Coca Cola and Pepsi sold in India must carry a consumer warning after the nation's Supreme Court said tests of the soft drinks bottled locally turned up high levels of pesticides, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
The court gave the soft-drink giants' Indian subsidiaries a two-week deadline to come up with acceptable language for the warning labels, which will be displayed on the sides of cans and bottles across the country, The Indian Express newspaper said.
Last year, a New Delhi-based activist group, the Center for Science and Environment, claimed that pesticide residue levels in randomly selected Coke and Pepsi bottles were 30 to 36 times higher than norms set by the European Union due to the use of contaminated ground water.
The companies challenged the findings in court and a judge ordered tests.
Later, India's health minister announced the results of the court-ordered tests that showed nine out of 12 soft drinks produced by the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo operators in India did not meet European Union safety standards for pesticide residue, but were considered safe under local standards.
The newspaper reported that both companies pleaded against a court order requiring them to display a breakdown of all their ingredients -- a particularly sensitive issue for Coca-Cola, which has zealously guarded its secret formula, and once pulled its soft drinks from India after a government in the 1970s ordered the company to reveal its recipe.
In statements issued by Coca-Cola India and PepsiCo India, both companies said their products were safe and complied with all statutory requirements.
A statement from Pepsi said, "Our products conform to the highest international standards that ensure consumer safety."
Coca-Cola India said "We follow one quality system across the world," adding that "The treated water used to make our beverages across all our plants in the country already meets the highest international standards, including EU."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Americans See Watershed Era for Environmental Investing
Americans see a golden age for green investing, according to the results of the second-annual survey on environmental investing released here today by Allianz Global Investors, a leading global investment firm.
Of the investors surveyed, 78% say we are likely to see more policies to promote business investment in new environmental technologies in the first year of the Obama Administration than we did under eight years of the Bush Administration. Further, nearly three-quarters (74%) believe the new Congress will be more supportive of policies to promote business investment in new environmental technologies than the old Congress.
"Barack Obama won this election on a platform of change, and the regulatory changes are likely to be very positive for environmental investing," said Bozena Jankowska, lead portfolio manager of the Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund and head of the RCM Sustainability Research Team. "The type of stimulus President Obama is proposing represents a significant opportunity for investors. More broadly, the tone, intensity and content of the debate in Washington is changing and that’s what is really important."
Conducted for the second year in a row, the poll of 1,264 adults examined investors’ understanding of and attitudes toward the environment from an investor’s point of view. The poll was conducted via the Internet between December 12 and December 19, 2008 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, a division of GfK Custom Research North America. Participants had to be age 25 or older and have primary or shared responsibility for investment decisions in households with financial assets of at least $100,000.
The sample was weighted to match the characteristics of the total online population in terms of gender, age, household asset level and region, according to the U.S. Census. The same methodology was used for the survey conducted December 14-20, 2007, which yielded 1,003 completed interviews.
Hope (and Confidence) Springs Eternal
Even though 2008 was a turbulent year for the broader markets, survey data reveal that investors are still generally optimistic, and they are particularly constructive on the environment. In fact, 72% of survey respondents say the recent decline in stock prices has had no impact on their inclination to invest in environmental stocks and about half (48%) of investors say they are at least somewhat likely to invest in these types of companies within the next year.
"The need for pollution control, clean water and energy efficiency is not going away. Investors perceive there is real opportunity here and they want to capitalize on it," said Brian Gaffney, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Global Investors Distributors.
According to the survey, investors continue to view the environmental technology sector as a "buy," with 64% classifying the environment as the most desirable investment opportunity of the 10 categories surveyed. Further, there was a 30% increase from 2007 to 2008 in the number of investors who say they have already made investments in companies that are capitalizing on environmental trends (17% in 2007 versus 22% in 2008).
"Investors’ bright outlook on the environmental technology sector is telling. This is perceived as a long-term opportunity," said Gaffney. "Investors understand that robust demand for innovation and solutions will fuel growth, and consequently profits, for years to come."
Beyond the environment, investors are generally optimistic. Fifty-two percent say the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be higher a year from now than it is today.
Here Today, Here Tomorrow
Investors perceive that environmental issues will be long-lasting and thus present a large and enduring investment opportunity. Better than nine in 10 survey respondents (91%) believe that finding solutions to environmental problems will be a major issue for years to come, and nearly seven in 10 (69%) say it is important to look at investments in companies that are capitalizing on addressing environmental problems.
Addressing and solving these problems has become a top-tier concern of policymakers and opinion-makers. Social commentators and authors such as Thomas Friedman and Daniel Esty have opined there is tremendous opportunity to create economic value by innovating in the environmental space, and survey respondents agree. The survey found that nearly eight in 10 investors (78%) say environmental technology has the potential to be the next great American industry.
"Government investment in the environment and in alternative energy in particular, will be an important engine for economic renewal in the Obama administration," Jankowska said. "During his inaugural address, President Obama said ’We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.’ This is a positive for the U.S. economy and job creation, and for the advancement of the environmental technology sector globally.
"At the same time, accelerating industrialization in emerging markets will continue to spur the need for environmental technologies. That has not changed despite the broader economic slowdown," Jankowska said. "We believe it’s possible that we are in the early stages of a long-term secular up-cycle for environment-related companies."
Even with current oil and gas prices relatively low, there is evidence that investors are now taking a longer view when it comes to the environment. Nearly all investors (97%) say that exploring alternative fuel sources for the future will remain important even if gas prices come down.
American investors see room for progress, and perhaps catch-up, at home. Fifty-eight percent say Europe is ahead of the United States when it comes to addressing environmental problems.
Seeking Help to Go Green
According to the survey, investors are eager to learn more about environmental technology and the related investing opportunities, and they are looking to financial advisors for help. Better than two out of three (68%) of all survey respondents agree they would need to consult a financial advisor for help investing in the environment.
Among those already investing with an investment professional, 78% say that even though the market has been performing poorly, they are still looking to their financial advisor to bring them interesting investment opportunities. However, 85% of those said their advisor had yet to recommend an environment-related investing opportunity. The securities of any single industry such as environmental securities tend to be more volatile than the stock market as a whole, and smaller companies may have limited operating histories and be at a more vulnerable stage of growth.
"This is a rapid growing and rapid-changing sector of the market, so investors are looking for help to smartly and profitably participate," Gaffney said. "Innovation in environmental technology is occurring at an increasing pace and on a global scale, so evaluating the opportunities may be difficult for individual investors. Financial advisors can help investors navigate the space and in turn, professionally managed products offer advisors access to experience, technical expertise and diversification in this complex sector."
Of the investors surveyed, 78% say we are likely to see more policies to promote business investment in new environmental technologies in the first year of the Obama Administration than we did under eight years of the Bush Administration. Further, nearly three-quarters (74%) believe the new Congress will be more supportive of policies to promote business investment in new environmental technologies than the old Congress.
"Barack Obama won this election on a platform of change, and the regulatory changes are likely to be very positive for environmental investing," said Bozena Jankowska, lead portfolio manager of the Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund and head of the RCM Sustainability Research Team. "The type of stimulus President Obama is proposing represents a significant opportunity for investors. More broadly, the tone, intensity and content of the debate in Washington is changing and that’s what is really important."
Conducted for the second year in a row, the poll of 1,264 adults examined investors’ understanding of and attitudes toward the environment from an investor’s point of view. The poll was conducted via the Internet between December 12 and December 19, 2008 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, a division of GfK Custom Research North America. Participants had to be age 25 or older and have primary or shared responsibility for investment decisions in households with financial assets of at least $100,000.
The sample was weighted to match the characteristics of the total online population in terms of gender, age, household asset level and region, according to the U.S. Census. The same methodology was used for the survey conducted December 14-20, 2007, which yielded 1,003 completed interviews.
Hope (and Confidence) Springs Eternal
Even though 2008 was a turbulent year for the broader markets, survey data reveal that investors are still generally optimistic, and they are particularly constructive on the environment. In fact, 72% of survey respondents say the recent decline in stock prices has had no impact on their inclination to invest in environmental stocks and about half (48%) of investors say they are at least somewhat likely to invest in these types of companies within the next year.
"The need for pollution control, clean water and energy efficiency is not going away. Investors perceive there is real opportunity here and they want to capitalize on it," said Brian Gaffney, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Global Investors Distributors.
According to the survey, investors continue to view the environmental technology sector as a "buy," with 64% classifying the environment as the most desirable investment opportunity of the 10 categories surveyed. Further, there was a 30% increase from 2007 to 2008 in the number of investors who say they have already made investments in companies that are capitalizing on environmental trends (17% in 2007 versus 22% in 2008).
"Investors’ bright outlook on the environmental technology sector is telling. This is perceived as a long-term opportunity," said Gaffney. "Investors understand that robust demand for innovation and solutions will fuel growth, and consequently profits, for years to come."
Beyond the environment, investors are generally optimistic. Fifty-two percent say the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be higher a year from now than it is today.
Here Today, Here Tomorrow
Investors perceive that environmental issues will be long-lasting and thus present a large and enduring investment opportunity. Better than nine in 10 survey respondents (91%) believe that finding solutions to environmental problems will be a major issue for years to come, and nearly seven in 10 (69%) say it is important to look at investments in companies that are capitalizing on addressing environmental problems.
Addressing and solving these problems has become a top-tier concern of policymakers and opinion-makers. Social commentators and authors such as Thomas Friedman and Daniel Esty have opined there is tremendous opportunity to create economic value by innovating in the environmental space, and survey respondents agree. The survey found that nearly eight in 10 investors (78%) say environmental technology has the potential to be the next great American industry.
"Government investment in the environment and in alternative energy in particular, will be an important engine for economic renewal in the Obama administration," Jankowska said. "During his inaugural address, President Obama said ’We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.’ This is a positive for the U.S. economy and job creation, and for the advancement of the environmental technology sector globally.
"At the same time, accelerating industrialization in emerging markets will continue to spur the need for environmental technologies. That has not changed despite the broader economic slowdown," Jankowska said. "We believe it’s possible that we are in the early stages of a long-term secular up-cycle for environment-related companies."
Even with current oil and gas prices relatively low, there is evidence that investors are now taking a longer view when it comes to the environment. Nearly all investors (97%) say that exploring alternative fuel sources for the future will remain important even if gas prices come down.
American investors see room for progress, and perhaps catch-up, at home. Fifty-eight percent say Europe is ahead of the United States when it comes to addressing environmental problems.
Seeking Help to Go Green
According to the survey, investors are eager to learn more about environmental technology and the related investing opportunities, and they are looking to financial advisors for help. Better than two out of three (68%) of all survey respondents agree they would need to consult a financial advisor for help investing in the environment.
Among those already investing with an investment professional, 78% say that even though the market has been performing poorly, they are still looking to their financial advisor to bring them interesting investment opportunities. However, 85% of those said their advisor had yet to recommend an environment-related investing opportunity. The securities of any single industry such as environmental securities tend to be more volatile than the stock market as a whole, and smaller companies may have limited operating histories and be at a more vulnerable stage of growth.
