Re: Dioxins in Belgian butter - Chicken and meat - French rawmilkcheeses

[Greg Smith <gsmith@essential.org>]

Jon, thanks for your reply and your points are well taken.  No doubt,
the EPA's findings could seriously damage the meat, dairy and fishing
industries, and that's just one reason the Dioxin Reassessment hasn't
made it off the shelf.  In fact, when we referred to the Reassessment
and other forever-draft docs in hearings regarding an incinerator back in
the early to mid-90s, the pro-incinerator folks would cite the draft
status of those docs in contesting our use of them.  Funny, that.

I'm busy trying to stop a highway from destroying communities and forests
in my area, so I won't re-read the Dioxin Reassessment any time soon.

But again, I'd be surprised if the EPA said that ALL meats, or even ALL
beef, from ALL sources in the U.S. would exceed the "allowable" daily dose
for dioxins, unless the EPA framed that kind of statement within the
context of body burdens already being to high and/or the lack of evidence
that there are dioxin doses below which no changes in cellular chemistry
are observed.

Scientists cannot test ever part of every cow, or every glass of milk, or
every person's body burden, etc., so they tend to say that their samples
may or may not represent the total population.  That's a sound and honest
approach.  It's probably the best we can do given available resources,
and in many cases it should be sufficient to inform sound, precautionary
environmental and public health policy.  (It's also an approach
that can generate the next fundable research project, but what the hell.)

As I said in my earlier note, I agree that our society should take serious
steps to eliminate dioxin production and emissions, and to reduce exposure
to existing dioxins as much as possible.  Letting folks know about the
risks posed by dioxins and other toxins, and about the various sources of
exposure, especially in everyday life, would be a helluva good start.
At the very least, we should consider informed consent among the
most basic rights.  Efforts to abridge that right by quashing studies or
muddying the informational waters is outrageous.


Thanks for responding and for posting the Reassessment and other
important info on your site.


Greg Smith

******

 On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Jon Campbell wrote:

> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 10:50:07 -0400
> From: Jon Campbell <jon@cqs.com>
> Reply-To: Jon Campbell <jon@ultranet.com>
> To: gsmith@essential.org,
     Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> Subject: Re: Dioxins in Belgian butter - Chicken and meat - French raw
    milkcheeses
> 
> Greg,
> 
>        The 1994 EPA Reassessment is available online at
> http://www.cqs.com/epa
> I'm afriad the health assessment is not in HTML, but in DOC form
> (WordPerfect, readable by MS-Word).
> 
>         I'm afraid you're wrong about the EPA and meat. They said exactly
> what I said they said: ALL meat in the US is WAY above the "maximum
> allowable dose" of 0.3 picograms/day for an adult. A single hamburger has
> 100 picograms (1 ppt), pork is about 1/3 that, chicken varies depending on
> age. Breastmilk is off the charts. Now you know why the 1994 report has not
> been made an official EPA public document, and no policy has been formulated
> around it. Can you imagine what it would do to the beef industry???
> 
> Regards
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Smith <gsmith@essential.org>
> To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 9:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Dioxins in Belgian butter - Chicken and meat - French raw
> milkcheeses
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >Hi, Jon and Heather.  I'd don't have my copy of the EPA's 1994 Dioxin
> >Reassessment handy, but I doubt that the EPA "made clear" that all meats
> >are unsafe due to dioxin contamination, at least not by stating it in that
> >way.  If anything, the EPA probably referred to AVERAGE existing body
> >burdens of dioxins, AVERAGE daily doses of dioxins, and the amount of
> >dioxins in AVERAGE hamburgers, etc. as exceeding certain thresholds.
> >The EPA also indicated that dioxins are ubiquitous in our environment,
> >or pretty dang near it.  But it's pretty unlikely that the EPA said that
> >all types of meats from all sources were contaminated above certain
> >thresholds.
> >
> >That said:
> >
> >1) I'm a vegetarian and for, all sorts of reasons, I'm glad when others
> > don't eat meat.
> >
> >2) When I was staying current with the literature several years ago,
> > the consensus seemed to be that no one had found a dose below
> > which dioxin did not alter fundamental cell chemistry. The debate
> > centered more on whether those changes constitute harm, and if so,
> > how much and to whom, etc.
> >
> >3) Also, at that time the EPA typically assumed, at least for some
> > purposes, that the dose-response curve for carcinogens,
> > including dioxin, starts at zero -- meaning any dose has the
> > potential to cause cancer.  Don't know if that's the EPA
> > convention these days.  But in any case, I doubt many people would
> > argue that cancer does not fall within the category of "Harm."  So
> > by that line of argument, one could say that any level of dioxin
> > in meat is unsafe because it has the potential to cause cancer.
> > Even though animals tend to concentrate dioxin and other
> > toxins in their flesh, milk and eggs at levels higher than one
> > would generally find in plant tissues, one might apply the same
> > standard to veggies, water, etc.
> >
> >4) As for 2 and 3, I'd say it's generally unwise to screw
> > around with basic biological processes the way dioxin does.
> > And no one has the moral right to expose others to toxins or
> > carcinogens, especially when those who might be injured are
> > exposed without: a) their knowledge of the exposure; b) their
> > knowledge of the potential risks; and c) their consent.
> > So we should do what we can to eliminate the generation and
> > release of dioxin emissions and to reduce as much as people's
> > exposure to dioxin.  If people choose to eat contaminated meat,
> > they should at least be informed of the risks.... Telling
> > them ahead of time would be the neighborly thing to do.
> >
> >
> >Least that's what I think.... right now.
> >
> >
> >
> >Greg Smith
> >
> >On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Jon Campbell wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:53:40 -0400
> >> From: Jon Campbell <jon@cqs.com>
> >> To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Dioxins in Belgian butter - Chicken and meat - French raw
> milk
> >    cheeses
> >>
> >> Heather,
> >>
> >>       You are absolutely right. Dioxin bioaccumulation is at levels in
> all
> >> meat, whether Belgian or not, with dangerous levels of dioxin. The 1994
> EPA
> >> Dioxin Reassessment made that clear. 300 times the daily "acceptable"
> dose
> >> in a single hamburger for typical US beef.
> >>
> >>       See http://www.cqs.com/edioxin.htm
> >>
> >> Jon
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Heather <hk3219@ark.ship.edu>
> >> To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 4:15 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Dioxins in Belgian butter - Chicken and meat - French raw
> milk
> >> cheeses
> >>
> >>
> >> >hello,
> >> >
> >> >while my comment won't be worth much, i felt like giving my two cents.
> >> >it is beneficial for humans to not consume any animal products anyway,
> >> >one reason being bioaccumulation of chemicals like dioxin in them.
> >> >i think focusing on issues of complete nonvoluntary exposure to dioxins
> >> >is more important. thanks.
> >> >
> >> >Heather
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >Do you know who your elected officials are? Want to know more about
> them?
> >> >Check out : http://www.vote-smart.org/   for lots of important info
> >> >on your governor, reps, and senators!
> >>
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >> >**********************************************************************
> >> >DO YOU WANT YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO PAY FOR THE MURDER AND OPRESSION
> >> >OF LATIN AMERICANS? No? Consider calling your federal representative
> today
> >> >to urge him/her to co-sponsor Representative Moakley's bill HR732, and
> >> >consider calling your US Senators to urge them to co-sponsor S873,
> >> >both bills will CLOSE the US citizen tax-funded US Army School of the
> >> >Americas(Assasins)in Ft. Benning, GA!
> >> > http://www.soaw.org
> >> >**********************************************************************
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Emmanuel de Broux wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dear listers,
> >> >>
> >> >> The Belgian government had decided, a few days ago, to forbid the sale
> of
> >> >> Belgian butter (min. 82 percent fat) in Belgium because of its too
> high
> >> >> dioxin content. Surprisingly, cheese (45 percent fat typ.) sale could
> be
> >> >> persued. Several countries have then decided to forbid Belgian butter
> >> imports.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is something hypocritical about all this. There is dioxins in
> milks
> >> >> collected in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in France and most probably
> in
> >> >> other countries too. This is a fact known since several years but it
> is
> >> >> totally ignored by the Belgian Press. Butter made with these milks
> also
> >> >> contains dioxins.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, Belgium is considered by the European Union "experts" as the only
> >> >> country to be blamed for this. I guess that commercial afterthoughts
> are
> >> >> not absent here.
> >> >>
> >> >> In Belgium, the situation is still chaotic for what concerns chicken,
> >> pork
> >> >> and beef meat. But it is not the only country where poor practices in
> the
> >> >> production of animal food have been discovered. In fact, an article in
> >> the
> >> >> French satiric newspaper published last Wednesday, Le Canard Enchainé,
> >> >> reports horrifying practices having taken place in France. The
> matching
> >> >> article published by the Belgian newspaper La Libre Belgique is
> attached
> >> >> (sorry, it is in French).
> >> >>
> >> >> That article also reports that listeria has been found in French raw
> goat
> >> >> milk cheese. Considering that listeria is much more dangerous than
> >> dioxins,
> >> >> in the short term anyway, we still wait in Belgium for a reaction by
> the
> >> EU.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >Greg Smith
> >Coordinator
> >Campaign to Stop the ICC
> >301-987-7637
> > ||       Internet: gsmith@essential.org
> >
> 

Greg Smith
Coordinator
Campaign to Stop the ICC
301-987-7637
				||	      Internet: gsmith@essential.org