Friday 11 July 2014

The Economics of Global Warming

Those who don’t outright deny the existence of human-caused global warming often argue we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it because it would be too costly. Take Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who recently said, “No matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country.”
Photo credit: Shutterstock
Those who fear or reject change are running out of excuses as humanity runs out of time. Photo credit: Shutterstock
But in failing to act on global warming, many leaders are putting jobs and economic prosperity at risk, according to recent studies. It’s suicidal, both economically and literally, to focus on the fossil fuel industry’s limited, short-term economic benefits at the expense of long-term prosperity, human health and the natural systems, plants and animals that make our well-being and survival possible. Those who refuse to take climate change seriously are subjecting us to enormous economic risks and foregoing the numerous benefits that solutions would bring.
The World Bank—hardly a radical organization—is behind one study. While still viewing the problem and solutions through the lens of outmoded economic thinking, its report demolishes arguments made by the likes of Stephen Harper.
“Climate change poses a severe risk to global economic stability,” said World Bank Group president Jim Yong Kim in a news release, adding, “We believe it’s possible to reduce emissions and deliver jobs and economic opportunity, while also cutting health care and energy costs.”
Risky Business, a report by prominent U.S. Republicans and Democrats, concludes, “The U.S. economy faces significant risks from unmitigated climate change,” especially in coastal regions and agricultural areas.
We’re making the same mistake with climate change we made leading to the economic meltdown of 2008, according to Henry Paulson, who served as treasury secretary under George W. Bush and sponsored the U.S. bipartisan report with former hedge fund executive Tom Steyer and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. “But climate change is a more intractable problem,” he argued in the New York Times. “That means the decisions we’re making today—to continue along a path that’s almost entirely carbon-dependent—are locking us in for long-term consequences that we will not be able to change but only adapt to, at enormous cost.”

Wednesday 9 April 2014

CANADA-RESISTANCE SUPER LICE NOW HARD TO KILL

As if battling head lice isn’t bad enough, newly published research says killing the dreaded bugs has become harder than ever. 
Researchers in the U.S. are warning people about the prevalence of head lice that are resistant to insecticides found in most commonly used anti-lice shampoos and ointments.
This “super lice” variation is now present in 97.1 per cent of Canadian and 99.6 per cent of U.S. lice cases, according to a study published this month in the Journal of Medical Entomology.

Based on a DNA analysis of lice samples from 32 locations in Canada and the U.S., researchers concluded that the prevalence of the TI mutation is “uniformly high” across North America.The so-called “TI mutation” is making lice immune to pyrethrins and pyrethroids, insecticides that have been safely used for decades to kill off the critters, researchers said.
“Alternative approaches to treatment of head lice infestations are critically needed,” they wrote.
The Canadian lice samples were collected in 2008 from more than a dozen communities in three provinces: Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. The only cities where lice susceptible to pyrethrins and pyrethroids could still be found were Toronto, Oakville, Ont., and Sudbury, Ont.
This is not the first time researchers have noted the alarming percentage of treatment-resistant lice. A Canadian study published in 2010 also found that 97.1 per cent of tested lice were resistant to pyrethrins or pyrethroids.
Jason Tetro, a microbiologist who was not involved in the study, said the lice mutation likely started happening decades ago, as the use of insecticides expanded.
Just like some bacteria develop a resistance to antibiotics from overuse, lice have built up tolerance to widely used insecticides, Tetro told CTV News Channel Friday.
“Over the last 60 years, it’s gone worldwide,” he said.
Not all hope is lost, however. The latest study notes that clinical tests have shown the effectiveness of other substances, including benzyl alcohol, spinosad (an insecticide) and ivermectin (anti-parasitic medicine), in the battle against lice.
Some people also swear by natural treatments, such as coconut or tea tree oil, vinegar, and even mayonnaise.
And while adult lice may be difficult to get rid of, another study recently published in the Journal of Medical Entomology found that removing lice eggs with plain old conditioner and water is just as effective as using more expensive nit removal products.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/treatment-resistant-super-lice-now-harder-to-kill-study-1.1729429#ixzz2yNC9h2Fw

Thursday 20 March 2014

Demand a Ban on Fracking in Canada

People across Canada are being forced to stand up to “Big Oil and Gas” whose fracking operations are threatening their drinking water. Alberta farmers who live near fracking drill sites can light their tap water on fire because it's so contaminated with methane. The Fort Nelson First Nation in northeastern B.C. is experiencing earthquakes linked to the injection of fracking wastewater. People in Ontario are raising concerns over fracking around the Great Lakes. And across Atlantic Canada people are taking to the streets to protect their communities from the controversial industry.
Fracking - also known as hydraulic fracturing - is a process used to extract natural gas or oil trapped in shale rock and coal beds. And it's one of the biggest threats to clean water today. Oil and gas companies blast apart underground rock formations using pressurized water, sand and a mix of toxic chemicals that they are not legally required to disclose, despite the fact that some have been known to cause cancer and damage internal organs.

Millions of litres of water are extracted every day from community watersheds across Canada to fuel this booming industry. There is currently no federal oversight to keep the industry in check, or to protect the health of people and our drinking water. It’s time the Canadian government puts a ban on fracking

Plagues and pesticides

This Lancet Neurology article on "Plagues and pesticides" uses Grandjean's recent paper on neurodevelopmental effects to take another angled in the ongoing debate on the balance of benefits of continuing to use DDT in malaria control. 


The recognition of the organochloride pesticide Bis(4-chlorophenol)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT) as a risk factor for developmental neurotoxicity might now finally draw a line under one strand of a debate that has been ongoing for some 70 years.1
DDT was first synthesised in 1874, but it was not until more than 60 years later that the potential of its insecticidal properties was recognised. Commercial sales commenced in 1945, and by 1955 its name had become the byword in agricultural pest control. But its market supremacy was short lived. The backlash against DDT, which started in the late 1960s and early 1970s, was mainly based on ecological concerns and its unknown bioaccumulative effects.2 And by the end of the 20th century DDT was listed as one of the “dirty dozen” persistent organic pollutants regularly targeted for a global ban. It has been spared such a fate only by inclusion as one of the 12 insecticides recommended by WHO in the fight to eradicate malaria, although this endorsement has not been universally applauded.3
DDT has been shown to be toxic in mammals, but the reported adverse effects in humans have mostly focused on the effects of acute exposure and at levels that were far in excess of those encountered in routine insecticidal use.4 There have been reports of the neurological effects of chronic occupational exposure,5 and recently a report on the raised levels of a metabolite of DDT in the serum of patients with Alzheimer's disease.6 However, it is only with the advent of sophisticated epidemiological methods that subclinical toxic effects, particularly during developmentally vulnerable periods, have been studied in depthAlthough the question remains as to whether the risks of developmental injury through the controlled use of DDT will outweigh its benefits in the control of malaria in the absence of practical alternatives, at least now the wider spectrum of toxicity of DDT can be appreciated in the debate.

References

1 Grandjean PLandrigan PJNeurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicityLancet Neurol 201413331-340PubMed
2 Rogan WJChen AHealth risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)Lancet 2005366763-773.Summary | Full Text | PDF(483KB) CrossRef | PubMed
3 Ahmad KWHO's decision challengedLancet Infect Dis 20066692Full Text | PDF(43KB) CrossRef | PubMed
4 Case RAMToxic effects of DDT in manBMJ 194515842-845PubMed
5 van Wendel de Joode BWasseling CKromhout HMonge PGarcia MMerglier DChronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupational exposure to DDTLancet 20013571014-1016Summary | Full Text | PDF(188KB) CrossRef | PubMed
6 Richardson JRRoy AShalat S, et alElevated serum pesticide levels and risk for Alzheimer's diseaseJAMA Neurol201410.1001/jamaneurol.2013.6030. published online Jan 24. PubMed

Monday 17 March 2014

Chesapeake Energy’s $5 Billion Shuffle

Abrahm Lustgarten

This story was co-published with The Daily Beast. by:

Abrahm Lustgarten

At the end of 2011, Chesapeake Energy, one of the nation’s biggest
oil and gas companies, was teetering on the brink of failure.
Its legendary chief executive officer, Aubrey McClendon, was being pilloried for questionable deals, its stock price was getting hammered and the company needed to raise billions of dollars quickly.
The money could be borrowed, but only on onerous terms. Chesapeake, which had burned money on a lavish steel-and-glass office complex in Oklahoma City even while the selling price for its gas plummeted, already had too much debt.
In the months that followed, Chesapeake executed an adroit escape, raising nearly $5 billion with a previously undisclosed twist: By gouging many rural landowners out of royalty payments they were supposed to receive in exchange for allowing the company to drill for natural gas on their property.
In lawsuits in state after state, private landowners have won cases accusing the companies like Chesapeake of stiffing them on royalties they were due. Federal investigators have repeatedly identified underpayments of royalties for drilling on federal lands, including a case in which Chesapeake was fined $765,000 for “knowing or willful submission of inaccurate information” last year.
Last month, Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett, who is seeking reelection, sent a letter to Chesapeake’s CEO saying the company’s expense billing “defies logic” and called for the state Attorney General to open an investigation.
McClendon, a swashbuckling executive and fracking pioneer, was ultimately pushed out of his job. But the impact of the Financial Maneuvers that he made to save the company will reverberate for years. The winners, aside from Chesapeake, were a competing oil company and a New York private equity firm that fronted much of the money in exchange for promises of double-digit returns for the next two decades.
The losers were landowners in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who leased their land to Chesapeake and saw their hopes of cashing in on the gas-drilling boom vanish without explanation.
People like Joe Drake.
“I got the check out of the mail… I saw what the gross was,” said Drake, a third-generation Pennsylvania farmer whose monthly royalty payments for the same amount of gas plummeted from $5,300 in July 2012 to $541 last February.  This sort of precipitous drop can reflect gyrations in the  price of gas. But in this case, Drake’s shrinking check resulted from a corporate decision by Chesapeake to radically reinterpret the terms of the deal it had struck to drill on his land. “If you or I did that we’d be in jail,” Drake said.
Chesapeake’s conduct is part of a larger national pattern in which many giant energy companies have maneuvered to pay as little as possible to the owners of the land they drill. Last year, a ProPublica investigation found thatPennsylvania landowners were paying ever-higher fees to companies for transporting their gas to market, and that Chesapeake was charging more than other companies in the region. The question was “why”?
ProPublica pieced together the story of how Chesapeake shifted borrowing costs to landowners from documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, interviews with landowners, people who worked for the company and employees at other oil and gas concerns.  
The deals took advantage of a simple economic principle: Monopoly power.
Boiled down to basics, they worked like this: When energy companies lease land above the shale rock that contains natural gas, they typically agree to pay the owner the market price for any gas they find, minus certain expenses.  
Federal rules limit the tolls that can be charged on inter-state pipelines to prevent gouging. But drilling companies like Chesapeake can levy any fees they want for moving gas through local pipelines, known in the industry as gathering lines, that link backwoods wells to the nation’s interstate pipelines. Property owners have no alternative but to pay up. There’s no other practical way to transport natural gas to market.
Chesapeake took full advantage of this. In a series of deals, it sold off the network of local pipelines it had built in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisiana, Texas and the Midwest to a newly formed company that had evolved out of Chesapeake itself, raising $4.76 billion in cash.  
In exchange, Chesapeake promised the new company, Access Midstream, that it would send much of the gas it discovered for at least the next decade through those pipes. Chesapeake pledged to pay Access enough in fees to repay the $5 billion plus a 15 percent return on its pipelines.
That much profit was possible only if Access charged Chesapeake significantly more for its services. And that’s exactly what appears to have happened: While the precise details of Access’ pricing remains private, immediately after the transactions Access reported to the SEC that it collected more money to move each unit of gas, while Chesapeake reports that it also paid more to have that gas moved. Access said that gathering fees are its predominant source of income, and that Chesapeake accounts for 84 percent of the company’s business.
What’s more, SEC documents show, Chesapeake retained a stake in the gathering process. While Chesapeake collected fees from landowners like Drake to cover the costs of what it paid Access to move the gas, Access in turn paid Chesapeake for equipment it used to complete that process, circulating at least a portion of the money back to Chesapeake.
ProPublica repeatedly sought comment and explanations from both Chesapeake and Access Midstream over the course of several months. Both companies declined to make executives available to discuss the deals or to respond to written questions submitted by ProPublica.
Days after the last of the deals closed, Drake and other landowners learned the expense of sending their gas through Access’s pipelines would eat up nearly all of the money they had been previously earning from their wells. Some saw their monthly checks fall by as much as 94 percent.
An executive at a rival company who reviewed the deal at ProPublica’s request said it looked like Chesapeake had found a way to make the landowners pay the principal and interest on what amounts to a multi-billion loan to the company from Access Midstream.
 “They were trying to figure out any way to raise money and keep their company alive,’’ said the executive, who declined to be named because it would jeopardize his dealings with Chesapeake. “I think they looked at it as an opportunity to effectively get disguised financing…that is going to be repaid at a premium.’’
***
At 54, Joe Drake guns his six-wheeler up a steep rock-rutted trail on the backwoods of his 494-acre tract and points to his property line, marked by a large maple in a sea of indistinguishable trees. He knows where it lies, because as a kid his father made him walk that line to string barbed wire. The wire is long gone, but a rusted snag remains entombed in the bark. Back then, the Drakes ran a dairy farm in these pastures.
“It’s just something you’ve got in your blood that you do,” Drake said. “But dairy farmers are a dying breed… It was a good way of life.” 
Today, the milking stalls have been ripped out of a long barn that still carries the stench of their manure, but stores 20-foot stacks of bailed hay instead. Drake sold all 187 head of cattle two years ago, pinched by regulated milk prices and the rising costs of independent farming. He took out a second mortgage to keep the farm afloat.
Across the road, past his house and just beyond a stand of Oak and Ash, the hillside’s natural shape transitions to a steep slope of pushed dirt, capped by a 7-acre flat the size of a large gravel parking lot. In the middle stands a 6-foot stack of steel pipes and valves – a gas well.
When Chesapeake arrived at Drake’s door, he was optimistic. Drake plastered a “Drill, baby, drill” bumper sticker in the window of his Ford F-250 pickup. He welcomed the chance to draw an easy income from his land, and was unswayed when his neighbors raised questions about the environmental risks of drilling. Chesapeake promised Drake one-eighth the value of whatever it made from his well.  It seemed like a fair deal.
If any driller was going to make money for Drake, he thought, it would be Chesapeake. The company had built an empire off finding and drilling natural gas discoveries as the fracking boom rolled across the country. With uncanny foresight, its founder, McClendon, locked up exclusive access to immense tracts of land across the country by promising property owners that their lives would be transformed by the wealth the gas under it would bring.
Then the company drilled furiously -- in Oklahoma, then Texas, Louisiana and later in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale – catapulting itself to the rank of second-largest producer of natural gas in the United States. It made McClendon – who snatched up a stake in the Oklahoma City Thunder basketball team and moved into a stone mansion in the posh Oklahoma City suburb of Nichols Hills -- one of the richest men in the world.
McClendon – named by Forbes in 2011 as “America’s Most Reckless Billionaire” -- would find his way into plenty of personal trouble. He took a personal stake in Chesapeake’s wells, and then liquidated his stock in the company in order to cover his own losses, rattling investors and ringing corporate governance alarm bells. He drew scrutiny for selling his $12 million antique map collection to the company and ire for taking a $75 million bonus as Chesapeake struggled.
In 2012, he borrowed as much as a billion dollars from the company’s private equity partners to fund his private interests.  Separately, an investigation by Reuters alleged Chesapeake had rigged land leasing prices in Michigan, under McClendon’s direction, sparking a federal criminal probe.  
But McClendon’s overarching design for the business nonetheless made it a formidable player. Chesapeake aggressively pursued business opportunities beyond its drilling. It created interlocking businesses and took advantage of tax breaks that deliver out-sized benefits to energy companies.
By structuring itself this way, Chesapeake earned a slice of profit from each step. Chesapeake’s subsidiaries trucked the drilling materials, drilled the wells, fracked the gas, gathered and piped it away to a hub, and then marketed the end product – what economists call vertical integration. In fact, he built Chesapeake into a powerhouse, an echo of the old Standard Oil empire, positioned to control almost every variable and armed with the leverage to get its way.
Neither McClendon nor his staff responded to requests for comment for this article.
From early on, the company viewed the local pipelines as a profit source.   Chesapeake formed subsidiaries to build and run the lines, then spun them off into a separate, publicly traded company. That company would eventually evolve into Access Midstream, when Chesapeake sold its shares – one of the three deals – for $2 billion in 2012.
The strategy paid dividends. At Chesapeake’s headquarters, a group of new, distinctively-designed office buildings went up, with views south over the state capital and the city’s small skyline. The company lavished its employees with perks, too. “They’ve got a 72,000-square-foot gym, free trainers… free Thunder tickets,” said Andrea Watiker, who scheduled pipeline capacity for gas traders in one of the company’s new towers.
Confident he was in good hands, Drake endured the trucks, dirt and noise that accompanied gas drilling and signed agreements that allowed Chesapeake to run pipelines across his fields. To transport the gas from Drake’s well, Chesapeake built a pipeline that stretched south from within spitting distance of the New York border, cutting a wide swath through the forest. Then it went down beyond the white-spired church in Litchfield, and ran some 35 miles further to its handoff at the Tennessee interstate pipeline near the Susquehanna River.
What Drake didn’t know at the time was that the pipeline was more than a way to move his gas to market. It would become part of a strategy to make more money off of Drake himself.
***
When the first gas flowed from the well on Drake’s land in July 2012, it was abundant, and the royalty checks were fat. “We was hoping to get these loans paid off…with the big money,” said Drake, who earned more than $59,400 from the first few months of production, referring to the mortgages on his farm.
That year, many Pennsylvania landowners began receiving similarly sized payments as thousands of new wells – many of them drilled by Chesapeake -- finally began producing gas. Pennsylvania fast approached Texas as the largest source of natural gas in the country, and with it, the prosperity long promised to this rural part of the United States seemed about to arrive.
But then, in January 2013, without warning or explanation, the expenses withheld from Chesapeake’s royalty checks for use of the gathering pipelines tripled. Drake’s income dwindled. His contract with Chesapeake – and Pennsylvania law that sets a minimum royalty share in the state – promised him at least 12.5 percent of the value of the gas. Drake says the company led him to believe any expenses would be negligible. “Well, they lied.”
A few miles away, the same month, his brother-in-law had 94 percent of his gas income withheld to pay for what Chesapeake called “gathering fees.” Others across the northern part of the state also saw their income slashed. “I’ve got a stack,” said Taunya Rosenbloom, a lawyer representing Pennsylvania landowners with natural gas leases. She pulled the statements of all of her Chesapeake clients into an eight-inch pile on her desk. “Everyone is having this issue.”
Drake found the statements Chesapeake mailed him each month mystifying. He pored over the papers, hire

Thursday 13 March 2014

Drive to Lead-Free Africa

The drive by paint manufacturers, government and non-governmental agencies to eliminate the making of paints with lead and chrome in Africa gained momentum in 2013 despite few setbacks such as lack of relevant legislation to enforce the initiative and reluctance by some suppliers to remove the offending products from their shelves for fear of losses.In this article Shem Oirere writes.

Although it is discretionary in almost all African countries for paint makers to remove lead from paint, some manufacturers have taken the lead in ensuring the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) target of a world free of lead paint and chrome by 2020 is achieved.

“We are pleased to be years ahead of the global deadline of producing lead-free paints,” said Kamlesh Shah, managing director of Kenya-based Basco Paints Ltd, the leading paint maker and distributor in Eastern Africa.

Basco Paints, whose Basco and Duracoat brands are distributed in Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan, said it put an end to production of decorative paints with lead and chrome in 2013.

“All Duracoat decorative paints manufactured from August 2013 are lead/chrome-free and all raw materials containing these contents have been replaced,” said Shah.
Basco Paint’s Duracoat and Basco brands come in 7,000 shades with Shah saying “it is the largest offering in the region.”

“The move to unleaded paint is possible and we are proof of that. I encourage other players in the industry to follow suit because it is possible for paint manufacturers to find alternative raw materials to do the same job.”

Some of South Africa’s paint manufacturers, too, are determined to achieve lead-free products as part of their social responsibility and response to global pressure to eliminate the toxic substance, which according to WHO contributes to an estimated 600,000 new cases of intellectual disabilities because of childhood exposure.
South African Paint Manufacturing Association (Sapma) is seeking tougher sentences on paint makers unwilling to reduce the level of lead in their paint brands and called for enforceable legislation to ensure the lead levels in all paint brands is reduced from 600 ppm (parts per million) to 90 ppm in line with the Global Alliance for the Elimination of Lead in Paint (GAELIP).

“This can only happen if the government stopped merely threatening to take action against the culprits but actually makes an example of them and prosecute them,” said Deryck Spence, Sapma’s executive director.

Speaking in November during a workshop organized by the Department of Labour, Spence was quoted by local media saying: “Sapma has done everything in its power to warn lead-using producers – whether Sapma members or not – but we now require the strong arm of the government to name and shame manufacturers who still ignore anti-lead legislation.”

“Sapma members would welcome such prosecutions because it would be in accordance with our ethical views and strategies since the major brands, having already eliminated lead in the decorative market, are diligently working towards the total elimination of lead in the manufacture of paint, including industrial products like road-marking paints.”
He said Sapma members have committed “to produce only lead-free paint and, equally importantly, those retail members who join Sapma will not stock paint from a supplier unable to provide a declaration that his or her product is lead-free.”

“There are about 200 small- to medium-sized manufacturers of paint and coatings producing uncontrolled products. Our drive to recruit as many retailers as possible is also still a challenge. Without the retail industry’s cooperation, paints containing lead can still find its way to store shelves – and all too often at ridiculously low prices.”
He advocated for more water-based paints with more white oil-based enamels to reduce the lead levels in the brands supplied to the market.

“It should be remembered that 80 percent of decorative paint is water-based and contains no lead, which is traditionally used to obtain the rich colors in oil-based enamels. As the majority of enamel sold is white, this reduces the lead factor even further since ‘colored’ enamels represent only about four percent of decorative sales” he explained.
Chemspec, one of Africa’s largest coatings companies with a five percent market share of South Africa’s coatings market, is one of the manufacturers that have pledged to eliminate lead/chrome from all their paint brands distributed across the continent and beyond.

“We continue to remove lead and hazardous materials from our paint,” the company said in one of its media releases adding that the company has been forced to shift focus to waterborne wood finishing products because “the wood finish industry is slowly becoming more environmentally aware.”

Chemspec, whose decorative brands include Deco, Chemspel, Woodsure and Panache, has operations in Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and Mauritius markets where it intends to set the pace in supplying paint with low lead levels. The international market accounted for the coating company’s 39 percent total sales in 2013.

There have been concerns, however, in the West Africa coatings market over the supply of highly toxic paint brands by local and foreign companies with at least one international lobby calling for the prosecution of a leading U.S.-based supplier.

Nigeria, where an estimated 700 children under the age five died from lead poisoning in 2010, is yet to enact legislation to curb high levels of the chemical. It is estimated that another 3,000 children are in need of long-term treatment from the lead poisoning in the country’s Zamfra state.

A group of civil society organizations recently called for “immediate enactment of mandatory national regulations for limiting lead concentrations in paints.”
“There should be a complete ban and eradication of continued sale of leaded paints and have in place regulatory mechanism towards adulterated, unregistered, unlabeled, repackaged and uncertified paint products,” they said in a petition to the Federal Government.
“We believe that national re-branding should be synonymous with product re-branding. Government should set example by prohibiting procurement (purchasing) of paint products with lead.”

Paint Manufacturers Association has also been pushing its members to ensure their operations are responsive to environmental needs and that they “leave behind a better environment for coming generations.”

PMA chief executive officer Sulaimon Tella said in a previous interview with local media the lobby is out to ensure “the industry takes seriously the need to contribute towards a greener environment through the raw materials we use.”

An environmental group Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development (SRADev) said public awareness by both government agencies and civil society is critical in the fight to eliminate lead paint from the Nigerian market.

“There is a need for information campaigns to inform the public about the hazards of lead exposure, especially in children; the presence of lead in decorative paints for sale and use in the national market; lead paint as a significant source of childhood lead exposure; and availability of technically superior and safer alternatives,” said Leslie Adogame, SRADev’s executive director.

“Paint manufacturers in Nigeria are encouraged to eliminate lead compounds from their paint formulations, especially of those paints likely to contribute to lead exposure in children and others.”

He urged the manufacturers to voluntarily take part in programmes that “provide third party paint certification that no lead has been added to their paints, and to label products in ways that help consumers to identify paints that do not contain lead.”

In neighboring Cameroon, the country’s largest paint maker and supplier  Seignerurie, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based PPG, was early last year in the news for selling highly toxic house paint to consumers despite alerts of the high levels of lead it contained and petitions to withdraw the product from the market.

The accusation was made in March by Occupational Knowledge International (OK International) which describes itself as a global organization working to build capacity in developing countries to identify, monitor, and mitigate environmental and occupational exposures to hazardous materials in order to protect public health and the environment.

“There is an immediate need for regulations to restrict the lead content of paint in Cameroon to protect public health,” said Perry Gottesfeld, executive OK International.

Gottesfeld, who is also a co-author of the research into the Cameroon issue said,“The levels of lead are extraordinarily high and these products have been banned in the U.S. for more than 30 years.”

The findings of the research were published in the May 2013 issue of the “Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene” and “revealed lead concentrations are as high as 50 percent by weight in household paint being sold by Cameroon’s largest paint company, Seignerurie. This concentration is more than 5,000 times the allowable limit in the U.S.”

“This is the ultimate case of a company operating with double standards as they sell hazardous products in developing countries that have been banned in the US since the 1970s,” said Gottesfeld.

However, in an interview with a UK publication, PPG said it has adopted globally accepted standards for all its products including the contentious paints in circulation in the Cameroonian market.

“PPG globally adopted a position that limits the lead content for all architectural and decorative coatings marketed to consumers to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standard of 90ppm in 2008,” said Jeermy Neuhart, PGG’s spokesperson.

“In 2011, PPG undertook an internal review regarding lead in consumer paint sold in Cameroon, which does not have a legal limit for lead in paints and coatings. PPG has indicated its support of a Cameroon governmental standard for lead in consumer paints and will comply with such a regulation if enacted.”

A sample study of African countries found high levels of average lead concentrations with Kenya having 14,900 ppm, Cameroon, 23,100 ppm; Egypt, 26,200; Nigeria (two studies), 37,000 and 15,750 ppm; Senegal 5,870 ppm; South Africa, 19,860; and Tanzania 14,500 ppm.

According to the WHO, “Exposure to lead paint can be entirely stopped through a range of measures to restrict the production and use of lead paint.”

Bad science, health risks, and the EU/US trade treaty MOLLY SCOTT-CATO 12 March 2014

Whether on GM foods, pesticides, or pharmaceuticals, the EU/US trade treaty aims to strip away higher European regulations that protect public health but hinder corporate profits.
Image: Flickr/Jetsandzeppelins
A new corporate treaty is lumbering through the corridors of power, threatening to undermine our democratic rights and consumer protection. The negotiations are being conducted in secret so we cannot speak with certainty about what the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) contains. We must garner clues from the public utterances of its supporters.
I read with interest a recent article in the Wall Street Journal by my Conservative opponent in the South-West European Elections, Julie Girling. More interesting than why she chose to write the article, or why to publish it in the US corporate capital, is the question of why she targets her argument on EU legislation to protect us from harmful chemicals.
Girling at least engages with the issue of the risk and harm that lies at the heart of the polarised debate about the benefits or otherwise of the TTIP. This is more grown-up than the bandying around of bogus figures of potential job losses or financial gain that characterises the Liberal Democrats’ justification for their economic policies, with its rather imprecise claim of a ‘four to ten billion pound’ boost for the UK economy.
In connection with the TTIP, the South-West's Liberal democrat MEP Graham Watson claimed in his November newsletter that 'I tend to the view that trade is a good thing, creating prosperity, securing jobs, and promoting peace'.
I tend to the view that a trade treaty that has to be negotiated in secret is unlikely to be of benefit to the citizens of either the US or the EU. Most of what we know about it so far has come into the public domain through leaks. One cannot help wonder whether these leaks have emerged from US spying activities, as highlighted in a resolution put down by Green MEPs and passed by the EU's Civil Liberties Committee Committee.
What can we learn about the true aims of the treaty from Girling’s article? She focuses her fire on the precautionary principle - the principle that constrains the worst excesses of corporate damage in the EU context. She claims that existing restraints are the result of scare-mongering and makes a plea to the importance of 'established norms of science and risk management' as though the suited profiteers had monopoly rights on the understanding of risk.
Recent critical academic research would argue that risk paradigms are precisely invented to entrench certain powerful positions and to give them a seemingly objective validity above rival views.
We should also tackle the claim that ‘the body's endocrine system is designed to interact with the environment’, so artificial chemicals pose no threat to our health. The bizarre comparison between an adrenalin response to a barking dog and a hormone response to bisphenol A (one of the chemicals that interferes with our hormones) seems far-fetched in the extreme. We are physiologically and emotionally evolved to deal with potentially dangerous animals, but even the most enthusiastic Darwinist would not credit our evolutionary capacity with the responsiveness to deal with chemicals that came into widespread use only since the 1960s.
Since the Wall Street Journal article is devoid of references it is impossible to check out the claim that 'Europe's mainstream scientific community' objects to use of the precautionary principle; we also unable to check out the views of the 67 cited 'influential scientists' and their sources of funding. However the endocrine-disrupting chemicals are of enough significance to have caused the World Health Organisation to publish technical briefings for governments and to warn of possible contamination routes and potential harms ranging from breast cancer to neurodevelopmental delays.
What the article helpfully does from the perspective of those of us who are suspicious of the intentions of TTIP is to make clear that the focus is on non-tariff barriers. This means regulations on food, drugs and chemicals that are higher in the EU than in the US and therefore constrain the corporate profits that flow from free movement of goods.
Rather than pretend it is we as citizens who will benefit economically, Girling makes clear that it is the corporates who feel themselves hampered by such non-tariff barriers who will benefit.
TTIP is not about trade, as its name falsely implies, but about corporate power. If it is allowed to succeed then the European Union's very sensible precautionary principle will be only one of the casualties. We are being prepared for a renewed onslaught from the pedlars of genetically modified foods, pharmaceuticals and further onslaughts against social protections will follow as the corporations engage in a race to the bottom of social and consumer standards. And the ‘investor-state dispute mechanism’ part of TTIP will mean that governments merely seeking to protect their citizens will be forced to pay millions in compensation.
Julie Girling’s article highlights how the debate over TTIP will be fought. Those who are supporting the expansion of corporate power will attack the standards that generations of European citizens have fought to introduce in areas like harmful chemicals, pharmaceuticals and GM food. We have already seen a relaunch of the propaganda war on GM in the last few months.
We should recognise this pattern and set the alarm bells ringing in every media outlet we have access to. And most importantly we should do everything we can to make the secret negotiations public and to spread the word about the attack on democracy, economic resilience, and public health that this secret, corporate treaty is really about.