Jessica Talevich inspects a healthy brain with organ lady, Shawneri Guzman. Photo: Andrew Gobin, Tulalip News
By Andrew Gobin, Tulalip News Reporter
Tulalip − The unsettling foreign smell of formaldehyde and isopropyl alcohol wafted from a table at the front of the room, lined with bottles, cans, jars of waste and toxins, and trays of human organs. Those who attended the CEDAR group meeting November 7th were disgustingly captivated by the uncanny presentation. Inside Out tells the gruesome truths of substance abuse, dispelling the misconceptions and myths society has about substances. Thursday’s show was unique, highlighting the effects of specific drugs.
Commonly referred to as the Organ Lady show, Inside Out begins with a glass of vodka and a raw egg. Shawneri Guzman, one of five Organ Ladies, cracks the egg into the glass for all to see, then sets it aside. From behind jars of tar and phlegm, Guzman picks up a set of human lungs, kicking the show into high gear as the audience leans in for a better look. She describes the different parts and facts about these lungs, which are grey and small, but they are healthy. Next she shows the lungs of a tobacco smoker, a marijuana smoker, and a heroin smoker, each looking progressively larger, shredded, and more black.
Bonnie and Bryce Juneau looking at a heart with a Gortex valve. Valve damage was due to heroin use. Photo: Andrew Gobin, Tulalip News
“The goal is to show healthy organs in comparison to damaged organs in order to help people understand what their choices are leading to, and hopefully help them make a change in their life,” said Guzman, an ER nurse at Providence Medical Center who sees people with these conditions on a daily basis.
The show continues with the heart, kidneys, liver, a tongue, and brains. Each specimen comes with a story, which Guzman tells while weaving in facts about drugs and how they are different and more dangerous today than they were ten, twenty, thirty years ago.
“The heroin on the street today is 60% to 70% pure, thirty years ago it was more like 20%. This means you can become addicted the first time, you can overdose the first time, you can die the first time. Today, heroin is commonly cut with horse tranquilizers, which is why so many people that use heroin look like zombies, they are essentially numbing their brain,” Guzman explained.
She continued to unveil brains, picking up slices that resembled Swiss cheese. Brains riddled with holes from heroin, meth, and marijuana, coupled with neural scans showing severe cognitive impairment illustrate a sobering reality. The damage shown in these brains is irreversible.
Guzman pointed out the misconceptions of drug use, such as smoking heroin is less addictive and less harmful than injection. If anything, smoking heroin is more harmful because of the drastic effect on the lungs.
It is important to know that second and third-hand marijuana exposure can cause you to test positive for THC, the chemical that comes from marijuana. Guzman referred to her experience in the ER, how many people come in after having tested positive for THC, and not knowing why it happened.
Bonnie Juneau hold up a pair of lungs ravaged by marijuana smoke. This 19 year old boy and had smoked everyday for five years. Photo: Andrew Gobin, Tulalip News
She explained, “We don’t realize how much our immediate environment affects us on a daily basis. Exposure to smoke is one example of how your surroundings affect your life. Even though you aren’t smoking, your body still feels the effects and it will show up on a test.” She noted that, “due to fertilizer and pesticides, marijuana today has more THC than what our parents would have smoked, meaning the effects and damage are both more drastic, and we are seeing more people test positive having only been exposed to third-hand smoke, which is the residue left on clothes, hair, furniture, and inside the car.”
As the show came to an end, Guzman picked up the egg floating in a glass of vodka. The vodka cooked the egg white in less than 90 minutes.
“Our brains do not stop maturing until we are about 25,” explained Guzman. “The egg white is immature protein, similar to a teen’s brain and other organs.”
She pointed out a liver from a 17 year-old girl that had drank since she was 13. It was hard and looked like a sponge in the middle.
Afterwards, people could put on gloves and examine the organs themselves, making the effects of substance abuse a tangible experience. Guzman continued to explain how these symptoms of organ damage manifest in living people, describing the signs to look for if you suspect someone is abusing substances. Awareness and understanding are crucial aspects in preventing addiction.
Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, says the Affordable Care Act is a “very good thing for Indian Country.”
There has been much controversy about the Affordable Care Act, what some call Obamacare. The politics are beyond intense. And those computer glitches are making it virtually impossible for people to enroll.
Promise or not, treaty or not, the entire history of healthcare in Indian Country has been defined by shortages. There has never been enough money to carry out that sacred bargain.
The modern Indian Health Service was created in 1955. And over the following decades, more clinics were built, more doctors were hired, and health care for Native people improved. Still, the agency never had enough money.
In 1965 when Medicare and Medicaid were enacted into law there wasn’t even consideration about how these programs would impact American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Indian Health Service could not bill the agencies for serving eligible services. Native Americans were essentially left out of that health care reform effort.
That history of shortages is critical context to understanding the Affordable Care Act. Because from the very beginning of the legislative process, the Affordable Care Act included Indian Country. This happened because a decision was made by tribal leaders to roll the Indian Health Care Improvement Act into the larger legislation.
“Let me tell you why it was different this time,” said Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. For nearly twenty years tribes urged Congress to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Then the discussion began about a health care reform.
“We were sitting at an NCAI board meeting, tribal leaders around the table, and said we really have to engage in this health care debate this time around. There were those that said, “no, let’s stay where we are,’” she said. But former NCAI President Jefferson Keel knew the health care industry and he agreed with the broader approach. “So we immediately started to look at the overall health care bill, working with the members of Congress, to be able to find all those other places that it was important to insert ‘and tribes.’ So not only did we get Indian Health Care (Improvement Act) reauthorized permanently. But we were able to get provisions into Medicaid, we were able to get the tax exemption (for tribes that purchase insurance for members), we were able to include a lot of places where tribes should have been considered but probably wouldn’t have been if we didn’t integrate those two pieces of legislation.”
YouTube: Episode 1 of Treaty or Not? The Affordable Care Act & Indian Country
But there still is a question of why? Why American Indians and Alaska Natives need insurance of any kind when there is a treaty right, a statutory call to healthcare, that transcends this latest national experiment? Then recall the long history of shortages. The Indian health system has never been adequately funded, probably less than half of the appropriation that would bring about some sort of parity with other federal health systems.
The main idea in the Affordable Care Act is to require health insurance for all Americans because that lowers the cost for everyone, the so-called “mandate.” But American Indians are exempt from that mandate (even if the Indian health system does not count as insurance). So the way that exemption works, this year at least, is that American Indians and Alaska Natives will have to fill out forms for an exemption (once granted, it’s a lifetime deal). The good news here is that the whole website mess does not apply.
Then insurance itself is a complicated idea for Indian Country. What is called “third party billing” has been a small, but growing part of the financial resources for the Indian health system.
You see there is this odd American idea that links health insurance to our jobs. That’s how most Americans now get their health care — and will continue to do so even under the Affordable Care Act. But that one element is a big difference for Indian Country. Only 36 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives have insurance purchased through work — that’s half the rate for most Americans — and 30 percent of us have no insurance at all.
But the Affordable Care Act is designed to change that. The new law offers incentives for people to get health insurance coverage at a reduced rate or even free. So why would American Indians and Alaska Natives purchase insurance?
“The Indian health system is only funded at about fifty percent,” said Valerie Davidson, senior director of legal and intergovernmental affairs at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium in Anchorage.
“Anybody who’s ever been to a tribally-operated program or an urban program or an IHS facility, they know the services are limited. Unfortunately there isn’t enough funding. And so we rely on those third-party reimbursements (or insurance) to make those ends meet, to be able to keep the clinic’s lights on.”
She said the Affordable Care Act is an opportunity to make sure that American Indians and Alaska Natives have additional health care coverage. “So the things that the Indian Health Service funding typically doesn’t pay for is medically-necessary travel (unless it’s considered life or limb). So generally an emergency is taken care of,” Davidson said. “But it may not cover routine travel.” She said an example would be people who live in a community without a dentist — so the only available option requires travel. “Having that extra coverage could cover the medically-necessary travel,” she said.
Insurance that covers medical travel is one reason for individuals to purchase insurance — and there are other reasons as well. A diabetes patient who’s insured would get better care, more access to the wider selection of procedures and drugs.
But the problem is that the rules for the insurance marketplaces are doubly complicated for Indian Country. Who’s eligible? How much? And, just what are the rules?
But if the law is to be successful in Indian Country there has to be a greater effort at educating people about their options. The Government Accountability Office recently said it will take a major campaign to make that so. That means hiring more people, lots of people, to help Native Americans navigate through this maze.
But there are already models for this kind of campaign. The Census was effective with “Indian Country Counts.” And, as NCAI’s Pata points out, last year’s efforts to register Native American voters is the kind of operation that’s needed. “It’s so critically important that tribes get engaged in giving direction. Tribes need to think about this the way they would with their Native Vote campaign,” she said. “They need to be able to have sign-up fairs, where they can actually answer the questions.”
So will American Indians and Alaska Natives sign up for insurance? If that happens it won’t because of a working web site in Washington, D.C. It will happen because every clinic in the Indian health system explains to patients why insurance matters and how it means more money for all.
The most important insurance program for American Indians and Alaska Natives is Medicaid.
When the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, the headline was that the majority affirmed the individual mandate. But the second part of that decision is that the United States could not force all 50 states to expand Medicaid coverage.
Medicaid is a particularly complex government insurance program for the poor. But what makes Medicaid so important is that its funding source is not appropriated by Congress. It’s an entitlement. If a person is eligible, then the money is there. Automatically.
Medicaid is also a partnership between a state government and the federal government.
But for American Indians and Alaska Natives, it’s an odd marriage. The federal government picks up 100 percent of the cost. But even though the bills are paid for by Washington, each state sets the rules for eligibility about who and what will be covered.
The result is that about half of Indian Country will be covered by states where Medicaid is expanding — and the other half live in states that have said no. This means that hundreds of thousands of American Indians and Alaska Natives will lose out on expanded insurance coverage that the Affordable Care Act was designed for.
So this means that the Indian health system will essentially be split in two. There will be more money for health care in states where Medicaid expands — and less in the states that have said no. In the “no” states that will be even less money for an already underfunded Indian health system.
Watch North Dakota and Arizona. Two conservative, red states, looked at their numbers — and especially their Native American population — have already decided to expand Medicaid. If the program works in those two states, then other states with large native populations, might join the party. But if not, there is always the possibility that Indian Country could be treated as a 51st state. (The Affordable Care Act even begins that consideration by allowing a beta test of sorts for the Navajo Nation.)
The numbers are huge. The GAO says: “Excluding those already enrolled, potential new enrollment in Medicaid could exceed 650,000 out of 2.4 million (27 percent) for those identifying as American Indians and Alaska Natives alone, and almost 1.2 million out of 4.8 million (25 percent) for those identifying as American Indians and Alaska Natives alone or in combination with another race.”
NCAI’s Pata says the Affordable Care Act also “makes it really important for tribes, as they look at their health care clinics, to think of them as businesses. And not just as businesses for their tribal members, but businesses for their community, particularly the smaller tribes.”
The flip side of that idea is a shift in power from the clinic to the individual. Once someone has insurance, either through Medicaid, the marketplace exchanges, or another program, then that person might not choose to remain in the Indian health system.
“That’s the other reason why tribes need to think of (clinics) as businesses,” Pata said.
In some ways the urban Indian clinics are ahead of the Affordable Care Act. Because so little IHS funding — about one percent — goes to urban clinics, they have had to act like business enterprises.
“The greatest challenge is balancing the historical manner in which we have provided services, which have been geared around the needs of the population, with the growing demand for reaching out to other communities to get sufficient volumes to get the revenues to keep the doors open,” said Ralph Forquera, executive director of the Seattle Indian Health Board. “That balance of natives to non-natives … has always been a complex thing to manage. Some clinics around the country have seen a dramatic drop-off in their Indian participation in their clinics because the economics just don’t work. They need to go out and seek non-native people and enroll them in their programs to keep the doors open.”
He adds that Seattle has been fortunate because it’s been able preserve that balance.
But Seattle has a larger population base, something that is not true in all communities.
“It does change the dynamic,” Forquera said. “Those are some huge challenges but they are not unique to us. The tribal community clinics may be in even more challenging situation if the dynamic changes.”
He said one thing to watch is a shift away from fee-for-service payments to clinics to a more managed-care approach. For managed care to work, there has to be a larger scale, more people. “In order to be able to work in that kind of environment, you have to enroll large numbers of individuals in order to generate the revenues to pay for staff and the facilities, all the things necessary to provide the services” Forquera said. That concept could make it more difficult for Indian programs with small numbers of people.
But the Indian health system does have one huge advantage over the larger health system — and that’s underfunding. Underfunding as an opportunity? Yes. Because it’s already led to smarter, more efficient ways of operating. It’s made innovation possible.
Alaska’s dental health therapist program is a great example of that kind of thinking. “We recognized that we’re not going to be able to have a dentist in every community,” said Davidson. “So we developed a two-year training program to be able to train people to provide mid-level oral health care. Most of their work is in prevention, but they can also do exams, develop treatment plans, they can do fillings, and simple extractions.”
The payoff? “The tribal health system has been innovative by necessity. And a lot of these programs can and have served as models for the rest of the United States,” Davidson said. “Tribes have shown time and time again that we are a really good investment. We can do more with less. If you take a look at what we are able to do today, compared with what we were able to do before we were able to assume ownership of our own system, the difference is tremendous. We can take innovation to a whole different level.”
So will the Affordable Care Act work?
It’s too early to know that answer. But this is not new in history. More than sixty years ago the Bureau of Indian Affairs ran health care programs. It was awful. One doctor wrote: All we really need are good doctors, facilities and pharmaceuticals. I am weary.” Congress finally got the message in 1955 and created the Indian Health Service. But that shift — as dramatic as the one today — worked and it significantly improved the quality of life for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In an effort to promote healthy living across Indian country, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius released the following statement in honor of National Native American Heritage Month this November.
Each November, we recognize National Native American Heritage Month—celebrating the diverse histories and cultures of American Indian and Alaska Native people. This year’s theme, “Guiding Our Destiny with Heritage and Traditions: Leading the Way to Healthier Nations,” speaks to the vital role that cultural heritage plays in strengthening families and communities.
In July, I had the opportunity to visit the Navajo Nation in Arizona and meet with key leaders to discuss the health concerns of the Navajo. I attended a Special Session of the Navajo Nation Council and heard from the delegates about health issues such as diabetes, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. I also visited the Indian Health Service (IHS) Gallup Indian Medical Center, which was recently designated as a Level III Trauma Center, the first in the Indian health system. IHS work at this center, and throughout Indian Country, saves countless lives every year.
Our Administration is committed to ensuring the health and well-being of all Americans, which is why we are working with our tribal partners to reduce the health disparities that have historically burdened American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In order to address these issues, we need to make sure that American Indians and Alaska Natives have access to affordable coverage so they can get the care they need.
The Affordable Care Act is critical to that effort, partly by permanently reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, ensuring that IHS is here to stay.
Additionally, the new Health Insurance Marketplace made possible by the Affordable Care Act will make more affordable, quality options for health coverage available to uninsured Americans, including First Americans. IHS has trained staff to help its American Indian and Alaska Native patients enroll in Medicaid or purchase affordable insurance that they can use to continue to receive care at IHS facilities. If more IHS patients have health coverage, additional resources from reimbursements at the local facilities will help expand services for all patients served by IHS.
Health care is just one area in which we are working to increase support for Indian Country.
The Administration for Native Americans recently invested in new and continuing tribal programs to preserve Native American languages. We believe that language revitalization and continuation are important steps in preserving and strengthening a community’s culture.
We are also investing in Head Start and child care programs, innovative substance abuse and mental health initiatives, suicide prevention efforts, job training, economic development campaigns, and programs for seniors.
Please join me in celebrating National Native American Heritage Month and bolstering our commitment to ensuring that all American Indian and Alaska Native people have the opportunity for a stronger and healthier future through improved health care opportunities and partnerships that respect their culture and traditions.
When Arizona voters banned smoking indoors several years ago, the law didn’t cover Native American land. Now, an anti-smoking activist is trying to pass smoking ban that will cover the Navajo Nation.
Dr. Leland Fairbanks is president of Arizonans Concerned About Smoking, which helped push through the Smoke-Free Arizona Act in 2006.
“55 percent of the reservation people, who are part of Arizona, voted for the Smoke-Free Arizona Initiative, but they said it doesn’t apply to them because they’re independent nations,” Fairbanks said. “So unfortunately they’ve already voted; they would like to have what we have in the rest of the state.”
Now, he’s trying to collect about 10,000 signatures to get an initiative on the 2014 Navajo ballot banning indoor smoking.
“Only Navajos who are registered voters can sign. It does include, though, Navajos who are off reservation,” Fairbanks said. “If you’re a Navajo registered voter and you’re working down here in Maricopa County or some other county, you can sign that initiative and you can vote.”
Fairbanks says the signature drive is set to begin in January.
November 2, 2013-MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money’s influence on politics, has updated the campaign finance data on the ballot intiatives in Washington state to make labeling of foods containing GMOs mandatory.
A MapLight analysis of campaign finance data from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as of October 30, 2013 shows the Top 10 contributors on the supporting and opposing side and the geographic origin of the contributions.
From MapLight’s Voter’s Edge in Washington State
I-522: GMO Labeling
(Requires labeling of food products made from genetically modified organisms).
Contributions from Supporting Interests
Total Raised: $7.7 million from 10,500 donors
1 DR. BRONNER’S MAGIC SOAPS $1,840,635
2 CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY ACTION FUND $455,000
3 MERCOLA.COM HEALTH RESOURCES LLC $300,260
4 ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION $298,076
5 PRESENCE MARKETING, INC $260,000
6 PCC NATURAL MARKETS $230,274
7 NATURE’S PATH FOODS USA INC $178,700
8 FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW $175,000
9 WASHPIRG $168,121
10 WEILAND WILLIAM T. $150,000
Background: The initiative, I-522, is a sibling to California’s 2012 Proposition 37 (GMO Labeling): many of the major contributors in this race also contributed to committees for or against Proposition 37, and the recent spike in opposition dollars echoes last year when the opposition to Proposition 37, according to the LA Times, “bankrolled” a “media blitz” in the final stretch.
It was my privilege to go to Des Moines recently for a World Food Prize extravaganza recognizing Monsanto’s work against global hunger. But wait, Monsanto is not a hunger-fighter. It’s a predatory proliferator of proprietary and genetically engineered seeds.
That’s why I wasn’t actually attending the ceremony to bestow a false halo on the corporate giant. Rather, I was one of more than 500 scruffy “outsiders” in the city’s First United Methodist Church to protest the Monsanto absurdity.
There, real-life Iowa farmers spoke plainly about the countless abuses they have endured at the hands of the genetic manipulator.
One pointed out that if the corporation genuinely gave even one damn about hunger, it could’ve used its immense lobbying clout in Washington this year to stop Congress from stripping the entire food stamp program from the Farm Bill. Instead, Monsanto didn’t lift a finger to help fend off hunger in our own country.“It doesn’t care at all about feeding the world,” the Iowa farmer said with disgust. “It cares about profits, period.”
Indeed, Monsanto is a pitch-perfect example of what Pope Francis was referencing in May, when he declared: “Widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless. Concealed behind this attitude is a rejection of ethics.”
How ironic, then, that Monsanto bought this year’s World Food Prize for itself, just to masquerade as a world hunger fighter, hoping to persuade the Vatican to bless its demonic effort to force the world’s poor farmers to buy and become dependent on its patented seeds.
The World Food Prize Foundation says it recognizes contributions for “agriculture.” But Monsanto has zero to do with agri-culture. It’s the agri-business face of the unethical, selfish, corruption that the Pope warned about.
MARYSVILLE — Area orthodontist Dr. Jason Bourne is bringing back his Halloween candy buy-back program for the 10th year, starting on Tuesday, Nov. 5.
Bourne will pay $4 for each pound of Halloween treats surrendered in his office, in Suite 3 at 815 State Ave. in Marysville, with $2 going to the trick-or-treating child, and the other $2 donated to the local Boys & Girls Clubs and YMCA.
Last year, Bourne Orthodontics collected more than 1,300 pounds of Halloween candy, allowing them to donate more than $2,600.
The donated candy itself is sent to American military members serving overseas, local homeless shelters and humanitarian groups for trips to Africa.
Since its inception, the Bourne Orthodontics Halloween candy buy-back has donated almost $15,000 and 7,900 pounds of candy.
“We love this program, because the kids still get to have fun trick-or-treating, plus they get money and save their teeth,” Bourne said. “Then we can give back to our community and the troops. It’s a lot of fun.”
Halloween candy can contribute to tooth decay, and some candy can even damage orthodontic patients’ braces, so Bourne began buying back Halloween candy to help kids avoid injury to their braces and teeth.
Bourne explained that some candies are permissible for orthodontic patients, including plain chocolate and soft, chocolate-covered peanut butter cups. However, he cautions patients to brush and floss thoroughly after indulging in any treats with a high sugar content.
According to Bourne, the days immediately following Halloween are usually an orthodontist’s busiest time of year for emergency calls, so he hopes that his candy buy-back program will cut down on orthodontic emergencies and tooth decay, and help children, especially those wearing braces, enjoy the holiday.
Bourne Orthodontics in Marysville will accept children’s Halloween candy during normal business hours on Nov. 5, 7, 11 and 13. There is a limit of 25 pounds per person with this offer. For more information, call 360-659-0211 or log ontowww.bourneorthodontics.com.
By Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Today, we join our White House colleagues in celebrating National Breast Cancer Awareness month; and almost four weeks into the launch of the Health Insurance Marketplace, I’m reminded of the tremendous impact the Affordable Care Act has on the lives of American women.
As the President said, the law is much more than just a website – it’s affordable, quality health insurance made available to everyone. Through the Marketplace, 18.6 million uninsured women have new opportunities for affordable, accessible coverage. And if you’re one of the 85 percent of Americans who already have insurance, today you have stronger coverage and more choices than ever before.
Important preventive services are now available to women at no additional cost. These include an annual well woman visit, screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer; certain contraceptive methods; smoking-cessation treatment and services; breastfeeding support and equipment; screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence; immunizations; and many more. Thanks to the health care law, more than 47 million women have guaranteed access to preventive services without cost-sharing.
These preventive services are critical to keeping women healthy. For example, breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women and the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the US, after lung cancer. But when breast cancer is caught early and treated, survival rates can be near 100 percent.
The Affordable Care Act also protects women’s access to quality health care. No one can be denied health insurance coverage because of a preexisting health condition, such as breast cancer, pregnancy, depression or being a victim of domestic violence. And there are no more annual and lifetime dollar limits on coverage.
Today, health plans in the Marketplace offer a comprehensive package of ten essential health benefits, including maternity care. An estimated 8.7 million American women currently purchasing individual insurance will gain coverage for maternity services, and most women will no longer need a referral from a primary care provider to obtain obstetrical or gynecological services.
Cost has also been a significant barrier to care for many women. According to one study, in 2010, one third of women spent 10 percent or more of their income on premiums and out of pocket costs. For low income women, that situation is much worse – over half of women who make $11,490 per year or less spend at least $1,149 a year on care. But through the Marketplace 6 out of 10 uninsured individuals can get coverage for $100 or less.
This year, as in every year, women will make important decisions for themselves and their families about health care. They can apply for coverage through the Marketplace: Online at Health care.gov; Over the phone by calling the 24/7 customer service center (1-800-318-2596, TTY 1-855-889-4325); Working with a trained person in their local community (Find Local Help); or by submitting a paper application my mail.
The six-month enrollment period has just begun. And unlike a sale on Black Friday, coverage will not run out; it will not get more expensive. Sign up by December 15, 2013 for coverage starting as early as January 1, 2014. Open enrollment continues until March 31, 2014.
Click image to watch video or listen to interview.
Oct. 23, 2013
PBS NEWSHOUR
The Pacific Northwest is known for its seafood, but when algae blooms in coastal waters, it can release toxins that poison shellfish and the people who eat them. Katie Campbell of KCTS in Seattle reports on the growing prevalence and toxicity of that algae, and how scientists are studying a possible link to climate change.
Transcript
HARI SREENIVASAN: Next to the West Coast, where algae has been poisoning shellfish and subsequently people.In recent years, toxic algal blooms have been more potent and lasted longer.That has scientists trying to understand whether climate change could be contributing to the problem.
Our report comes from special correspondent Katie Campbell of KCTS Seattle.She works for the environmental public media project EarthFix.
KATIE CAMPBELL, KCTS:Every family has its legends.
For Jacki and John Williford and their children, it’s the story of a miserable camping trip on the Olympic Peninsula in the summer of 2011.It all started when the Willifords did what Northwest families do on coastal camping trips.They harvested some shellfish and cooked them up with garlic and oregano.
JOHN WILLIFORD, father:Oh, they were amazing.I was like, wow, these are pretty much the best mussels I have ever eaten.And I think I said in a text to Jacki.
JAYCEE WILLIFORD, daughter:They were the best mussels in the whole wide world.
JOHN WILLIFORD: Is that what you said?Yes.
KATIE CAMPBELL: Two-year-old Jessica and 5-year-old Jaycee were the first to get sick.Next, John got sick.
JACKI WILLIFORD, mother:They just were so violently ill, and I just knew it had to be the mussels.And that next week, I called the health department and said, I think we got shellfish poisoning or something from the shellfish.And that’s when all the calls started to come in.
(LAUGHTER)
KATIE CAMPBELL: It turned out that Willifords were the first confirmed case in the United States of people getting diarrhetic shellfish poisoning.DSP comes from eating shellfish contaminated by a toxin produced by a type of algae called Dinophysis.
It’s been present in Northwest waters for decades, but not at levels considered toxic.
NEIL HARRINGTON, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe:It’s unfortunate to discover you have a new toxin present by people getting ill.
KATIE CAMPBELL: Neil Harrington is an environmental biologist for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in Sequim, Washington.Every week, he collects water and shellfish samples from the same bay where the Willifords harvested mussels two summers ago.He tests for Dinophysis and other naturally occurring toxins in shellfish.
NEIL HARRINGTON: Shellfish are filter feeders, so they are filtering liters and liters and liters of water every day.If they are filtering phytoplankton that is a little bit toxic, when we eat the shellfish, we’re eating essentially that — that toxin that’s been concentrated over time.
KATIE CAMPBELL: A number of factors can increase the size and severity of harmful algal blooms.As more land is developed, more fertilizers and nutrients get washed into waterways.It’s a problem that has also hit Florida and the Gulf of Mexico as well.
NEIL HARRINGTON: The more nutrients you add to a water body, the more algae there is, and the more algae you get, the more chance that some of those algae may be harmful.
KATIE CAMPBELL: But on top the local problem of nutrient runoff is the larger issue of global warming.Scientists believe the increase in prevalence and toxicity of Dinophysis is linked to changing ocean chemistry and warming waters.
STEPHANIE MOORE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:There’s a whole lot of changes that are occurring in Puget Sound, and not — and they’re not occurring in isolation.And that’s the challenge for scientists.
KATIE CAMPBELL: Stephanie Moore is a biological oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.She studies Puget Sound’s harmful algae.Most algal blooms here occur during warmer weather.
Because climate change is expected to raise temperatures in the coming decades, Moore says that could directly affect when and where harmful algal blooms occur.
STEPHANIE MOORE: We’re going to have to look for these blooms in places and during times of the year when, traditionally, we haven’t had to worry about them.Their impacts could then span a much larger time of the year, and that could cost a lot more money in terms of the effort that needs to go into monitoring and protecting the public from the toxins that they produce.
KATIE CAMPBELL: Washington has one of the most advanced algae and shellfish testing systems in the country.It’s in part because of the state’s 800 miles of shore and its multimillion-dollar shellfish industry.
Today, Moore is testing a new piece of equipment that has the potential to raise the bar even higher.The environmental sample processor, or ESP, automatically collects water from a nearby shellfish bed, analyzes the samples, and sends Moore a photograph of the results.
STEPHANIE MOORE: This is a huge advancement in our ability just to keep tabs on what’s going on, and in near real time.It’s amazing.
KATIE CAMPBELL: Moore says she hopes that, next year, the ESP will be equipped to monitor for Dinophysis, the toxin that caused the Williford family to get sick.
In the meantime, Jacki Williford says she will continue to be extremely wary of eating shellfish.
JACKI WILLIFORD: I think it’s scary because you just — you just don’t know what you’re getting anymore in food.
KATIE CAMPBELL: As for the rest of the family, well, not everyone has sworn off mussels.
JOHN WILLIFORD: It doesn’t change a thing for me.
(LAUGHTER)
JACKI WILLIFORD: For him.
(LAUGHTER)
HARI SREENIVASAN: Jaycee might keep eating mussels, but the high levels of toxins have forced the Washington State Department of Health to shutdown shellfish beds in six counties around the Puget Sound.
There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.[1]
The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states, “The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”
Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne, associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”
Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”
A third signatory to the statement, Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at Sussex University and member of the UK government’s GM Science Review Panel, said: “The main reason some multinationals prefer GM technologies over the many alternatives is that GM offers more lucrative ways to control intellectual property and global supply chains. To sideline open discussion of these issues, related interests are now trying to deny the many uncertainties and suppress scientific diversity. This undermines democratic debate – and science itself.”
The scientists’ statement was released by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility in the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of the GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta and UK environment secretary Owen Paterson branded opponents of GM foods as “wicked”.
Signatories of the statement include prominent and respected scientists, including Dr Hans Herren, a former winner of the World Food Prize and an Alternative Nobel Prize laureate, and Dr Pushpa Bhargava, known as the father of modern biotechnology in India.
Claire Robinson, research director at Earth Open Source commented, “The joint statement and comments of the senior scientists and academics make clear those who claim there is a scientific consensus over GMO safety are really engaged in a partisan bid to shut down debate.
“We have to ask why these people are so desperate to prevent further exploration of an issue that is of immense significance for the future of our food and agriculture. We actually need not less but more public debate on the impacts of this technology, particularly given the proven effective alternatives that are being sidelined in the rush to promote GM.”
1. There is no scientific consensus that GM crops and foods are safe for human and animal health.
2. A peer-reviewed review of safety studies on GM crops and foods found about an equal number of research groups raising concerns about GMO safety as groups concluding safety. However, most researchers concluding safety were affiliated with biotechnology companies that stood to profit from commercializing the GM crop concerned.
3. A review that is often cited to show GM crops and foods are safe in fact includes studies that raised concerns. Scientists disagree about the interpretation of these findings.
4. No epidemiological studies have been carried out to find out if GM crops are affecting human health, so claims that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects have no scientific basis.
5. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM crops for the environment. Studies have associated GM herbicide-tolerant crops with increased herbicide use and GM insecticidal crops with unexpected toxic impacts on non-target organisms.
6. A survey among scientists showed that those who received funding from biotech companies were more likely to believe GM crops were safe for the environment, whereas independent scientists were more likely to emphasize uncertainties.
7. Although some scientific bodies have made broadly supportive statements about GM over the years, these often contain significant caveats, call for better regulation, and draw attention to the risks as well as the potential benefits of GMOs. A statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) claiming GMO safety was challenged by 21 scientists, including long-standing members of the AAAS.
8. International agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety exist because experts worldwide believe that a strongly precautionary attitude is justified in the case of GMOs. Concerns about risks are well-founded, as can be seen by the often complex, contradictory, and inconclusive findings of safety studies on GMOs.
