano-specific environmental health and safety (EHS) programs, engineering controls, personal protective equipment, exposure monitoring and product stewardship programs?

The UC Santa Barbara researchers conducted a study of nano-EHS practices at 82 organizations across all geographical regions that worked with diverse types of nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, quantum dots, nanowires and polymers in form of powders and dispersions. The results of the survey can be summarized in two telling sentences:

Workplace monitoring and nanospecific waste disposal were uneven and were only associated with the subset of organizations believing in special risks. A majority of organizations expressed a need for more toxicological information and EHS guidance.

On a reassuring note, many key stakeholders in the US and internationally are interested in developing guidelines for safe occupational handling approaches for nanomaterials. An earlier report by the Santa Barbara group documented on-going nanotechnology safety research and practical recommendations offered by NIOSH, EPA, Germany’s Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as multiple academic, industrial, and non-governmental organizations.

Most importantly, in 2005 NIOSH drafted the document Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology, which identified the list of health concerns associated with nano-workplace:

• The potential for nanomaterials to enter the body is among several factors that scientists examine in determining whether such materials may pose an occupational health hazard. Nanomaterials have the greatest potential to enter the body if they are in the form of nanoparticles, agglomerates of nanoparticles, and particles from nanostructured materials that become airborne or come into contact with the skin.
• Based on results from human and animal studies, nanoparticles can be inhaled and deposit in the respiratory tract; and based on animal studies, airborne nanomaterials can enter the blood stream, and translocate to other organs.
• Experimental studies in rats have shown that equivalent mass doses of insoluble ultrafine particles (smaller than 100 nm) are more potent than large particles of similar composition in causing pulmonary inflammation and lung tumors in those laboratory animals. However, toxicity may be mitigated by surface characteristics and other factors. Results from in vitro cell culture studies with similar materials are generally supportive of the biological responses observed in animals.
• Cytotoxicity and experimental animal studies have shown that changes in the chemical composition, structure of the molecules, or surfaces properties of certain nanomaterials can influence their potential toxicity.
• Studies in workers exposed to aerosols of manufactured microscopic (fine) and nanoscale (ultrafine) particles have reported lung function decrements and adverse respiratory symptoms; however, uncertainty exists about the role of ultrafine particles relative to other airborne contaminants (e.g., chemicals, fine particles) in these work environments in causing adverse health effects.
• Engineered nanoparticles whose physical and chemical characteristics are like those of ultrafine particles need to be studied to determine if they pose health risks similar to those that have been associated with the ultrafine particles.

Perhaps some of these health concerns sound familiar. In fact, a number of scientists already expressed a concern that if appropriate precautionary measures are not taken, nano-materials in the workplace may become the new asbestos. 

One cannot help but hope – surely we now know more and can do better than that? Meanwhile, here is the current state of nanotechnology safety, as reported from the survey:

Organizations overwhelmingly reported the lack of information and best-practice guidance from industry and governments as impeding their efforts in nanospecific EHS… 68% of organizations reported not monitoring the workplace for nanoparticles… There were numerous reports of apparently inadequate engineering controls, including specifying practices to protect samples rather than workers, turning off fume hood fans when handling nanopowders, and infrequently using HEPA exhaust filtration systems. Systematic examination of engineering controls for preventing exposure to engineered nanoparticles is in its early stages… Most respondents reported adhering to conventional waste disposal practices rather than considering nanospecific characteristics… Most of the surveyed organizations reported providing some form of guidance, mainly MSDS, for the safe use, but not safe disposal, of their products containing nanomaterials. Yet, standard MSDS do not address nanomaterials characteristics and would have to be modified to effectively communicate nanospecific information related to safety and product stewardship… Organizations worldwide are not in consensus regarding the existence of risks that would justify special attention to nanomaterials EHS… The general lack of end-of-life guidance for handling nanomaterials suggests the need for a common understanding of best practices regarding product stewardship.

So at present, the picture is mixed. As described in the survey,some nano-companies are aware of risks associated with nanomaterials. However, reported workplace practices “were primarily based on either conventional chemical hygience criteria, such as chemical compatibility, or cost factors.” Suposedly nano-specific EHS recommendations described by survey respondents did not appear sufficiently protective or reassuring. For example,

Employees [are recommended to] wear a disposable, typically plastic, body covering over their work clothes during high exposure activities and wear long gloves pulled over sleeves to minimize wrist exposure. Other recommendations included antistatic shoes to prevent ignition by static charges, sticky mats at laboratory entrances to prevent accidental nanomaterial transfers, and one organization reported advising employees who inhaled nanoparticles to consume milk and unrefined sugar as a prophylactic against toxic effects of fine particulates.

That’s a joke about milk and sugar, right? Nothing against these two – they go great with chocolate chip cookies – but hardly a satisfactory approach to deal with uncertain nano-chemical hazards that target lungs and can be also dermally absorbed.

A clear conclusion emerges from the survey: guidelines and regulations from governmental agencies are urgently needed so as to steer the nascent nanotech industry towards safe workplace practices. Hopefully, these necessary guidelines will be able to catch up with what appears to be an imminent nano-boom. Meanwhile, the question of the end-of-life for nano-products and materials will likely continue to loom large. And, as reported by the survey, this aspect of nano-safety is not well understood or addressed in the industry. That will be the question for government agencies like the EPA and environmentalists worldwide to tackle.

Olga Naidenko is a Senior Scientist at the Environmental Working Group (Washington, DC); she holds a PhD degree in immunology from the UCLA Molecular Biology Institute. Prior to joining EWG, she worked in Los Angeles, San Diego, and St. Louis, conducting research in molecular and structural immunology. At EWG, Olga focuses on human health effects of chemical pollution.

Bloggers are keeping us up to date on some of the many proposals for spending federal dollars on health and environmental issues:

• Tom Philpott at Gristmill brings us the latest on the farm bill, which has been delayed due to disputes over subsidy reform.
• Hank Green at EnviroWonk explains why and how the Department of Energy will be spending $60 million over the next five years on solar thermal technology.
• Elizabeth Cooney at White Coat Notes conveys advice from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute President Dr. Edward Benz on improving cancer research; increasing NIH funding levels is a crucial step.
• DrugMoneky rails against the NIH grant-revision process, saying it wastes researchers’ time and NIH dollars.
• Ed Silverman at Pharmalot reports on a new bill that would provide $200 million annually to research new treatments for nervous system disorders and injuries.

Elsewhere:

Chris Mooney at Science Progress and Robert McClure at Dateline Earth explain the factors that have made Hurricane Nargis such a terrible catastrophe.

RH Reality Check has a special series of posts for Mother’s Day, which range from celebrations of mothers to examinations of the challenges they face and the changes that can help.

Benjamin Cohen at The World’s Fair examines Dow Chemical’s actions around its dioxin-contaminated sites – the issue that evidently cost the head of EPA’s Midwest office her job.

Andrew Schneider at Secret Ingredients reports on a coalition’s petition asking EPA to use its pesticide-regulating authority to stop the sale of nano-silver products.

Sarah Rubenstein at WSJ’s Health Blog notes that some doctors protest that it’s impossible to completely eliminate the “never” events that Medicare plans to stop paying to treat.

Revere at Effect Measure considers the problem of waning vaccine effectiveness, evident in recent mumps outbreak.

Greater Greater Washington (via EnviroWonk) has a humorous take on the gas-tax-holiday proposal.

The Weinberg Group is one of the product defense firms I write about in my new book “Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health.” These firms help polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products avoid regulation – only now the Weinberg Group is not a product defense firm, it’s transformed itself into a “product support” firm.

Changes to the company’s website, like transforming the “Product Defense” category of services to “Product Support,” suggest that the Weinberg Group has a new awareness of its online audience – it’s no longer just potential clients visiting their site, but researchers, lawmakers, and ordinary citizens who might not approve of the firm’s activities. The old description of the Product Defense Practice Group highlights successes in “minimizing the effects of civil and criminal litigation, regulatory and legislative actions,” but that text has disappeared from the current version of that page. Likewise, this entire paragraph has now disappeared from the page devoted to what’s now called the “Support” service area:

THE WEINBERG GROUP knows how critical it is to protect products, markets and revenue streams and to minimize the damage done to corporate image, business and brands. We’ve developed a highly-effective, integrated approach to preparing and defending against attacks on products and processes, averting crises, and diminishing the effects of civil and criminal litigation.

Litigation and regulation may be something that the Weinberg Group’s corporate clients want to avoid, but people who have been or could be harmed by the clients’ products have a different perspective. Take the case of bisphenol A, a chemical used in plastics. There is evidence that it may interfere with the development of children’s brains and reproductive organs, including alterations to breast and prostate tissues that may increase the risk of developing cancer later in life – consequences from which most parents want to protect their children. The companies that make and use bisphenol A are thinking about their sales, though. Concern about the chemical’s safety is something they’d probably rather avoid, and that’s where firms like the Weinberg Group come in.

It’s hardly a new development for manufacturers of dangerous products to hire firms to help them defend their wares in the governmental, judicial, and public relations arenas. The product-defense business was born when public concern arose about the dangers of tobacco smoke; soon, an army of bought-and-paid for scientists was producing studies designed to cast doubt on research showing that smokers were at greater risk for health problems, and PR flacks were highlighting this uncertainty to lawmakers and members of the press.

Since then, new product defense firms have sprung up and defended substances like lead and asbestos and drugs like phenylpropanolamine, which was used in cold and diet medications and long after it was linked to strokes in young women taking it. In fact, the Weinberg Group’s website once bragged that it delayed the FDA’s cancellation of a client’s drug for 10 years. That page disappeared from the firm’s website long before its current makeover, but I kept a copy of it and wrote about it in my book.

Along with my fellow public-health advocates, I’ve been working to make lawmakers, judges, and the public aware of product defense firms’ strategies, with the goal of keeping regulation and litigation strong tools for protecting the public against dangerous products. Attention to the problem is increasing, and might help explain the Weinberg Group’s recent decision to paint itself in a softer light online.

The House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Michigan Congressman John Dingell, is investigating the Weinberg Group’s work on bisphenol A. Congressional investigators found that the Weinberg Group was hired by Sunoco, which manufactures bisphenol A, and Chairman Dingell has asked the company to supply him with records related to its work on the chemical.

The issue here is not legality, but credibility. Product defense firms routinely supply studies that regulators, juries, and reporters consider when trying to determine how much of a hazard a product poses. If it becomes clear that these studies were bought and paid for by the companies who stand to lose or gain from the results of regulation, litigation, or public concerns about product, the audiences will view them more critically.

By revamping its website to de-emphasize the firm’s sales pitch - that they will help protect against litigation and regulation — the Weinberg Group is probably trying to make itself appear more credible before lawmakers and reporters who are digging into the research on bisphenol A and other substances implicated in health problems. But for those who think that dangerous substances ought to be regulated and that companies who knowingly market harmful products should face legal penalties, changes in language aren’t enough. It makes no difference if a consulting firm is “supporting” or “defending” a dangerous product, it’s still doing something that can endanger our health. We must keep that in mind when judging these firms.

Past roundups have emphasized the many things wrong with veterans’ health and safety, so this week seems like a good time to highlight some of the efforts that the military and the Veterans Administration are making to address the problems.

• The WSJ’s Theo Francis reports that the Defense Department is giving the Brain Trauma Foundation $4.6 million to develop a device that can assess traumatic brain injuries in seconds on the battlefield.
• For the Associated Press, Pauline Jelinek and Lolita Baldor describe a new Pentagon campaign that aims to get troops with mental health problems into counseling; one important change is that mental health treatment will no longer count against them in future applications for security clearance.
• NPR’s Joseph Shapiro explains the changes the Army has made at military hospitals to prevent accidental drug overdoses like the one that killed Sgt. Robert Nichols.

In other news:

The Nation: The sugar-dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company’s Savannah refinery, responsible for the death of 13 workers, angered Tammy Miser (of Weekly Toll fame), who started working in support of families who’ve lost loved ones to workplace disasters after her brother Shawn died in a dust explosion. During the Bush administration, OSHA has basically stopped its rulemaking duties, although the House Committee that oversees OSHA is now pushing the agency to act on several hazards that merit rules.

NIOSH: Although commercial fishing is still the nation’s most dangerous occupation, the annual fatality rate declined 51% between 1990 and 2006 due to safety requirements and prevention strategies.

Occupational Hazards: Recent research finds that although outdoor workers in construction, forestry, fishing, and farming are at increased risk of getting skin cancer due to sun exposure, they are least likely to receive skin exams.

New York Times (op-ed): Burger King hired a security firm to spy on the Student/Farmworker Alliance, which has been urging the fast-food giant to give a modest pay raise to the farmworkers who pick its tomatoes. By contrast, McDonald’s and Yum Brands have agreed to increase the workers’ pay and to work with the coalition to eliminate slavery conditions from the fields.

Despite worsening problems with climate disruption and air pollution, politicians and individuals have kept making bad transportation choices for decades. As a result, we’ve got an unsustainable transportation system full of single-passenger gas-guzzling vehicles, and the only “solution” that politicians have been able to unite around is ethanol, which worsens global hunger and nutrient runoff without producing net energy savings.

There’s a little bit of good news, though. Recent stories suggest that the negative consequences of bad gas choices are finally starting to steer consumers and politicians towards better options:

Backing off ethanol: 24 Senate Republicans, including Senator John McCain, have written to EPA to suggest it waive or restructure rules requiring increased ethanol production. These rules exist, of course, because Congress legislated 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015 and 36 billion by 2022 and created subsidies for it; but of course it’s better that they admit their mistake than allow the program to continue. Democratic lawmakers should get behind rolling back ethanol requirements and subsidies, too.

Rejecting a bad gas-tax-holiday idea: In their presidential campaigns, Senator McCain proposed a gas-tax holiday during the summer, and Senator Hillary Clinton added her backing to the idea – a very bad idea, given that cheap oil prices have encouraged us to make unsustainable transportation choices, and rising prices at the pump are one of the few reliable ways to promote greater efficiency. More polled voters oppose the idea than support it (49 vs. 45%), showing that nearly half of Americans have figured out that a small amount of short-term relief isn’t worth it in the long run.

Choosing more fuel-efficient cars: Now that gas prices are approaching (and, in some places, passing), $4 a gallon, consumers are finally starting to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. In April, one in five vehicles sold in the U.S. was a compact or subcompact car; when SUV popularity was at its peak, that figure was only one in eight. Plus,the more-efficient four-cylinder engines surpassed their six-cylinder counterparts. Maybe this will teach the big U.S. automakers to stop putting so much emphasis on gas guzzlers.

The May 12th issue of Newsweek contains Sharon Begley’s excellent review of Doubt is Their Product (which should now be available in your local bookstore). Naturally, we like it because it says nice things about David’s book, but we also think Begley does a terrific job describing the kinds of abuses the book chronicles. It’s not surprising to see her giving a pithy summary of how polluters manufacture uncertainty, since she wrote last year’s Newsweek cover story “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” which provides one of the best overviews of the global warming denial movement I’ve seen.

The review is well worth a read; here’s a taste:

If anyone remakes “Erin Brockovich,” this is a scene I want to see. A scientist launches a study to determine the toxicity of hexavalent chromium, the drinking-water contaminant at the center of the lawsuits Brockovich spearheaded. The study will be a meta-analysis, combining existing individual studies to, he says, produce more-authoritative conclusions. Some of the earlier studies measured rates of lung cancer among pigment-factory workers exposed to airborne chromium, so it makes sense to include them. But the scientist is working for industry, so he chooses his other studies carefully: he includes those that assessed all forms of cancer among residents who drank chromium-laced water. Only the workers, not the residents, had increased rates of lung cancer. No surprise there: only inhaled—not ingested—chromium can cause lung cancer. Since there are many more residents than factory workers, the data showing no rise in lung cancer swamp the large numbers of lung cancers in the workers. Thanks to this sleight of hand, the study—which happened in real life, not a movie—concludes that chromium “is only weakly carcinogenic for the lungs,” giving the chemical a nice coat of whitewash.

That science can be bought is hardly news to anyone who knows about tobacco “scientists.” But how pervasive, effective and stealthy this science-for-hire is—as masterfully documented by David Michaels of George Washington University in his new book, “Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health”—will shock anyone who still believes that “science” and “integrity” are soulmates. In studies of how toxic chemicals affect human health, Michaels told me, “It’s quite easy to take a positive result [showing harmful effects] and turn it falsely negative. This epidemiological alchemy is used widely.”

How many of Doubt’s readers will be shocked? It depends who picks up the book. The reactions I’ve heard so far tend to praise it for exposing just how widespread and insidious manufactured uncertainty is, but these readers seem to have picked it up because they know the problem exists and want to learn more about it. How many people are there who don’t know that companies and industries manufacture “scientific controversies” in order to guard their products against regulation or falling sales? Begley’s global-warming denier piece contained one possible answer: “39 percent of those asked [in a 2007 Newsweek poll] say there is “a lot of disagreement among climate scientists” on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming.”

Bloggers had a lot to say about the health, safety, and healthcare of workers:

• Christine Rampolla at AFL-CIO Weblog explains how 12 years of work by union members culminated in New Jersey’s paid family leave act, which the governor just signed into law.
• What if … America Had a Healthcare System That Worked? explores the problems with veterans’ healthcare and proposes three solutions (via Health Beat).
• Ernest Delmazzo at BlueOregon criticizes Oregon OSHA’s record on workplace inspections and penalties, and Oregon OSHA Administrator Michael Wood responds in the comments section.
• Kane at OSHA Underground offers an insider’s perspective on whether and why OSHA’s Compliance Safety and Health Officers stick around.
• Theo Francis at WSJ’s Health Blog reports that every percentage-point increase in unemployment translates to another $3.4 billion in state and federal healthcare spending as workers lose health insurance along with their jobs.

Elsewhere:

Revere at Effect Measure updates on us the benzene-in-soda problem.

Amanda at Enviroblog has good and bad news about the EPA’s new proposed limits on lead emissions.

Terrance Berg at DeSmogBlog hopes that ducks trapped and dying in toxic tailings ponds will mobilize more opposition to the Alberta oil sands project.

Matt Madia at Reg Watch explains how the White House has interfered with a rule designed to protect endangered right whales.

Marsha Johnston at EnviroWonk considers the chances of Governor Schwarzenegger signing California e-waste legislation.

Roy M. Poses MD at Health Care Renewal updates us on the problems with heparin – apparently, “some dude” is to blame for the contamination of the anti-coagulant that’s implicated in 21 deaths.

Christine Gorman at Global Health Report introduces us to the Health Eight (or H8), a group of organizations working to stimulate a global sense of urgency for reaching the health-related Millennium Development Goals.