Information Dinner and Fundraiser

5 Ways ADHD Can Affect Your Child's Social Life

At a Glance: Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

Reading Studio at Children's Library at RCPL

  

 

  

   

  

  

Please Donate to Help Support Advocacy for Those with LD

Sharing Information in Preservice Training for Educators

Memo to House: Stand Firm on States’ Rights

Congress needs to pass a good chemical safety law, but if the Senate has their way, “a new and terrible precedent would be set – state and local governments legally prohibited from protecting their citizens…” Millions of people who could otherwise be protected will instead be exposed to toxic chemicals for several years, in states as diverse as Washington, California, and Tennessee.

As you may know, staff from both chambers of Congress have nearly completed work reconciling different versions of chemical safety reform legislation (TSCA reform) that passed last year. (H.R. 2576 and S. 697 respectively.) Reportedly, there is at least one major sticking point remaining: should states be blocked for up to 4 years from taking action against a toxic chemical while EPA studies the chemical?

The House legislation, sponsored by Representatives Upton, Shimkus, Pallone, and Tonko, rejected such a provision after much consideration. Now they are under intense pressure by the Senate to back down and accept it. Here is why they, and you, should instead hold your ground.

While the exact policy language in the Senate bill is hard to follow (see addendum), the bottom lines are these:

a) Millions of people who could otherwise be protected will instead be exposed to toxic chemicals for several years, in states as diverse as Washington, California, and Tennessee.

b) A new and terrible precedent would be set – state and local governments legally prohibited from protecting their citizens, in deference to a federal decision that is years away.

The policy violates both conservative and liberal principles and would have an immediate negative impact.

What is the practical impact? State firefighter unions backed by public health advocates and scientists recently have pursued state policies to prohibit certain toxic chemicals that are used to treat furniture. Though the chemicals were introduced in the name of fire safety, numerous studies have shown that they cause cancer and other health problems. Firefighters are exposed to especially high levels – the chemicals “weep” from smoldering furniture and penetrate safety gear. There are safer alternatives. Washington just passed a law banning five of these toxic flame retardants, but it requires further public process and legislative action on six more. The legislatures in Tennessee, Minnesota, and Massachusetts are considering similar bills. (Read the Pulitzer-nominated series on these chemicals for a primer on the science and politics.)

But these laws and implementing rules would be blocked by the Senate provision (and by some of the proposed fixes that have been floated). Literally, thousands of firefighters in these states – already concerned about higher than average cancer rates – will be exposed to these chemicals, pending the four-year EPA review. So will average consumers, since studies show these chemicals break down into household dust and wind up in the breast milk of nursing mothers.

Should firefighters and nursing mothers be exposed to toxic chemicals in the name of reform that is supposed to be about – what was it? – preventing people from being exposed to toxic chemicals?

Another example is Tris, the flame retardant chemical shown to cause cancer and neurological damage. After years of preparation and documentation, California is poised to restrict the chemical in children’s foam sleeping pads in favor of safer alternatives.

Should California’s children instead be exposed to this cancer-causing chemical for four more years because of an act of Congress?

The answer is a clear “no.”

The bipartisan approach of the Energy and Commerce Committee leaders in H.R. 2576, which passed 398 to 1 last June, struck the right balance on this question. The Senate provision would instead break dangerous new ground in the law, setting a terrible precedent.

We urge you to stand firm.

Government Data Tracking - Please Read

Information from an HSLDA Newsbrief:

Since Common Core, the federal government has used much effort to get states to use and implement the standards. Along with this, the states have been offered incentives to comment to data tracking of student and teacher data. Now the Common Education Data Standards has released Version 6 Public Review Draft. The V6 Public Review Draft updates the data blueprint and details more student-specific data points to be collected on children nationwide. 

The comment period for this draft is only open until May 4, 2016. One of the element names in the CEDS V6 Draft is for IDEA related (special education) data. 

The goal of data programs like this includes:

• Developing longitudinal databases in every state,
• Incentivizing participation in these databases with federal education grants, and
• Continually updating data points with new “definitions” to collect information about a child’s life—including information about his or her religion, family situation, and socioeconomic status.

Please review the changes to CEDS and make your opinion on government tracking of our students known. Please click here to submit your comments to CEDS.

Healthy Children Project is a project of LDA America. 

LDASC is an affiliate of the Healthy Children Project Coalition.

Steps to a Healthy Home

Take steps to minimize your family’s risks of toxic chemical exposures

Cleaning your home and family

• Buy or make non-toxic cleaning products.
• Dust and vacuum regularly; remove shoes when entering your home; minimize use of carpets.
• Do not use anti-bacterial soap; it contains a pesticide (triclosan) that may promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria and disrupt the endocrine system. Regular soap works fine.
• Look for non-toxic personal care products, such as shampoos, soaps, lotions and cosmetics. Avoid products containing lead, mercury and phthalates (often listed as "fragrance"). For more information, see The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics website.

Make non-toxic cleaning products

It’s easy and inexpensive to keep your family healthy and your house clean using products such as baking soda, club soda, lemon juice, baby oil, and water.

• Clean windows and mirrors: Use one-fourth cup vinegar mixed with one quart water, or use club soda. Wipe with newspaper.
• Clean drains: Use a half cup baking soda and half cup vinegar. Pour baking soda followed by vinegar down drain, flush with hot water.
• Remove spots from carpet: Use club soda and salt, or a 3-to-1 mixture of vinegar and water. Pour onto stains. Allow to bubble, and dab dry.
• Clean wood furniture or wooden, tile, and linoleum floors : Mix a few drops of vinegar and a capful of baby oil in a bucket of water.
• Plastics: Never use plastic containers or plastic wrap in the microwave. Minimize use of plastics with food and drink. Do NOT use polycarbonate (7), polyvinyl chloride (3) or polystyrene(6) with food or drink; they can leach toxic chemicals. Safer plastics are PETE (1), HDPE (2), LDPE (4) and polypropylene (5). Avoid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (3) in toys, teethers, building materials, shower curtains, and other items. Avoid use of polycarbonate plastic (7), especially with food and drink. Use glass or non-polycarbonate plastic baby bottles, and stainless steel or non-polycarbonate sippy cups.
• Food: Buy organic and/or locally grown food when possible. Farmers markets can be a good source of inexpensive, local, and organic produce. Eat a diet low in animal fats, with lots of fruits and vegetables. Some toxic chemicals accumulate in fatty tissues of animals and then in people. Some fish contain high levels of mercury, PCBs and other toxic chemicals. Choose fish low in mercury and salmon that is wild or canned rather than farm-raised. For guidance see the Natural Resources Defense Council’s website on mercury contamination.
• Teflon and non-stick pans: Avoid using non-stick (Teflon and other trademarks) pots and pans. Dispose of non-stick pans when the coating is peeling, cracked, or flaking.
• Pesticides: Minimize, or avoid all together any use of pesticides in your home and garden or on your lawn. For help, advice, and alternatives, see the Beyond Pesticides website.
• Testing: Get children tested for lead levels at ages one and two. Test water supplies for lead. Test private wells for arsenic and other contaminants on a regular basis.

Denied Accommodations on College Entrance Exams...

ASHA Seeking Members With High School Students Who Have Been Denied Accommodations on College Entrance Exams

ASHA is looking for members whose high school students have been denied accommodations on college entrance exams, such as the ACT and SAT.  ASHA believes that students with communication disorders are often denied accommodations on these exams despite having long standing accommodations on their IEP.  ASHA believes testing organizations that refuse to allow accommodations for students with communication disorders deny them access to support and services required under the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ).  ASHA is in continuing dialogue about this issue with the U.S. Department of Justice, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA .

  

ASHA is reaching out to ASHA members to identify families willing to write to Congress to tell their stories.  ASHA will supply a template letter to use for developing this letter.  If you are an ASHA member and are interested in participating, please contact Janet Deppe, ASHA's Director of State Advocacy, at jdeppe@asha.org by Monday, April 25, 2016.

It's Time to Ditch Toxic BPA!

All families deserve access to safe and healthy food, free of toxic chemicals.

A new report showed that

67% of nearly 200 cans tested had Bisphenol A (BPA), an endocrine-disrupting chemical linked to learning and attention problems, breast and prostate cancer, infertility, type-2 diabetes, obesity, and asthma.

BPA can disrupt brain development even at low levels of exposure. BPA is linked to learning, attention, and behavior challenges. Studies have shown BPA can migrate out of cans, get into the food our families eat, and make its way into our bodies.   

Please join the Learning Disabilities Association of America of South Carolina (LDASC) in urging food companies and grocery and dollar stores to take swift action to protect consumers from toxic BPA. This hazardous chemical should not be in cans or other food packaging. But it is not enough to just get BPA out. We need companies to replace toxic BPA with a proven, safer alternative, and that means sharing their safety data on chemical replacements.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Campbells, Kroger, and Dollar Stores that it is Time to Ditch Toxic BPA!

I think we can all agree this brain-disrupting chemical doesn't belong in the food our families eat. Will you take a second to join LDASC and help get BPA out of canned foods?

 

LDASC helps Mind the Store

The Learning Disabilities Association of America and several local LDA state affiliates, including LDA South Carolina, have joined a national effort to urge the country's top retailers to help get toxic chemicals out of the products they sell. LDA is asking retailers to "Mind the Store" as part of a campaign launched by the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition, of which LDA is a founding member.

Top retailers such as WalMart, Target, Walgreens and Best Buy have enormous power to determine what chemicals and materials their suppliers use in the consumer products they provide for store shelves. In part as a result of pressure from the "Mind the Store" campaign, WalMart recently announced that it has listed an initial 10 toxic chemicals that suppliers should stop using. Target also recently announced plans to evaluate suppliers in part based on their adherence to non-toxic chemicals and materials.LDA is helping to spearhead coalition efforts to engage ten major retailers in taking steps to reduce toxic chemicals in the products these retailers sell, especially those chemicals known to harm brain development. Cleaning products, toys and baby products, cosmetics and personal care products are among the items that can contain chemicals linked to cancers, endocrine disruption and learning and developmental disabilities. Chemicals of greatest concern include flame retardant chemicals, phthalates, lead, solvents such as toluene and endocrine disrupting chemicals like Bisphenol-A.

Look for action alerts, Facebook and Twitter posts, blog reports, and store events as LDA asks retailers to "Mind the Store" and make products safer and healthier for everyone, especially children! We hope every parent, teacher and consumer will join us in taking action.

Some tips on protecting your family from toxic BPA...

LDASC is a part of the Health Children Coalition of LDA America.

Some tips on protecting your family from toxic BPA -- eat fresh food when you can and consider options like frozen and aseptic packaging.

Our ask to Campbell's, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, 99 Cents Only Stores, Kroger: eliminate BPA from canned food, replace toxic bpa with a proven safer alternative, share their timelines to eliminate bpa and share their safety data on alternatives so consumer know that the alternatives are in fact safe.

Two Out of Three Food Cans Tested Have Toxic BPA in the Linings

CONTACT:

Maureen Swanson, Learning Disabilities Association of America, 724-813-9684

Shayna Samuels, shayna@ripplestrategies.com, 718-541-4785

Glenn Turner, glenn@ripplestrategies.com, 917-817-3396

www.ToxicFoodCans.org

Two Out of Three Food Cans Tested Have

Toxic BPA in the Linings, New Report Says

Nearly 200 Cans Analyzed from Campbell’s,

Del Monte, General Mills, Kroger, Albertsons and More

Infographic, B-Roll & Social Media Graphics Available Here

A new report released today by six nonprofit organizations that tested nearly 200 food can linings for the toxic chemical, Bisphenol A (BPA) found that two out of three cans tested have the chemical in the lining. BPA is an endocrine-disrupting chemical that negatively impacts our hormonal systems. Evidence suggests it may contribute to a host of harmful health effects including breast and prostate cancer, infertility, type-2 diabetes, obesity, asthma and learning and attention problems. Other studies have demonstrated the capacity of BPA to migrate into food and then into people, raising concerns about exposures to low, but biologically relevant levels of BPA.

For the first time ever, this report also identified the replacement materials for BPA in can linings, and to what extent – if any -- their safety has been studied. 

Buyer Beware: Toxic BPA & Regrettable Substitutes in the Linings of Canned Food (#BPA #ToxicFoodCans) was conceived and authored by the Breast Cancer Fund; Campaign for Healthier Solutions; Clean Production Action; Ecology Center; Environmental Defence (Canada); and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign. (The full report can be downloaded here.)

“The Learning Disabilities Association of America urges food companies and grocery and dollar stores to take swift action to protect consumers, and especially children, from ingesting BPA from canned goods. This is a chemical that can disrupt brain development even at low levels of exposure,” said LDA Board President Patricia Lillie. LDA and its state affiliates across the country are members of the campaigns that produced the report.

The report identified and analyzed the interior linings and lids of canned foods containing vegetables, fruits, soups, broth, gravy, milks and beans. 

The findings were alarming:

• 100 percent of Campbell’s products sampled (15 of 15) contained BPA-based epoxy, while the company says they are making significant progress in its transition away from BPA. Upon learning about the upcoming report, Campbell’s announced yesterday they are eliminating BPA in North American cans by mid- 2017. While this is a step in the right direction, report authors state the announcement left out important details that we think would make this truly good news for Campbell’s soup lovers.
• 71 percent of sample Del Monte cans (10 of 14) tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins.
• 50 percent of sampled General Mills cans (six of 12, including Progresso) tested positive for BPA.
• Collectively, 62 percent of private-label, or generic food cans (71 out of 114) from retailers analyzed in the study tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins, including Albertsons (including Randalls and Safeway), Dollar General, Dollar Tree (including Family Dollar), Gordon Food Service, Kroger, Loblaws, Meijer, Publix, Target, Trader Joe’s, and Walmart.
• BPA was found in the majority of private-label canned goods tested at the two biggest dedicated grocery retailers in the United States: Kroger and Albertsons (Safeway). In private-label cans, 62 percent of the Kroger products sampled (13 out of 21), and 50 percent of the Albertsons products sampled (eight out of 16 from Albertsons, Randalls, Safeway) tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins.  
• BPA was found in private-label cans sold at both Target and Walmart, the largest grocery retailer in the United States. In their private label products, 100 percent of Target cans sampled (five out of five) and 88 percent of Walmart cans sampled (seven out of eight) tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins.
• Discount retailers (commonly known as “dollar stores”) were among the laggards in transitioning away from BPA in can linings. Testing revealed that 83 percent of Dollar Tree and Family Dollar private-label cans (five out of six) and 64 percent of Dollar General private-label cans (nine out of 14) were coated with BPA-based epoxy resins. This is especially a problem because discount retailers are often the major retail outlet in low-income communities—which already face higher levels of BPA exposure. Broth and gravy cans were the most likely (100 percent of those sampled) to contain BPA in the can linings; corn and peas were the least likely category (41 percent of those sampled).
• On the positive side, Amy’s Kitchen, Annie’s Homegrown (recently acquired by General Mills), Hain Celestial Group, and ConAgra have fully transitioned away from BPA and have disclosed the BPA alternatives they’re using. Eden Foods reported eliminating the use of BPA-based epoxy liners in 95 percent of its canned foods and stated that it is actively looking for alternatives. Whole Foods has clearly adopted the strongest policy of the retailers surveyed in the report. Whole Foods reports that store brand buyers are not currently accepting any new canned items with BPA in the lining material.

What about the alternatives?

The report found that retailers and national brands that are phasing out BPA could be replacing it with regrettable substitutes. Identifying the safety of BPA alternatives is challenging, given the insufficient FDA review and approval of packaging additives and highly protected trade secrets in this product sector. However, the report found that:

·         Aside from BPA, four major coating types were identified among the 192 cans tested including: acrylic resins (including almost all oleoresin, polyester resins, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) copolymers. There were multiple formulations of these compounds found, but no way to determine the specific chemicals used or how they are produced. 

·         18 percent of retailers’ private-label foods and 36 percent of national brands were lined with a PVC-based copolymer that is made from highly hazardous chemicals including vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen. PVC is considered a regrettable substitute. 

·         33 percent of retailers’ private-label foods and 51 percent of national brands were lined with acrylic based polymers. Of the cans tested, 39 percent had a polystyrene-acrylic combination, of concern because styrene is considered a possible carcinogen.  

·         Much more research is needed to determine the safety of these compounds, and what may be migrating from the “alternative” can linings into food.

The report includes numerous recommendations including:

• National brands, grocery stores, big box retailers and dollar stores should eliminate and safely substitute BPA from all food packaging and label all chemicals used in can liners.
• In conjunction with the report release, advocates have launched a national online campaign calling on Kroger and Campbell’s to eliminate and safely substitute BPA. Congress should adopt comprehensive legislation to reform the FDA’s fatally flawed system for reviewing and approving the safety of packaging material.
• Consumers should choose fresh or frozen foods, or only purchase canned food from manufacturers and retailers that fully disclose the identity and safety of their can linings. Look for food packaged in other materials such as glass and Tetra Pak containers. 

Quotes from the report authors:

“Most people in the United States are exposed to BPA every day, largely from food packaging, despite the negative health impacts.  It shouldn’t be a buyer beware situation for shoppers every time they set foot in the canned food aisle,” said Janet Nudelman, director of Program and Policy for the Breast Cancer Fund. “Campbell’s and other major national brands need to get BPA out of food can linings and fully disclose the identity and safety of any BPA alternatives they’re using.   Consumers deserve protection from the toxic effects of this hormonally active chemical and the likelihood of exposure to unsafe toxic alternatives.”

"Food manufacturers refused to tell us what chemicals were in their cans, so we reverse engineered and tested them ourselves," said Jeff Gearhart, MS, the Ecology Center’s HealthyStuff.org research director. "Since they can’t hide these chemicals from consumers anymore, perhaps they will be more motivated to use safer materials.” 

"This new report should be a wake-up call for grocery and big box retailers across the nation," said Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.  "We found 62 percent of Kroger's cans in the investigation tested positive for BPA.  As the largest grocery chain in the country, Kroger should be leading the way by developing a clear public timeframe for phasing out and safely substituting BPA in all of their canned food."

"BPA-free doesn't mean a can lining is safe, as the substitute could itself be harmful. That is why we are asking companies to take the GreenScreen Challenge and work with us to demonstrate the chemical safety of their can liners," said Clean Production Action’s Beverley Thorpe, who helps companies understand the value of the GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals as an essential tool for replacing toxic chemicals with safe alternatives.

”While some families are fortunate to have access and means to purchase fresh produce, many communities across America have no choice but to buy canned food lined with toxic BPA,” said Jose Bravo, coordinator of the Campaign for Healthier Solutions. “Some families, live in a food desert where fresh food simply isn’t available, or they can only afford the cheap food sold at dollar stores. These communities, people of color and low-income families are already exposed to toxic chemicals more frequently and at higher levels than the average American. The use of toxic BPA in canned foods means that families will sit down to a double serving of harmful chemicals.”

"The fact that many food cans contain endocrine-disrupting BPA means that Canadians are likely eating food contaminated with the hormone-mimicking chemical,” said Maggie MacDonald, Toxics Program manager with Environmental Defense. “This is very disconcerting, as Canadians who rely on canned foods in their diets are at continuous risk of developing serious health problems.”

#   #   #

Tell Congress - Kids Need Safe Products!

Join LDASC in Telling Congress - Kids Need Safe Products!

No child should be exposed to toxic chemicals in their sippy cups, shampoo, or mattress. But the truth is, toxic chemicals are in every day household products and too many of these chemicals are linked to learning disabilities, autism, cancer, and other health problems. Over a quarter of learning and developmental disabilities are caused in whole or in part from toxic chemicals and other environmental factors.

Last year, the US Congress took major steps toward chemical safety reform by passing bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Senate passed its bill just before the holidays; the House passed its chemical safety bill in June. Now, the two pieces of legislation must be combined before the final version can go to President Obama for his signature.

Tell Congress we need reform that goes forward, not backward.  

Both bills contain fundamental reforms that empower EPA to test chemicals and to restrict them when needed to protect public health and the environment.

Unfortunately, there are also provisions, especially in the Senate bill, that exist solely to help out special interests. For example, the Senate bill makes it harder for EPA to restrict chemicals in imported products. It would let some chemicals off the hook without a thorough safety review and it would block states from taking action on chemicals while EPA is reviewing their safety, which could take years. The House bill largely avoids those problems but it fails to provide EPA with new resources and a mandatory schedule.

Tell Congress to make the final bill as strong as possible.

The final bill should combine the best of both bills, rather than the worst. It should ensure that EPA makes steady progress every year. It should have no loopholes or rollbacks and it should preserve the ability of state governments to protect their citizens.

During this final phase of the legislative process, I urge you to combine the best of the House and Senate reform bills and leave special-interest loopholes on the cutting room floor.

A good final bill would combine the more streamlined approach of the House proposal with the resources and mandate of the Senate proposal. It should:

- Remove the legal barriers that currently prevent the EPA from testing, reviewing, and - when necessary - restricting a chemical to ensure safety.
- Expedite EPA action on persistent and bio-accumulative chemicals ("PBTs").
- Preserve the ability of states to protect their citizens.
- End the abuse of provisions for confidential business information.
- Require EPA to make steady progress every year.
- Ensure EPA has the resources that it needs.
- Not weaken any current EPA authority (such as regulation of imported products).

The decade-long chemical reform effort is in the home stretch. Reform will be a significant achievement for public health if it focuses on these fundamentals.

William Van Cleave Workshop