Archive for the 'Environmental Health' category

In response to the State of the Union: What are the labs doing?

Jan 27 2012 :: Published in Environmental Health, Food Safety, Public Health Preparedness & Response, Public Policy

2012 State of Union

In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama described his vision for improving the economy, increasing employment and protecting the interests of the United States. The President also mentioned that he will continue his support for federal actions that protect children from mercury poisoning, ensure safe food and assure clean water (click here to see the portion of the State of the Union speech where the President says this). The nation’s governmental health laboratories play a critical role in the surveillance and detection of harmful air pollutants like mercury; contaminants like Salmonella in food and pesticide residues that have short and long-term health consequences; and pollutants in drinking water. How exactly?  Governmental health laboratories are:

  • Routinely monitoring food samples at retail stores and in the distribution chain to check for microbial pathogens and pesticide contaminants in a variety of commodities
  • Performing on-going characterization of bacterial isolates from ill people, submitting their fingerprints to the National PulseNet Database at CDC so that cases with indistinguishable patterns can be linked and investigated
  • Implementing the latest laboratory techniques to quickly and accurately confirm diagnoses, serotype isolates, and fully characterize linked  pathogens
  • Partnering with other food safety professionals who analyze laboratory findings, providing critical data to help solve outbreaks, determine root causes of contamination, and assess the impact of industry changes designed to prevent future illnesses
  • Monitoring and detecting environmental threats by conducting testing in people, air, water, soil and more
  • Conducting tests to support enforcement of water, air, food, dairy and environmental safety laws
  • Carrying out research to investigate illness trends and emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals
  • Conducting exposure studies to determine if environmental contaminants, such as mercury and lead, are getting into people
  • And responding to natural disasters, suspected terror events and industrial accidents, such as the 2010 Gulf Coast Oil Spill.

Beyond those items mentioned in President Obama’s State of the Union speech, labs are doing so much more:

  • They are detecting disease causing organisms and other harmful substances. The laboratories have innovative scientists that develop new methods to detect and fight infectious diseases, environmental pollutants and toxins. Remember the 2009 H1N1 pandemic? Public health laboratories tested thousands of specimens from patients and quickly provided results on whether or not a patient had H1N1 or some other form of influenza.
  • They are serving as integral members of national networks, such as the CDC’s Laboratory Response Network (LRN) where they prepare for, respond to and recover from all-hazard threats. Think anthrax 2001 – the public health laboratories in the LRN responded, testing thousands of specimens from patients as well as samples collected from the environment, and assuring first responders and the public that it was safe to reopen and enter buildings.
  • And they are providing training and conducting educational outreach to thousands of other laboratories, such as hospitals in their states. The hospitals know where to send potential threat samples and other items for specialized testing.

We are pleased to hear the President support important public health matters in this country. Mr. President, we assure you that laboratories at the state and local levels of government continue to demonstrate their ability to provide accurate and actionable information in all of these areas, and stand ready to continue their operations.

 

Related articles

One response so far

Banning BPA – Why TSCA Reform is Needed

Oct 26 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health

By Jennifer Pierson, Environmental Health Senior Specialist, APHL

Back in August, we blogged about Bisphenol A (BPA) and it continues to show up in media headlines. The debate continues to rage over whether or not BPA is harmful to humans, and if it is, at what concentrations. A recent interview with Frederick vom Saal, a biologist at the University of Missouri’s Endocrine Disruptors Group explains the potential risks, finishing by saying, “There are now a whole series of human studies finding exactly the same relationship between the presence of Bisphenol A and the kind of harm shown in animals. That scares me. I don’t think that’s alarmist.”

Sippy cup

Despite the heated debate over the health effects, some lawmakers agree newborns and infants should not be exposed to BPA. Following on the heels of several other states, California recently passed a ban on BPA in baby bottles. While some see this as a success, changing the way the US deals with chemicals in consumer products is the best way to reduce human exposure to harmful chemicals in everyday products.

The way to truly protect consumers from exposure to chemicals is to reform the way the US regulates chemical production and use. One way to do this is through reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA.)

Last year, APHL sent EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, a letter showing our support of TSCA reform. When she was first appointed to the EPA Administrator position, TSCA reform was one of Ms. Jackson’s goals for at least two reasons: (1) It has not been updated since it was introduced in 1976; (2) only five chemicals have ever been banned under TSCA, none since 1990.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847) again this year. According to Senator Lautenberg, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 will “address each of the core failings of TSCA.” The public health community remains optimistic this bill will make it through Congress and pass; however it’s been held up probably due to other issues such as the economic crisis and upcoming elections, taking precedence.

Back to BPA – a potentially harmful, estrogenic chemical found in so many plastics it’s hard to keep track. If we were following Europe’s approach, the precautionary principle, we would probably never allow BPA into consumer products in the first place.

Even if every state successfully bans BPA in baby bottles, I have to ask, what about all the other food containers with BPA? What about other products like cash register receipts? And what about other estrogenic chemicals? Some research indicates that BPA-free bottles still exhibit estrogenic activity.

Without comprehensive chemical reform, states can go on banning one chemical at a time and the industry will replace it with a new chemical. The catch is the new chemical could be just as harmful because they are not required to prove it is safe. While banning BPA in baby bottles is a good first step, we strongly support overhauling the entire process and can only wait and hope the Safe Chemicals Act will pass.

3 responses so far

So What is BPA and Why Are Labs Monitoring it?

Aug 11 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health

By Jennifer Pierson, Environmental Health Senior Specialist

The media began reporting on the potential health effects of BPA in 2007, and, these days, it is almost a household word. So what exactly is BPA?

Bisphenol A, aka BPA, is a chemical primarily used in plastics, resins and protective coatings. Typically found in lightweight plastics, such as those used in water bottles, food storage containers and metal can liners, ­ BPA is present in products that can be easily ingested.

Chemical producers contend that current research shows BPA to be safe. Yet independent studies by government-funded scientists indicate adverse health effects associated with BPA, including breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, abnormal thyroid function and estrogenic effects. Conflicting studies and news reports only compound the uncertainty surrounding this common chemical. 

Already several jurisdictions have banned BPA in food containers for children: the states of Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin ; the city of Chicago; and four counties in New York. Even China recently banned the manufacture, importation or sale of baby bottles containing BPA.

But will a ban on BPA in consumer products lead to a reduction in human exposure?  And will removal of BPA eliminate the estrogenic effects of plastic? These are questions public health laboratories are positioned to help answer.

PHLs and BPA

With all of the conflicting information on BPA, the chemical makes a good candidate for a biomonitoring study to assess its level of toxicity in humans and related health effects. (Learn more about biomonitoring – the measurement of chemicals in people – on the APHL website.)

Many public health laboratories are beginning to implement and expand biomonitoring studies for BPA and other potentially harmful chemicals, including California, Washington and New York. However, with the unstable economic and political climate, funding for biomonitoring is in jeopardy, and many public health laboratories have maintained their studies by scraping together funds from whatever sources are available: end-of-year funding, grants and even fees.

Meanwhile, APHL continues to support biomonitoring by:

  • Developing a five-year biomonitoring plan.
  • Formulating the concept for a National Biomonitoring Network to help laboratories improve collaboration, standards and methodologies.
  • Producing a biomonitoring guidance document for laboratories and collaborating with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) on a companion document for epidemiologists. Both documents will be published in the coming year.
  • Creating a biomonitoring database to facilitate member sharing of biomonitoring information, methods and ideas, and to identify other laboratories engaged in similar projects. Look for the launch of the database this fall.

For more information on APHL biomonitoring initiatives, contact Jennifer Pierson at jennifer.pierson@aphl.org.

One response so far

Leaky US Power Plants Highlight Need for More Radiation-Testing Laboratories

Jul 28 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health

By Nancy Maddox, Writer

Tritium—a radioactive isotope of hydrogen—has leaked from at least 48 of 65 US nuclear power plants, according to a yearlong Associated Press investigation. The AP safety review found that radioactive contaminants have sometimes reached groundwater and surface water and even residential drinking wells.

One of those leaky facilities is Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vermont. The Vermont Department of Health Laboratory (VDHL) detected an elevated tritium level in a monitoring well in January 2010, at about the same time the leak was reported by Vermont Yankee’s own monitoring program.

Since then, the VDHL has received more than 2,400 environmental samples to test from the power plant vicinity. The laboratory is testing for tritium and gamma radiation in drinking water, groundwater and river water samples. It also is doing hundreds of analyses on milk, air, vegetation soil and river sediment samples to determine if there is any radioactive contamination present.

According to the latest Vermont Department of Health update, eight out of 31 groundwater monitoring wells have tested positive for tritium, but the levels of contamination have been generally declining.

Japan’s Fukushima power plant emergency—triggered by the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami earlier this year—has raised public awareness and concerns about nuclear power plant safety. Unfortunately, the VDHL is one of only about 30 public laboratories in the US capable of monitoring radiation in human, animal, food or environmental samples.

George Mills, Chief of the VDHL’s Inorganic Chemistry section, said, “There are a relatively small number of laboratories that test for environmental radiation in the US, and I think they were taxed by the Japan releases. Ours was even here in Vermont. But even more concerning, there are even fewer labs that are ready to test clinical samples. There is a large gap between actual radiological testing capacity and capability and public expectations should an event occur in our country. There is also a shortage of laboratory scientists trained in radiochemistry.”

No responses yet

Things are Going Just “Swimmingly” in State and Local Environmental Laboratories

May 25 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health

By Erinna Kinney, Specialist, Environmental Laboratories, APHL

Beach towel…check! Sunscreen…check! And IDEXX Enterolert Test kit…check???  Not to worry – the state and local environmental laboratories have that covered.

Each summer (and everyday in some regions of the U.S.), public health and environmental laboratories are on the frontline protecting public waters via quality testing.  Ranging from your local swimming pond to the water park to the beach, public health and environmental laboratories analyze samples for harmful waterborne pathogens and contaminants.  Their results inform public health notification decisions.

In the protection of recreational waters, many laboratories perform microbial analysis for pathogens and indicator organisms such as total coliform, E.coli, Entercoccus, Cryptosporidium and Giardia.  In the event of a waterborne disease outbreak, many public laboratories perform recreational water testing as well.

This week (May 23-29, 2011) marks National Recreational Water Illness and Injury (RWIIs) Prevention Week.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “RWIIs are caused by germs spread by swallowing, breathing in mists or aerosols of, or having contact with contaminated water in swimming pools, hot tubs, water parks, water play areas, interactive fountains, lakes, rivers, or oceans.”  The goal of this observance is to raise awareness about RWIIs and highlight preventative steps to protect against them. This year’s theme is “swimmer’s ear” (otitis externa).

Chemical contamination of water can also cause RWIIs by direct contact with chemicals in water or chemicals that evaporate from the water and cause indoor air quality problems.  In addition to illnesses, the recognition of injuries such as drowning can occur in and around the water were included in the week’s observance.

With many Americans tightening their purse strings, the visitation and use of public beaches and waterways is an increasingly popular means for recreational activities this summer. The next time you take a dip, remember the thousands of public environmental laboratories working behind the scenes to make sure things go just “swimmingly” for you and your family.

For more information on CDC’s National Recreational Water Illness and Injury Prevention Week, please visit RWII.

 

 

No responses yet

Be Prepared [for a Nuclear Crisis]

Apr 28 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health, Food Safety

By Jennifer Pierson, MPH, Senior Specialist, Environmental Health, APHL

The Japan Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident following the March earthquake and tsunami raised fears of radiation exposure and sickness in the US. Many Americans who were not in favor of nuclear power prior to this accident are using Fukushima as an example of the safety issues associated with this technology. While the safety issues can be fiercely debated, laboratory testing capability and public health safety should be black and white.

VOA Herman - April 13 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant-03

A small plume of radioactive materials from Japan did make it to the US as confirmed by the results from analyses of air, precipitation and milk samples. Public health laboratories and federal agencies worked in concert to analyze environmental samples ranging from air to milk for radioactive materials in order to determine the levels that reached our shores.  The sample results did not indicate levels of concern for the public’s health.

While the plume may have been unexpected, imagine a worst case scenario where a US nuclear power plant faced a similar accident as Fukushima. If this power plant happened to be within 50 miles of a major metropolis, say New York City, millions of people would be affected and thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people would seek testing.

If such an event occurred on US soil, there might be enough capacity to test environmental and food samples thanks in large part to federal agency support.   This support includes an EPA grant program and a program within the FDA and USDA collaborative network called the Food Emergency Response Network (FERN). Both EPA and FERN have programs in place to expand radiation testing capabilities in state public health laboratories. EPA is pilot testing radiation analyses in state public health laboratories and the FERN funds five laboratories to test food for radiation. However, the 2012 President’s budget proposed drastic budget cuts for both programs and, if implemented, both EPA and FERN would have to halt funding to the state public health laboratories. We can only hope the Japan incident is a reminder of the importance of funding laboratories. We do not want to be left scrambling if an event happens closer to home.

Despite CDC’s efforts to develop rapid screening methods, capacity to test humans for radionuclide contamination lags behind. Congress even acknowledged the gaps in radionuclide testing during a hearing in 2007. Yet, they have not appropriated funds to CDC to enhance testing capabilities or to expand current methods to state public health laboratories, who would act as surge laboratories during a large scale event.

The solution is clear. The US needs to find a better balance of funding for our public health programs to do what they do best: protect the health of the public. Large-scale nuclear accidents may be rare but that does not mean we should not be prepared. Learn more about radiation and APHL’s efforts during the Japan response from this fact sheet or on our website.

No responses yet

Got Bricks? APHL and ECOS: Laying the Groundwork for Strategic Partnerships

Mar 15 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health, Partners

By Erinna Kinney, Specialist, Environmental Laboratory

On March 9, 2011, APHL and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) held a seminal meeting to strengthen their strategic partnership.  ECOS, the “national non-profit, non-partisan association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders,” works to improve the capability of state environmental agencies in protecting the environment and human health in the United States.

Dr. Megan Latshaw, APHL’s environmental health director, Peter Kyriacopoulos, the association’s senior director for policy, and I spoke with ECOS Executive Director Steve Brown on issues common to state environmental agencies and state environmental laboratories.   We discussed the importance of cultivating a solid relationship between a state environmental agency and its state environmental laboratory (SEL), assurance of quality data through quality lab practices and the need for a standardized format for electronic data exchange between the States and EPA.   Other topics included the structure and value of state environmental laboratories, current economic considerations for state environmental agencies and laboratories, and the ability of SELs to meet the analytical needs of state environmental agencies across a myriad of testing services.

To foster this collaborative partnership, APHL and ECOS have agreed to bolster educational and awareness opportunities within their respective memberships.  Examples include:

  • APHL offered to host ECOS staff and/or members at a state environmental laboratory
  • ECOS invited APHL to author an issue of Green Report, an ECOS monthly topic-specific publication
  • APHL and ECOS agreed to maintain regular contact to enhance exchange of information and assistance.

As the “homebase” for environmental laboratories, APHL will continue to forge partnerships that will bring tangible benefits to public environmental laboratories.

Every brick laid is a solid relationship in the making. For APHL, it’s all in a day’s work!

No responses yet

K2 banned nationally; Arkansas lab working on detection methods

Mar 10 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health

By Jennifer Pierson, MPH, Senior Specialist, Environmental Health, APHL

Synthetic cannabinoids (aka “K2” or “Spice”) have infiltrated the “fake pot” market and caused quite a stir in states and cities across the country. Most notably, after extensive research by the Arkansas public health lab and other health agencies in that state, K2 was banned there.  Now the DEA has banned these chemicals as a Schedule 1 substance effective March 1, 2011. While the synthesizers and dealers of these substances are claiming them to be safe and “effective” without the side effect of a positive drug test, as a public health professional and skeptic, I want to know the truth behind the risks of these synthetic drugs.

When I think of a synthetic substance or a substitute for the real thing, items like margarine, spam, canned cheese and sugar substitutes come to mind. While most of these things are not necessarily harmful short-term, do you really want to ingest them?

Levels of harm are kicked up significantly when it comes to synthetic drugs. Some of the adverse health effects associated with K2 include agitation, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, elevated blood pressure, seizures, hallucinations and more. Many of the side-effects of K2 have resulted in countless emergency rooms visits all across the nation.

The ban instituted by the DEA will only last for one year with a possible six-month extension. The US Department of Health and Human Services will conduct human health effects studies during this time period. Regardless of the DEA’s decision at the end of the study, synthetic cannabinoids are not going away anytime soon and will continue to pose a public health threat. Based on anecdotal and scientific evidence I’ve read, K2 is definitely harmful.

In the meantime, the Arkansas public health lab is working to develop analytical methods to detect K2 both in the actual drug sample and the metabolites in people. They are collaborating with local universities, hospitals, CDC and the DEA to develop such methods to test for K2. They are also developing community outreach programs to educate potential and current users of the risks involved.

No responses yet

And the EPA Cooperative Agreement Award Goes to……

Feb 10 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health, Partners

January 20, 2011

Erinna Kinney, MPH, Specialist, Environmental Laboratories, APHL

APHL!  In a world where Academy Awards would recognize excellence in the public health in lieu of film, the award for Best Supporting Role in Coordination of a National Environmental Laboratory Network would undoubtedly honor APHL’s work in fostering the growth and development of the public environmental laboratory sector.  APHL is once more deserving of a consecutive and celebrated accolade.

As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) commitment to assisting the water sector in enhancing the capability and capacity of the nation’s environmental laboratories, APHL was awarded $2.4 million EPA Cooperative Agreement over the next six years in partnership with EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. In 2005, APHL was awarded the first EPA Cooperative Agreement to establish a “Home Base for Environmental Laboratories” and to serve as a point of contact between the EPA and environmental health laboratories.  As a second-time award recipient, APHL’s Environmental Health Program will now experience a two-fold increase in funding and further programmatic expansion in the continued support of public environmental laboratories responding to water contamination events in the United States. The new EPA Cooperative Agreement will address the following key elements:

  • Coordination and advancement of environmental laboratory sector interests among the sector and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • Identification, establishment, and maintenance of working collaborations with environmental laboratory sector and federal partners on preparedness activities with regard to water security events
  • Establishment and maintenance of programmatic activities to address gaps in laboratory testing of chemical, biological, radiological, and select agents in environmental laboratories with response to water security threats
  • Convene a national environmental laboratory conference, taskforces, and workgroups
  • Administration  of three environmental laboratory trainings
  • Launch of EPA Environmental Laboratory Fellowship Program
  • Establishment of National Environmental Laboratory Professional Week

APHL represents the principal association for the advancement of public environmental health laboratories and excitedly looks ahead to the fertile opportunities for active engagement, innovative programming, and partnership building under the awarded EPA Cooperative Agreement.

No responses yet

Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water? APHL Responds

Dec 22 2010 :: Published in Environmental Health

By Jennifer Pierson, MPH, Senior Specialist, Environmental Health, APHL

APHL member laboratories work to protect the public’s health every day. Part of this work includes ensuring the nation’s drinking water is safe for consumption by conducting tests in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) standards and that are in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA.)

On Monday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a new report stating they found Chromium-6 (hexavalent Chromium) in the drinking water of 35 cities across the country. In 2000, the movie Erin Brockovich made hexavalent Chromium a familiar carcinogen. Currently the EPA does not have a maximum containment level for Chromium-6 in drinking water but they do have a maximum of 100 ppb for total Chromium in drinking water, which includes several Chromium compounds as well as Chromium-6. APHL member laboratories test drinking water for total Chromium per EPA and SDWA standards and no cities are above EPA’s limit of 100 ppb. Some of these laboratories even go above and beyond to test for emerging contaminants and other pollutants to ensure the drinking water is safe.

The EWG report made a splash in the media on Monday because of the fear of hexavalent Chromium. However, the findings indicated most cities only have about 0.18 ppb or less, a fraction of the 580 ppb found during Brockovich’s investigation and a fraction of the EPA’s limit for all Chromium compounds. Many public health departments and drinking water programs responded to the findings and restored calm to rising public’s fears.

It is our scientific understanding that some of the quality controls and analytical procedures used to test for Chromium-6 by EWG’s contracted commercial laboratory may be questionable. Scientists are also concerned that the method interferences and sensitivities may produce false results. APHL member laboratories believe alternative methods using ICP-MS instrumentation are far more sensitive and may be the better method to detect Chromium-6 in drinking water.

EPA is already reviewing the findings of the EWG report and has been working on this issue for months. This past September, EPA released a draft scientific review to assess Chromium-6 in drinking water. This draft if still out for comment and should be finalized some time in 2011. EPA will then consider the results and will determine if a new standard for Chromium-6 is necessary.

2 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »