Chicken nuggets, burritos and other popular items consumers buy from fast food outlets in the United States contain chemicals that are linked to a long list of serious health problems, according to a first-of-its-kind study published today.
Researchers at the George Washington University and their colleagues bought fast foods from popular outlets and found 10 of 11 potentially harmful chemicals in the samples, including phthalates, a group of chemicals that are used to make plastics soft and are known to disrupt the endocrine system. The research team also found other plasticizers, chemicals that are emerging as replacements to phthalates.
“We found phthalates and other plasticizers are widespread in prepared foods available at U.S. fast food chains, a finding that means many consumers are getting a side of potentially unhealthy chemicals along with their meal,” Lariah Edwards, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral scientist at GW, said. “Stronger regulations are needed to help keep these harmful chemicals out of the food supply.”
In this study, Edwards, Zota and their colleagues purchased 64 fast food items from different restaurants and asked for three pairs of unused food handling gloves. The team tested food items and the gloves for 11 kinds of phthalates and plasticizers, finding that:
81% of the food samples studied contained a phthalate called DnBP and 70% contained DEHP. Both these chemicals have been linked in numerous studies to fertility and reproductive problems in humans. These phthalates can also increase risk for learning, attention, and behavioral disorders in childhood.
86% of the foods contained the replacement plasticizer known as DEHT, a chemical that needs further study to determine its impact on human health.
Foods containing meats, such as cheeseburgers and chicken burritos, had higher levels of the chemicals studied.
Chicken burritos and cheeseburgers had the highest levels of DEHT. The researchers noted that food handling gloves collected from the same restaurants also contained this chemical.
Cheese pizzas had the lowest levels of most chemicals tested.
Phthalates and replacement plasticizers are chemicals used to make plastics soft and can migrate out of plastics into the food, which is ingested. Some sources of plastics include food handling gloves, industrial tubing, food conveyor belts and the outer packaging used to wrap fast food meals available in restaurants.
Previous research by Zota’s team suggests that people who eat food cooked at home have lower levels of these chemicals in their bodies, probably because home cooks do not use food handling gloves or plastic packaging. To avoid these industrial chemicals, consumers can switch to mostly home cooked meals, which are often healthier than fast food, Edwards said.
Both Edwards and Zota say their study suggests the need for greater scrutiny and regulation of chemicals used to make food. They point out that replacement plasticizers are increasingly used to replace banned or restricted phthalates yet the studies needed to show that they are safe have yet to be done.
The study also raises the concern that certain racial/minority groups may be disproportionately affected by these chemicals.
“Disadvantaged neighborhoods often have plenty of fast food outlets, but limited access to healthier foods like fruits and vegetables,” Zota said. “Additional research needs to be done to find out whether people living in such food deserts are at higher risk of exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
Experts at the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (SAHM) are calling attention to a crisis in sex education, specifically the continued creation and endorsement of abstinence-only curricula being taught across the U.S. The commentary in the Journal of Adolescent Health is a response to the Medical Institute for Sexual Health’s recently released K-12 Standards for Optimal Sexual Health, which the authors find deeply flawed for its scientific inaccuracies, omitted topics, and misdirected focus on marriage and abstinence as solutions to adolescent sexual health.
The authors sound the alarm on the decline in sex education across the country. Despite substantial evidence that comprehensive sex education works to promote sexual health among adolescents, as well as strong support for its implementation from health professionals and parents alike, delivery of sex education in the U.S. has declined over the last 25 years.
“The trend of decreasing or stagnate sex education delivery over the past two decades in the U.S. is unsettling,” said Laura Lindberg, Principal Research Scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. “We are missing crucial opportunities to positively influence the sexual and reproductive health outcomes for adolescents both in their adolescence and throughout their lives.”
When taught, comprehensive curricula provide adolescents with accurate information on essential sexuality topics, opportunities to explore their identities and values, and skillsets in communication and decision-making. The National Sex Education Standards (NSES) are referenced in the paper as a prime example of standards that provide clear, age-appropriate instruction to reduce risk behaviors among adolescents and improve their overall health and wellbeing.
The authors express their dismay at M-SOSH, as it ignores the science and instead promotes an ideological agenda of abstinence until marriage. Abstinence-only-until-marriage approaches to sex education have been proven time and again to be not only ineffective but also harmful as they often withhold important health information from young people.
“It is our duty as adolescent health professionals to implement the tools we have to do better in providing comprehensive sex education to young people,” said lead author John Santelli, MD, MPH, and professor of Population and Family Health at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. “Promoting abstinence-only curriculum goes against the evidence and is unequivocally a step in the wrong direction.”
The commentary includes a side-by-side comparison of NSES and M-SOSH’s glossaries, highlighting critical topics missing from M-SOSH such as sexual orientation and gender identity, social determinants of health; disabilities; reproductive justice; PrEP therapy for HIV infection; and adolescent rights and minor consent laws.
“Sexual orientation and gender identity are foundational to any sex education program,” said David Bell, MD MPH, president of SAHM, and professor of Population and Family Health at Columbia Mailman School and professor of Pediatrics at the Columbia University Medical Center. “We cannot simply pay lip service by mentioning the terms. Adolescents need clear guidance to explore these topics both in the exploration of their own identities and to be able to navigate the world around them.”
“Young people have the right to the information and skills that can help them protect their health and plan their futures,” said Debra Hauser, president of Advocates for Youth, an organization that works with young people in the fight for sexual health, rights, and justice. “It is misguided and harmful to exclude information about sexual orientation and gender identity or to fail to help young people think critically about the economic, social, political and environmental factors that impact sexual health when teaching sex education. Schools have the responsibility to provide honest sex education that includes, affirms, and educates all of our students."
The authors also provide detailed examples of M-SOSH’s medical inaccuracies, including misinformation about adolescents’ cognitive development and how it affects their decision-making abilities. The risks of sex outside of marriage to an adolescents’ physical and mental health are also grossly exaggerated.
“The emphasis on marriage throughout M-SOSH is cause for concern,” said Dr. Santelli. “The vast majority of Americans have sex before they are married. The notion that marriage is the ideal setting for sexual activity is unrealistic, lacks scientific backing, and is frankly outdated.”
The authors call upon health professionals to recognize M-SOSH as a flawed and harmful obstacle in the fight for improved adolescent sex education. The authors urge decision makers to use NSES, which provides a comprehensive blueprint for states and local school districts to build their sex education programs.
“School-based Sex Education in the U.S. at a Crossroads: Taking the Right Path” by John Santelli et al. is currently available online via this link..
Some 91 percent of families with low incomes (less than $35,000) are using their monthly Child Tax Credit payments for the most basic household expenses — food, clothing, shelter, and utilities — or education. Families are making these investments nationwide: in every state and the District of Columbia, large majorities of low-income families are making such use of the credit, according to our new analysis of Census Bureau data covering the first three months of payments.
Many of these households are receiving the full Child Tax Credit for the first time thanks to the American Rescue Plan’s credit expansion. The Rescue Plan temporarily increased the credit amount, provided for the credit to be paid monthly rather than once a year at tax time, and halted a policy that prevented 27 million children from receiving the full credit because their parents earned too little or lacked earnings in a given year. Congress should make it a top priority to ensure that the full credit remains permanently available to children in families with the lowest incomes, a measure that in percentage terms drives 87 percent of the expansion’s anti-poverty impact.
The vast majority of low-income households with children spent some or all of their new monthly payments on necessities, according to our analysis of detailed data from Census’s Household Pulse Survey collected from late July through late September. Among households with incomes below $35,000 who received the Child Tax Credit, 88 percent spent their payments on the most basic needs: food, clothing, rent, a mortgage, or utility bills.
The Child Tax Credit payments also helped many parents and other caregivers invest in their children’s education, Pulse data suggest. Some 40 percent of families with low incomes used their Child Tax Credit payments to cover education costs such as school books and supplies, tuition, after-school programs, and transportation to and from school. (In some cases, these expenses may be for adults’ own education. About 5 percent of adults in low-income households with children are enrolled in school, other Census data show.)
A sizeable share of U.S. households with incomes above $35,000 also spent the credit on necessities, but a smaller share did so than lower-income families, who face more difficulties affording the basics
Low-income families also commonly used the credits for other needs like monthly car payments, child care (for families with children under age 5), and paying down debt.
In 2017, the Connecticut Fair Housing Center and Gilead Community Services, represented by Washington, D.C. firm Relman Colfax, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Town of Cromwell. The case claimed that the intentional discriminatory actions of town officials in Cromwell violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Friday, October 15, 2021, a federal jury found the town of Cromwell liable for the discriminatory behavior that forced the closure of a home for adults with disabilities in 2015. The jury awarded the group home provider, Gilead Community Services, $5 million in punitive damages and $181,000 in compensatory damages, sending a clear message to town officials that their actions violated federal civil rights laws.
In 2015, Gilead Community Services purchased a single-family home on Reiman Drive in Cromwell to serve as a community-based residence for six men with mental health disabilities. In response to the purchase, city officials in Cromwell staged a battle against Gilead and their clients through a series of overtly discriminatory actions making it clear that individuals with disabilities were not welcome.
Cromwell officials began their public attack during a forum about Gilead’s planned operations for 5 Reiman Drive, which gave town residents the opportunity to spew hatred and discrimination. The next day, Cromwell issued a press release asking Gilead to relocate the home. Then Cromwell petitioned the Department of Public Health to deny Gilead the ability to operate. When these strategies were unsuccessful, Cromwell wrongly issued a cease-and-desist order and refused to grant Gilead tax-exempt status as it had in the past. The actions of the Town of Cromwell caused Gilead to close the home.
“However, the true victims, the six men who only wanted housing free from discrimination, will likely never return to Cromwell, and now live with the understanding that because of their disabilities they are not welcome in all communities.”
Erin kemple, Executive Director for the Connecticut Fair Housing Center
“By making such a large punitive damages award, the jury recognized and rejected the intentional, illegal acts of town officials. I hope this serves as a message to other municipalities that they cannot refuse to allow people with disabilities to move into their communities,” said Erin Kemple, Executive Director of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center, one of the co-plaintiffs in the case. “However, the true victims, the six men who only wanted housing free from discrimination, will likely never return to Cromwell, and now live with the understanding that because of their disabilities they are not welcome in all communities.”
We are writing as a group of concerned experts, residents, and environmental
advocates in opposition to the proposed permits and modification of permits to
enable expansion of the Wheelabrator ash landfill in Putnam with capacity to
handle 7-10 times the volume needed to serve Connecticut.
2 / CT Zero Waste Testimony, 10/15/2021
We respectfully request that you deny Application Nos. 201903454, 201500823,
201903451, and 201903452 to expand the landfill and discharge (via the water
pollution control facility) into the sewer and the groundwater, and then
inevitably into the Quinebaug River. Ash can blow off of the landfill into the
nearby community and environment. If airborne ash and leachate is allowed to
be discharged in this way it will be detrimental to human health, wildlife
habitats, and the environment.
Incinerator ash and its leachate are known to contain toxics that are harmful to
human health and persist in the environment. Most notably, these include
chemicals and metals such as dioxins and furans, mercury, lead, and per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS, known as forever chemicals, are highly
persistent and can last in the environment for thousands of years.
PFAS are also highly toxic to humans in very low doses. Epidemiological research
shows that PFAS can cause high cholesterol, low birth weights, certain cancers,
and immune system and thyroid disruption.
CT DEEP has identified the Quinebaug River ecosystem as an area of natural
diversity in its Natural Diversity Database. The DEEP website indicates the
importance of natural diversity regions:
The Natural Diversity Database maps represent approximate locations of
endangered, threatened, and special concern species and significant
natural communities in Connecticut. The locations of species and natural
communities depicted on the maps are based on data collected over
the years by DEEP staff, scientists, conservation groups, and landowners.
From a federal perspective, these permits, and this modification also contradict
the purpose and intent of the Clean Water Act. Downgrading water to facilitate
its pollution undermines federal safeguards and would serve no purpose other
than to signal to industry that these protections are unimportant and optional.
Progress to protect human health and the environment happens only when
government agencies adopt policies that show polluting industries that we will
not accept outdated, unsafe, and wasteful practices.
A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine shows that participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by older adults dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid is associated with fewer hospital visits and lower healthcare costs.
CHAPEL HILL, NC – Food insecurity among older adults takes a toll on the nutrition and health of those affected. According to datafrom 2019, 5.2 million people age 60 and above in the U.S. were food insecure – equaling 7.1% of that population – and that number has likely grown during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Older adults facing food insecurity are more likely to have chronic health conditions like depression, asthma, diabetes, congestive heart failure and heart attack. Only 48% of older adults who qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides benefits to supplement budgets to purchase healthy and nutritious foods, are enrolled in the program.
A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine shows the importance of older adults taking advantage of this nutrition benefit, as it is associated with fewer hospital visits and lower healthcare costs.
“Providing income support for older adults is incredibly important for health,” said study lead author Seth A. Berkowitz, MD, MPH, assistant professor of general medicine and epidemiology at the UNC School of Medicine. “Along with affecting the foods they have access to, food insecurity can force people to choose between food and medications or other basic needs, and worsen mental health. All of this takes a toll on what is already a group at high risk for poor health outcomes.”
The study used a unique circumstance to better evaluate the association between SNAP participation and healthcare use and cost. In 2017, Benefits Data Trust – a national nonprofit dedicated to helping people access essential public benefits and services – was contracted by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to help people age 65 and over who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid enroll in SNAP. BDT provided outreach to these individuals by mail, a telephone-based screening, and – if the person chose to enroll in SNAP – the nonprofit would aid in filing an application. This circumstance allowed for previously unavailable linkages among data sets related to SNAP outreach, SNAP participation, and health care use and cost.
Researchers used data from BDT’s outreach to more than 115,000 people age 65 and older in North Carolina between 2016 and 2020 who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and were eligible for SNAP but not enrolled. Almost 5,100 of those who received outreach about SNAP benefits enrolled in the program. SNAP enrollment was associated with a decrease in inpatient hospitalizations, emergency department visits, long-term care admissions, as well as fewer dollars in Medicaid payments per person per year.
“Billions of dollars in food and healthcare assistance go untapped every year, often because people aren’t aware they are eligible or they are not sure how to access them,” said Pauline Abernathy, chief strategy officer at BDT. “These research findings show that data-driven outreach and application assistance significantly increase SNAP participation, which in turn markedly improves health and lowers Medicaid costs. With millions of people 65 and older eligible but not participating in SNAP, this research underscores the urgent need to increase outreach and streamline enrollment.”
Study co-authors include Deepak Palakshappa, MD, MSHP, and Joseph Rigdon, PhD, of Wake Forest School of Medicine; Hilary K. Seligman, MD, MAS, of University of California San Francisco; and Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD, of the Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School.
This study was primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health.
I have serious news from the Senate Judiciary Committee: We just released our interim report about former president Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Our report reveals how Trump nearly destroyed the Constitution in his attempt to abuse the Department of Justice to overturn the election. The details are truly horrifying.
In a Jan. 3 Oval Office meeting between Trump, former Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and other Department of Justice and White House officials, the former president repeatedly pressured his attorney general to resign so he could install a Trump loyalist who would pursue Trump’s false claims of voter fraud.
There’s no other way to call it: On Jan. 3, Donald Trump tried to weaponize the Department of Justice to overturn a free and fair election. Three days later, he held a “Stop the Steal” rally that incited a violent and deadly insurrection on the Capitol.
Jonathan, these truths are appalling, but they are only the tip of the iceberg – and as a former U.S. attorney and state attorney general, I can tell you that there is very real potential for consideration of criminal charges against Donald Trump. We must continue gathering all the facts about everyone involved, from Donald Trump to his family, to officials in his administration.
By contrast, nearly the entire Republican Party is consolidated around protecting themselves and covering up any wrongdoing and illegal actions by Donald Trump. In spite of evidence to the contrary, my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have chosen to conclude that Trump did not use the justice system to overturn the election.That is why I’m counting on grassroots Democrats like you to speak out by the thousands.
In light of these new revelations, even if you’ve spoken up before, I am urgently asking you to keep holding Donald Trump accountable.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (AAAS)
Despite recent declines, the U.S. incarceration rate is a global outlier, far outpacing other countries worldwide. It is part of a criminal justice system that is predominantly hostile to Black Americans. In this special issue of Science, “Criminal Injustice,” a Perspective, a Policy Forum, an Editorial and four Reviews evaluate the injurious legacy of nearly 50 years of mass incarceration in the United States. The experts explore mass incarceration’s deep-rooted history, its far-reaching and disproportionate effects on Black Americans and poor communities, and why the public continues to tolerate and encourage such a harmful and punitive system. “Such research is critical to understand how we got here, and to inform and inspire change,” write Science senior editor Brad Wible and Science editor Tage Rai.*
In one Review, Joshua Page and Joe Soss illustrate how public and private groups have turned U.S. criminal justice institutions into a vast network of revenue-generating operations, which include collection of fines, fees, forfeitures, prison charges, and bail. The authors describe the current criminal justice system as a predatory institution, akin to payday lenders or high-interest credit card companies, and show how it’s been engineered to extract wealth from Black Americans living in poor communities and transfer it directly to other parties.
Another Review by Hedwig Lee and Christopher Wildeman outlines evidence that illustrates mass incarceration’s far-reaching impacts on the families and communities of the incarcerated. They show that over the last 50 years, family member incarceration has become common for American families, and that this reality is greatly racially disparate. What’s more, incarceration can have broader impacts on the individual’s family’s health, education, and behavior, as well as causing other disadvantages. The authors suggest that policy interventions that prevent the need for incarceration are one of the most effective ways to enhance family and community wellbeing.
In a third Review, Christopher Muller argues that understanding the incarceration of Black Americans today requires tracing its history back to the end of slavery in the mid 19th Century. From this historical perspective, Muller highlights a link between the exploitation of Black Americans and labor demand. According to the author, throughout history, Black Americans have been exploited as laborers and kept out of prison when labor demand is high. However, when labor demand is low, or when Black Americans are seen as a threat to White labor markets, incarceration increases.
In the final Review, Julian Rucker and Jennifer Richeson explore why the criminal justice system has become increasingly characterized by racial inequality over the last half-century. In this review, Rucker and Richeson describe the psychological underpinnings of how many White Americans have come to tolerate and endorse a system so embedded in structural racism, despite having largely liberal values. According to the authors, deep-seated cultural beliefs about the nature of racism uphold the racial hierarchy within the criminal justice system. While the authors show that acknowledging structural racism reduces support for racial inequality in the justice system, the research suggests that many Americans appear to be willfully ignorant of structural racism in American society.
In addition to the Reviews, a Policy Forum and Perspective explore other facets of the current criminal justice system, including the role of technology companies in policing, and the socioeconomic causes of social unrest and violence. An Editorial by Sean Joe, professor of social development at Washington University in St. Louis, discusses issues of racial oppression.
FDA says anti-parasitic not approved for COVID-19 and ‘can be highly dangerous’
ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
IMAGE: CONFIDENCE IN DR. ANTHONY FAUCI PROVIDING TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION ABOUT PREVENTING AND TREATING COVID-19 - BY RELIANCE ON DIFFERENT MEDIA SOURCES. FROM ANNENBERG SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE SURVEY, AUG. 16-SEPT. 5, 2021.view more
CREDIT: SOURCE: ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
PHILADELPHIA – Four in 10 Americans – and 7 in 10 heavy users of conservative media – say they would take ivermectin if they had been exposed to someone who has Covid-19, according to a new survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.
Although ivermectin is approved for use to treat parasitic roundworm infections in humans, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of this anti-parasitic drug to prevent or treat Covid-19, and studies of use of it for those purposes have been inconclusive. The FDA says current data “do not show ivermectin is effective against Covid-19” and using it for that purpose in humans or animals “can be highly dangerous.” (See this story by FactCheck.org.)
“The finding that heavy consumers of conservative media are more likely to report a willingness to take ivermectin is consistent with our finding in the summer of 2020 that this audience was more likely to be willing to take hydroxychloroquine – which at the time was under study, and which the FDA later concluded was an ineffective treatment for hospitalized Covid patients, one whose risks outweigh its benefits,” said APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
The survey is the third wave of data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults that was empaneled in the spring of 2021. This wave of the survey, which was conducted in August and September among 1,669 respondents, finds that:
Overall confidence that health authorities including Dr. Anthony Fauci are providing the public with trustworthy information about Covid-19 was largely unchanged from June to early September;
Confidence in Fauci continues to be significantly lower among people who are heavier users of conservative media and very conservative media;
Nearly 1 in 5 Americans (18%) say they are not likely to be vaccinated and over half of them – 10% of the total sample – say there is nothing that would change their mind;
A quarter of respondents (25%) say they know someone, including themselves, who was fully vaccinated for Covid-19 and nonetheless tested positive for Covid-19 (a so-called breakthrough case); and
Unvaccinated people are significantly more likely than vaccinated people to say they know a vaccinated person who experienced a breakthrough case of Covid-19.
“The evidence that those who are unvaccinated are more likely to report knowing a vaccinated person who experienced a breakthrough infection may indicate that the unvaccinated seek out evidence consistent with their vaccination hesitance or are more likely to live in under-vaccinated communities with higher ongoing spread of Covid-19 – or both phenomena may be at work,” Jamieson said. “The public health community needs to remind the public that vaccinated individuals who do get breakthrough infections are far less likely to need hospitalization or to die from Covid than are the unvaccinated.” (See additional details near end of release.)
The latest Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) survey was conducted among 1,669 U.S. adult respondents from August 16-September 5, 2021. Data were weighted to represent the target U.S. adult population. The margin of error is ± 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The survey, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent research company, is a follow-up to June 2021 and April 2021 surveys fielded with the same respondents. See the Appendix for methodology, questions, and additional data.
Confusion over ivermectin
Conservative media personalities have long promoted the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19. For example, in a show on March 8, 2021, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham said: “And we know that our FDA has in many ways failed us by not allowing for the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, both of which are used around the world to reduce Covid hospitalizations and deaths.”
Just 1 in 10 Americans (10%) say the statement “ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19” is true, compared with 27% who say it is false. A majority of Americans (63%) say they are not sure whether that statement is true or not.
But when asked how likely they would be to take ivermectin if they had been exposed to someone with Covid-19 and the drug were available, 40% of Americans said they were somewhat or very likely to do so.
Ivermectin and media exposure
The survey asked respondents to describe their media use on a six-point scale, from 0 (none) to 5 (a lot of information). Respondents who gave a 4 or 5 to a type of media use are referred to here as heavy or heavier users. Our analysis of respondents’ self-reported media exposure found that among people who said they are heavier users of…
Very conservative sourcessuch as Newsmax, One America News (OAN), Gateway Pundit, Parler or Telegram: 75% said they were likely to take ivermectin;
Conservative media sources such as Fox News, Mark Levin, or Breitbart: 70% said they were likely to take ivermectin;
Social media sources such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter: 46% said they were likely to take ivermectin;
Mainstream print/broadcast media sources such as ABC, NBC, and CBS News, the Associated Press, and the news pages of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal: 35% said they were likely to take ivermectin.
Confidence in U.S. health authorities
As in the June survey, the current ASK survey found that the most trusted source of information for treating and preventing Covid-19 is an individual’s primary health care provider:
Primary health care provider: 87% are confident their primary health care provider is offering trustworthy information about treating and preventing Covid-19 – up significantly from 83% in June.
Food and Drug Administration: 76% are confident that the FDA, which authorized emergency use of the Covid-19 vaccines available in the United States, is providing trustworthy information about Covid-19 – statistically the same as in the prior surveys, in April and June.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 75% are confident the CDC is providing trustworthy information on Covid-19, statistically unchanged in our surveys since August 2020;
Dr. Anthony Fauci: 68% are confident that Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is providing trustworthy advice on Covid, statistically unchanged in our surveys since August 2020.
Lower confidence among conservative media users
While confidence in the CDC, FDA, and Fauci remains high overall, it is substantially lower for all three among people who are heavier users of very conservative sources, and lower for the CDC and Fauci among those who are heavier users of conservative media sources. Among the heavier users of:
Very conservative media: 31% express confidence in Fauci, 59% in the CDC, 51% in the FDA, and 86% in their primary health care provider;
Conservative media: 49% express confidence in Fauci, 60% in the CDC, 68% in the FDA, and 90% in their primary health care provider;
Social media: 76% express confidence in Fauci, 83% in the CDC, 80% in the FDA, and 94% in their primary health care provider;
Mainstream print/broadcast users: 87% express confidence in Fauci, 90% in the CDC, 90% in the FDA, and 96% in their primary health care providers.
The data are consistent with those in June. The only statistically significant change was seen in social media users’ 94% confidence in primary health care providers, up from 83% in June.
Vaccines and prevention
The ASK survey found that 75% of respondents reported receiving a Covid-19 vaccine, up from 70% in June and 47% in April, when the same group was surveyed. Of the current sample’s vaccinated respondents, 52% said they got Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine, 40% got Moderna’s, and 6% got Johnson and Johnson’s.
Of the total respondents, 49% reported discussing Covid-19 vaccination with a health care provider and 51% did not. Speaking with a health care provider about the vaccine was not significantly associated with the decision to be vaccinated or not, an analysis found.
Of those who spoke with a health care provider, 83% said the provider was an M.D./medical doctor, 3% said it was an osteopath/D.O., and 1% said it was a chiropractor.
Asked whether that health care provider was supportive of or opposed to the Covid-19 vaccine, 85% said the provider was supportive, 4% said the provider was opposed, and 11% said they were not sure.
Nearly half of those surveyed (47%) said they knew someone who died from Covid-19.
As mentioned above, a quarter of those surveyed (25%) said they know a vaccinated person (including themselves) who had a breakthrough case of Covid.
Almost 1 in 4 of those (23%) who are vaccinated reported knowing a vaccinated person who had a breakthrough case of Covid – but almost 1 in 3 of those (31%) who are unvaccinated people reported knowing someone with a breakthrough case, a statistically significant difference.
The survey respondents who knew someone with a breakthrough case were asked about the severity of those people’s symptoms. The respondents said 57% of the people who tested positive for Covid-19 despite being vaccinated had moderate or severe symptoms and 43% had no or mild symptoms.
Not vaccinated and not likely to be
Among the total sample, 1 in 4 (25%) Americans said they have not been vaccinated against Covid-19, compared with 30% in June.
Among this still-unvaccinated group, 79% said they have the information they need to decide whether to get vaccinated, but 21% say they still do not have the information they need.
Nearly 1 in 5 (18%) people in the still-unvaccinated group said they were not likely to be vaccinated. When this group was asked, “Is there anything that could change your mind and convince you to get vaccinated, or not, or are you unsure,” over half of the group – or 10% of the total respondents – said there was nothing that would change their mind.
The top reasons selected by the group who say they are unlikely to be vaccinated:
61% - It’s still too untested/I’m waiting to see what happens (*up significantly from 48% in April)
53% - I don’t trust the government (*up significantly from 40% in April)
51% - I don’t trust the scientists and companies that make the vaccine (*up significantly from 36% in June and 30% in April)
49% - I’m worried about allergies and side effects (*up significantly from 35% in April)
28% - I’m just not concerned about coronavirus/Covid-19
26% - I never get vaccines, generally
15% - I had coronavirus/Covid-19, so I think I’m immune (*up significantly from 7% in June and April)
The total exceeds 100% because people were allowed more than one response.
Daily exposure chemicals called phthalates, used in the manufacture of plastic food containers and many cosmetics, may lead to roughly 100,000 premature deaths among older Americans each year, a new study shows. The resulting annual economic burden is between $40 billion and $47 billion, a value more than quadruple that of previous estimates.
For decades, phthalates have been shown to pose a potential danger to human health because the chemicals can interfere with the function of hormones, signaling compounds made in glands that circulate to influence processes throughout the body, experts say. Exposure is believed to occur through buildup of these toxins as consumer products break down and are ingested, with exposure linked to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
Led by researchers at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the new investigation of more than 5,000 adults between the ages of 55 and 64 showed that those with the highest concentrations of phthalate in their urine were more likely to die of heart disease than those with lesser exposure.
Similarly, Americans in this high-exposure group were more likely to die of any cause than those in low-exposure groups. However, high levels of the toxins did not appear to increase risk of death due to cancer.
“Our findings reveal that increased phthalate exposure is linked to early death, particularly due to heart disease,” says study lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP. “Until now, we have understood that the chemicals connect to heart disease, and heart disease in turn is a leading cause of death, but we had not yet tied the chemicals themselves to death.”
Trasande cautions that the new study does not establish a direct cause and effect association between phthalate exposure and early deaths, in part because the specific biological mechanism that would account for the connection remains unclear. The study investigators say they plan to further study the role these chemicals may play in hormone regulation and inflammation in the body.
However, according to Trasande, the Jim G. Hendrick MD Professor at NYU Langone Health, the new results add to mounting evidence of societal costs related to continued heavy exposure to the chemicals. For example, past research has linked more than 10,000 deaths a year to lowered testosterone levels in adult men attributed to phthalate exposure. These deaths cost Americans nearly $9 billion in lost economic productivity.
To see if there were similar mortality and economic costs from other disorders, the new study, publishing online Oct. 12 in the journal Environmental Pollution, was designed to further examine links between phthalate exposure and deaths of all causes in the U.S. and quantify the resulting economic costs, according to Trasande.
For the investigation, the research team analyzed data including phthalates found in urine samples obtained from adults who participated in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Survey from 2001 to 2010. The researchers limited their analysis to those whose cause of death had been tracked through 2015. In addition, they focused on a subgroup of Americans between 55 and 64, since previous studies had based estimates of phthalate-driven death in this population. This way, the team could accurately compare their study results to the prior estimates.
The study investigators also used data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wonder database, the U.S. Census Bureau, and models from earlier studies to estimate the economic cost of early death for this group.
“Our research suggests that the toll of this chemical on society is much greater than we first thought,” says Trasande, who also serves as director of the NYU Langone’s Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards. “The evidence is undeniably clear that limiting exposure to toxic phthalates can help safeguard Americans’ physical and financial well-being.”
– Anew studyby Environmental Working Group scientists finds almost 42,000 potential sources of the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS that could be polluting surface water or drinking water in communities across the U.S.
The study bolsters EWG’s long-running calls for strict PFAS regulations, in addition to more testing.
PFAS pollution affects all communities, from the affluent to those near the fence lines of industrial facilities. More work is urgently needed to identify areas where residents might face greater health risks from contaminated water.
EWG researchers analyzed potential sources of PFAS contamination in drinking water supplies nationwide, using public data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online database.
The facilities that appeared most often as possible sources were solid waste landfills, wastewater treatment plants, electroplaters and metal finishers, and petroleum refiners.
The analysis was published in a special issue of the American Water Works Association Water Science journal featuring the latest PFAS research.
PFAS are called forever chemicals because they build up in our bodies and never break down in the environment.
“It is critical that the EPA start regulating PFAS – now,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., the lead author of the study and a senior scientist at EWG. “Every community in the U.S. is likely affected by PFAS contamination, but those living near or downstream from industrial facilities may be more at risk.
“Our investigation identifies a huge number of potential sources of contamination. It also provides a framework for deciding where and what to test so we can end releases into the environment,” Andrews added.
In March, EWG-commissioned tests of tap water samples from throughout Northern Virginiarevealed PFAS contamination at levels significantly higher than those previously reported for other parts of the Washington, D.C., metro area.
Valuable case studies of data available from California and Michigan show that PFAS contamination is common at many different types of sites and that widespread testing for PFAS in wastewater is crucial.
“The results from states like Michigan show there is a wide variety of sources of PFAS in surface water,” said Andrews. “Many landfills and industrial sites release PFAS at detectable concentrations that may exceed state limits or health guidelines for PFAS in water.
"It is urgent that ongoing releases of PFAS be identified. We need to stop non-essential uses of PFAS and use filters to reduce these compounds from out water,” he said.
Industrial PFAS discharges in Michigan have gone down substantially as a result of widespread testing, permitting of discharges and added treatment. In 2018, state officials set water quality standards for PFOA and PFOS, the two most notorious PFAS compounds, for discharges into drinking water supplies.
State law prohibits releases from wastewater utilities of more than 420 parts per trillion, or ppt, for PFOA and 11 ppt for PFOS.
Results from tests of water downstream from manufacturing facilities and from PFAS users across the U.S. revealed many previously unknown PFAS, which confirmed the need for broad testing of industrial facilities across the entire class of PFAS compounds.
PFAS are among the most persistent toxic compounds in existence, contaminating everything from drinking water to food, food packaging and personal care products. They are found in the blood of virtually everyone on Earth, including newborn babies.
Reducing PFAS levels in surface water and drinking water remains a nationwide challenge. But it’s one that can be met through comprehensive tests of surface water and drinking water, along with tests of wastewater from potential PFAS sources.
The Biden administration also needs to use the EPA’s powers to regulate as many industrial categories of PFAS discharges as possible.
“We need to turn off the tap of PFAS pollution from these industrial discharges, which affects more and more Americans every day. That’s the first step,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs.
“The second step is for the EPA to set a national PFAS drinking water standard. And the third is to clean up legacy pollution,” Faber added.
The EPA’s proposal to regulate some industrial discharges of PFAS into our drinking water falls short of what’s needed to end the pollution flowing from companies. EWG’s new research shows that the contamination is likely even more widespread across the U.S. than has been confirmed, further underscoring the need for swift regulatory action.
