Saturday, January 9, 2010
I went to a children's Christmas concert that was being held in a local highschool and saw four banners advertising such things as cars and subsandwiches. However, I felt that the placement of these McDonald's flags was inappropriate. I feel it cheapens what our flag stands for and the people who have died beneath it.
What do you think?
Here's another reason to avoid microwave popcorcn. The following is from Nycosh Newsline. We already knew it is far more fattening than air popped or stove popped popcorn, that the fats are bad for our heart, that there's far too much salt, that is is ridiculously expensive, that many have added chemicals, that the fumes are bad for you, and that it has excessive packaging. Now we also know that by purchasing this garbage we are supporting a business that creates a dangerous environment for workers.
I know, they shouldn't work there, but in today's marketplace people will take any job they can get. Let's make sure these type of jobs aren't available by not buyint microwaveable popcorn.
Perils of butter flavorings, diacetyl substitutes, Posted by Celeste Monforton, The Pump Handle, 1/5/10
The sentinel cases of the debilitating lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans were among workers at a microwave popcorn facility. It wasn’t too long before NIOSH researchers suspected the illnesses were related to workers’ exposure to the butter flavoring agent used in the plant. The compounds are typically a mixture of volatile organic compounds (VOC), many of which can irritate severely the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Diacetyl, a 4-carbon alpha-diketone, was one of the VOCs identified in the microwave popcorn plant environment. Diacetyl has come to serve as the catch-all name for the butter-flavoring agents, although NIOSH researchers noted:
“the vapors emitted from butter flavoring are a complex mixture that produces necrosis that cannot be explained by the known toxicological properties of any of its components.” (Hubbs, et al. 2002)
Although popcorn makers began selling still buttery-flavored product labeled “no diacetyl,” Sphere’s Andrew Schneider has been investigating whether a ‘no diacetyl’ claim translates into less health risk to exposed workers and consumers. His sources have consistently said “No.” Now, so does NIOSH Director John Howard.
In a December 23 letter to new OSHA chief David Michaels, the NIOSH Director wrote:
“…starter distillate [which eventually creates diacetyl], acetoin, and 2,3 pentanedione exemplify the lack of evidence demonstrating the workplace safety of potential substitutes for diacetyl; and document some evidence that potential substitutes are also respiratory hazards.”
Not that OSHA’s health scientists really need this official word from NIOSH that compounds of this nature can damage the respiratory system, but it does create an opportunity for OSHA’s new leadership: engaging actively in inter-agency policy discussions to improve the Toxic Substances Control Act. Few could benefit more than workers from a law that improves OSHA’s statutory authority to prevent harm from exposure to chemicals, encourages safer alternatives, and enhances right-to-know.