"This is a rapid growing and rapid-changing sector of the market, so investors are looking for help to smartly and profitably participate," Gaffney said. "Innovation in environmental technology is occurring at an increasing pace and on a global scale, so evaluating the opportunities may be difficult for individual investors. Financial advisors can help investors navigate the space and in turn, professionally managed products offer advisors access to experience, technical expertise and diversification in this complex sector."
Food of the Future to Be More Diverse?
From the perspective of the plate, the foods we'll eat in the future will likely look and taste a lot like what we eat today. But take a closer peek, and tomorrow's dinner becomes very different indeed.
Agricultural scientists shaping the future of food say that, as global waming alters patterns of temperature, rainfall, and carbon dioxide concentrations in the air, farms must evolve.
Global warming will affect agriculture in a variety of ways: Some regions and farms will get a boost; others will suffer.
To cope with changing growing conditions, farmers will need to reverse decades of crop homogenization and diversify plant strains, agriculture scientists say.
(More on sustainable agriculture.)
Stephen Jones, a plant geneticist and wheat breeder at Washington State University in Pullman, notes that since the mid-20th century, farming has undergone radical homogenization.
"It's not just about monoculture of farms, where one farm grows only one crop, it's also monoculture within those crops and within fields," he said.
Jones notes, for example, that just three varieties of wheat comprise 60 to 70 percent of all wheat grown in the Pacific Northwest, a situation he says is similar with other crops in other regions.
While homogenization has made it easier to grow huge amounts of food on ever larger plots of land, adapting to global warming-induced changes becomes more difficult, particularly if those changes vary from farm to farm and plant to plant.
"There has to be some variation available for the environment to work on. If not, there will be big trouble," he said.
Jones and other researchers say global warming could suppress crop yields, increasing food costs in Western countries and worsening food shortages in many developing areas.
Natural Selection
Agricultural scientists say there are a variety of possible solutions to avoid low crop yields or failures.
Lewis Ziska, a USDA plant physiologist based in Beltsville, Maryland, is in the early stages of creating more resilient varieties of food crops by breeding them with certain weeds.
"Many weeds seem to do better, in general, under a wide range of environments," he said. "Can we take these genes and exploit these abilities by crossing the weeds with cultivated lines? Absolutely."
Ziska notes, for example, that domesticated rice can't produce seed if the temperature creeps above about 90° Fahrenheit (32° Celsius) when the plant is trying to fertilize.
Some weeds related to rice avoid the problem, however, by undergoing fertilization in the early morning or at night, when temperatures are generally cooler. That trait could be passed to the domesticated rice, Ziska says.
Scientists are also looking to breed modern crops with ancestral plant lines.
Global warming forecasts predict higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Ziska has found that under such conditions an early 20th-century strain of wheat actually performs better than a common modern strain.
Jones, of Washington State University, is working on this, as well. His team made test plots of every strain of wheat grown in the Pacific Northwest since the 1850s, looking for traits that could be useful under global warming conditions.
The plant geneticist said he is especially interested in characteristics that haven't been selected for since modern farmers started relying heavily on herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers—such as the ability to compete with weeds or grow well in poor soil.
Plants with those traits could help farmers reduce the need for chemical inputs and lower their carbon footprint.
Genetic Modification
In a changing climate, farmers will need to experiment with many plant varieties to find the mix that works best on their farms, Jones says.
"Nature does a better job of selecting the plants that work than we do," Jones said.
Other crop scientists say there are situations where nature could benefit from a helping hand.
L. Curtis Hannah, a plant molecular biology researcher at the University of Florida in Gainesville, is using modern gene-transfer techniques to engineer strains of corn that could help farmers in tropical areas.
Global warming may bring relatively fast temperature increases such areas.
Focusing on the naturally occurring genes in corn that produce an enzyme called AGPases, Hannah has been able to produce lab-modified corn that thrives at high temperatures.
"When the temperature is above 90 [32° Celsius] during the early stages of seed development, we've seen increases in the yield as high as 68 percent," Hannah said.
While environmentalists generally oppose the introduction of genetically engineered organisms as too risky, Hannah and other crop scientists say such techniques aren't inherently dangerous and can be effective tools—used alongside traditional breeding—to adapt crops to global warming.
The USDA's Ziska said, "It's not a simple good vs. evil scenario."
Agricultural scientists shaping the future of food say that, as global waming alters patterns of temperature, rainfall, and carbon dioxide concentrations in the air, farms must evolve.
Global warming will affect agriculture in a variety of ways: Some regions and farms will get a boost; others will suffer.
To cope with changing growing conditions, farmers will need to reverse decades of crop homogenization and diversify plant strains, agriculture scientists say.
(More on sustainable agriculture.)
Stephen Jones, a plant geneticist and wheat breeder at Washington State University in Pullman, notes that since the mid-20th century, farming has undergone radical homogenization.
"It's not just about monoculture of farms, where one farm grows only one crop, it's also monoculture within those crops and within fields," he said.
Jones notes, for example, that just three varieties of wheat comprise 60 to 70 percent of all wheat grown in the Pacific Northwest, a situation he says is similar with other crops in other regions.
While homogenization has made it easier to grow huge amounts of food on ever larger plots of land, adapting to global warming-induced changes becomes more difficult, particularly if those changes vary from farm to farm and plant to plant.
"There has to be some variation available for the environment to work on. If not, there will be big trouble," he said.
Jones and other researchers say global warming could suppress crop yields, increasing food costs in Western countries and worsening food shortages in many developing areas.
Natural Selection
Agricultural scientists say there are a variety of possible solutions to avoid low crop yields or failures.
Lewis Ziska, a USDA plant physiologist based in Beltsville, Maryland, is in the early stages of creating more resilient varieties of food crops by breeding them with certain weeds.
"Many weeds seem to do better, in general, under a wide range of environments," he said. "Can we take these genes and exploit these abilities by crossing the weeds with cultivated lines? Absolutely."
Ziska notes, for example, that domesticated rice can't produce seed if the temperature creeps above about 90° Fahrenheit (32° Celsius) when the plant is trying to fertilize.
Some weeds related to rice avoid the problem, however, by undergoing fertilization in the early morning or at night, when temperatures are generally cooler. That trait could be passed to the domesticated rice, Ziska says.
Scientists are also looking to breed modern crops with ancestral plant lines.
Global warming forecasts predict higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Ziska has found that under such conditions an early 20th-century strain of wheat actually performs better than a common modern strain.
Jones, of Washington State University, is working on this, as well. His team made test plots of every strain of wheat grown in the Pacific Northwest since the 1850s, looking for traits that could be useful under global warming conditions.
The plant geneticist said he is especially interested in characteristics that haven't been selected for since modern farmers started relying heavily on herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers—such as the ability to compete with weeds or grow well in poor soil.
Plants with those traits could help farmers reduce the need for chemical inputs and lower their carbon footprint.
Genetic Modification
In a changing climate, farmers will need to experiment with many plant varieties to find the mix that works best on their farms, Jones says.
"Nature does a better job of selecting the plants that work than we do," Jones said.
Other crop scientists say there are situations where nature could benefit from a helping hand.
L. Curtis Hannah, a plant molecular biology researcher at the University of Florida in Gainesville, is using modern gene-transfer techniques to engineer strains of corn that could help farmers in tropical areas.
Global warming may bring relatively fast temperature increases such areas.
Focusing on the naturally occurring genes in corn that produce an enzyme called AGPases, Hannah has been able to produce lab-modified corn that thrives at high temperatures.
"When the temperature is above 90 [32° Celsius] during the early stages of seed development, we've seen increases in the yield as high as 68 percent," Hannah said.
While environmentalists generally oppose the introduction of genetically engineered organisms as too risky, Hannah and other crop scientists say such techniques aren't inherently dangerous and can be effective tools—used alongside traditional breeding—to adapt crops to global warming.
The USDA's Ziska said, "It's not a simple good vs. evil scenario."
EPA to rebuild uranium-polluted Navajo homes
The federal government plans to spend up to $3 million a year to demolish and rebuild uranium-contaminated structures across the Navajo Nation, where Cold War-era mining of the radioactive substance left a legacy of disease and death.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Navajo counterpart are focusing on homes, sheds and other buildings within a half-mile to a mile from a significant mine or waste pile. They plan to assess 500 structures over five years and rebuild those that are too badly contaminated.
"These families, with the resources they have, they would not be able to put up a new home for themselves," said Lillie Lane, a spokeswoman for the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency. "We don't know how radiation in the home affected these families, but in the end people will be living in safe homes."
Between the 1940s and the 1980s, millions of tons of uranium ore were mined from the 27,000 square-mile reservation that spans Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Many Navajos, unaware of the dangers of contamination, built their homes with chunks of uranium ore and mill tailings.
The U.S. EPA estimates it will cost $250,000 to demolish each structure, haul away the debris and rebuild. The residents of contaminated homes will not be charged for the rebuilding.
"If we find more homes that are contaminated, we certainly will work to find the resources to address them," said Clancy Tenley, associate director for tribal programs at the EPA in San Francisco.
The effort is part of a five-year plan that expires in 2012 in which a number of federal agencies joined together to address uranium contamination and its effects on the Navajo people. Navajos who toiled in the mines and their dependents have suffered or died from cancer, lung and kidney disease, and other health problems caused by exposure to low levels of radiation over time.
"There is growing confidence that each agency is stepping up to its responsibility and doing more," said Stephen Etsitty, director of the Navajo EPA.
Contamination still an issue
So far, the U.S. EPA has assessed 117 structures and demolished 27 of them. Thirteen have been or will be rebuilt, and the owners of the others received financial settlements.
Lane has done much of the outreach work, traveling to homes across the reservation to advise families of the EPA's efforts and securing agreements to allow officials to assess structures they believe are contaminated. She said most families are cooperative, though some have rejected the assessment without reason.
Crews measure the background levels of radiation against levels in the structure. If the levels are high, families are asked to move away from the property while it is demolished and rebuilt. Arrangements are made for them to stay in hotels and for their livestock and crops to be cared for if needed, Etsitty said.
With more than 500 abandoned uranium mines across the vast reservation, EPA officials acknowledge that the issue of uranium contamination is bigger than assessing and rebuilding structures. "We might have taken care of a good piece of the problem," Lane said, "(but) that's just a little part."
Navajo EPA officials worry about recontamination when it rains and contaminated soils are carried toward homes or into the drinking water supply. The caps that cover some former mining sites are eroding, and Etsitty said "we run the risk of the exposure happening again."
Click for related content
Contaminants lurk in many ‘natural’ products
Obama keeping coal ash locations secret
Nuclear site stung by radioactive wasp nests
Tenley said that President Barack Obama is seeking $7.8 million in the 2010 federal budget to work on structures and abandoned mines on the Navajo reservation.
The project is stretching the staff at Navajo EPA thin and has forced other projects to be put on the back burner, Etsitty said. For every three U.S. EPA officials who go out in the field, two Navajo staffers must accompany them, partly to serve as interpreters.
The U.S. EPA has taken notice of the Navajo EPA's efforts and is honoring the agency in the tribal capital of Window Rock on Tuesday
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Navajo counterpart are focusing on homes, sheds and other buildings within a half-mile to a mile from a significant mine or waste pile. They plan to assess 500 structures over five years and rebuild those that are too badly contaminated.
"These families, with the resources they have, they would not be able to put up a new home for themselves," said Lillie Lane, a spokeswoman for the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency. "We don't know how radiation in the home affected these families, but in the end people will be living in safe homes."
Between the 1940s and the 1980s, millions of tons of uranium ore were mined from the 27,000 square-mile reservation that spans Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Many Navajos, unaware of the dangers of contamination, built their homes with chunks of uranium ore and mill tailings.
The U.S. EPA estimates it will cost $250,000 to demolish each structure, haul away the debris and rebuild. The residents of contaminated homes will not be charged for the rebuilding.
"If we find more homes that are contaminated, we certainly will work to find the resources to address them," said Clancy Tenley, associate director for tribal programs at the EPA in San Francisco.
The effort is part of a five-year plan that expires in 2012 in which a number of federal agencies joined together to address uranium contamination and its effects on the Navajo people. Navajos who toiled in the mines and their dependents have suffered or died from cancer, lung and kidney disease, and other health problems caused by exposure to low levels of radiation over time.
"There is growing confidence that each agency is stepping up to its responsibility and doing more," said Stephen Etsitty, director of the Navajo EPA.
Contamination still an issue
So far, the U.S. EPA has assessed 117 structures and demolished 27 of them. Thirteen have been or will be rebuilt, and the owners of the others received financial settlements.
Lane has done much of the outreach work, traveling to homes across the reservation to advise families of the EPA's efforts and securing agreements to allow officials to assess structures they believe are contaminated. She said most families are cooperative, though some have rejected the assessment without reason.
Crews measure the background levels of radiation against levels in the structure. If the levels are high, families are asked to move away from the property while it is demolished and rebuilt. Arrangements are made for them to stay in hotels and for their livestock and crops to be cared for if needed, Etsitty said.
With more than 500 abandoned uranium mines across the vast reservation, EPA officials acknowledge that the issue of uranium contamination is bigger than assessing and rebuilding structures. "We might have taken care of a good piece of the problem," Lane said, "(but) that's just a little part."
Navajo EPA officials worry about recontamination when it rains and contaminated soils are carried toward homes or into the drinking water supply. The caps that cover some former mining sites are eroding, and Etsitty said "we run the risk of the exposure happening again."
Click for related content
Contaminants lurk in many ‘natural’ products
Obama keeping coal ash locations secret
Nuclear site stung by radioactive wasp nests
Tenley said that President Barack Obama is seeking $7.8 million in the 2010 federal budget to work on structures and abandoned mines on the Navajo reservation.
The project is stretching the staff at Navajo EPA thin and has forced other projects to be put on the back burner, Etsitty said. For every three U.S. EPA officials who go out in the field, two Navajo staffers must accompany them, partly to serve as interpreters.
The U.S. EPA has taken notice of the Navajo EPA's efforts and is honoring the agency in the tribal capital of Window Rock on Tuesday
Bed bug weapon uses insect's own juice
Researchers have enlisted a new weapon against bed bugs: their own chemical signals. It's first time scientists have used any insect's alarm pheromones as a method of control.
While the new technique probably won't single-handedly solve anyone's bed bug woes, experts say, the research may add to our arsenal of tools for fighting what has become a disturbing nuisance for a growing number of people.
"To control bed bugs, there's not going to be one easy solution," said Joshua Benoit, an entomologist at Ohio State University in Columbus. "We are trying to encourage people to find new and creative ways to kill bed bugs
Bed-bug infestations have been on the rise in recent years, Benoit said, probably because people travel so much. All it takes is one pregnant female hopping a ride in a suitcase for a new crop of insects to invade homes and apartment buildings.
The tiny critters don't spread diseases, but a single person can easily get a few hundred bites in one night. Those chomps cause intense itching and even scarring in some people.
So far, there is no ideal way to get rid of bed bugs. Pesticide treatments can be expensive, invasive, toxic, and often ineffective. Already, the insects have developed resistance to some of the most common chemicals used to fight them.
In an effort to get the upper hand, Benoit experimented with alarm pheromones — the chemicals that bed bugs release when they're disturbed or in danger. In turn, their comrades get excited and start scurrying around.
Benoit and colleagues mixed synthetic versions of bed-bug alarm pheromones with desiccant dust, a pesticide that works by drying insects out. In order to work, the bugs need to run directly through the dust.
The researchers placed varying concentrations of these mixtures in Petri dishes and in small enclosures that contained hiding places for the insects. Then they added bed bugs.
Their results, published in the Journal of Medical Entomology, showed that mixtures of alarm pheromones and desiccant dust killed up to 50 percent more bed bugs than did desiccant dust alone. The idea is that the pheromones get the bugs to move around more, making them more likely to run through the dust, which is relatively non-toxic and inexpensive.
"This is the first study of its kind to use alarm pheromones in this manner," Benoit said, "for any insect."
It's still way too soon to recommend that people run out and buy alarm pheromones (which are synthesized for other purposes, including as food preservatives). Outside the confines of a plastic dish, getting bed bugs to run around like crazy is not necessarily a good thing, said Michael Potter, an urban entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Bed bugs are notoriously good at getting behind baseboards, inside walls, and into other cracks and crevices.
Bed-bug infestations have been on the rise in recent years, Benoit said, probably because people travel so much. All it takes is one pregnant female hopping a ride in a suitcase for a new crop of insects to invade homes and apartment buildings.
The tiny critters don't spread diseases, but a single person can easily get a few hundred bites in one night. Those chomps cause intense itching and even scarring in some people.
So far, there is no ideal way to get rid of bed bugs. Pesticide treatments can be expensive, invasive, toxic, and often ineffective. Already, the insects have developed resistance to some of the most common chemicals used to fight them.
In an effort to get the upper hand, Benoit experimented with alarm pheromones — the chemicals that bed bugs release when they're disturbed or in danger. In turn, their comrades get excited and start scurrying around.
Benoit and colleagues mixed synthetic versions of bed-bug alarm pheromones with desiccant dust, a pesticide that works by drying insects out. In order to work, the bugs need to run directly through the dust.
The researchers placed varying concentrations of these mixtures in Petri dishes and in small enclosures that contained hiding places for the insects. Then they added bed bugs.
Their results, published in the Journal of Medical Entomology, showed that mixtures of alarm pheromones and desiccant dust killed up to 50 percent more bed bugs than did desiccant dust alone. The idea is that the pheromones get the bugs to move around more, making them more likely to run through the dust, which is relatively non-toxic and inexpensive.
"This is the first study of its kind to use alarm pheromones in this manner," Benoit said, "for any insect."
It's still way too soon to recommend that people run out and buy alarm pheromones (which are synthesized for other purposes, including as food preservatives). Outside the confines of a plastic dish, getting bed bugs to run around like crazy is not necessarily a good thing, said Michael Potter, an urban entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Bed bugs are notoriously good at getting behind baseboards, inside walls, and into other cracks and crevices.
Some might run into the apartment next door," Potter said. "Some might run into inaccessible areas."
In one recent incident in Columbus, Ohio, Benoit said, bed bugs had infested 23 out of 24 units in an apartment building. Residents had to leave their homes for a week while the building was fumigated. Even then, there was no guarantee that the treatment killed all the bugs.
The incident illustrates how important it is to continue learning more about the inner workings of these pests.
"Any new work on bed bugs," Potter said, "is interesting work."
While the new technique probably won't single-handedly solve anyone's bed bug woes, experts say, the research may add to our arsenal of tools for fighting what has become a disturbing nuisance for a growing number of people.
"To control bed bugs, there's not going to be one easy solution," said Joshua Benoit, an entomologist at Ohio State University in Columbus. "We are trying to encourage people to find new and creative ways to kill bed bugs
Bed-bug infestations have been on the rise in recent years, Benoit said, probably because people travel so much. All it takes is one pregnant female hopping a ride in a suitcase for a new crop of insects to invade homes and apartment buildings.
The tiny critters don't spread diseases, but a single person can easily get a few hundred bites in one night. Those chomps cause intense itching and even scarring in some people.
So far, there is no ideal way to get rid of bed bugs. Pesticide treatments can be expensive, invasive, toxic, and often ineffective. Already, the insects have developed resistance to some of the most common chemicals used to fight them.
In an effort to get the upper hand, Benoit experimented with alarm pheromones — the chemicals that bed bugs release when they're disturbed or in danger. In turn, their comrades get excited and start scurrying around.
Benoit and colleagues mixed synthetic versions of bed-bug alarm pheromones with desiccant dust, a pesticide that works by drying insects out. In order to work, the bugs need to run directly through the dust.
The researchers placed varying concentrations of these mixtures in Petri dishes and in small enclosures that contained hiding places for the insects. Then they added bed bugs.
Their results, published in the Journal of Medical Entomology, showed that mixtures of alarm pheromones and desiccant dust killed up to 50 percent more bed bugs than did desiccant dust alone. The idea is that the pheromones get the bugs to move around more, making them more likely to run through the dust, which is relatively non-toxic and inexpensive.
"This is the first study of its kind to use alarm pheromones in this manner," Benoit said, "for any insect."
It's still way too soon to recommend that people run out and buy alarm pheromones (which are synthesized for other purposes, including as food preservatives). Outside the confines of a plastic dish, getting bed bugs to run around like crazy is not necessarily a good thing, said Michael Potter, an urban entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Bed bugs are notoriously good at getting behind baseboards, inside walls, and into other cracks and crevices.
Bed-bug infestations have been on the rise in recent years, Benoit said, probably because people travel so much. All it takes is one pregnant female hopping a ride in a suitcase for a new crop of insects to invade homes and apartment buildings.
The tiny critters don't spread diseases, but a single person can easily get a few hundred bites in one night. Those chomps cause intense itching and even scarring in some people.
So far, there is no ideal way to get rid of bed bugs. Pesticide treatments can be expensive, invasive, toxic, and often ineffective. Already, the insects have developed resistance to some of the most common chemicals used to fight them.
In an effort to get the upper hand, Benoit experimented with alarm pheromones — the chemicals that bed bugs release when they're disturbed or in danger. In turn, their comrades get excited and start scurrying around.
Benoit and colleagues mixed synthetic versions of bed-bug alarm pheromones with desiccant dust, a pesticide that works by drying insects out. In order to work, the bugs need to run directly through the dust.
The researchers placed varying concentrations of these mixtures in Petri dishes and in small enclosures that contained hiding places for the insects. Then they added bed bugs.
Their results, published in the Journal of Medical Entomology, showed that mixtures of alarm pheromones and desiccant dust killed up to 50 percent more bed bugs than did desiccant dust alone. The idea is that the pheromones get the bugs to move around more, making them more likely to run through the dust, which is relatively non-toxic and inexpensive.
"This is the first study of its kind to use alarm pheromones in this manner," Benoit said, "for any insect."
It's still way too soon to recommend that people run out and buy alarm pheromones (which are synthesized for other purposes, including as food preservatives). Outside the confines of a plastic dish, getting bed bugs to run around like crazy is not necessarily a good thing, said Michael Potter, an urban entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Bed bugs are notoriously good at getting behind baseboards, inside walls, and into other cracks and crevices.
Some might run into the apartment next door," Potter said. "Some might run into inaccessible areas."
In one recent incident in Columbus, Ohio, Benoit said, bed bugs had infested 23 out of 24 units in an apartment building. Residents had to leave their homes for a week while the building was fumigated. Even then, there was no guarantee that the treatment killed all the bugs.
The incident illustrates how important it is to continue learning more about the inner workings of these pests.
"Any new work on bed bugs," Potter said, "is interesting work."
Climate change? Big mammals may be flexible
Big mammals might be unexpectedly resilient in the face of global warming, suggests a new study that looked to the past for insights into the future.
The study found that llamas, tapirs, deer and other large mammals changed their diets when glaciers retreated from North America more than a million years ago.
Scientists have long assumed that animals would be rigid about what they ate and what niches they occupied during periods of climate change — making them especially vulnerable to those shifts.
This really questions that assumption," said Larissa DeSantis, a paleoecologist at the University of Florida, Gainesville. "We were able to show these animals do change their diets quite dramatically."
DeSantis and colleagues studied mammal teeth from two sites on Florida's Gulf Coast. One site dated back 1.9 million years to a glacial period when North America was relatively cold. The other site dated back 1.3 million years to an interglacial period that was much warmer and drier. Both sites contained lots of fossils from many of the same large mammals, including peccaries, pronghorn, horses and elephant-like creatures called gomphotheres.
The researchers drilled into 115 fossil teeth and analyzed the enamel powder for chemical signatures that reflected what the animals had been eating when they were alive. Grasses, for example, contain different forms of carbon and oxygen than leaves and shrubs do. Those signatures are preserved in an animal's tissues.
"You are what you eat," DeSantis said. "And you are what you drink."
During the glacial period, the researchers reported this week in the journal PLoS One, most of the mammals were browsing on leaves and shrubs. When conditions grew warmer, the majority of animals added grasses to their diets. Llamas and peccaries made especially dramatic adjustments to their diets.
"You'd expect to have very distinct groups of animals in each of these environments, but you have the same cast of characters," said Mark Clementz, a paleobiologist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. "Those guys seem to be doing just fine."
When scientists try to predict how species will respond to climate warming, their models often assume that animals will continue to eat only what they're eating now. Those models might have to change, at least for large mammals, Clementz said.
The big message is that many species may be more flexible than what we believe at the moment," Clementz said. By adding new foods to their diets, he said, the animals seemed to weather the climate shift. "That could have a big effect on how they react to climate change in the future."
Exactly how any given animal will react to future changes remains unclear. Warming is happening more quickly now than it did in the past, among other differences. Future studies will also need to consider birds, reptiles, small mammals or other groups.
Still, the message of the new study is at least somewhat hopeful.
"There's a little bit of optimism," Clementz said, "That species are a bit more resilient than we may be giving them credit for."
The study found that llamas, tapirs, deer and other large mammals changed their diets when glaciers retreated from North America more than a million years ago.
Scientists have long assumed that animals would be rigid about what they ate and what niches they occupied during periods of climate change — making them especially vulnerable to those shifts.
This really questions that assumption," said Larissa DeSantis, a paleoecologist at the University of Florida, Gainesville. "We were able to show these animals do change their diets quite dramatically."
DeSantis and colleagues studied mammal teeth from two sites on Florida's Gulf Coast. One site dated back 1.9 million years to a glacial period when North America was relatively cold. The other site dated back 1.3 million years to an interglacial period that was much warmer and drier. Both sites contained lots of fossils from many of the same large mammals, including peccaries, pronghorn, horses and elephant-like creatures called gomphotheres.
The researchers drilled into 115 fossil teeth and analyzed the enamel powder for chemical signatures that reflected what the animals had been eating when they were alive. Grasses, for example, contain different forms of carbon and oxygen than leaves and shrubs do. Those signatures are preserved in an animal's tissues.
"You are what you eat," DeSantis said. "And you are what you drink."
During the glacial period, the researchers reported this week in the journal PLoS One, most of the mammals were browsing on leaves and shrubs. When conditions grew warmer, the majority of animals added grasses to their diets. Llamas and peccaries made especially dramatic adjustments to their diets.
"You'd expect to have very distinct groups of animals in each of these environments, but you have the same cast of characters," said Mark Clementz, a paleobiologist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. "Those guys seem to be doing just fine."
When scientists try to predict how species will respond to climate warming, their models often assume that animals will continue to eat only what they're eating now. Those models might have to change, at least for large mammals, Clementz said.
The big message is that many species may be more flexible than what we believe at the moment," Clementz said. By adding new foods to their diets, he said, the animals seemed to weather the climate shift. "That could have a big effect on how they react to climate change in the future."
Exactly how any given animal will react to future changes remains unclear. Warming is happening more quickly now than it did in the past, among other differences. Future studies will also need to consider birds, reptiles, small mammals or other groups.
Still, the message of the new study is at least somewhat hopeful.
"There's a little bit of optimism," Clementz said, "That species are a bit more resilient than we may be giving them credit for."
Contaminants lurk in many ‘natural’ products
Lead in ginkgo pills. Arsenic in herbals. Bugs in a baby's colic and teething syrup. Toxic metals and parasites are part of nature, and all of these have been found in "natural" products and dietary supplements in recent years.
Set aside the issue of whether vitamin and herbal supplements do any good.
Are they safe? Is what's on the label really what's in the bottle? Tests by researchers and private labs suggest the answer sometimes is no.
One quarter of supplements tested by an independent company over the last decade have had some sort of problem. Some contained contaminants. Others had contents that did not match label claims. Some had ingredients that exceeded safe limits. Some contained real drugs masquerading as natural supplements.
"We buy it just as the consumer buys it" from stores, said Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of ConsumerLab.com. The company tests pills for makers that want its seal of approval, and publishes ratings for subscribers, much as Consumer Reports does with household goods.
Other tests, reported in scientific journals, found prenatal vitamins lacking claimed amounts of iodine and supplements short on ginseng and hoodia — an African plant sparking the latest diet craze.
Click for related content
Poll: How do you feel about alternative remedies?
Most cancer patients seek natural remedies
"There's at least 10 times more hoodia sold in this country than made in the world, so people are not getting hoodia," said Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon and frequent Oprah Winfrey guest who occasionally has touted the stuff.
Industry groups say that quality problems are the exception rather than the rule.
"I believe that the problem is narrow, that the well-established and reputable brands deserve their reputations," said Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association.
Of course, prescription drugs have had problems, too. Dozens of deaths were linked last year to tainted heparin, a blood thinner produced in China, for example. However, pharmaceutical drugs must show evidence to the government of safety and effectiveness before they go on sale. Not so for dietary supplements
Fifteen years ago, Congress passed a law that treats supplements like food and allows them to go straight to market without federal Food and Drug Administration approval. The FDA can act only after consumers get sick or a safety issue comes to light.
"We called it 'the body rule,"' said William Obermeyer, a chemist who left the FDA to found ConsumerLab.com with Cooperman. If a supplement was harmful, "we had to have so many adverse events before we could make a move on it. It was really like closing the barn door after all the animals left."
The law said the FDA could write quality control rules for products sold in the U.S. It took the FDA 13 years to adopt these, and they are just now taking effect. But the rules do not say what tests companies must do to prove what is in their products, and some tests can be fooled by subbing other ingredients. The rules also set no limits on toxins such as lead; nor do they change the fundamental way these products are sold to the public.
"It leaves the level of quality up to the manufacturer," Cooperman said.
In a written statement, FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan said the new rules contain what is "needed to ensure quality," and that products that contain contaminants or whose labels do not honestly describe their contents, are considered adulterated and subject to further action by the agency. But she conceded that the agency is spread thin.
"In that FDA has limited resources to analyze the composition of food products, including dietary supplements, it focuses these resources first on public health emergencies and products that may have caused injury or illness," she wrote.
Set aside the issue of whether vitamin and herbal supplements do any good.
Are they safe? Is what's on the label really what's in the bottle? Tests by researchers and private labs suggest the answer sometimes is no.
One quarter of supplements tested by an independent company over the last decade have had some sort of problem. Some contained contaminants. Others had contents that did not match label claims. Some had ingredients that exceeded safe limits. Some contained real drugs masquerading as natural supplements.
"We buy it just as the consumer buys it" from stores, said Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of ConsumerLab.com. The company tests pills for makers that want its seal of approval, and publishes ratings for subscribers, much as Consumer Reports does with household goods.
Other tests, reported in scientific journals, found prenatal vitamins lacking claimed amounts of iodine and supplements short on ginseng and hoodia — an African plant sparking the latest diet craze.
Click for related content
Poll: How do you feel about alternative remedies?
Most cancer patients seek natural remedies
"There's at least 10 times more hoodia sold in this country than made in the world, so people are not getting hoodia," said Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon and frequent Oprah Winfrey guest who occasionally has touted the stuff.
Industry groups say that quality problems are the exception rather than the rule.
"I believe that the problem is narrow, that the well-established and reputable brands deserve their reputations," said Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association.
Of course, prescription drugs have had problems, too. Dozens of deaths were linked last year to tainted heparin, a blood thinner produced in China, for example. However, pharmaceutical drugs must show evidence to the government of safety and effectiveness before they go on sale. Not so for dietary supplements
Fifteen years ago, Congress passed a law that treats supplements like food and allows them to go straight to market without federal Food and Drug Administration approval. The FDA can act only after consumers get sick or a safety issue comes to light.
"We called it 'the body rule,"' said William Obermeyer, a chemist who left the FDA to found ConsumerLab.com with Cooperman. If a supplement was harmful, "we had to have so many adverse events before we could make a move on it. It was really like closing the barn door after all the animals left."
The law said the FDA could write quality control rules for products sold in the U.S. It took the FDA 13 years to adopt these, and they are just now taking effect. But the rules do not say what tests companies must do to prove what is in their products, and some tests can be fooled by subbing other ingredients. The rules also set no limits on toxins such as lead; nor do they change the fundamental way these products are sold to the public.
"It leaves the level of quality up to the manufacturer," Cooperman said.
In a written statement, FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan said the new rules contain what is "needed to ensure quality," and that products that contain contaminants or whose labels do not honestly describe their contents, are considered adulterated and subject to further action by the agency. But she conceded that the agency is spread thin.
"In that FDA has limited resources to analyze the composition of food products, including dietary supplements, it focuses these resources first on public health emergencies and products that may have caused injury or illness," she wrote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)