Toxic Culture

Isn't it startling to see, hear and read of the various ways we are being poisoned in this era? It makes one wonder why there isn't more accountability involved when these abominable health hazards are discovered.

Take for instance the story about the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. plant forcing cows, that could no longer stand, into the slaughterhouses. There was an undercover video, now in the hands of the Humane Society, of what took place at Westland/Hallmark and it shows the cruelty inflicted upon these animals. The actions contained in this footage constitute a violation of federal animal cruelty laws as well as food safety legislation. Animals that can't stand -- so-called "downer" animals -- cannot be used for human consumption without the approval of an Agriculture Department inspector; the inability to stand can be a symptom of mad-cow disease, and it can also lead to wallowing in pathogen-containing feces.

The animals were so badly tortured and beaten down, they had to be fork-lifted into the production chain.

As a result of being discovered, the plant voluntarily recalled 143 million pounds of beef, including 50.3 million pounds that had been sent to federal nutrition programs, including those that serve schools. The case raises important questions about the integrity of U.S. food inspections.

Remember the toxic toys fiasco?

Last year, Mattel Inc. recalled more than 21 million Chinese-made toys on fears they were tainted with lead paint and tiny magnets that children could accidentally swallow. Mattel’s own tests on the toys found that they had lead levels up to 200 times the accepted limit.

Not long after that, toxic chemicals were found in lipstick and other forms of cosmetic products.

It seems the testing being done on practically everything we use or consume these days is either grotesquely inadequate or nonexistent.

Maybe you don't know about this:

The water you are drinking is loaded with chemicals you are completely unaware of.

Drug companies now target about 500 known biochemical receptors in the human body. That number is soon expected to jump as much as 20-fold--to 10,000 targets, says Environmental Protection Agency scientist Christian Daughton.

According to Daughton, the enormous array of pharmaceuticals will continue to diversify and grow as the human genome is mapped. The large number of drugs being introduced is adding exponentially to the already large array of chemical classes, each with distinct modes of biochemical action, many of which are poorly understood.

Researchers say drugs reach rivers and streams the old-fashioned way: With each flush of the toilet, body wastes containing traces of pharmaceuticals leave for septic tanks, which too often leak. Or they flow through waste water treatment facilities that don't scrub pharmaceuticals from water. From there, the water that once sat in toilets and bathtubs eventually rejoins rivers and lakes, especially when storms rush in, overwhelming storm and sanitary sewers.

What does this mean for the animals on this planet, including hairless monkeys like you and I?

A lot of these chemicals are designed to deeply affect humans' physiology. Therefore, Daughton says, it wouldn't be surprising if they affected fish, birds, frogs and insects, as well. Yet, unlike pesticides, these drugs--as well as shampoos, sunscreens and other personal care products rushing down the drain--aren't examined for their effect on the environment before they're placed on the market. "This is surprising," Daughton says, "especially since certain pharmaceuticals are designed to modulate endocrine and immune systems." Hence, they "have obvious potential as endocrine disruptors in the environment."

Some products, meanwhile, have "very high acute aquatic toxicity," Daughton reports. It's impossible to predict how many of the pharmaceuticals would affect nature. After all, scientists don't even understand the process by which some drugs affect humans. After Canada's federal environmental agency, Environment Canada, found high levels of estrogen and birth control compounds in the effluent of sewage treatment plants in 1998, a Trent University researcher replicated these conditions in a laboratory, reports Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly. Some fish developed characteristics of both sexes.

Lots of water sources are apparently affected. Field studies conducted at waste water treatment plants in California, Arizona and Texas found in their recycled sewer water a substance called organic iodine--a chemical used in medicinal X-ray examinations, says Joerg E. Drewes, associate director of Arizona State University's National Center for Sustainable Water Supply. These seem to be slow to break down in the environment; they were still found at high concentrations in groundwater six to 12 months later.

Here's a link that details how certain members of the scientific community actually profit from the pharmaceutical companies by showing false negatives with their "research" and coming up with other devious means to give big business what it wants.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135408

The article is thought provoking and disgusting, all at once.

I find it appalling how some scientists, big companies and the people that are supposed to be keeping us safe choose money and/or indolence over our safety. Every day, it seems another news story pops up about chemicals in common products that pose dangers in our lives. There should be accountability but it seems to come at either a snail's pace or not at all.

What do you think?