Archive for category ‘Neurotoxicity‘

Airline pays passenger €50,000 because of pesticide on board

Life-threatening asthma attack in airplane triggered by Permethrin

An Irish businessman suffered from a severe allergic reaction during an Air France flight because the airline sprayed the pesticide permethrin on board. James Lapham sued Air France and received €50,000 compensation for damages for the first time in history as was stated in the Irish Independent newspaper. Mr. Lapham, an asthmatic, barely survived the incident and is still receiving medical treatment after 8 months.

Pesticides are often part of everyday life on board

The spraying of pesticides on planes is not unusual. For hygiene reasons, and because it is feared that pests could be transported, many countries require the spraying of pesticides. Normally, the passengers are not informed or warned. The estimated number of passengers who suffered health problems during a flight due to pesticide on board is most likely high. Airlines worldwide now fear that this case could constitute a precedent, and that other passengers suffering from ailments may call upon this case.

A German lawyer led a lawsuit against Air France in 2008. He had also suffered health problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on board. The airline denied him the information as to what pesticide had been used. The Frankfurt regional court’s verdict in December 2008 gave the attorney only half right.

An even bigger worry for the airlines than the single passenger cases, is complaints from flight staff who have become ill due to pesticides and may take advantage of the current case.

Asthma attacks caused by pesticides

The Independent writes that James Lapham was on a flight from Rabat to Dublin when the incident occurred. He had only been on board for 10 minutes when he experienced breathing difficulties. The Irish Independent reports that the flight attendants had sprayed permethrin, a neurotoxic pesticide, in the cabin. Permethrin is a Pyrethroide, and is a pesticide which is known for, among other things, triggering allergic and non-allergic asthma. Permethrin is prohibited on flights in the U.S. because the pesticide has been classified by the EPA as carcinogenic since 1997.

Emergency landing due to asthmatic’s reaction to pesticide

The Irish businessman reacted so violently to the permethrin that the flight attendants had to give him oxygen. This intervention was not enough and Mr. Lapham’s asthmatic condition worsened and the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Morocco. The businessman was brought by ambulance to a hospital, where he was stabilized with cortisone. The Independent stated that Mr. Lapham might indeed work again, but is still in need of medical treatment.

Sick due to pesticides in airplane – not an isolated case

The Irish businessman James Lapham is not an isolated case. Particularly flight staffs on long-haul flights in hot regions have been complaining for years about the use of pesticides and the damaging health effects caused by the toxic chemicals. Court cases in different countries are pending and flight attendants have organized internationally for years.

James Lapham pled at the Irish High Court at the Montreal Convention. Passengers cannot receive more than € 100,000 damages under this convention, the Irishman won half, €50.000. Whether more cases will be recognized can not be predicted, because airlines still claim that permethrin had been recommended by the WHO, although scientific studies on the health damaging effects of neurotoxic pesticide are increasing.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 21. August 2011

Literature: Independent, Airline pays out €50,000 in pest-killer spray case, August 09, 2011

Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome: AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION

Related CSN Articles:

Ant poison in the health food store?

Pesticides – often underestimated

It is annoying when ants suddenly run out halfway across the kitchen, and climb up the kitchen cupboard looking for something sweet. However, street ants and bugs generally die quickly with the grip of poison. It is not a surprise to see a dusty can of pesticides in the home closet or garage, or pesticides offered in the supermarket or hardware store. Recently, however, ant poison is even available in some health food stores.

Although many consumers have become confident in dealing with pesticides, they still question how to treat this ant problem in their kitchens? If the poison kills the ants from the can, is it also possibly that this poison can also affect one’s health? Trivializing descriptions and promises on the box can lead to the underestimation of potential pesticide risks for humans and pets.

Ant poison freely available everywhere

During summer this poison is conveniently available to consumers at checkout counters, especially at the hardware store. Large shelves are built for pesticides of all kinds, to kill mosquitoes, ants, wasps, snails and whatever other pest is unwelcome.

In the summer, it is similar at the supermarket. A large shelf with various pesticides is conveniently and centrally located for consumers. Anyone who knows something about pesticides probably realizes that the products on these shelves are mostly nerve poisons. Among the ingredients are pyrethroids and organophosphates, both classes of pesticides are very harmful. For certain groups at risk, like pregnant women, and those who have chemical allergy-sensitivity, there is an increased danger. This is exactly why German authorities warn the public before they spray these pyrethroids and pyrethrum in the public’s vicinity.

The terms “natural” and “organic” lead to consumer deception

On some pesticide labels it is easy to read “natural pesticides”, “organic”, or “derived from the chrysanthemum” for of the toxic ingredient, pyrethrum. Not all such descriptions however mean that one is dealing with a completely harmless “organic poison.” Although pyrethrum is a contact insecticide derived from chrysanthemum, it has been known since ancient times for its consistent toxicity. Non-hazardous pesticides with natural attractants are rarely found.

Neurotoxic ant poison in the health food stores?

Change of scene: “What do we have here?” I asked myself recently as my eyes fell to the floor at a health food store in the refrigerated section. There was a range of small sized pesticide bottles with a nicely decorated design in pastel colors. “Well, maybe something completely non-toxic, which can be recommended to the neighbors if they have problems with insects,” was my second thought. Then I looked at the list of ingredients on the ant venom spray pump.”Natural pyrethrum” was written there. A toxic nerve agent in the health food store?

“People, who buy ant poison, should already know that!” Really?

The owner of the health food store was not far away, and it was a good opportunity to talk to her regarding the pesticide product line. With a factual explanation of how dangerous pyrethrum can be for health, especially for children, the sick, those with allergies, asthma, and pets, the health food store-owner then answered, “People who buy ant poison, should already who knows that.”

Pesticides assessed by each person, right?

This exact statement was an affirmation that even those who should be familiar with pesticides, sometimes completely underestimate their danger.

Even natural pyrethrum poses significant health risks for humans and pets. Cats can die from it. From the toxicology and medical reports, it is known that pyrethrum is harmful and can trigger allergies and asthma. So for safety sake it is better to leave this “natural” pesticide alone and try a harmless home remedy instead.

Health food stores should offer no pesticides with pyrethrum. The consumer confidence in their health food store drops by having such health hazards available for purchase. The better option, specifies an American organic supermarket chain, is to distribute free brochures with tips for small non-toxic pest control. Toxic items and multi-vitamins do not peacefully coexist in the same store.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 06/26/2011

Free poison tip against ants in the house and garden:

Get a bag of chili seeds from the supermarket and place several tablespoons into a glass with oil. Then wait a couple of hours and sprinkle them outside along the door. This effective barrier is completely toxin-free and one can enjoy watching the ants outside make a U-turn.

Helpful tip: Warm the chili seeds with warm oil on the stove so that the agent responsible for the sharpness of capsaicin passes quickly into the oil. You can also spread the seeds of chili without oil, but the disadvantage is that they may be spread by wind.

Helpful informations about non toxic pestcontrol Steve Tvedten

Related articles:

The cause of death for Knut, the polar bear

Were pesticides to blame for the death of Knut, the polar bear?

Many thousands of people mourn the sudden death of Knut, the polar bear. He was the darling at a German zoo. Why did Knut die? Initial autopsy results showed that Knut, the polar bear, suffered from a brain disease. A former animal keeper at a zoo reported the death of gorilla babies dying from pesticide use. The keeper herself fell ill and nearly died. Were pesticides the cause of death of the polar bear, Knut? Recent scientific research has shown that pesticides cause different brain diseases. What caused Knut’s brain disease will require further investigation. It is possible, because pesticides are used regularly in zoos to keep the zoo animals free of vermin.

All mourn the loss of Knut, the polar bear

In the media, on Twitter and Facebook, the death of Knut, the polar bear , remains the main topic for days now. The sweet polar bear was raised by a nurse with a bottle in the German zoo after his mother abandoned him. The little polar bear in no time, won the hearts of all the visitors. Now the sadness is great, and the cause of Knut’s brain disease is still under investigation. Zoo visitors witnessed the polar bear turning itself around several times and falling into the pond. Over 500 people observed the death of this polar bear and reported that he had an epileptic-like seizure before he sank into the water in his polar bear enclosure. Knut’s keeper also died suddenly at the age of 44 from a heart attack in 2008.

Dream job, but health went downhill

The young woman worked in one of the biggest zoos in Germany. She loved her job as a veterinary nurse above everything. She was responsible for the gorillas. With the bottle, she helped gorilla babies grow when needed. Most of all, she never wanted to go home after work because she loved her job so much. During her training, her health was deteriorating. The reason for her health decline was first discovered years later. Several radiological studies including SPECT, CT, and MRT scans of her brain showed severe brain damage and atrophy. Pesticides were the reason the keeper’s health went downhill.

Gorilla babies dead due to the use of pesticides

During training, the young keeper had to deal with pesticides during the spraying of the gorilla’s sleeping quarters. The pesticide nerve agents, pyrethroids and organophosphates were used. The young woman had to spray the sleeping caves. As she kneeled in front of the caves, she couldn’t avoid breathing in the poison. “The gorilla babies died, and now I know it was because they were exposed to the pesticides,” she told me several years ago when we met at a special clinic. Her immune and nervous system were severely damaged, and she had problems with her muscles and her heart was weakening. Her hair was falling out and she had the typical nerve agent seizures. She stated, “I initiated a workers’ compensation lawsuit and won.” There was no question that the health of the animal keeper was destroyed by pesticides.

Knut died from pesticide exposure?

We do not know exactly which brain disease Knut, the public’s favorite animal in the Berlin Zoo, suffered from, but further studies will hopefully determine the nature and cause of his brain disease. Pesticides may well be on the short list, because they are regularly used in zoos to keep the zoo animals free of fleas and other parasites. Certain herbicides, which are often used on pavements and along roadsides in zoos in order to be kept free of weeds, are quite capable of causing life-threatening seizures.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, March 21, 2011

Translation: Thanks to Christi Howarth.

Related articles:

The life of a young woman is threatened again by the spraying of toxic chemicals

Do you remember, around the middle of 2010 when the parents of a young Spanish woman, Elvira Roda, who suffers from severe chemical sensitivity (MCS), asked for help? Do you recall that Elvira was living in a specially prepared, very expensive, pollution-free house where the city applied pesticides?

EMM Blog: Cry for Help – Young Woman in Danger

This seriously ill woman collapsed from the nerve agents, which were sprayed and resulted in putting her into a critical condition. For days she was in the worst health state possible and had to sit in a lawn chair by the sea. The parents tried to stop the city leaders from this application of pesticides, neurotoxic organophos- phates, but it was in vain.

A petition for Elvira, was released worldwide on many MCS blogs and by organizations. People from different countries signed, asking the city officials to refrain from spraying pesticides outside the home of this young woman.

Elvira’s life is in danger again

A day ago the parents of Elvira again asked for help because the city of Alboraya has now begun to spray a herbicide.

Please read her parent’s letter below and support by signing the petition for Elvira.

For Elvira’s sake:

Thanks to everyone who supported Elvira Roda by signing the petition to the Alboraya City Council in Valencia , Spain and asking them not to use chemicals that are harmful to humans and the environment, but instead requesting them to find healthier alternatives.

Our family has tried everything possible to prevent further spraying, but unfortunately today on October 5th, the Alboraya City Council will begin using new fumigation using Plus Roundup (glyphosate), and other environmentally harmful chemicals.

We have requested them to use environmentally friendly, natural alternatives, and asked the city council to inform the public prior to the spraying, but both requests were unsuccessful. We therefore believe it necessary for the health of all, to continue to collect signatures on the petition. We need you. With these efforts, we will certainly succeed.

Please help Elvira Roda! Tomorrow it could be one of you, who needs the help of us all.

For more information regarding Elvira’s situation, please see:

Support for Elvira Roda

To sign the petition, go to >>> Petition to Elvira Roda (sign at the bottom)

Thank you for your support!

Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry

People must be protected from exposure to fragrance ingredients that may cause cancer or fetal, hormonal or reproductive toxicity, the Cancer Prevention Coalition warned today. But federal agencies are not regulating these ingredients, leaving the public at risk due to the “recklessly irresponsible” behavior of the fragrance industry, says CPC Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Protection of the public would be implemented by passage of Senator Frank Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, Dr. Epstein advises. This bill requires manufacturers to provide information on “chemicals of concern” in consumer products.

The bill would provide the public with information on the dangers of these products, especially, says Dr. Epstein, “as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recklessly failed to do so since passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

Perfumes and fragrances are the single largest category of cosmetic and personal care products, especially products used on the hair, face, and eyes. These products represent nearly 50 percent of all prestige beauty dollars now spent in the United States. Fragrances are also extensively used in a wide range of everyday household cleaning products.

Exposure to toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products is predominantly through the skin. In contrast, exposure to toxic ingredients in household cleaning products is predominantly through inhalation.

The FDA has direct authority under the terms of the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to regulate toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. However, seven decades later, it has still failed to do so. Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also still failed to regulate these toxic ingredients in household cleaning products.

“In the disturbing absence of any federal regulations,” Dr. Epstein says, the policies and practices of the cosmetics and personal care products industries are determined by its International Fragrance Association (IFRA). This is an international trade organization of over 100 perfume and fragrance manufacturers, representing fifteen regions including the U.S., Europe, South America, Australia, and the Far East.”

The primary objective of IFRA is to protect the self-regulatory practices and policies of the industry by the development of a Code of Practices and safety guidelines, Dr. Epstein says. However, these include maintaining the “trade secret” status of perfume and fragrance ingredients, and pre-empting international legislative labeling and safety initiatives.

Of the more than 5,000 ingredients used in the fragrance industry, approximately 1,300 have so far been evaluated by the industry’s International Research Institute for Fragrance Materials. This institute is a “non-profit” organization, created by IFRA in 1966 to conduct research and testing of fragrance ingredients.

“However,” Dr. Epstein warns, “this testing is minimal and restricted to local effects on human skin, and short-term toxicity tests in rodents.”

Evaluation of ingredient safety is then made by a board of toxicologists, pharmacologists, and dermatologists, identified by the institute as “independent” without disclosure of their qualifications, let alone conflicts of interest.

Their findings are presented to IFRA’s Scientific Advisory Board, and then published in its trade journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. The information reported in this journal is the basis on which IFRA formulates its own “safety guidelines.” However, Dr. Epstein points out, due to the “trade secret” status of fragrances, manufacturers are still not required by the FDA to disclose their ingredients on product labels or in any other way.

“These ingredients include a wide range of allergens. They also include synthetic musks, particularly tonalide and galaxolide, designed to mimic natural scents derived from musk deer and ox,” Dr. Epstein explains. “They are persistent and bioaccumulate in the body, have toxic hormonal effects, and have been identified in breast milk.”

In 1973, in efforts at damage control, IFRA created a Code of Practice listing prohibited ingredients, based on its own safety analyses. This listing has been periodically updated.

In May 1999, in response to repeated complaints of respiratory, neurological, and other toxic effects following the use of Calvin Klein’s Eternity perfume, the Environmental Health Network of California hired two testing laboratories to identify the ingredients in the perfume.

Analysis of these results by the Cancer Prevention Coalition, summarized in Dr. Epstein’s 2009 book Toxic Beauty, reveal the following:

  • 26 ingredients whose “Toxicological properties have not been investigated,” or “toxicology properties have not been thoroughly investigated.”
  • 25 ingredients that are “Irritants.”
  • 5 ingredients that are “Skin sensitizers,” or allergens.
  • 3 ingredients that show “Fetal, hormonal, and reproductive toxicity.”
  • 2 ingredients that “May cause cancer.”

In efforts at damage control, IFRA agreed that information on allergenic ingredients in perfumes like Eternity should be made available, but only on request from dermatologists, for diagnostic purposes. “This “Fragrance On-Call List” action denies the public its right to know,” Dr. Epstein warns.

More disturbingly, Dr. Matthias Vey, president of IFRA, failed to respond to repeated warnings from August to October 2003 from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. These urged “all fragrance products be labeled to the effect that, apart from the absence of known skin and respiratory allergens, they contain no known carcinogens, gene damaging, hormonal, or otherwise toxic ingredients.”

As reported in “What’s That Smell,” a June 2010 report by Women’s Voices of the Earth, faced with continuing criticism of unresponsiveness, IFRA initiated a “compliance program” in 2007. “However,” Dr. Epstein warns, “this is based on testing of a mere 50 fragranced products from the global market place to detect prohibited ingredients.”

A fragrance may be restricted by IFRA on a variety of grounds. These include: use in products at higher-than-recommended concentrations, sensitization, photosensitization, phototoxicity, allergenicity, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, undefined biological effects, and inadequate data.

“This restriction, though, works better in theory than in practice,” Dr. Epstein emphasizes. “There is no pre-approval process for ingredient safety other than that claimed by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.”

Literature: Cancer Prevention Coalition, Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry, CHICAGO, IL, June 28, 2010

Related Articles: