Archive for category ‘Prevention‘

Scientifically guided MCS-housing project is in the making

In 2013 in Zurich, Switzerland, a new housing project for people with MCS will be complete. Environmental illness is widespread in Switzerland, with statistics from authorities estimating approximately 5000 affected people. The city of Zurich will help with the real estate and construction law of the housing project for the chemically injured. “The project, costing about 5.8 million francs will be remembered as a pioneering project for healthy living in Zurich’s history,” said city council member Marin Vollenwyder at a press conference today in Zurich. The city has set the goal for itself… “HOUSING FOR ALL,” which means the city also supports this chemically injured population which has a difficult time finding appropriate housing.

Hope is finally within reach

Christian Schifferle, the founder of this Healthy Living Project for those with MCS, and president of the self help support group, MCS League Switzerland, has waited many years for this project. Two years ago he founded this cooperative, and since then it has progressed in leaps and bounds. Today Christian Schifferle said in an e-mail:

“I just came from the media conference discussing the MCS apartment project in Zurich, and I’m still overwhelmed and barely managed to give my speech. The Neue Zürcher newspaper has published an article, and today or tomorrow a report will be on Tele Top. I will report the new details in my next email. Currently I am sleeping in my car but am promised a transitional solution for my accommodations.”

Architect commitment

There was more good news this week from Switzerland. Schifferle added that the Healthy Living MCS housing project will be strengthened by Marianne Dutli Derron, an architect who has worked as a consultant at Zurich SVW, which is the umbrella organization for over 200 housing associations in Zurich. Her office is directly next to the MCS housing association. Ms. Dutli Derron has been elected as the executive manager of this housing project, and will work with Dr. Roman Lietha and Christian Schifferle. At the next general meeting, Ms. Dutli Derron will be asked to be a board member and co-president. She brings eight years of experience as president of another Zurich housing project. A few weeks ago Schifferle asked the architect to join the MCS project and of course, is very pleased to have this commitment.

Professional support

The issue of MCS living is not new for Ms. Dutli Derron. She was one of the jury members for the MCS architectural competition on this project, and understands what is required to make this housing project a success. Christian Schifferle has offered his professional support which is crucial since he has suffered since childhood from severe MCS and knows much about the details needed for those with this environmental compromise. He has invested his energies for years in seeing this project become a reality. Difficult decisions over the coming months will be made during the construction phase. Support and expertise will be needed for the success of this healthy living project. Schifferle is anxious to relate the needs of the chemically injured population, and is thrilled to have Ms. Dutli Derron as a project expert on the board.

Healthy living has a big future

The city of Zurich while providing this housing project for those with MCS is taking on a pioneering project. It is the first residential project emerging for the chemically injured in Europe. In September 2009, the financial department of the city approved a loan of 150,000 francs for the implementation of a study for the residential building with ten apartments for MCS sufferers. The MCS house is designed from the ground up biologically and scientists offer their support on the residential project.

Technical and old workmanship combined

As the Zurich newspaper explains, the focus of this particular building is one of careful choices of safe building materials and expert workmanship. This structure will even be fitted with special locks so that the inhabitants can clean off chemical substances as they enter. This pioneering project will be challenging to build because of the use of old craft techniques, some of which have been forgotten, combined with modern safe materials.

Glass fiber rods will be used, which, until now, were never tried in structural engineering. The material conducts either heat or electricity. The MCS building will also try an external wall construction of insulating bricks with a variety of biologically active inner skin with clay and lime plaster. Perhaps this project will have unusual looking materials and processing techniques which are different from normal residential projects, but it is hoped that the architectural firm which has received the contract for this innovative project will emerge with a successful outcome on all levels. In addition the firm desires to give innovative input to traditional residential projects as well.

For Christian Schifferle (video), he must sleep for two more years, through long cold nights in the car or on the cot in the forest. After the enormous efforts that he has devoted to this project, he will hopefully have a home in which he and other MCS sufferers can live without symptoms, and thus experience real healthy living. As a next step, with Schifferle’s leadership, Germany will begin safe housing projects for healthy living as well. Perhaps eventually these projects will be prototypes for healthy living buildings for MCS sufferers around the globe.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, Sept. 10, 2010

Translation: Thank you very much to Christi Howarth

Related Articles:

Household Cleaning Products – one of the leading sources of pediatric poisoning

New National Study Finds Decrease in Pediatric Injuries Associated with Household Cleaners Children younger than 6 years still at high risk of poisoning

Every year in the United States, there are more than 1.2 million poison exposures among children younger than 6 years. In recent decades, household cleaning products have consistently been one of the leading sources of pediatric poisoning. A new study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital found that from 1990-2006, an estimated 267,269 children younger than 6 years were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments for injuries attributable to household cleaning products. During the 17-year study period, researchers noted a 46 percent decrease in the number of injuries.

Data from the study, being released online August 2 and appearing in the September issue of Pediatrics, show that most of the household cleaner-related injuries were poisonings, with children ages 1-3 years accounting for the majority (72 percent) of the injuries. Bleach was the cleaning product most commonly associated with injury (37.1 percent). While approximately one-third of the injuries occurred through contact with the cleaning product, the more frequent means was ingestion (62.7 percent), and spray bottles were the most common storage container (40.1 percent).

“Interestingly, spray bottles were the only major storage source that increased over the study period,” said study lead author Lara McKenzie, PhD, principal investigator at the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital. “Although rates of household cleaner-related injuries from regular bottles and original containers decreased during the study period, spray bottle injury rates remained constant. This area is worthy of further research.”

The good news is that the number of injuries decreased almost by half during the study period, but the bad news is that there were still nearly 12,000 children younger than 6 years who suffered injuries from household cleaning products in 2006.

“Young children are curious about their surroundings and tend to explore their environment by putting things in their mouths,” said Dr. McKenzie, also a faculty member of The Ohio State University College of Medicine. “This general sense of inquisitiveness, combined with increased mobility, the ubiquitous nature of household cleaning products and the ease of accessibility, place young children at high risk of injury.”

Parents and caregivers must do their part to prevent childhood poisonings. According to Heath Jolliff, DO, associate medical director of the Central Ohio Poison Center at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, parents should store poisonous substances in locked cabinets, out of sight and reach of children.

“It’s important to only purchase cleaners with child-resistant packaging, keep all products in their original containers and properly dispose of leftover or unused products,” Dr. Jolliff, also a faculty member at OSU College of Medicine, said.

Parents should also know what to do if they suspect their child has come in contact with a poison. Dr. Jolliff advises to immediately contact the Poison Center at 1-800-222-1222 (this national number will direct callers to their local Poison Center), unless the child is unconscious, not breathing, or having seizures, in which case parents should call 9-1-1.

This is the first published study using nationally representative data to examine poisonings from household cleaning products among children younger than 6 years for an extended time period. Data for this study were collected from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which is operated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The NEISS dataset provides information on consumer product-related and sports and recreation-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments across the country.

Reference:

Nationwide Children’s Hospital, New National Study Finds Decrease in Pediatric Injuries Associated with Household Cleaners Children younger than 6 years still at high risk of poisoning, Columbus, OH – 8/2/2010.

-

Further Articles about Children’s Health:

60 Scientists and NGOs Sound Joint Warning on Plastics Chemical

Scientists and NGOs concerned about the health impacts of bisphenol A

PRESS RELEASE, 23rd JUNE 2010

An unprecedented 60 scientists and international environment, health and women’s organisations from around the globe have jointly written to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stating that

“action is necessary to reduce the levels of Bisphenol-A (BPA) exposure, particularly in groups at highest risk, namely young infants and pregnant mothers.”

[Quotes from some of the participating scientists and NGOs can be found towards the end of this release.]

In total, 41 NGOs and 19 scientists from 15 countries from across the globe (including 9 from the UK) have signed the letter. The letter comes on the eve of a new scientific opinion to be released by the EFSA on the safety of Bisphenol A in food contact materials expected in early July 2010. EFSA was requested by the European Commission to assess the latest science on Bisphenol A, and if necessary, to update the existing Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) (a specific amount in food or drinking water that can be ingested (orally) over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk).

Bisphenol A is a mass produced chemical used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics that are clear and nearly shatter-proof. It can be found in plastics used for food and beverages, such as baby bottles, sports water bottles, as an epoxy resin in canned food and drinks, plastic food storage containers, tableware and in other products, including dental sealants, and has been found to leach into food and drink.

There have been long standing concerns about the health impacts of bisphenol A, due to scientific studies that have shown it has hormone disrupting effects at extremely low levels of exposure. Human bio-monitoring studies have shown that the vast majority of people in developed countries are exposed to Bisphenol-A.

EFSA’s previous opinions in 2007 and 2008 predominantly relied upon a handful of industry backed scientific papers that have expressed no concerns about our levels of BPA exposure. The letter from scientists and NGOs highlights scientific criticism in academic journals regarding these papers as compared to the “several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers have been published that have highlighted potential adverse health effects associated with BPA exposures”

The letter also draws attention to some of the new studies which have raised risks of exposure relating to a potential increased likelihood of developing ‘diabetes’, ‘developmental programming’ and ‘breast cancer’. Bisphenol A exposure at environmentally relevant levels commonly found in the environment in developed countries has also been repeatedly linked by independent university – based scientists to a number of other serious chronic health conditions.

Despite EFSA’s pivotal position in setting chemical food safety levels across the EU, Sweden and Germany have become the third and fourth most recent EU member states, alongside France and Denmark, to take action ahead of the EFSA review.

Andreas Carlgren, Sweden’s Environment Minister stated, on 11th May 2010, that

“If the EU will not quickly forbid the hormone disrupting substance bisphenol in baby-bottles Sweden will precede with a national prohibition.”

The President of the German Federal Environment Agency on the 9th June also broke from EFSA policy by issuing new guidance calling on

“manufacturers, importers and users of bisphenol A to use alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment in all areas of use that significantly contribute to exposure”.

Regulators in Canada and the USA have already taken action to limit BPA exposure, for example in its use in baby bottles. As yet there has been no similar action at the European Union level.

A number of EU member states continue to back a common approach across the EU on bisphenol A. Tim Smith, the head of the UK Food Standards Agency, declared in an internal FSA report on the 12th May, 2010 that he ‘considers it important to have an agreed position across the EU’ and that the FSA will only ‘revise our position in line with it the EFSA Review if it is considered necessary’, despite the action that is being taken elsewhere across the EU.

The EFSA have already delayed publication of its review, as explained on its website:

To give the European Commission an up-to-date overview of the safety of BPA, EFSA will now deliver a scientific opinion in early July rather than end of May. This is due to the need for the Panel to consider hundreds of studies in its review and analysis of the most recent scientific literature.

The letter from scientists and organisations opens by ‘welcoming this announcement’ issued at the 11th hour that EFSA has finally agreed to examine hundreds of non-industry backed scientific papers.

The letter was drafted by Breast Cancer UK and Prof. Fredrick vom Saal, Curators Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia who has been awarded by his peers for his work on Bisphenol-A and is a recognised leader in this field. The effort was also coordinated by the Brussels based Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).

Prof. vom Saal stated in response to the publication of the letter that:

“At the heart of the debate over BPA lies an outdated set of guidelines used by regulatory agencies that are based on approaches to evaluating the safety of chemicals established over 50 years ago. Thus, 21st century research approaches have provided overwhelming scientific evidence of harm in hundreds of published reports, but these findings are being rejected for consideration because they do not conform to the outdated testing guidelines.

“This has left regulatory agencies to rely entirely on industry-funded research that used ‘approved’ testing methods that are crude and insensitive, and it is not surprising that 100% of these industry-funded studies conclude that BPA causes no harm.

“The only rational path for European regulators is to take decisive action to reduce human exposure to BPA. The overwhelming nature of the total scientific evidence mandates this as a priority.”

Clare Dimmer, Chair of Trustees Breast Cancer UK and former breast cancer patient stated:

“Breast cancer is the most common cancer across Europe and has been increasing rapidly regardless of the costly and expensive efforts made by Governments to improve screening, treatment, and increase research. It must now be time that regulators act on the science and begin to take a precautionary approach to hazardous chemicals like bisphenol-A found in our everyday products.”

Lisette van Vliet, Ph.D. the Toxics Policy Advisor at HEAL said:

“It is high time that EFSA caught up to the overwhelming science showing genuine reasons for concern about our daily exposure to BPA.”

Participating scientists and organisations were given the opportunity to provide a quote for this press release; those that responded have been included below. This does not preclude participating organisations providing their own releases, supporting statements and additional comments.

Prof. Andrew Watterson, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, University of Stirling, said:

“It’s worrying, considering the weight of the scientific evidence, that strong action to reduce human exposure is yet to be taken. Hundreds of academic studies have explicitly raised the risks of developmental harm to foetuses and young children from exposure to BPA and this should dictate a strong precautionary policy response from European regulators. If this is not forthcoming, the UK Government must intervene as other European countries are already doing so.”

Daniela Hoffmann, Chemicals Expert, GLOBAL 2000/Friends of the Earth Austria:

“EFSA has to finally acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence concerning the risk BPA poses to human health.”

Sarah Häuser, Chemicals Expert BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany:

“The existing Tolerable Daily Intake for BPA does not protect human health. In animal experiments and biomonitoring studies, BPA doses much smaller than those estimated as being safe by EFSA were linked to chronic conditions health damages like diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. It’s time to take action now.”

For further information please contact:

Hratche Koundarjian, Campaign Manager, Breast Cancer UK, Charity No: 1088047, T: 07905 911 039, E: hratche@breastcanceruk.org.uk, W: www.breastcanceruk.org.uk / www.nomorebpa.org.uk

Letter and Signatories:

Prof. Klaus-Dieter Jany, Chair of the CEF Panel

European Food Safety Authority

Largo N. Palli 5/A, 43121 Parma, Italy

23rd June 2010

Dear Prof. Jany,

We are writing to welcome the announcement on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) website that the CEF panel will be considering ‘hundreds of studies in its review and analysis of the most recent scientific literature’ in its review of the TDI of bisphenol-A in food contact products.

Over the last decade and a half, a substantive body amounting to several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers, have been published that have highlighted potential adverse health effects associated with BPA exposures, at internal doses relevant to levels of biologically active BPA found in humans.

As a March 2010 Review (Vandenberg et al) of 80 bio-monitoring studies of BPA in Environmental Health Perspectives makes clear;

‘The two toxicokinetic studies performed to date, which suggest that human exposure is negligible, have significant flaws and are therefore not reliable for risk assessment purposes.’

However, in its prior risk assessments of BPA, EFSA only relied on a small number of studies rather than the much larger number that the United States Food and Drug Administration recently recognised as valid and of high utility in its risk assessment of BPA, and which led the FDA to express concern about the health hazards posed by BPA.

Only a tiny minority of studies have articulated that BPA exposure is completely safe, and many of these research papers have been criticised in academic commentaries and responses as having serious flaws, but it is these few flawed studies that EFSA previously relied on to declare BPA safe.

For example, a letter co-authored by 24 scientists published in the February 2010 edition of Toxicological Sciences states;

‘Publishing studies that conclude no harm in response to low doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals, when the studies did not include a positive control (Tyl et al., 2002), included inappropriate doses of positive controls (Ryan et al., 2009; Tyl et al., 2008), or included positive controls that showed no effect (Cagen et al., 1999), is inappropriate in peer-reviewed journals (Myers et al., 2009a,b; vom Saal and Welshons, 2006). Such studies violate basic principles of study design.’

Many scientific studies are now calling into question the safety of BPA. For example, a recent study has highlighted that BPA may contribute to metabolic disorders relevant to glucose homeostasis, and suggests that BPA may be a risk factor for diabetes (Alonso-Magdalena et al., 2010). Moreover, experiments at Yale university report that BPA may induce altered developmental programming (Bromer et al.,2010), and Doherty et al (2010) of Yale university have published a study which raises the concern about epigenetic effects of BPA on the regulation of the mammary gland, with potential implications for breast cancer risk. Endometriosis is also a concern as work by Signorile et al (2010) highlights that pre-natal exposure of mice to bisphenol-A causes an endometriosis-like response in female offspring.

It is therefore our opinion that any objective and comprehensive review of the scientific literature will lead to the conclusion that action is necessary to reduce the levels of BPA exposure, particularly in groups at highest risk, namely young infants and pregnant mothers.

There are an increasing number of countries that are either already committed to this course of action, or have signalled that they will soon be undertaking similar measures.

We share the concerns of these Governments and regulators and believe that reducing BPA exposure to these groups is both scientifically sound and in the best interest of public health.

As such, we call on you as the Chair of the CEF panel and the CEF Committee Members in their ongoing review to include all relevant studies, including bio-monitoring studies, and based on that evidence we conclude that there is a strong scientific mandate for action.

Yours sincerely,

  1. Benson Akingbemi, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
  2. Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Chahoud, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Dept. of Toxicology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  3. André Cicolella, Dipl Eng chemist-toxicologist.
  4. Prof. Patricia Hunt, Meyer Distinguished Professor, School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University
  5. Prof. Maricel V. Maffini. Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor. Department of Anatomy and Cellular Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine
  6. Jane Muncke, Ph.D, Environmental Toxicologist, Emhart Glass SA, Switzerland.
  7. John Peterson Myers, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville VA.
  8. Angel Nadal, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Instituto de Bioingeniería and CIBERDEM, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Spain.
  9. Dr John Newby, Medical Information Scientist for the Cancer Prevention Society and Former Member of the Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group, Department of Human Anatomy & Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool.
  10. Prof. Jörg Oehlmann, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity.
  11. Prof. Gail S. Prins, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago.
  12. Prof. Fredrick vom Saal, Curators Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia.
  13. Prof. Pietro Giulio Signorile, President of the Italian Endometriosis Foundation.
  14. Prof. Ana M Soto, MD, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Tufts University, School of Medicine.
  15. Prof. Hugh S. Taylor, M.D., Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University.
  16. Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, Tufts University.
  17. Prof. Cheryl S. Watson, PhD, Professor, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Dept. University of Texas, Medical Branch, Galveston.
  18. Prof. Andrew Watterson, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, University of Stirling.
  19. Prof. R. Thomas Zoeller, Biology Department, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts.

-

  1. Action for Breast Cancer, Malta
  2. Alliance for Cancer Prevention, UK
  3. Arnika, Czech Republic
  4. Association for Environmental and Chronic Toxic Injury, Italy
  5. Austrian section of ISDE (International Society of Doctors for the Environment), Austria
  6. Breast Cancer Fund, USA
  7. Breast Cancer UK, UK
  8. BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany
  9. Cancer Prevention and Education Society, UK
  10. ChemSec –International Chemical Secretariat, International
  11. CHEM Trust, UK
  12. Chemical Sensitivity Network, Germany
  13. Clean Air Action Group, Hungary
  14. Comité pour le Développement Durable en Santé, France
  15. Danish Consumer Council, Denmark
  16. The Danish Ecological Council, Denmark
  17. Eco-Accord Program on Chemical Safety, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
  18. EcoAid, Germany
  19. Ecologistas en Acción, Spain
  20. Environmental Health Fund, USA
  21. Environment Illinois, USA
  22. European Environmental Bureau, EU
  23. Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Finland
  24. Friends of the Earth Spain, Spain
  25. Global 2000 / Friends of the Earth Austria, Austria
  26. Health and Environmental Network, Europe
  27. Health Care Without Harm, International
  28. Indiana Toxics Action, USA
  29. Instituto Sindical de Trabajo Ambiente y Salud, Spain
  30. The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association, Ireland
  31. Italian Endometriosis Foundation, Italy
  32. Plastic Planet, Austria
  33. Rachel’s Friends Breast Cancer Coalition, USA
  34. Réseau Environnement Santé, France
  35. Society for Sustainable Living, Czech Republic
  36. Unison, UK
  37. VHUE e.V., Germany
  38. Women in Europe for a Common Future, Europe
  39. Women’s Environmental Network, Scotland
  40. Women’s Voices for the Earth, USA
  41. WWF European Policy Office, Europe

-

References

German Translation by CSN:

60 Wissenschaftler und NGOs appellieren an EFSA

New blood test for newborns to detect allergy risk

A simple blood test can now predict whether newborn babies are at high risk of developing allergies as they grow older, thanks to research involving the University of Adelaide.

Professor Tony Ferrante, an immunologist from SA Pathology and the Children’s Research Centre at the University of Adelaide, says the new marker may be the most significant breakthrough in allergy testing for some decades.

“A protein in the immune cells of newborns appears to hold the answer as to whether a baby will either be protected, or susceptible to the development of allergies later on,” Professor Ferrante says.

Amounts of the cell signalling protein, called protein kinase C zeta, are much lower in children at risk of allergies.

Professor Ferrante says the blood test is far more effective than previous indicators, such as a family’s clinical history, or measuring the allergy-inducing antibody IgE.

In collaboration with Professor Susan Prescott from the University of Western Australia and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Professor Ferrante’s research team has refined the new marker for allergy risk, originally discovered in 2007, but now modified to a simple and manageable blood test at birth.

The researchers are also looking at whether fish oil supplements given to both pregnant women and those who have just given birth can reduce the risks of the children developing allergies.

“There is evidence that the levels of this important protein increase with fish oil supplementation to protect against allergy development,” Professor Ferrante says.

Australia has one of the highest allergy rates in the world, with 40% of children now suffering from allergic diseases, including food allergies, eczema, asthma and hay fever. These conditions frequently persist into adulthood, placing a heavy burden on the healthcare system.

Literature: The University of Adelaide, New blood test for newborns to detect allergy risk, 21 May 2010

Dreams That Kill

Masses

Choke

Slowly

We are not allowed to stop dreaming. Dreams we have not chosen. Dreams that are sold to us as indispensible for our happiness. And we sleep carefree and dream. We dream and we buy to be able to sleep and to keep dreaming about more stuff. We sleep deeply warmed by the glow of the robotized masses, heads full of dreams that don’t allow rest.

Don’t even dare to stop having sweet empty dreams. Don’t even dare to stop breathing deeply and find yourself lost in the nightmare of other’s dreams, without being able to wake up; in a world that burns you and locks you into an illness that only allows you to dream that your nightmares disappear.

Tonight you will go to sleep satisfied, snuggled up to your soft-skinned, seductively perfumed life, where everything is inoffensive and perfect. Your dreams will, once more, banish me to the hidden side of the world, where light pierces and sound scorches the nerves, where dreams become a cruel poison that slowly kills me and drags me from nightmare to nightmare with no way out.

Your toxic dreams bury my existence under a stone slab made up of three words: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Your world of ideal dreams sentences me to live jailed.

Wake up from the heavy dream in which you are sinking us so that you and I can dream that we actually live, a real dream; so that no more will anyone see their dreams turned into the torture of a merciless illness.

Author: Eva Caballé for Delirio, April 2010

Photo: Aida/Delirio

More articles from Eva Caballé for Deliro: