Chicago-Land Personal Injury Lawyer - FDA

Congress Steps Up for Toy Safety

Nick Avgerinos — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:24:00 GMT

Congress recently announced a mandate for more stringent federal safety requirements for toys. The consumer-friendly legislation was signed by the President. These new standards include a strict “standard for lead; create a searchable database of product complaints filed with the government for consumers to access; require manufacturers to make it easier for consumers to learn about recalled products; increase fines and other penalties for safety violations; and beef up the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission and its budget.” One of the more controversial measures is the specific provision to prohibit all Phthalates, which are used in a wide range of plastics.

In a recent era of widely publicized dangers to the safety of children in toys, cribs, car seats, and other products, Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky praised this new development as “the birth of a new agency that will have much broader authority particularly to keep our children safe.” A ban such as this is a rare action by Congress, and reflects growing research showing that children are exposed to dangerous chemicals, commonly found in the packaging, surfaces, or contents of many products, by simple acts such as “chewing on a rubber duck.”

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “it should be a given that toys are not dangerous.” With this new measure, Congress is making a proactive and important effort to keep children safe from unreasonable and dangerous exposure to harmful chemicals and substances, as well as making sure products are mechanically safe.

For more information about consumer safety and children, see the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reports that inspired Congress’ action, “Kids at Risk” by the Chicago Tribune. There are also valuable resources on Injury Board.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

BPA and You: A Helpful Warning or Unsubstantiated Danger?

Nick Avgerinos — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:17:00 GMT

A recent hot topic among consumer safety advocates has been the use of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic compounds that are clear, hard, and not easily breakable. BPA is used in helmets, CDs, sunglasses, and cell phones as well as in food and beverage products such as water bottles, baby bottles, can coatings, and dental sealants. See link.

Controversy has surfaced due to conflicting studies regarding whether exposure to BPA is harmful in humans, and particularly, if such minimal exposure is harmful at all. In a statement by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), scientists have found that the trace amounts of BPA from bottles and canned foods have not been found to cause toxic effect in animals. Furthermore, considering the low dietary exposure and the fact that BPA has not demonstrated adverse effects when consumed by animals in [higher amounts than] humans would consume, the FDA sees “no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now authorized…[yet will continue with] ongoing review of all available data.”

In a study by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 93% of people tested had measurable levels of BPA in their urine, with highest levels in children. A study by The National Toxicology Program noted low-dose BPA exposure in animals led to cancer, genital malformations, and early puberty.

The European Food Safety Administration (EFSA), which permits the banning of chemicals based upon less stringent evidence than is required in the US, has determined that there is no reason based on current conflicting evidence to ban BPA, discrediting some of the studies on mice and rats by citing that people metabolize and excrete BPA from the body more quickly than do rodents.

Whether or not scientific studies, some of which funded by plastics corporations, have pinpointed BPA’s dangers, many manufacturers have made non-BPA plastic products available in response to consumer demand, particularly those used in food containers and bottles for children. A ban of BPA has been considered in California, New York, and in least 10 other states. The proposed California ban, for example, discusses the impact on children 3 and under, and would require all products or food containers designed for such children to contain only trace amounts of BPA.

For more information, also see this Injury Board blog.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Get Your Fix on the Internet: The New Drug Dealer

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:43:07 GMT

These days you can find most anything online. It is becoming commonplace to wear a shirt and slacks purchased online from Brooks Brothers, while preparing your meal with food from Peapod, for your newfound flame introduced by Match.com. The newest online frontier? Digital drugs.

Innocently arriving via FedEx, such drugs caused the sudden death of one Kansas man, as his wife divulged to CNN, on the condition of anonymity. She was under the mistaken impression that he was taking Soma at the direction of a physician as treatment for unbearable back pain resulting from a car accident. The reality: he had become addicted to an online fix.

Spotty pharmaceutical regulation has led to a surge in online drug sales. The lucrative market offers many perks to its dedicated base: discounted drugs, quick service, and anonymous ordering. According to Rusty Payne of the DEA, approximately $39 million in cash, bank accounts, property and computers were seized in 2007 pursuant to Internet drug investigations. This figure has more than tripled in the last 3 years. In fact, the DEA has formed an initiative with Google, Yahoo! and AOL to warn people about buying drugs online. Between 2005 and 2007, Payne said the official warning popped up nearly 80 million times.

Here, consumers will do well to follow the old adage: “nothing worth having ever comes easy.” Go to the doctor, get the proper prescription, and, for heaven’s sake, read the label. Although the law may be slow in catching up to common sense, a smart consumer will know better than to cut corners when it comes to her health. Keep in mind that while flesh-and-blood doctors know that they can be held liable for any looming malpractice claims, the Internet, with its often alluring veil of anonymity, offers little incentive for proper treatment.

Perhaps the Kansas widow said it best: “These pharmacy people that are doing this and these doctors that are doing this, they don't give a dadgummit about people. It's just the almighty dollar; that's all it is."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Chicagoans: How Safe Is Your Lake Michigan Drinking Water?

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:41:42 GMT

Today Chicago area citizens have to be asking themselves, “Is our drinking water safe?”

In today's Chicago Tribune it was reported that "Chicago officials have never tested the city and suburban water supply for pharmaceuticals and other unregulated chemicals." For that reason, the Tribune conducted its own testing, and the results are cause for concern and further investigation.

According to the reporters, the tests revealed "tiny amounts of an anti-seizure drug, a common painkiller, caffeine and two chemicals used to make Teflon and Scotchguard" from a sampling taken from Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for many Chicagoans.

The Tribune reported that while the tests do not show the drinking or tap water is unsafe, the results raise questions about the long-term exposure to drugs in the drinking water. The article further noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that there does not exist conclusive evidence that pharmaceuticals in drinking water affect human health.

For consumers of bottled water, and bottled water companies the test results were encouraging. Tests conducted on bottled water samples from the three best-selling brands in Chicago did not contain any of the chemicals for which tests were conducted, and serve to support the claims from the bottled water industry that their water is clean and safe.

Governmental oversight of the bottled water industry is somewhat different from oversight of public drinking water. Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration but is not subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish national drinking water standards, called maximum contaminant levels, with respect to public drinking water.

Cities and local governments should notify their citizens of those chemicals and contaminants that are tested by their water departments, those that are not tested, the results of the testing, and what steps are being taken to ensure the safety and quality of their drinking water.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos