Menu
Log in


Minnesota Public Health Association

Since 1907, MPHA has been dedicated to creating a healthier Minnesota through effective public health practice and engaged citizens. 

MPHA Policy Resolutions

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • April 30, 2017 3:47 PM | Anonymous

    WHEREAS, more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, of which 680 million pounds are used in agriculture1; and

    WHEREAS, all children are exposed to pesticides via residues on food and pesticide applications in homes, schools, and parks; and children in rural and agricultural communities are additionally exposed to agricultural pesticides that travel from nearby fields and contaminate water supplies, air or dust2; and

    WHEREAS, children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure as they take in more air, water and food per pound than adults, and exposure to synthetic chemicals like pesticides—even at low doses—can have significant effects during critical windows of prenatal and childhood development3 4; and

    WHEREAS, rates of childhood cancer continue to rise, as do rates of autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other developmental disabilities5, and some birth defects; and

    WHEREAS, a growing body of evidence links prenatal or childhood pesticide exposure to increased risk of childhood cancers, including leukemia and brain tumors6 7 8; and

    WHEREAS, prenatal proximity to agricultural fields where pesticides are applied is linked with increased risks of developmental disabilities and changes in neurodevelopment, including autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, and lowered IQ9 10 11; and

    WHEREAS, the American Academy of Pediatrics,12 the President’s Cancer Panel,13 and the American Congress of Gynecologists14 have highlighted the link between pesticide exposure and harms to human health, and called for reducing exposure to pesticides to protect human health; and

    WHEREAS, six of the top eight pesticides most commonly sold in Minnesota are carcinogens, three are linked with birth defects or developmental harms, and six are suspected endocrine disruptors15 16 17.

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Public Health Association:

    1. Calls on policy makers and state leaders to minimize children’s exposure to pesticides by setting ambitious targets for pesticide use reduction in agriculture; creating protective buffers around sensitive sites like schools and daycares; phasing out the use of pesticides most harmful to children’s health and development; and creating incentive programs to support farmers to reduce pesticide use; and
    2. Urges policy makers, state agencies including the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and the University of Minnesota to collect and release additional data on pesticide sales and/or use in Minnesota, including creating a publicly searchable pesticide use database; and
    3. Calls on policy makers to improve tracking of illnesses related to pesticide exposure by making pesticide-related illness and injury a reportable disease, and allocating funding to create a Department of Health Pesticide Illness Monitoring and Prevention Program to do surveillance and outreach; and
    4. Encourages its members, partners, individual health professionals and health professional associations to become familiar with the identification, treatment and reporting of acute and chronic illnesses linked to pesticide exposure; to educate patients on the health effects of pesticide exposure and encourage reduction of pesticide use in the home; and to report incidents of pesticide-related illness to state agencies and encourage patients to do the same.

