Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - regulation

Bottled Water Safer Than Tap?

Greg Webb — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:08:17 GMT

Members of Congress were recently briefed on two new studies that question whether bottled water is safer than tap water. Following the meeting, the Congressional committee sent letters to thirteen companies requesting more information regarding the source of their water and how it is tested. Congressman Bart Stupak, chairman of the oversight committee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, stated neither consumers nor federal regulators know enough about the origins of the bottled water and what safeguards are in place to ensure its safety; consumers purchase the bottled water for health benefits, however, they do not know the actual quality of the water.

Though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates tap water, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled water because it is considered a food. Since 1999, the EPA requires municipalities to annually distribute reports to consumers disclosing the source of their water and any contaminants found in testing, along with the potential health risks from these contaminants. Tap water providers are also required to notify customers within twenty-four hours if the water’s contaminants exceeded federal levels; this rule does not apply to bottled water. Additionally, bottled water companies are not required to have their water tested by certified laboratories.

Two new reports from the Government Accountability Office and the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization, question whether the federal regulation is sufficient. The environmental group asks that companies that produce bottled water release the same detailed information that is required of tap water providers. Almost one-third of bottled water, for example, has no information regarding the source of the water on its labels. Some Congressmen, however, question the need for regulation on bottled water, calling it a “secondary” issue to all of the more life-threatening situations the FDA faces.

In response to the two studies, the FDA announced that by fall it would require bottlers report the results of tests displaying whether their products pose health risks. In the meantime, FDA officials say not to worry about the safety of bottled water since it is monitored and inspected.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Homeopathic Drugs - "Remedies" - Potentially Hazardous?

Greg Webb — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:00:00 GMT

Although it was sold for many years as a drug for colds, Zicam Cold Remedy was never tested by federal regulators for safety like many other drugs. Because the drug is considered a “homeopathic remedy,” categorized as a highly diluted drug made from natural ingredients, they can legally be sold without any checks for safety, effectiveness, or even the right ingredients by the federal government. This was perfectly legal until consumers began losing their sense of smell.

Many scientists and health care professionals regard these homeopathic remedies as modern day snake oil, ineffective but mostly harmless because the substances in them are in such small amounts. They are similar to dietary supplements, which use many of the same natural ingredients and are also not tested for safety or benefit. The AP’s analysis of side-effect reports filed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), however, found more than eight hundred homeopathic ingredients were implicated in health problems last year; complaints ranged from vomiting to attempted suicide.

In the case of Zicam, the FDA tied the drug to 130 cases of consumers losing their sense of smell. Because of this, the agency asked Zicam manufacturer Matrixx Initiatives to stop marketing three products that contain zinc gluconate: Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Nasal Swabs, and the discontinued Swabs in Kids' Size. In order for the drugs to be marketed again, the FDA requires they be tested for safety and benefit like other conventional drugs.

Are homeopathic remedies like Zicam effective? Many people swear by them, but is it essentially having a “placebo effect” on them? This writer is highly skeptical of these remedies, but, as long as they are essentially “harmless”, it is effectively just a situation of folks’ throwing away good money on these “remedies”. When the harm shifts from merely economic to real health problems, however, then a true harm to society may be occurring. The latter result may be indicative of a systemic problem requiring some form of intervention and oversight. Because of the number of issues that have arisen over the past decade or so with supplements and remedies, it seems as if we may be seeing a systemic problem, compounded by the greed of manufacturers producing and marketing these products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

New Food Safety Bill Introduced In Senate

Greg Webb — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:00:41 GMT

In the Senate this past Tuesday, food-safety legislation, called the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act, was introduced, which would give the FDA new power to order recalls and open companies’ internal records for inspection. It is one of many proposals that are competing to rework food regulation and oversight. The legislation was proposed after the major recalls the United States has faced recently, such as peanut butter laced with salmonella and spinach infected with e-coli. The Senators who introduced the legislation claim these are not isolated incidents and are the result of an underfunded, outdated and overwhelmed food-safety agency.

Many manufacturers prefer this bill to the one proposed by Representative Rose DeLauro, which would allow government-mandated schedules of inspection, as well as creating a stand-alone food safety agency. Instead, the Senate’s Food Safety Modernization Act would be a risk-based approach to inspection. Manufacturers also believe the creation of a new agency would eat up the funds that should go towards improving the FDA’s current safety operations.

Let’s hope this bill gets some traction and gets passed in some form that actually helps improve our safety. It is clear that many federal agencies charged with oversight of consumer products, like the FDA and CPSC, are understaffed and underfunded. It is also clear that the recent "hands-off" approach has failed (see also the example of the SEC "regulating" our securities markets). The hands-off, market-regulating approach, while admirable, is a dream that cannot adequately work. Corporate greed is too strong, and too creative.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Dangers of Escalators: Watch Your Step

Greg Webb — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:00:00 GMT

Escalators in airports, shopping malls, and metro stations may work properly, but that doesn’t make them safe. In 2007, almost 11,000 people were treated in hospitals for injuries involving escalators, the Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates, carrying about 90 billion riders a year.

Most accidents involve adults falling after tripping, losing their balance, becoming distracted, or misjudging steps. Those resulted in cuts, gashes, and swelling requiring medical treatment. Many blame Croc-type shoes for certain injuries; in May, the CPSC said “popular soft-sided flexible clogs and slides” were involved in all but two of the 77 foot-entrapment incidents they were aware of since 2006. In July, Crocs Inc. said they planned to put escalator safety messages on tags on its shoes.

Some safety advocates, however, say escalators are inherently dangerous and question the blame put on Crocs. “If escalators were designed properly and met all the standards, it wouldn’t matter that they were wearing Crocs,” said Scott Anderson, an engineer who petitioned the CPSC in 1997 to require closing gaps along the sides of escalator stairs. The petition initiated the escalator industry to adopt voluntary standards for reducing the size of the gap and amount of friction along the sides of escalator steps. The measures have become part of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ escalator standards, and part of many building codes.

The CPSC denied Anderson’s petition to require design changes to make escalators safer, and they also denied a 1978 petition. After denying Anderson’s petition in 2000, it said the new, voluntary standards would “adequately reduce the risk of sidewall entrapment injury” and that it would monitor their effectiveness. However, to this date the CPSC has not evaluated the standards. CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson said CPSC believes recent entrapments are due to the soft-sided Croc-type shoes, and is hopeful public awareness will reduce future injuries.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution examined more than 140 injury reports filed with state regulators by operators of Atlanta escalators from January to August. At least seven reports involved feet becoming trapped in the machinery. All but two involved children wearing Croc-type shoes.

Atlanta airports and MARTA, Atlanta’s metro, have initiated spraying friction-reducing silicone on the sides of escalators to reduce entrapment. Though Georgia enforces building codes requiring reduction in the size of the gap and amount of friction on the sides of escalator steps, only escalators built since 2000 currently have to meet those standards. Escalators built before 2000 don’t have to meet the standards until 2010. And though there are regulations in place for new escalators, state inspectors do not do the gap/friction testing themselves; they rely on escalator owners to test and certify their machines are in compliance.

moving machinery,” said Earl Everett, director of safety engineering at the Georgia Department of Labor (which licenses and inspects escalators), and when on such a piece of machinery, riders should pay attention – according to these authorities.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb