The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

Breast Cancer Fund offers tips for cancer prevention

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

I agree with the Breast Cancer Fund that it’s time to move beyond breast cancer “awareness” to prevention.

Early this month, the BCF launched a breast cancer prevention campaign. It urges women to:

• Chose safe cosmetics.

• Eat and live better by eating fresh organic food, hormone-free meat and dairy, and non-toxic seafood.

• Protect their family from toxic chemicals in plastics, cookware, toys, baby bottles, and child cups.

• Create a healthy home by choosing or making less toxic cleaning products.

• Make informed health care choices about treatments such as radiation exposures and prescription drugs.

• Protect themselves and the environment by evaluating sunscreens, avoiding dry cleaning, stopping the use of antibacterial products, and quitting smoking.

See the BDF’s “Which Chemicals Are Linked to Breast Cancer?” for more information.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Stanford University’s recent, widely reported study on organic food is limited

Several people have asked me about the Stanford University study findings released earlier this month that said there isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based on your health.

Much of the media coverage, including stories in the New York Times, Reuters, and USA Today, took its lead from Stanford’s press release.

However, the website Remapping Debate points out that the paper itself, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, included the significant finding that eating organic foods reduces exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Study limitations

Also important, Remapping Debate said, is what the study left out: key issues relating to the safety of organic versus non-organic foods weren’t examined.

The report’s purpose was to study the published literature on the health, nutritional, and safety characteristics of organic and conventional foods.”

Remapping Debate spoke with Crystal Smith-Spangler, M.D., an internist and research instructor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, one of the lead authors of the study.

While the study looked for evidence of direct impacts on consumers of organic and non-organic food, it didn’t appear to consider the environmental impact of non-organic farming, Remapping Debate said in a statement. How does the heavy use of agrochemicals that remain in soil and might leech into groundwater affect human health? What about the health and safety impacts of pesticides on farm workers?
 
Smith-Spangler told Remapping Data that the study didn’t address these questions. Also beyond the scope of the study were the risks of non-organic farms serving as laboratories for the breeding of more and more dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Less contaminants in organic food

On the level of pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the study did say that levels are significantly higher in the non-organic products that people eat, but took the position that such levels aren’t grounds for concern.

As for antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the study said that cooking food would kill all bacteria, although it didn’t address the question of eating foods cooked at temperatures insufficient to kill bacteria or whether super-bacteria is killed by cooking food.

On pesticide limits, the study said that the levels found are within the safety limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, Smith-Spangler acknowledged that there is a debate about the pesticide safety limits set by the federal government, but didn’t see that point as relevant to her report.

“It’s beyond the scope of our paper to discuss the federal limits,” she said. “A study that would examine the question, ‘Is the amount of pesticides in our food safe?’ would include a lot more data on dose response and maybe some animal data. And there are lots of experts out there who can weigh in on that issue.”

Although many health and safety issues weren’t addressed by the study, Smith-Spangler said in her interview with Remapping Debate that her team’s findings were developed to provide evidence consumers could base their decisions on.

“Our goal was to present the evidence and try to help people understand the evidence,” Smith-Spangler said. “But our goal was not to tell people what or what not to do.”

My opinion on organic food

The people I talked to about the study certainly were made skeptical about organic food. The findings that pesticide residues are 30 percent higher in non-organic products should have been the emphasis of the Stanford University’s press release.

For the researchers to decide that this amount of pesticide exposure doesn’t make any difference to health, in my opinion, was beyond the scope of their study.

I’m gong to continue eating organic food that I buy from local co-ops and farmers’ markets. My dad, Minor H. Slingsby, was an apple farmer who died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is linked to pesticide exposure.

I suggest that you buy as much local, organic meat, fruits, and vegetables as you can.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Scotts Miracle-Gro to pay $12.5 million in fines and penalties for violating federal pesticide laws

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., a producer of pesticides for commercial and consumer uses, was sentenced yesterday in federal court to pay a $4 million fine and perform community service for 11 criminal violations of the federal pesticide laws.

Scotts pleaded guilty in February to:

• Illegally applying insecticides to its wild bird food products that are toxic to birds.

• Falsifying pesticide registration documents.

• Distributing pesticides with misleading and unapproved labels.

• Distributing unregistered pesticides.

This is the largest criminal penalty ever levied under federal pesticide laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement.

In addition, in a civil agreement with the EPA, Scotts agreed to pay more than $6 million in penalties and spend $2 million on environmental projects to resolve civil pesticide violations. The violations include distributing or selling unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. This is the largest civil settlement under federal pesticide laws.

In the plea agreement, Scotts admitted that:

• It applied the pesticides Actellic 5E and Storcide II to its bird food products even though the EPA had prohibited this use. Scotts said it had applied the pesticide to protect its bird foods from insect infestation during storage.

• It didn’t follow EPA directives when using these pesticides and ignored the warning label on Storicide II containers, which states, “Storcide II is extremely toxic to fish and toxic to birds and other wildlife.”

Scotts sold illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for six months after employees warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides, the EPA said. By the time it voluntarily recalled these products in March 2008, Scotts had sold more than 70 million units of bird food illegally treated with pesticide that is toxic to birds.

Scotts also pleaded guilty to:

• Submitting false documents to the EPA and to state agencies in an effort to deceive them into believing that pesticides were registered with the EPA when they weren’t.

• Selling the unregistered pesticides illegally.

• Marketing pesticides with labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by the EPA.

In addition to the $4 million criminal fine, Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat, including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon’s Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio. The money will support the protection of birds and habitats through conservation, research, and education.

At the time the criminal violations were discovered, the EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered civil violations that occurred for five years. Scotts’ civil violations included the nationwide distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, the EPA issued more than 40 “Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders” to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products.

In addition to the $6 million civil penalty, Scotts will complete environmental projects, valued at $2 million, to acquire, restore, and protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of agricultural chemicals into nearby waterways. 

Click here for more information about the civil settlement and recalled products.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Which states have the worst toxic air pollution from power plants?

By Rita R. Robison

Consumers deserve clean air, but in some states they get a bigger dose of pollutants than other areas.

Residents of Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are exposed to more toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants than in any other state, according to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The states on the "Toxic 20" list, from worst to best, are:

1. Kentucky
2. Ohio
3. Pennsylvania
4. Indiana
5. West Virginia
6. Florida
7. Michigan
8. North Carolina
9. Georgia
10. Texas
11. Tennessee
12. Virginia
13. South Carolina
14. Alabama
15. Missouri
16. Illinois
17. Mississippi
18. Wisconsin
19. Maryland
20. Delaware 

The report found a 19 percent decrease in all air toxics emitted from power plants in 2010, compared to 2009 levels. The drop, which also includes a 4 percent decrease in mercury emissions, comes from two factors.

The increasing use by power companies of natural gas, which has become cheaper and is cleaner burning than coal.

The installation of the latest technology in pollution controls by many plants – in anticipation of new health protections issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“Toxic pollution is already being reduced as a result of EPA’s health-protecting standards,” John Walke, the council’s clean air director, said in a statement. “But these protections are threatened because polluters are intent on persuading future Congresses or presidential administrations to repeal them.”

Finalized in 2011, EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics standards will cut mercury air pollution by 79 percent from 2010 levels, beginning in 2015.

In the second edition of “Toxic Power: How Power Plants Contaminate Our Air and States,” the council also found that coal- and oil-fired power plants still contribute nearly half – 44 percent – of all the toxic air pollution reported to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory.

Compared to 2010 levels, the standard will reduce mercury pollution from 34 tons to 7 tons, a 79 percent reduction, by 2015, according to the council. Sulfur dioxide pollution will be reduced from 5,140,000 tons in 2010 to 1,900,000 tons in 2015, a 63 percent reduction. Another acid gas, hydrochloric acid, will be reduced from 106,000 tons in 2010 to 5,500 tons in 2015, a 95 percent reduction.

With those and other pollution reductions resulting from the standard, as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks, 5,700 hospital visits, 4,700 heart attacks, and 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis will be avoided in 2016, the council said. The public health improvements are also estimated to save $37 billion to $90 billion in health costs, and prevent up to 540,000 missed work or “sick” days each year.

Despite the overall reductions in total emissions, 18 of the Toxic 20 from 2009 remain in the 2010 list released today, although several states have made significant improvements highlighted in the report, the council said.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Where are the cheapest places to retire?

Every year, AARP The Magazine offers a list of the best places to live. This year, the August/September issue offers “The Best Places to Live on $100 a Day.”

For baby boomer consumers looking for a city where they can get the most for their retirement dollars, the analysis provides helpful information.

The editors wanted to find places where retirees could live well on $100 a day, or $36,500 a year. At a 25 percent tax rate, that’s $27,375 in spendable income, or about $2,281 a month.

If retirees spent about a third of that – $720 – on mortgage payments, they could buy a home that costs $192,000. In the cities selected, $192,000 buys a nice home in a good neighborhood, plus culture, fun restaurants, and entertainment.

The magazine offers information on important features such as the vibe, best daytime lark, local flavor, and number of sunny days per year. The median home income and “special affordability sauce” are also factors.

This year’s top cities are:

• San Antonio, Texas

• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

• Gainesville, Florida

• Omaha, Nebraska

• Grand Junction, Colorado

• Eau Claire, Wisconsin

• Las Cruces, New Mexico

• Roanoke, Virginia

• Spokane, Washington

• Morgantown, West Virginia

Here’s why the cities were chosen.

San Antonio, Texas

• Vibe: Old West; urban flair

• Mingle with the natives: By sharing a bike. The city’s new bike share program lets you pedal all over town for just dollars a day.

• Sunny days per year: 227

• Best daytime lark: El Mercado, which the city claims is the biggest Mexican marketplace outside Mexico) in Old Market Square.

• Median home price: $135,000

• Local flavor: Brunch at the Mad Hatter’s Tea House and Café, with a $10 fishbowl mimosa

• Impress friends and family with: The selection of restaurants and patio dining on the famous River Walk

Omaha, Nebraska

• Vibe: Midwestern cozy with a high-tech spark

• Secret affordability sauce: Thanks to civic-minded citizens, private donations fund parks, arts, and sports

• Mingle with the natives: Drink a local beer at Mr. Toad’s, in the heart of the Old Market area

• Sunny days per year: 220

• Best daytime lark: Seniors pay $12.50 at the world-class Henry Doorly Zoo; don’t miss walking the rope bridge in the Rain Forest exhibit

• Median home price: $123,500

• Local flavor: Wheatfields’ baked goods are excellent; so is its senior menu, where a Grandmere Scramble or a Dusseldorf casserole goes for $8.50

• Impress friends and family with: The area’s numerous start-up companies, earning it the “Silicon Prairie” nickname      

 Grand Junction, Colorado

• Vibe: Contemporary arts meet Western charm

• Secret affordability sauce: Two-thirds of the county land is public, making recreation a bargain; a recent 20 percent drop in housing prices

• Mingle with the natives at: The Rockslide Brewery downtown

• Sunny days per year: 260

• Best daytime lark: Wander among the extensive and quirky outdoor sculptures

• Median home price: $159,800

• Local flavor: Local vineyards get plenty of press, but make sure you snack on the region’s impressive strawberries, sweet cherries, and peaches.  An outlying town is named Fruita

• Impress friends and family with: Views of the Grand Valley

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

• Vibe: Green not grimy, the city’s 88 distinct neighborhoods create a European atmosphere

• Secret affordability sauce: Stable, diverse economy – since 2008, only Austin and Houston have added jobs faster

• Mingle with the natives at: Frick Park, in the city. During the summer, check out the Bowling Green, where lessons are free for beginners, and in the winter, sled down the hill near Beechwood Boulevard

• Sunny days per year: 161

• Best daytime lark: PNC Park, home of the Pirates, ranked as the No. 1 baseball field in the country by ESPN. Bleacher seats from $14

• Median home price: $106,500

• Local flavor: Eggs and kielbasa for breakfast at DeLuca’s in the Strip district

• Impress your friends and family with: The view as you emerge from the Fort Pitt Tunnel.

Consumers urged to buy fruits and vegetables with least amount of pesticide residue

Pesticide residues are widespread on conventional crops, the Environmental Working Group found in analyzing reports by federal agencies.

The most recent round of tests show that as late as 2010, 68 percent of food samples had detectable pesticide residues, the EWG, a consumer advocacy group, said in a statement.

The EWG has released the eighth edition of its Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce with updated information on 45 popular fruits and vegetables and their pesticide loads. The EWG highlights the worst offenders with its new Dirty Dozen Plus list and the cleanest conventional produce with its list of the Clean Fifteen.

“Our shopper’s guide to pesticides in produce gives consumers easy, affordable ways to eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables while avoiding most of the bug killers, fungicides and other chemicals in produce and other foods,” said EWG president Ken Cook.

EWG researchers analyzed annual pesticide residue tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration between 2000 and 2010.

The samples were washed or peeled before being tested so the rankings reflect the amounts of the crop chemicals likely present on the food when it’s eaten.

The EWG found significant differences between the number of pesticides and amount of pesticides detected on the Dirty Dozen Plus and Clean Fifteen foods.

Among the findings

• About 98 percent of conventional apples have detectable levels of pesticides.

• Domestic blueberries tested positive for 42 different pesticide residues.

• Seventy-eight different pesticides were found on lettuce samples.

• Every nectarine USDA tested had measurable pesticide residues.

• As a category, grapes have more types of pesticides than any other fruit, with 64 different chemicals.

• Thirteen different pesticides were measured on a single sample of celery and strawberries.

New to the Shopper’s Guide: The Dirty Dozen Plus

This year, the EWG has expanded its Dirty Dozen with a Plus category to highlight two crops – green beans and leafy greens, such as kale and collard greens – that didn’t meet traditional Dirty Dozen criteria but were commonly contaminated with highly toxic organophosphate insecticides.

These insecticides are toxic to the nervous system and have been largely removed from agriculture over the past decade, the EWG said. But they aren’t banned and still show up on some food crops.

The EWG lists these on the new Dirty Dozen Plus as foods to avoid or to buy organic.

"Organophosphate pesticides are of special concern since they are associated with neurodevelopmental effects in children,” said EWG toxicologist Johanna Congleton. “Infants in particular should avoid exposure to these pesticides since they are more susceptible to the effects of chemical insult than adults."

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises parents to “minimize using foods in which chemical pesticides or herbicides were used by farmers.”

Pesticides in baby food

For the first time since the USDA began its pesticide-testing program in 1991, the agency looked at pesticide residues on baby food.

Green beans prepared as baby food tested positive for five pesticides, among them, the organophosphate methamidiphos, which was found on 9.4 percent of samples, and the organophosphate acephate, on 7.8 percent of samples.

Happy Father's Day

I hope you and your dad will be able to have a good celebration today.

So many families live in different communities. Skype may be the main way many dads and kids see each other today.

I've been thinking abou my dad a lot lately, especially when I've been planting my garden and working in my yard. My dad passed nearly 22 years ago.

We thought he would live a long time like his older brothers and sisters. My mom had diabetis so we thought she would leave us first. However, she outlived him 15 years.

My dad, a farmer, died from non-Hodgkins lymphome, which is linked to pesticide exposure.

You can be sure I don't use any pesticides in my yard.

Best wishes on Father's Day.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Planting my garden is this week’s best consumer experience, while packaging for checkbooks disappoints

By Rita R. Robison

During several sun breaks this week, I had fun planting my garden. However, I wasn’t pleased yesterday when my credit union sent me my checks in a folder.

My best consumer experience: Planting my vegetable garden

This year, I’m trying cherry tomatoes instead of Early Girl or other big, plump, red tomatoes. That’s because I seldom get any red tomatoes.

I also planted carrots, beans, cucumbers, zucchini, parsley, potatoes, and kale.

I hope the beans, carrots, and kale come up soon. The weather’s been cloudy with showers.

My worst consumer experience: Getting my checks packaged in a folder instead of a box

When my credit union sent my checks in a flat, plastic, green package, I was surprised.

But I was shocked to see what was in the package; a CheckFolio. It has three checkbooks glued down to each side of the folder.

The credit union said:

We talked to account holders to learn more about what they want and need from their check products. The result is an innovative new check packaging system called CheckFolio.

CheckFolio is supposed to help me:

• Stay organized by having all the “components” neatly organized.

• By providing a tamper-evident package that protects my identity.

• By protecting the environment because the efficient design uses less material and creates less waste – plus the Check-Folio is recyclable.

I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone. The six checkbooks are glued to the folder, except, woops, one has already come loose.

The directions say to use the checkbooks one at a time or carry the folder around with you. They tell you to use light pressure if you write on them when they’re in the folder to prevent transferring the copy to other checks.

It’s crazy. Usually, my checkbooks come in two boxes. I recycle the outer box and put the copies of the checks back in the box when I’ve written all the checks in the checkbook. I keep the copies for a few years, and then shred them.

I can’t imagine what the credit union and checkbook company were thinking.

The plastic package isn’t recyclable, so the new system is less eco-friendly. It isn’t more secure because if someone is going to steal your checks, they can take a green plastic package and open it just as easily as checkbooks packaged in two paper boxes.

My credit unions usually provide good customer service. With the change, I feel like this is one of those TV ads, which is trying to convince me that something that’s questionable or false is true.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Got drugs? Get rid of unused medicines at drug Take-Back Day

Today, April 28, is National Pharmaceutical Take-Back Day.

Law enforcement, public health, and environmental professionals recommend take-back programs as the safest and most responsible way to dispose of old and leftover medicines to protect your family and to protect the nation’s waters.

Some communities, pharmacies, and law enforcement are paying for ongoing take-back programs to help consumers properly dispose of old medicines in their homes.

The Drug Enforcement Agency’s National Pharmaceutical Take-Back Day is a good one-time opportunity to dispose of drugs, but ongoing solutions also are needed. Year-round programs ensure consumers have ongoing access to safe disposal of leftover and expired medicines.

To locate a Take-Back Program near you, check with your local law enforcement offices or your state health department. Most hours are 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The DEA’s database for drop off sites seems to be jammed or offline now.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

How’s your Earth Day going?

By Rita R. Robison

Are you celebrating the earth today with a special project? Enjoying the spring weather, if you’re fortunate enough to have some sunshine? Doing yard work or a home repair project? Relaxing after a busy week and weekend?

As soon as I finish this post, I’ll be pulling weeds. It’s a good Earth Day activity because using pesticides is harmful to people and the planet.

I also may go to Target to get a free canvas bag, if they have any left.

Best wishes on Earth Day. I hope you have a great day.

If you want to join an organization to help improve the earth, see "Ways to Help the Planet on Earth Day."

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist