July 2005 Archives

A recent civil suit against DuPont claims that the company continued marketing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used to manufacture Teflon&, despite 20 years of research showing derogatory health effects. The class action lawsuits by two firms in Florida call for DuPont to spend $5 billion dollars to reimburse people for their Teflon© cookware, ask that the company to label the PFOA made products with warnings, and demand that DuPont reserve funds for further research on PFOA exposure and to possibly pay for associated medical problems of its customers.

The pressure on DuPont is rising. Last fall it paid $340 million to plaintiffs in West Virginia, where a Teflon© manufacturing facility is located, who claimed that PFOA leaked into their water supply. In May of 2005, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Environmental division issued a criminal subpoena to DuPont in its investigation of DuPont's studies of PFOA's in its own employees in 1981. And the EPA has charged that the company violated the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act from June 1981 to March 2001 and failed to turn over laboratory results.

The current suit focuses on the companies alleged irresponsibility in monitoring the health effects of its product. According to a BBC report, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said:

"DuPont has known for over 20 years that the Teflon© product and the PFOA chemical it contains causes cancer in laboratory animals...I don't have to prove that it causes cancer. I only have to prove that DuPont lied in a massive attempt to continue selling their product."

Dupont replies:

"Approved standard FDA tests also show that non-stick coatings used for cookware sold under the Teflon© brand, do not contain any PFOA...Like any household product, cookware coated with Teflon© non-stick is safe when used properly. Teflon© is a trusted brand and is used all over the world by millions of people every day."

PFOA is currently not regulated by the EPA. Although the European Union, Canada and Japan have taken actions to limit potentially toxic chemicals, the United States has been far less proactive. There are several explanations for this. Federal oversight was postponed in the late 1990's, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), when the chemical industry offered to voluntarily test chemicals being produced in large volumes. There are also logistical issues to effective regulation. The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) is procedurally daunting, making it exceedingly difficult to regulate toxins. As well, the General Accounting Office (GAO) determined in 2001 that the agency provided biased reports since its panelists were often affiliated with the companies whose chemicals they were reporting about.

For these reasons and more, the EPA has only requested health data on fewer the 200 chemicals since 1979 and as a result, the agency has been attracting steady criticism for years. Theo Colburn, a pioneer for low-dose toxicity research, noted in an an interview with PBS Frontline, that the EPA does little to protect people who depend on their oversight of potential toxins, and that it ignores existing research evidence about health hazards. A recent (GAO) report also determined that the EPA is weak on regulating chemicals and protecting public health. As the EWG reported:

"If the E.P.A. were to take action against PFOA, it would be the first major regulation of a chemical in more than 15 years. Of the more than 80,000 chemicals that have been in commercial use since World War II, just five types are regulated: PCB's, halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes, dioxin, asbestos and hexavalent chromium."

In an attempt to tighten up the agencies oversight, Senator Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) and Senator James Jeffords (I- Vermont), introduced the "Kids Safe Chemical Act", that will require that chemicals used in households be tested prior to their release on the market. It also proposes expanding the regulatory power of the EPA.

Since the EPA has now labeled PFOA a "potential carcinogen", it can theoretically participate more in the regulation of the chemical. Naturally, some are skeptical about how fast the changes will actually occur and many point to the slog around asbestos regulation despite the numerous lawsuits and legislation enacted to clean it out of the environment.

UPDATE (October 23, 2007): The site http://www.babybottle.org, which used to be sponsored by the The American Chemical Council, as described below, is now sponsored by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, a collection of manufactures who lobby extensively along the same lines as the ACC. The site is no longer "garish pink and blue", as I wrote a couple of years ago, it's light green, pink and blue. In lieu of "Ask the Pediatrician", they have "Ask the Expert", and give the name and photo of an Ob/Gyn (not a pediatrician -- nevertheless you'd hope a doctor who's taken the Hippocratic Oath wouldn't be lobbying on behalf of manufacturers of plastic products, given 150 studies about the dangers of bisphenol A.). She does not warn that your baby may "drop or throw" a glass bottle and endanger itself. Instead she says that "as a mother...[she] believe[s] mothers have more important things to worry about." She posts the same message (parents have other things to worry about) on numerous blogs. So from JPMA, the same message --buy plastic, it's safe, and the same affiliates; bisphenol A (BPA)and phthalate manufacturers, the American Chemical Association, stats.org-- with a more subtle, tasteful marketing package.

Endocrine Disruptors, Potent in Tiny Doses

The Wall Street Journal published an article Monday about low dose toxins and their potential health effects. The article, "Common Industrial Chemicals In Tiny Doses Raise Health Issue", by Peter Waldman, highlights important and often overlooked research by scientists investigating health risks associated with the ubiquitous use of certain chemicals at levels that are currently approved by the federal government.

Generally, the approach to determining toxicity is to assay levels of a chemical and pinpoint the level that causes significant health effects. A level of chemical exposure that causes death, acute reaction, birth defects or directly associated health problems is identified. The Wall Street Journal article says that this "no observable effect" dose is then divided by an uncertainty factor to derive an estimate of the level of exposure that is reported to be safe.

It is known that most of us carry at least 500 chemicals in our bodies, but we assume that these are harmless and that the government regulates them closely and would ban them if they were harmful. However research increasingly shows that some chemicals known as endocrine disruptors have health effects at very very low levels, much lower then what the EPA approves. When these chemicals are tested at the highest levels to determine the effect of possible exposure there may be visible health effects. At slightly lower levels the receptors to which the chemical binds may not respond because they are overwhelmed. But at extremely low levels the chemicals may trigger a cascade reactions in the endocrine receptors and cause derogatory health problems. Estrogen is a potent hormone which can cause effects throughout the body, so if people are being inadvertently exposed to levels of BPA everyday then that's a health problem that we should try to mitigate.

The concern now, is that these low, low exposure levels haven't been tested for safety in humans. The Wall Street Journal piece talks about many toxins, including phthalates (toys, cosmetics, perfumes), perchlorate (munitions and drinking water, fruits, vegetables), and atrazine (weed killer), that all cause endocrine level damage at low levels.

Bisphenol A in Tiny Babies

This article will focus on one of the chemicals mentioned, bisphenol A - known by its acronym BPA. The WSJ author reports:

"Tiny doses of bisphenol A, which is used in polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and in resins that line food cans, have been found to alter brain structure neurochemistry, behavior, reproduction and immune response in animals."

Along with baby bottles and cans, bisphenol A, BPA is found in plastic utensils, plastic water bottles (Nalgenes), some dental resins, and dishes. Naturally, not everyone is concerned about this, for instance the American Dental Association ADA isn't. Neither is the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The ACC runs the cheerfully garish pink and blue www.babybottle.org site. [10/23/07: This information is historical, see "Update", above.] They're undercover about this - the ACC name doesn't appear on the site, though at the time this was written, on the first page there is some small print hinting at a marketing purpose. The site advises parents on the safety of plastic bottles vs. glass bottles in a helpful information page titled- "Ask The Pediatrician". The American Chemistry Council poses the rhetorical question: Which bottles are better for my baby, glass or plastic? And then the ACC answers their own question:

"once your baby gets older, he or she may tip, drop or throw the bottle - so plastic may be a better choice. Additionally, you may hear stories that glass bottles get too hot or plastic bottles leak dangerous amounts of harmful chemicals into the formula.Rest assured, there are no facts to support these claims."[emphasis added]

"Rest assured", says the American Chemistry Council, reassuringly. Other sites also tout the safety of bisphenol A. The top search item in a typical Google search is always www.bisphenol-a.org, a site that offers a wealth of biased information. Again, nowhere on the site does the owner of the site, The American Chemistry Council, mention it's ownership. The site downplays cautionary research on BPA, and instead heartily dismisses both research showing the harmful effects of the chemical, and vilifying policy actions which attempt to limit human exposure to the hormone disruptor.

The Industrial Strength Denial Machine

One of the reasons the BPA in plastic is accepted as safe by the population has to do with the intense and sustained marketing of industry lobby groups. Not only do they provide misleading information on websites, they also commission scientific studies to give evidence that supports their positions. But industry sponsored research can be biased, or planned to give a certain result, as these studies are.

The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council commissioned a study via Harvard to review 19 studies on bisphenol-A a few years ago. The study, presented after 2.5 years, concluded that research showed no bisphenol A hazards. However when the report was issued last fall, the WSJ writes that three of the original ten panelists refused to sign it. A fourth one signed it, but criticized the study then authored his own study that reviewed 115 research reports and concluded the opposite result of the Harvard study: that bisphenol A (BPA) does cause health effects in low doses.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a pro-industry group that claims to be on the side of sound science, criticizes the Wall Street Journal article as alarmist. It charges that the article preys on the fears of readers who the ACSH claims are:

"ill-equipped to understand the underlying scientific controversy, all the more so because there are no specific citations to support the author's frightening claims; a consumer who is interested in pursuing further information is left without the tools to do so"

The readers are too "ill-equipped"? Perhaps the WSJ readership differs from the ACSH audience. "No citations", is a defense often used by politicians to avoid accountability. The ACSH portrays the Wall Street Journal readers in an unbelievable way, considering that the business paper is not known for its "alarmist" stances about the environment, nor are its readers intellectually at sea. In the ACSH criticism of WSJ, they provide no evidence to the contrary, nor would they, since they assert that consumers aren't smart enough to understand the danger of the chemicals.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal article specifically cites the CDC report that "found traces of bisphenol A in 95% of human urine samples tested". It also cites research done in Japan, where "researchers have detected BPA in the fetal amniotic fluid and the umbilical cords of newborns".

Consumers -- Not Able to Sort out the Facts?

ACSH states that the reader will be stranded - "left without the tools" - to sort out the facts after reading the WSJ article. However, to the contrary, there's a slew of peer reviewed journal articles at Google-Scholar. Typing "bisphenol A" in a regular Google search also yields many resources. At the time this article was written, we found plenty of references to research on the effects of the chemical on neurochemistry (pdf) (such as dopamine neurogenic affects), behavior, reproduction (miscarriages), and immune response.

Not only is the research easy to find, it's consistently worrisome. Research published last month on on bisphenol-A(BPA), shows that perinatal exposure to bisphenol A changes mammary gland development in subsequent puberty and increases the risk of breast cancer. Notably, the researchers used BPA levels of 25 parts per trillion, which is two million times lower than the "lowest observed adverse effect level", of 50mg/kg which the EPA established as the reference level back in the 1980's.

ACSH claims that the author doesn't provide facts- he does. ACSH claims the research isn't there- it is. ACSH says:

"Waldman repeatedly implies that many of those who object to increased regulation at the drop of a rat [sic] do so because they are funded or employed by industry. Such charges are what happens when ideology becomes more important than sound science, when suddenly academia and industry-funded science are portrayed as competing forces with opposite goals."

In reality the real data is generated by hundreds of scientists in labs in Canada, Japan, Europe and the US. Both the American Plastics Council, as well as the American Chemistry Council vociferously deny the growing evidence in hundreds of studies showing the health hazards of this chemical. The ACC goes so far as to anonymously build internet sites that pose as benevolent places for new parents to get their questions answered but actually pose their own questions, then answer their questions with marketing information. The ACSH chooses to deny all of this, and its own industry affiliations. Furthermore, no one is attack "industry" research per se, Waldeman focuses on particular studies on BPA funded by industry that come to the opposite conclusions of virtually hundreds of academic studies. If your trying to make the point that industry research isn't biased, bisphenol A research has to be one of the worst examples you could give.

The sheer volume of current data supporting concerns about toxins is attracting attention, but the research is not new. Theo Colburn has been doing research on endocrine disruptors since the 1980's . Although alarms were periodically raised in popular science articles such as this one in Science News in 1999, the persistent denial by chemical corporations has helped keep the research out of the public eye. Theo Colburn talks about the strategy:

"They are spending more money on telling you about the wonders of their product. And they are basically building up within the American public or the television viewing public, and those who read the press, basically that "We are good companies. We would do nothing to harm you. We will take care of you." So it is basically a matter of establishing complacency, I think, within the population."

Colburn is has been joined in her research by many scientists whose collective work is increasingly difficult to discount. There is a clearly expanding body of research that should signal to consumers and to the EPA that there is a need for an attitude change towards regulating biphenol A and many other chemicals.

Legislation?

The state of California has moved to adopt legislation initiated by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, that will ban the use of bisphenol A, which is currently so prevalent in our bottles, pacifiers, toys, dental coatings, and bodies. It will be interesting to watch the progress of this legislative attempt to control use of this chemical.

Acronym Required previously discussed environmental toxins and the media in an article about environmental skeptics- not phased despite evidence such as germline mutations from perinatal exposure to fertilizers.

Doctors at Bristol University found that individuals who had recently taken antibiotics showed increased resistance to subsequent antibiotic regimens. The researchers studied 3,000 people who had been given antibiotic treatments. The researchers took urine samples from patients who were prescribed antibiotics then tested the bacteria in the patients urine for antibiotic resistance. They found that the bacteria from patients who took antibiotics within two months of testing showed increased resistance to amoxicillin and trimethoprim (two antibiotics). When the antibiotic course was taken 12 months prior to taking the urine samples the influence on the antibiotic resistance of the urinary bacteria waned and the bacteria population resumed normal susceptibility to the drugs.

This is important for doctors who choose whether to prescribe antibiotics or not. Generally it is known (and Acronym Required has previously discussed) that the overuse of antibiotics creates a pool of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the environment. This exposes the human population as a whole to the increased risk of infections from of microbes that mutate and develop physiological abilities to resist the lethal affect of antibiotics. People sometimes think (and this was also discussed previously) that although they personally might be affected by their choice, not anyone else will, a misconception that allows them a certain nonchalance about whether they finish their prescription or not. If this study is repeated and the results are robust then it appears that there is an increased risk to individuals who take antibiotics, in addition to the increased risks to the population. This should add a cautionary note to patients and doctors about the dangers for individuals as well as populations of prescribing antibiotics overzealously. Though whether it changes behavior remains to be seen.

*typo corrected, link fixed 01/07/08

The New York Times tells the tale of an endangered turtle, a Batagur baska or "Asian river terrapin". The endangered species was re-discovered in 2001 in Cambodia. King Norodom Sihanouk endorsed a program for the turtle's preservation and turtles were radio tagged. (this article previously stated that his son, Norodom Sihamoni, who only came into power in 2004, was resposible for the program). Poachers recently smuggled one of the tagged turtles to Vietnam. There, officials confiscated it in a raid along with some other more run-of-the-mill turtles. One inspection officer noticed the large size and unfamiliar features and contacted environmentalists who identified the turtle as one of the rare species. The batagur is one of Asia's largest freshwater turtles and this one weighed over 30 pounds. It will be returned to its home habitat, a river in Cambodia, which was identified by its radio tags. There it will join an estimated 2-8 female Asian river terrapins.

Part of this story is a familiar one. In small villages in South East Asia and China, as well as other remote areas of the world, people hunt, fish (and poach) whatever they can to eat and sell. They often don't discriminate between endangered and unendangered species, especially when there's profit to be gained from a rarefied feature like a tusk or hide or hoof or leaf or root.

Suketu Mehta received enormous praise and some criticism for "Maximum City", a non-fiction book about Bombay. The Economist said about the book:

"Suketu Mehta tells the stories of slum-dwellers, dancing girls, hitmen, and poets, all of whom have come to Bombay to make it. With a clear but non-judgemental voice, his is an outstanding tale of the exhilarating city in which he grew up."

Suketu Mehta boldly highlights a "clear but non-judgmental voice" on his website. This week the author uses his platform to opine broadly in the New York Times about the outsourcing of jobs by the West to India. With the media chirping daily about outsourcing, Mehta portrays American workers handwringing over their lost jobs in A Passage From India". He speaks again with a clear voice but this time he is decidedly judgmental.

It is admittedly difficult to argue with the article since it touches on many sides of a complicated issue from a variety of perspectives and voices. Mehta masterfully spins bits of truth into an argument that cossets our fears with gentle conciliatory gestures. On one hand he provides easy examples to illustrate what we already suspect are our national failings. "In this year's national spelling bee", he says, as we succumb to the idea that our children are getting dumber;"the top four contestants were of South Asian origin"".

Mehta was apparently educated in English schools in Bombay, moved to New York when he was fourteen and graduated from NYU and University of Idaho Writer's workshop. He portrays himself in the image of a Pico "Iyer-esque" cosmopolitan - a trans-continental city denizen, who finds friends and family in the many "..rooms" in Paris, San Francisco, Bombay or New York. From this position, he contends that the education in the West is inferior. "If I were now to move with my family to India, my children - who go to one of the best private schools in New York - would have to take remedial math and science courses". Then he lines up his evidence to assert that this is the cause, which can be linked to an effect; "one in 10 technology jobs will leave these shores by the end of this year". The result, he concludes, leaves the West poised to plummet noisily to "their" (third person) demise - "complaining when their jobs are being lost to children of the empire who are working harder than they are." Does he suggest that perhaps the West deserves the outsourcing as some sort of come-uppance?

Mehta then assumes the role of the underdog when he appeals to our guilt at a time when many of us question our oafish international behavior: "I was mercilessly bullied during the 1979-80 hostage crisis, because my classmates couldn't tell the difference between Iran and India". He scoffs our slothful habits, "Indians have had to learn; we have had to slog for long hours in the classroom while the children of other countries went out to play". He strings it all together onto a history of imperialism; "Why are Indians willing to write code for a tenth of what Americans make for the same work? It's not by choice; it's because they're still struggling to stand on their feet after 200 years of colonial rule." It's not clear whether the author is speaking for an India that perhaps as a nation has a chip on its shoulder, or whether he's reflecting some personal bitterness.

Is he an outsider to all nations, uncomfortable in a quest for illusive identity? Or is his position enviable, maybe uniquely fortunate, in that he can assume multiple identities but be caged by none. Perhaps his multi-lingual, multi-cultural identity positions him well to elude the vagaries of globalism. Regardless, he glibly assumes different personas, donning the robe of the worldly elitist to scorn us, then the scuffed shoes of the beleagured exile to rebuke us, before assuming the mantle of dutiful American: "I have a vested interest in seeing America prosper. But I am here because the country of my ancestors didn't understand the changing world..". Continued protectionism, he warns; "will ensure only that *our* schools stay terrible; it'll be an entire country run like the dairy industry, feasible only because of price controls and subsidies". We are left to peer quizzically if doubtfully into the mirror that he holds up for us, re-examining the blemishes that he highlights.

Meanwhile, the author embellishes not only India's education system but its technological abilities with select evidence; "During the technology boom of the late 1990's, Indians were responsible for 10 percent of all the start-ups in Silicon Valley". This he uses to hint at inevitable dominance - "Those Indians who went to the United States...have done remarkably well: Indians make up one of the richest ethnic groups in this country". As deftly as a Bollywood script writer, he adds magnificence, bright colors, shiny sparkly glory, and a bit of song and dance to create the glittering myth of India Ascendant

Then, having drawn the line down the middle and deftly balanced the two sides with some well worn arguments and classic handicaps he concludes "The outsourcing debate seems to have mutated into a contest between the country of my birth and the country of my nationality." Finally, after ever so politely, apologetically and properly putting the ambiguous *us* in our place, he offers nobly that; "Indian-Americans can help..deal with the emerging economic superpower that is India".

It is interesting how the gritty picture of Bombay in "Maximum City" opposes the shiny glossy composite of the ascending India (a sleight of even-handedness) in this article. Shall we trust the words of this benevolent self styled avatar of global understanding? What is true? Are U.S. schools failing abysmally next to India's? Are we losing our scientific edge as abruptly and tragically as a child misspells some impossible multisyllabic word presented in a spelling bee? Is the trend in outsourcing proof that India is just a hop skip and jump from becoming "the empire", the "economic superpower"? Should we be shaking in our temporarily well-heeled boots? Could we possible answer all these questions?

(To be continued)

"A Fine Balance" is also a book about India by Rohinton Mistry.

The Giant Pandas at the National Zoo had a baby. The parent pandas, Mei Xiang and Tian Tian, were exchanged from China a few years ago for $10 million dollars in donations to be used for conservation projects. Mei Xiang and Tian Tian are the National Zoo's second pair of giant pandas. Meix Xiang birthed the tiny baby 3-5 ounce baby at about 3:45AM this morning. The sex of the baby is not known since the zookeepers won't disturb the infant or mother.

Pandas are difficult to breed in captivity. If this baby lives it will be only the third to survive a captive birth in the U.S. Five others have been born at the National Zoo but have not survived. The pandas were mated last March when zookeepers artificially inseminated them. Pandas ovulate once a year, and if they do not become pregnant they can have "pseudopregnancies" with elevated hormone levels and behavior that mimics a pregnant panda. Some cues that Mei Xiang was pregnant include that she was "sleeping much of the day, eating little, building a bamboo nest in her den and cradling apples".The new panda will become property of China after it is weaned, when it reaches two years. China will also name the baby after its first 100 days.

Pandas have been considered an endangered species since the 1960's. The good news is that a recent census by the World Wildlife Fund and the Chinese government found 1600 pandas living in China, 50% more then they had expected to find. Placing the pandas in zoos around the world helps raise awareness of pandas and endangered species. As well attempting to breed pandas in captivity provides a potential alternative to breeding and hopefully helps insure the panda's precarious existence in the wild. There are several breeding facilities in China, including the renowned Chengdu breeding center.

Political Scientists have decided that they no longer want to be weighed down by the cumbersome baggage of science -- ugh research, as in done by scientists. While political scientists are not necessarily politicians, some are, and many others influence the outcome of politics. An added annoyance is that the activist leftist media typically sympathizes with the thousands of scientists who form a growing chorus claiming that their research is ignored by politicians. It has become painfully obvious that scientists are invariably getting in the way of politics, and as well, the copious science reporting skews public opinion. The public now has the utmost respect for scientists, whereas politics gets none.

Scientists, pffft, what do they do besides complain? The easy life. Write a few research grants, supervise research, submit the papers to peers, jostle for journal publication, prevent loafing grad students from setting fire to toxic reagents in the spiffy new science wings.

Now imagine the unsurmountable strife of the political scientists. Busy fending off ruckus causing scientists, no longer can they retire to "Old South Hall", that ivy smothered granite campus building, where their office is tiered from floor to ceiling with papers, books, thesis drafts, and abandoned term papers - reams of yellowing proof of academic achievement. No time to tutor timid undergrads on the harsh rigors of tenure. No time to venture out, rub tweeded elbows at the faculty club, chuckle with those in the know, vie for those coveted government spots. Now political scientists are wasting precious time fighting the ever pesky bevy of scientists who insist belligerently that everyone "Look At The Data".

Due to all these factors, the political scientists' choice to circumvent science altogether is fairly easy to understand. What can they do? Certainly it would be far easier if political scientists could just publish their own science research.

And so faster than a celebrity changes their name, political scientists are doing just that. It was reported that three political scientists: Dr. John Alford, Dr. John Hibbing, and Dr. Caroline Funk of Virginia Commonwealth University, published their research analysis of twin studies, in which they derived the genetic component of political views, in the political science research in the American Political Science Association journal. The New York Times also summarized their research. These 'scientists' took two research studies done by the other scientists on twins, and "combed" the research for indications as to whether political instincts and party affiliations were genetic. They found that political instincts are. There! No need to argue with their conclusions (though others certainly have) because they are scientists.

It's only several trivial political hurdles before "Political Scientists" up the ante, drop the clumsy "Political" part of their title, and adapt the more streamlined and sexy "Scientist" moniker. There are hefty government grants to win and Nobels to capture. Discussions are ongoing (among men) as to whether to complete the makeover with goatees, or beards. Or perhaps the clean-shaven, innocent looking visage.

It will no doubt make things easier. Science is in need of constant refuting - in schools and courts, on Presidential Advisory Councils, in the portraited halls of the Bush Administration, and at international conferences. Gobbles up precious publishing and hobnobbing time. Think of political redistricting, as one of the authors often does. The possibilities are endless. If political views are genetic. But we don't think they are. Voila!

Heavy and "obese" people read headlines recently urging them to "Walk Slowly For Weight Loss". The *news*, which made headlines throughout the mainstream media including CNN, Yahoo, Science Daily, and MNBC, originated from a study and subsequent press release from the University of Colorado, Boulder June 14, 2005. The study's authors urged the exact opposite advice of what people have tried to adhere to for years. Reliable sources including the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Obesity Association (AOA), The American Heart Association (AHA), among others, have long encouraged everyone to "walk briskly!" We have been told to "pick up the pace from leisurely to brisk", not only to improve overall health , but to decrease the risks of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes, as well as to lose or maintain healthy weight.

The headlines referred to research published in the May issue of Obesity Research titled: "Energetic Cost and Preferred Speed of Walking in Obese vs. Normal Weight Women", by Raymond Browning, Roger Kram and others. Here's how the CU's press release summarized the researchers results, quoting Ray Browning, the lead author (emphasis ours):

"The message is that by walking more slowly, obese individuals can burn more calories per mile and may reduce the risk of arthritis or joint injury."

We found the study in order to look at the original results. According to the CU press release, the authors started with the hypothesis that:

"Obese adults would have a greater energy cost when walking [based] on previous studies by Kram's lab team. In one study, energy expenditure increased by about 25 percent when normal-weight people walked with a deliberately wider stance"

Based on these previous results, authors expected that further research would show that heavier people walked more slowly then lighter weight people, with higher energy cost and commensurately greater cardiovascular effort. Instead, Browning and Kram found that the two groups walked at similar speeds. Surprisingly, the heavier group only burned only 11% more calories per pound. Browning and Kram had theorized that the heavier group would use at least 100% more calories per pound.

Said the Browning:

"This was a surprise...The subjects probably are unwittingly altering their posture and walking with straighter legs, conserving calories in the process."

Here's an approximate graph of the results. It differs slightly from the graph published by the study because the authors used "2.5" as the starting Y axis value, instead of "0". The results (our lines are based on theirs, which are second-order least squares regression calculations), show that as the walkers increase their speed they decrease the energy they use until the optimal "preferred speed" for walking is achieved. This "preferred speed" was reached at 1.47m/s for the normal group and 1.4m/s for the obese group. These speeds represent approximately the points where the walkers cover the greatest distance using the least amount of energy.

Interestingly, both the thinner and the heavier subjects used more energy at slower speeds. So why then, did the researchers only recommend that obese subjects walk more slowly? According to the authors it was because the heavier cohort were the only ones at risk for osteoarthritis. The authors indicate in their press release that their research shows this risk. However nowhere in the original study was this question addressed except for a brief reference to a different research lab's paper.

The research group whose work Browning and Kram referenced, had done work only with a normal weight cohort, not with the obese who walked more efficiently. So in essence the basis for their press release is not their own research, at least not published research but their approximations based on another lab's study. This is all very vague in their paper and completely obscured in the press release. The study that they reference, carefully noted that their results were relevant to "normal" healthy people. This is important because according to co-author Kram:

"As people become gradually obese, they also seem to become particularly graceful...there appears to be some sort of a physiological drive for them to minimize the amount of energy they expend."

In other words, not only is the obese cohort that Browning and Kram study not "normal" but according to the authors, they walk differently. So considering their very own observations, should they be generalizing the results of the other study of normal weighted people without at least doing the research and submitting it for peer review? The fact that obese might conserve energy by adjusting their gait is not a revelation, since previous studies, including ones we talked about here, have found that humans often economize energy expenditure when walking with heavy loads. Like porters or African women who carry weight on their head, overweight people appear to alter their gait to conserve energy expenditure.

It seems like Browning and Kram jump the gun on the research, especially since other studies have found that the obese do not increase the stress on their knees when walking. This is because, again, as the authors concluded, there is a change in gait that seems to favor preservation in energetics. So why would this energy optimization, these self-preservation optimizations, extend to joint preservation and biomechanics as well?

There are two things that are curious about the news of this study. One is the conclusion of the authors. The second is how the research was portrayed in the media. It's hard to know where one ends and the other begins. There's potentially a point where researchers lose control of their words to the machinations of media. The authors admit the confusion about the results on the part of the media. However since the original press release is from the authors own university it's difficult to believe that the confusion between the undone biomechanics research and the kinetics data that was the subject of their published study couldn't have easily been corrected at the source.

Instead the misconceptions were seemingly *allowed* to propagate throughout the media, which risks misleading and misinforming people. Since the researchers are telling people to 'walk more slowly', which flies in the face of a bulk of public health research, it is important to know just how slow obese people are being advised to walk. Notably, the authors note that researchers have found disparate "preferred walking speeds" for men and women of various weights. The range varies from study to study, 1.18 m/s, 1.19 m/s, 1.09 m/s, or 0.75 m/s. So the "preferred walking speeds" are widely variable, but the media never modulates their conclusions to accommodate the potential variation. It's possible then, that obese people are already walking slowly. However since the authors conclude that only "obese" people, should "walk slowly" they isolate this population for their recommendation, which could encourage already slow walkers to slow down more and could impede the healthful benefits of walking. Should the public health community be concerned about recommendations that are so wide reaching yet whose benefits may be inconclusive?

Further clouding the result, the researchers tested the walkers for only 5 minutes. They then extrapolated this result to a 45 minutes walk, which was in turn extended to an hour or hour and a half in the media reports. It is quite possible that over longer periods of time the energetics of walking would change. Five minutes of walking is vastly different (especially for an obese person) than 1.5 hours. Shouldn't more work be done at different time periods before publicizing health recommendations?

Finally, is osteoporosis the greatest health risk? What about all the studies that concluded that "brisk exercise" (not slow exercise) lessens health risks such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, weight loss, cancer risk, and even osteoporosis? The conclusions in the press release are baffling for several reasons. We are all concerned about public health and as citizens we deserve to hear more robust science based recommendations that will actually inform us, rather than just sell stories about obesity.

Many species of the plant genus Saussurea are valued by herbalists for their medicinal uses. Although the plants have been being used medicinally for hundreds of years, research has recently confirmed that their use for medicinal purposes was not whimsical. Saussurea lappa for instance, has anti-inflamatory properties and anti-viral potential, while Saussurea eopygmaea and Saussurea medusa have anti-tumor activity. Saussurea medusa and Saussurea laniceps, both commonly known as "Snow Lotus", are harvested at altitudes of 3-4,000 meters by herbal doctors and others seeking the flowers. The flowers are used as therapies for blood disorders, high blood pressure, fertility and menstruation problems. Generally the flowers are thought to be most effective when they are harvested right before they go to seed, which prevents the seeds of these select flowers from being dispersed.

Researchers Jan Salick and Wayne Law published a study forthcoming in Proceedings of the National Archives of Science (PNAS) that reports that the selective harvesting of the Saussurea laniceps has caused a reduction in the size of the flowers in harvested regions compared to flowers in unharvested regions. They also found that specimens in flower collections over the past century are much larger than what is currently being sold in shops. On the other hand, the species Saussurea medusa, with a purple flower that is apparently less desired, has not decreased in size. The background and purpose for the study are described here.

Researchers have known for years that the habits of harvesters could impact the evolution of species. The phenomena was previously been seen in fish populations that are heavily fished, activity that causes genetic adaptations in response to harvest. The greatest adaptation is a decrease in the average size and very slow recovery of population numbers, though sometimes the headline news belies this reality.

We commonly hear about endangered species as a result of the loss of habitat due to human population development and encroachment, or environmental warming trends. The affect of selective harvesting of the prime species specimens, and the potential direct impact on species evolution are also important to consider.

At 1:52 AM EDT on July 4th, a copper probe going 23,000 miles per hour crashed into the comet Tempel 1, located 83 million miles from earth. The probe was launched from Deep Impact, and the $333 million dollar mission considered a success. NASA scientists were jubilant. The goal was to learn what comets are made of, so information will be forthcoming over the next few days, weeks, months. The spacecraft launched on January 12, 2005. Details about the mission can be found at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA's) mission page. Photos are here.

The possibility of agricultural terrorism, whether it is the poisoning livestock or propositions that terrorists could steal crop dusters to wreak some sort of havoc, has long been considered. In February, 2001, Janes Defense wrote about potential agricultural threats and the increase of anti-terrorism budget by the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

"One somewhat surprising addition to the 2001 budget..a line-item for $39.8 million to be apportioned to the U.S> Department of Agriculture (USDA), a federal body that has not in the past received much attention in U.S. national security contingencies."

The article dealt primarily with the possibility of weaponizing biological pathogens against livestock, but pointed out:

"The capability requirements for carrying out a foodborne attack are rudimentary, and certainly more so [sic] than those necessary for an airborne assault. There are a myriad of possible agents and vectors that could be used, most of which are either readily available or do not require any substantial scientific knowledge to isolate and develop."

Following the attacks on September 11th, various research entities and government agencies scrambled to establish guidelines to curb the dissemination of research which could be used for malicious purposes. The Fink committee issued a report October 2003 on steps to prevent the application of "dual-use" research, and in light of the report, the Bush administration established a National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), as part of the National Institute of Health (NIH).

A separate effort in 2003, established a group of top life science journal editors, research university and foundation scientists, as well as agencies like the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association, who met and established their own guidelines that would guide science research publication with consideration of national defense issues. Many other organizations did the same, as researchers would rather be self-monitoring, than censored by government agencies.

Despite these efforts this issue seemed unresolved when it was brought to the fore recently in a brouhaha surrounding a Stanford scientist's paper on the capability of terrorists to poison the milk supply. The publication of the paper; "Analyzing a Bioterror Attack on the Food Supply: The Case of Botulinum Toxin in Milk" by Dr. Lawrence M. Wein, was postponed by the department of Health and Human Services because the agency considered it a blueprint for terrorists. Wein then published an editorial about the event in the New York Times; "Got Toxic Milk", May 30, 2005, that summarized the findings of his full length paper. Last week, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published the full research report.

There are diverse opinions about whether the article should have been published. Those who defend publishing the article argue that the article serves as a warning to protect largely unguarded agricultural resources. Those who oppose the publication of the article claim that the article presented specific data and calculations that would be useful to someone with malicious intent, therefore the article threatens national security.

There were also those who strongly opposed the article on a factual basis. Authors at Global Security criticized the article for being; "flawed in its understanding of terrorist capabilities, [the author's] other assumptions in error, and the conclusion therefore erroneous and inflammatory." In short, they maintain that:

1. Terrorists couldn't procure the toxin necessary. The Global Security authors provide evidence which they say shows the citations used by the paper's authors were flimsy.
2. They assert that Wein's assumptions about the degree of lethality were potentially flawed, as were assumptions about the inability of the pasteurization process to kill biological toxins. Pasteurization processes have been thoroughly scrutinized by the government and the International Dairy Foods Association and improved - the paper ignores this.
3. Lastly GlobalSecurity.org criticized the publication of the paper, considering the amount of uncertainty that was built into the paper's risk calculations.

GlobalSecurity.org concluded that:

..[T]oo often, in our opinion, have the debates on securing the country against the threat of bioterrorism degenerated into worst case scenarios which assume an easy and accomplished technical capability for mass killing already or soon to be in the hands of terrorists. Our assessment is that the possible variability in the three key assumptions means that, taken together, they could result in a difference of nine orders of magnitude from the numbers presented by Dr. Wein, that is produce a result only one-billionth as much.

Was Wein's Stanford paper fear-mongering based on faulty assumptions? Or was it critical information being suppressed by government agencies, but imperative information for the public? It is unclear how future rounds of similar arguments will be resolved. On one hand, there is a lot of information published in research journals that could be useful to those with malicious intent. On the other, is secrecy our best way forward?

The argument that it is irrelevant if the research is published because most of the information is available on the internet seems specious - random publishers of sites on the internet that post items of variable accuracy do not garner the same authority, nor (usually) inherit the same responsibilities that academic publishers do. Those who defend publishing such papers, certainly Wein claim that this type of paper is meant as a "warning", to the public, meant to frighten people into action. Pardon the lame analogy, but this rhetorical tack sounds a bit like the film director who claims that his extremely violent film is a "commentary" on violence. If an author or director gains notoriety from this type of production or publication decision, how can we possible judge their true intent?

Moreover, since most of these security assessments involve calculating the statistical likelihood ("nine orders of magnitude", says Global Security) of many individual events occurring at once, one could argue that any particular threat involves a degree of uncertainty. Wein's paper proposes the worse case scenario. In their rebuttal, GlobalSecurity.org uses another set of uncertainty assumptions to make the opposing case - that terrorists could not easily poison the population by poisoning the milk supply. Is it even possible to gather the information necessary to assess who is right? Government officials had information that could have led them to tighten up airline security before September 11th. They assumed a level of uncertainty that turned out to be tragic.

Intellectual freedom and freedom of the press are critical to democracy, as is battening down security by identifying lapses. Balancing the tension between the two critical goals is difficult.

There is seemingly no central authority overseeing these decisions. Since the Wein's paper was originally vetted by the journal editors, editors and NSABB(?), how did the Department of Health and Human Services (which is also part of NSABB) only now become involved? As for Wein's response, published by New York Times - is the mainstream press the appropriate venue to do end runs around decisions concerning national defense and the appropriateness of a scientific publication? How much secrecy is productive? How much is counterproductive? I don't know.

And what about the organization NSABB, which was chartered as a result of decisions in 2003, was formed in 2004, but still hadn't met mid-2005? The National Arms Control Center reports that NSABB just held it's first meeting. How biosecure do you feel?

Science Magazine reports that a group of scientists at Chiron, the Institute for Genomic Research, University of Messina Medical School, and Brigham and Women's, have engineered potential vaccine candidates for Group B Streptococcus using genomic screening techniques or reverse vaccinology.

Group B Strep (GBS) is a leading cause of death in neonates. The bacteria resides in the mucosal tracts of adults, where it can cause infection but is generally not lethal. During birth women can pass the infection to babies, where it can cause sepsis, meningitis and sometimes death. In the U.S. a systematic testing and antibiotic administration program for women in the last weeks of pregnancy is used to prevent infection, however each year the infection causes hundreds of deaths worldwide.

Conventional vaccine development uses various methods, such as the attenuation of the virus advanced by Sabin to produce the polio vaccine, isolation of protein subunits, or recombinant methods to isolate candidate antigens from bacteria or viruses. These resulting proteins are then tested to see which ones if any stimulate immunity (without toxicity) in animals or humans.

Several vaccine strategies specific to GBS exist, such as isolating the polysaccharide capsule (that surrounds the bacteria) which is then conjugated with cholera or pertussis toxin subunits. In addition to the logistical and regulatory challenges of the clinical trials, however, one of the difficulties that these vaccines face is that there are many different serotypes of disease, so a vaccine that is developed for one population say in Europe, may not be suitable for another.

The Chiron group used reverse vaccinology, a technology it had previously investigated for other disease vaccine targets such as type C meningococcal disease, caused by Neisseria meningitidis for which they manufactured a vaccine called Menjugate, used abroad.

Reverse vaccinology uses the whole genome of an organism to isolate all possible antigens "in silico" by comparing the sequence with the sequences of known antigens and toxins, in order to identify likely vaccine antigens. Recombinant expression systems (where the gene is isolated and produced by another bacteria) were used to produce candidate antigens, then these were screened to discern which candidates produced protection against the virulent strains. This method of vaccine development, though not without limitations, has the potential to advance at a faster rate, because the availability of complete genome information accelerates the identification of protein candidates. Chiron explains the difference between conventional vaccine development and this new method here.

The researchers used multiple strains of Group B Streptococcus in their genomic analysis and screening. They ended up with 312 surface proteins that were then screened for protective activity. Four antigens were identified that when tested alone, had restricted activity. These were then combined and the result produced broad spectrum protection against multiple virulent strains of GBS.