    1. Grube A, Donaldson D, Kiely T, Wu L. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage, 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates. U.S. EPA. February 2011.
    2. Marquez EC, Schafer KS. Kids on the Frontline, How Pesticides are Undermining the Health of Rural Children. Pesticide Action Network of North America. May 2016.
    3. Landrigan P, Mattison DR, Babich HJ, Boardman B et al. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy Press, Washington DC,1993.
    4. Grandjean P, Landrigan P. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology. 2014;13(3):330-38.
    5. U.S. EPA. America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Washington, DC. 2011.
    6. Lafiura KM, Bielawski DM, Posecion NC Jr, Ostrea EM Jr, et al. Association between prenatal pesticide exposures and the generation of leukemia-associated T(8;21). Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;49(5):624-8.
    7. Emerenciano M, Koifman S, Pombo-de-Oliveira MS. Acute leukemia in early childhood. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2007;40(6):749- 60.
    8. Infante-Rivard C, Weichenthal SJ. Pesticides and childhood cancer: an update of Zahm and Ward's 1998 review. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2007;10(1-2):81-99.
    9. Marquez EC, Schafer KS. Kids on the Frontline, How Pesticides are Undermining the Health of Rural Children. Pesticide Action Network of North America. May 2016.
    10. Shelton, Janie F., Estella Marie Geraghty, Daniel J. Tancredi, Lora D. Delwiche, Rebecca J. Schmidt, Beate Ritz, Robin L. Hansen, and Irva Hertz-Picciotto. “Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Prenatal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticides: The CHARGE Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives, June 23, 2014. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307044.
    11. Bennett D, Bellinger DC, Birnbaum LS, Bradman A, Chen A, Cory-Slechta DA, Engel SM, Fallin MD, Halladay A, Hauser R, Hertz-Picciotto I, Kwiatkowski CF, Lanphear BP, Marquez E, Marty M, McPartland J, Newschaffer CJ, Payne-Sturges D, Patisaul HB, Perera FP, Ritz B, Sass J, Schantz SL, Webster TF, Whyatt RM, Woodruff TJ, Zoeller RT, Anderko L, Campbell C, Conry JA, DeNicola N, Gould RM, Hirtz D, Huffling K, Landrigan PJ, Lavin A, Miller M, Mitchell MA, Rubin L, Schettler T, Tran HL, Acosta A, Brody C, Miller E, Miller P, Swanson M, Witherspoon NO. 2016. Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks. The TENDR Consensus Statement. Environ Health Perspect 124:A118–A122; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP358.
    12. American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement, Pesticide Exposure in Children. Pediatrics. 2012;130(6):e1757-63.
    13. U.S. DHHS, NIH, National Cancer Institute. 2008-2009 Annual Report, President’s Cancer Panel. Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk What We Can Do Now. April 2010.
    14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion, Exposure to Toxic Environmental Agents. October 2013, Number 575, reaffirmed 2016.
    15. MN Department of Agriculture sales data, http://www2.mda.state.mn.us/webapp/lis/chemsold_default.jsp.
    16. Pesticide Action Network, Pesticide database http://www.pesticideinfo.org
    17. Guyton, Kathryn Z et al. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. The Lancet Oncology, 2015;16(5):490-91.
  • April 30, 2017 12:35 PM | Anonymous

    WHEREAS, a large and growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates adverse effects on neurodevelopment among children with blood lead concentrations above 5 μg/dL, including lower IQ, reduced cognitive ability and academic aptitude, as well as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)andconductdisorder(CD)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11;and

    WHEREAS, an alliance of 48 leading scientists, health professionals and advocates agree that environmental toxins, including lead, are putting children at risk for adverse effects on neurodevelopment12; and

    WHEREAS, MPHA’s 2009 resolution entitled Protecting Children from Harmful Effects of Lead in the Environment presents the scientific evidence for adverse effects on brain development and behavior at blood lead levels of 5 ug/dL and supports policies that set a blood lead level of concern at 5 ug/dL to protect the health and brain development of children; and

    WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)13 and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)14 now recognize 5 ug/dL as a reference blood lead level to identify children whose blood lead levels are higher than most children; and

    WHEREAS, 1.1 % of Minnesota children tested by 3 years of age had blood lead levels of 5 ug/dL or higher15 and African-American children as a group and children from lower-income families (of any racial or ethnic background) are subject to disproportionately high exposures16; and

    WHEREAS, lead is still found in the soil, especially in urban areas, and in paint in 75% of the homes built before 17 18 19; and

    WHEREAS, lead in drinking water can be a significant source of exposure for children due to the presence of lead in older (pre-1930) water pipes, lead-based solder and brass components in pre-1985 plumbing18; and

    WHEREAS, lead is also found in recycled waste tires used as playground mulch and synthetic turf athletic field infill19, exposing children and athletes when they play; and

    WHEREAS, MDH has identified lead as a priority chemical under the Toxic Free Kids Act, indicating a key exposure for children20; while the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission bans lead in most toys and child care articles for younger children, it is still found in many consumer products, including imported pottery and candy, antique or imported toys, crafts and jewelry materials, wheel weights, and fishing tackle, batteries, and some products for older children and pets; and

    WHEREAS, lead-based ammunition is one of the greatest unregulated sources of lead discharged into the environment and the second largest annual use of lead in the U.S., accounting for over 60,000 metric tons in 2012, and lead-based ammunition poses significant health risks to humans, especially gun users and people who consume wild game,21 22 23 24 25 including pregnant women and children;26 27and

    WHEREAS, banning lead in ammunition reduces wildlife28 and human exposure to lead for people who consume wild game29 30 and banning lead in paint and gasoline has resulted in significant reductions in blood lead levels31: These interventions demonstrate the value of public policy in reducing human exposure to lead; and

    WHEREAS, investment in lead exposure prevention can yield great economic returns: Decades after the phase-out of lead from gasoline and paint, children‘s lead exposure from other sources still costs the U.S. economy an estimated $50.9 billion per year in lost productivity when children become adults of working age32; MDH estimates the cost in Minnesota alone is $1.9 billion in 2014 dollars33.

    THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Public Health Association:

    1. Urges state and federal regulators to restrict the remaining uses of lead in consumer products and urges businesses to eliminate lead from their supply chains and products.
    2. Recommends that health professionals integrate knowledge about all sources of lead exposure into patient care and public health practice.
    3. Urges policymakers to accelerate the clean-up of past uses of lead, such as in paint and water pipes and better regulate industrial uses of lead to prevent future discharges.
    4. Recommends a moratorium on new uses of recycled waste tire mulch and crumb rubber in playgrounds and athletic fields to prevent children’s exposure to lead and other toxicants.
    5. Recommends a comprehensive approach to reducing the use of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle - including public policy and education - to reduce risks to humans and wildlife.

    1. Canfield RL, Henderson CR Jr, Cory-Slechta DA, Cox C, Jusko TA, Lanphear BP. Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead concentrations below 10 μg/dL. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;348(16):1517-26.
    2. Jusko TA, Henderson CR, Lanphear BP, Cory-Slechta DA, Parsons PJ, Canfield RL. Blood lead concentrations <10 μg/dL and child intelligence at 6 years of age. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2008;116(2):243-8.
    3. Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, Yolton K, Baghurst P, Bellinger DC, Canfield RL, Dietrich KN, Bornschein R, Greene T, Rothenberg SJ, Needleman HL, Schnaas L, Wasserman G, Graziano J, Roberts R. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an international pooled analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2005;113(7):894-9.
    4. Surkan PJ, Zhang A, Trachtenberg F, Daniel DB, McKinlay S, Bellinger DC. Neuropsychological function in children with blood lead levels <10 μg/dL. Neurotoxicology. 2007;28(6):1170-7.
    5. Téllez-Rojo MM, Bellinger DC, Arroyo-Quiroz C, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, Mercado-García A, Schnaas-Arrieta L, Wright RO, Hernández-Avila M, Hu H. Longitudinal associations between blood lead concentrations lower than 10 μg/dL and neurobehavioral development in environmentally exposed children in Mexico City. Pediatrics. 2006;118(2):e323-30.
    6. Lanphear BP, Dietrich K, Auinger P, Cox C. Cognitive deficits associated with blood lead concentrations <10 μg/dL in US children and adolescents. Public Health Reports. 2000;115(6):521-9.
    7. Miranda ML, Kim D, Galeano MA, Paul CJ, Hull AP, Morgan SP. The relationship between early childhood blood lead levels and performance on end-of-grade tests. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007;115(8):1242-7.
    8. Braun JM, Kahn RS, Froehlich T, Auinger P, Lanphear BP. Exposures to environmental toxicants and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006;114(12):1904-9.
    9. Chiodo LM, Covington C, Sokol RJ, Hannigan JH, Jannise J, Ager J, Greenwald M, Delaney-Black V. Blood lead levels and specific attention effects in young children. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 2007;29(5):538-46.
    10. Nigg JT, Knottnerus GM, Martel MM, Nikolas M, Cavanagh K, Karmaus W, Rappley MD. Low blood lead levels associated with clinically diagnosed attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and mediated by weak cognitive control. Biological Psychiatry. 2008;63(3):325-31.
    11. Braun JM, Froehlich TE, Daniels JL, Dietrich KN, Hornung R, Auinger P, Lanphear BP. Association of environmental toxicants and conduct disorder in U.S. children: NHANES 2001-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2008;116(7):956-62.
    12. Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks. The TENDR Consensus Statement. Environ Health Perspectives 2016;124(7):A118-A122.
    13. Centers for Disease Control, Update on Blood Lead Levels in Children https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/acclpp/blood_lead_levels.htm accessed July 26, 2016.
    14. Minnesota Department of Health, Blood Lead Screening Guidelines for Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women in Minnesota (August 2015) http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/lead/guidelines/ accessed July 26, 2016.
    15.  Minnesota Department of Health, https://apps.health.state.mn.us/mndata/lead_level accessed July 26, 2016.
    16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Children‘s Health Protection. America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses, 2nd Edition. EPA Pub. No. 240-R-03-001. Washington, DC, February 2003.
    17. Minnesota Department of Health, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/lead/homes/ accessed July 26, 2016.
    18. Minnesota Department of Health, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/lead/fs/common.html#food accessed July 26, 2016.
    19. Brown DR, Artificial Turf - Exposures to Ground-Up Rubber Tires, Environment & Human Health Inc., 2007.
    20. Minnesota Department of Health, Toxic Free Kids Act Priority Chemicalshttp://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/toxfreekids/priority.html#chemicals accessed July 26, 2016.
    21. Bellinger DC, Bradman A, Burger J, Cade TJ et al. Health Risks from Lead-Based Ammunition in the Environment – A Consensus Statement of Scientists. Environ Health Perspectives 2013;121:A178-A179.
    22. Pain DJ, Cromie RL, Newth J, Brown MJ et al. Potential hazard to human health from exposure to fragments of lead bullets and shot in the tissues of game animals. PLoSOne. 2010;5(4):e10315.
    23. Grainger Hunt W, Watson RT, Oaks JL, Parish CN et al. Lead bullet fragments in venison from rifle-killed deer: potential for human dietary exposure. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5330.
    24. Iqbal S, Blumenthal W, Kennedy C, Yip FY et al. Hunting with lead: association between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. Environ Res. 2009;109(8):952-9.
    25. Meltzer HM, Dahl H, Brantsaeter AL, Birgisdottir BE et al. Consumption of lead-shot cervid meat and blood lead concentrations in a group of adult Norwegians. Environ Res. 2013;127:29-39.
    26. Taylor CM, Golding J, Emond AM. Intake of game birds in the UK: assessment of the contribution to the dietary intake of lead by women of childbearing age and children. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(5):1125-9.
    27. Green RE, Pain DJ. Potential health risks to adults and children in the UK from exposure to dietary lead in gamebirds shot with lead ammunition. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50(11):4180-90.
    28. Legagneux P, Suffice P, messier JS, Lelievre F et al. High risk of lead contamination for scavengers in an area with high moose hunting success. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e111546
    29. Mateo R, Vallverdu-Coll N, Lopez-Anita A, Taggart MA et al. Reducing Pb poisoning in birds and Pb exposure in game meat consumers: the dual benefit of effective Pb shot regulation. Environ Int. 2014;63:163-8.
    30. Couture A, Levesque B, Dewailly E, Muckle G et al. Lead exposure in Nunavik: from research to action. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2012;17:18591.
    31. Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5608a1.htm#tab1
    32. Trasande L, Liu Y. Reducing the staggering cost of environmental disease in children, estimated at $76.6 billion in 2008. Health Affairs 2011;30(5):863-70.
    33. Minnesota Department of Health, The Economic Burden of the Environment on Two Childhood Diseases: Asthma and Lead Poisoning in Minnesota, December 2014. http://www.health.state.mn.us/tracking/pubs/BurdenReport.pdf
  • April 30, 2017 8:31 AM | Anonymous

    WHEREAS, firearm injuries and the use of firearms in violent acts are a threat to the wellbeing of Minnesota residents across the state; and,

    WHEREAS, 410 firearm fatalities occurred in 2015 in Minnesota1; and,

    WHEREAS, between 2010-2014, there were 1,559 firearm suicide deaths reported in Minnesota2; and,

    WHEREAS, it is estimated that about 500 Minnesota residents are hospitalized or receive emergency care as a result of firearm injuries each year3; and,

    WHEREAS, fatal and non-fatal gun injuries cost Minnesota $764 million per year in healthcare costs, criminal justice expense, employer costs, and lost income4; and,

    WHEREAS, this cost increases to an estimated $2.2 billion per year with the addition of reduced quality of life caused by pain and suffering4; and,

    WHEREAS, a study by the Urban Institute found that one less gun homicide in Minneapolis in a given year was associated with the creation of 80 jobs and an additional $9.4 million in sales across all businesses in the following year4; and,

    WHEREAS, the cost of gun violence in Minnesota is equal to 11% of the state’s yearly general fund spending4; and,

    WHEREAS, firearm related death rates are seven times higher in the states with the highest rates of household gun ownership when compared to states with the lowest rates of household gun ownership5; and,

    WHEREAS, people who live in a home with a gun are more likely to die by suicide than those without access to a firearm2; and,

    WHEREAS, In the United States, approximately 1.7 million children live in a home with access to an unlocked, loaded gun6; and,

    WHEREAS, a 1996 congressional appropriations bill stipulated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Similar restrictions were extended to other agencies (including the National Institutes of Health), although the legislation does not ban gun-related research outright7,8; and,

    WHEREAS, in two places in Minnesota state law there are prohibitions against the collection of data regarding guns, which prevents essential public health research from taking place9; and,

    WHEREAS, states that require background checks for all gun sales report a lower rate of suicide10, domestic violence homicide11, and police killed with handguns12; and,

    WHEREAS, in Minnesota, no background check is required to purchase through a private sale or transfer, which makes it easy for those who are prohibited from possessing a gun under federal and state law, to obtain a firearm4; and,

    WHEREAS, three laws most strongly associated with reduced homicide-specific firearm mortality are universal background checks for firearm purchase, background checks for ammunition, and firearm identification13; and,

    WHEREAS, laws requiring firearm identification are associated with reduced suicide-specific firearm mortality13; and,

    WHEREAS, devising an effective public health approach for Minnesota must recognize both the health impact of the misuse of firearms and the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms; and,

    WHEREAS, previous MPHA gun violence prevention resolutions have supported state and federal legislation that would: (1) limit the access to handguns and high-powered assault pistols; (2) maximize the ability to limit firearm permits to only those who are legally permitted to own one; (3) minimize the number of permits to carry loaded, concealed weapons; (4) limit the purchase of handguns to a maximum of one per month; (5) prevent firearms from entering the illegal gun market; and (6) maximize the ability of law enforcement to identify and penalize those who provide firearms to young people and others who are prohibited from possessing them.

    THEREFORE, the Minnesota Public Health Association resolves that:

    First, funds should be allocated to conduct surveillance for all forms of violent injury and research regarding the role of firearms in violence, and the effectiveness of different types of firearm laws and prohibitions in Minnesota state law against collecting gun-related data should be overturned so that date can be collected for the sole purpose of public health research and policy development;

    Second, firearm owners should store guns unloaded and locked, with ammunition locked separately, to reduce unintentional injury and suicide risk.

    Third, background checks should be implemented universally, including firearm purchases and exchanges, coordinated with national efforts to close all loopholes in the current system, including online, gun show, and individual firearm sales;

    Fourth, firearms sellers should be held accountable by law enforcement and statute when selling to prohibited purchasers;

    Fifth, all agents selling and exchanging firearms should be licensed and tracked; in the event that a non- licensed seller wishes to sell a firearm, it should take place at a Federal Firearm Licensee location;

    Sixth, ammunition purchases should be taxed to fund firearm injury prevention efforts;

    Seventh, “military-style assault weapons” with magazines in excess of ten rounds should be banned because of the potential of these firearms to be used in mass shootings; and

    Eighth, MPHA opposes the carrying of concealed and non-concealed firearms in public places, except those carried by law enforcement.

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [online]. (2014) Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html.
    2. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The Truth About Suicide & Guns. Available at: http://www.bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
    3. Minnesota Department of Health, Injury and Violence Prevention Unit. Web-based Minnesota Injury Data Access System (MIDAS) [online]. (2016) Available at: http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/midas/violence/index.cfm
    4. Minnesota Coalition for Common Sense. The Economic Cost of Gun Violence in Minnesota: A Business Case for Action. (2016). Available at: http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2016/12/The-Economic-Cost-of-Gun-Violence.pdf
    5. Harvard School of Public Health: Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Homicide – Suicide – Accidents – Children and Women. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health. (2009). Available at: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death
    6. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The Truth About Kids & Guns. Available at: http://www.bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-kids-guns
    7. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP. Silencing the science on gun research. JAMA. 2013;309(6):549-550.
    8. Rubin R. Tale of 2 agencies: CDC avoids gun violence research but NIH funds it. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1689-1691.
    9. MN Statute 144.05 and 625.714
    10. Everytown for Gun Safety. State Background Check Requirements and Suicide. Available at: http://every.tw/1Aj9CVz 11
    11. Everytown for Gun Safety. State Background Check Requirements and Rates of Domestic Violence Homicide. Available at: http://every.tw/1Aj9HZj
    12. Everytown for Gun Safety. State Background Check Requirements and Rates of Firearm Homicide Against Law Enforcement. Available at: http://every.tw/1Aj9JAy
    13. Kalesan, Bindu et al. Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study. Te Lancet, 2016;387(10030):1847–1855
  • May 31, 2015 11:14 AM | Anonymous

    Statement of MPHA Position: Climate change is a public health problem that requires planning, policies, and actions to reduce harmful health and ecological impacts.

    WHEREAS, our state, country, and world are experiencing climate change that impacts health; and

    WHEREAS, climate hazards have affected Minnesota counties to varying degrees, including disaster declarations for flooding and drought1, and all counties have vulnerable populations, which may change and grow over time; and

    WHEREAS, populations that are already particularly vulnerable such as communities of color, the elderly, young children, and low-income populations, will bear the burden of negative health impacts of climate change2,3; and

    WHEREAS, atmospheric influences such as increases in greenhouse gas emissions, ambient temperatures, precipitation, and humidity cause disruptions in human environment that threaten the health and vitality of human communities4; and

    WHEREAS, state experts in climatology have identified several climate trends that affect Minnesota in particular, such as rising annual temperatures and more extreme precipitation patterns with more heavy rainfall from storm activity4; and

    WHEREAS, extreme precipitation patterns pose an economic threat to Minnesota’s agricultural sector and other industries that could impact food security; and

    WHEREAS, there is evidence that warmer weather leads to increased incidence of heat-related illnesses such as heat stroke, heat exhaustion, or even death, and greater incidence of vector- borne diseases such as Lyme Disease5; and

    WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Health has been granted Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) program funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention intended to help select states prepare for and adapt to climate and extreme weather events in order to lessen or prevent adverse health outcomes4,6; and

    WHEREAS, the prevention approach of public health is crucial to ensuring that climate change has a limited impact on public health and safety and ascertains that preparedness will remain a central focus in efforts working toward community resiliency in the face of climate change7.

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Public Health Association:

    1. Calls on policy makers and state leaders to comprehensively approach the ecological impacts of climate change on health, including the use of mitigation and adaptation strategies at the local and state levels; and
    2. Supports leadership by the Minnesota Department of Health, the University of Minnesota system schools, and other entities to study, analyze, provide data, and recommendations, training, technical assistance, and funding in support of efforts to address the negative impacts of climate change on state and local communities; and
    3. Encourages its partners and members to establish and strengthen plans and programs that involve their communities in using public health prevention strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate changes; and
    4. Pledges to help its members and other stakeholders readily access resources regarding climate change from credible sources, including the American Public Health Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as organizations named above.

    1. Raab, K. K. May 2015. Health implications of a changing climate. Minnesota Medicine.
    2. American Public Health Association. August 2014. Fact Sheet, Get the Facts: Climate Change is a Public Health Issue. Accessed at http://www.apha.org/~/media/files/pdf/topics/environment/apha_climate_chg_phissue_4d.ashx.
    3. Miller, J., Hoverter, S. P., & Vinci, L.F. August 2015. B4: Public Health Opportunities to Address the Health Effects of Climate Change.
    4. Minnesota Department of Health. February 2015. Minnesota Climate and Health Profile Report 2015: An Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the Health and Well-being of Minnesotans. Accessed at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/climatechange/docs/mnprofile2015.pdf.
    5. Luber, G., & McGeehin, M. (2008). Climate change and extreme heat events. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 429-435.
    6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). CDC's Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) Framework. Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/brace.htm.
    7. American Public Health Association. April 2011. Climate Change: Mastering the Public Health Role, A Practical Guidebook. Accessed at https://www.apha.org/~/media/files/pdf/factsheets/climate_change_guidebook.ashx.
  • May 31, 2015 11:00 AM | Anonymous

    WHEREAS, recent reports from the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirm the public health threat from growing antibiotic resistance1,2;

    WHEREAS the CDC, World Health Organization and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) all acknowledge that antibiotic use and overuse in food animal production contributes to the human threat from antibiotic resistance3,4,5;

    WHEREAS, the American Public Health Association passed a Policy Statement “Addressing the Problem of Bacterial Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents and the Need for Surveillance” in 1999, which acknowledged the unnecessary and harmful usage of antibiotics in animals6;

    WHEREAS, it is fundamental to microbiology that use of antibiotics provides the selection pressure that tends to select for the emergence and propagation of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria;

    WHEREAS, data collected from the pharmaceutical industry by the FDA since 2009 indicate that sales of antimicrobials for use in food animals are more than 4-fold higher, by volume, than sales for human usage, and increased by 16% from 2009 to 2012.7

    WHEREAS, classes of antibiotics that are “medically important”, including cephalosporins, tetracyclines, penicillins, macrolides, aminoglycosides and sulfa drugs accounted for 61% of total antibiotic sales for use in food animals in 20128

    WHEREAS, current FDA proposals to the pharmaceutical industry to voluntarily restrict the sale of medically important antibiotics for use in food animals apply only to the use of antibiotic products in animal feed or water for so-called “production uses”, i.e. growth promotion, feed efficiency and weight gain, but would not address ongoing and routine use of many of these same products in animal feed at similar or identical dosages for disease prevention and/or control, so long as they were ordered via a veterinary feed directive (VFD) or veterinary prescription 7,8

    WHEREAS, FDA’s voluntary proposals in any case, do not take effect until December 2016 or, in the case of its to-be-revised VFD, is not yet final;

    WHEREAS, recognizing the limitations in the FDA approach, a bipartisan bill called the Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act has been re-introduced in the U.S. Senate that would require FDA to withdraw its approval for uses of medically important antibiotics for disease prevention or control that are at high risk of abuse, unless the producer of the drug can demonstrate that its use in agriculture does not pose a risk to human health.9

    WHEREAS, McDonald’s USA announced March 4, 2015 that it would no longer allow use of medically important antibiotics by its chicken suppliers, and would seek to discourage similar uses in beef, pork and egg supplies in the future.10

    Therefore, be it resolved that the Minnesota Public Health Association:

    Encourages bulk purchasers of foodstuffs, including restaurant chains, school and hospitals, to adopt policies encouraging and, where feasible, requiring procurement of foodstuffs from animals raised with no medically important antibiotics or, alternatively, from animals only given such antibiotics on a non-routine basis and for a diagnosed disease.

    1. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President on Combating Antibiotic Resistance, September 2014, Available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_carb_report_sept2014.pdf
    2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Atlanta: CDC; 2013. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf
    3. Ibid.
    4. World Health Organization website, “Antimicrobial Resistance”, Available from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/.
    5. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2012. Guidance #209: the Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/animalveterinary/guidancecomplianceenforcement/guidanceforindustry/ucm216936.pdf.
    6. American Public Health Association (APHA). 1999. Policy Statement #9908: Addressing the Problem of Bacterial Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents and the Need for Surveillance. Available from http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health- policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/29/11/51/addressing-the-problem-of-bacterial-resistance-to-antimicrobial-agents-and- the-need-for-surveillance
    7. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Antimicrobial Animal Drug Distribution Summary Reports on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, 2009,2010,2011,2012. Available from http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/AnimalDrugUserFeeActADUFA/
    8. Ibid, page 26, Table 3 of 2012 Summary Report.
    9. The PEW Charitable Trusts, “Gaps in FDA's Antibiotics Policy: Manydrugsmaystillbeavailableforfoodanimalsatgrowth-promotionlevels,” Nove30,2014.Availableathttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/11/gaps-in-fdas-antibiotics-policy.
    10. Food Safety News, “Senators Reintroduce Bill to Combat Antibiotic Overuse,” March 3, 2015, Available at http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/03/senators-reintroduce-bill-to-reduce-antibiotic-overuse-in-food- animals/#.VPz_IWTF8tI.
    11. McDonald’s Corporation website, Press release, dated March 4, 2015, “McDonald’s USA Announces New Antibiotics Policy and Menu Sourcing Initiatives”, Available at http://news.mcdonalds.com/US/releases/McDonald%E2%80%99s-USA-Announces-New-Antibiotics-Policy-an.
  • May 31, 2015 10:55 AM | Anonymous

    WHEREAS, having access to paid sick time is a social determinant of health in that it supports the financial stability of many families living on the edge of poverty; and 

    WHEREAS, safe time allows for time off for reasons related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking safe time allows for time off for reasons related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;

    WHEREAS, the American Public Health Association passed a Policy Statement in 2013 supporting comprehensive paid sick leave and family leave policies1;

    WHEREAS, 40% of all working Minnesotans in the private sector lack access to even one paid sick day2; and

    WHEREAS, being sick or having a child who is sick leaves many Minnesotan families unable to afford basic necessities and can result in not only the temporary loss of income, but also the loss of a job; and

    WHEREAS, the United States is the only developed country that does not require employers to provide paid sick leave3; and

    WHEREAS, there is a disproportionate rate of people of color low income people who do not have access to this benefit making it a health equity issue4; and

    WHEREAS, access to earned sick time decreases health care costs by increasing preventive health visits5 and well-child visits6 while decreasing emergency room usage7 and resulting in improved management of chronic disease8; and

    WHEREAS, access to earned sick time slows the spread of infectious disease, especially influenza, when workers are able to stay home when sick causing more cases of disease and more instances of death related to infectious diseases9 10 11; and

    WHEREAS, members of the Minnesota Benefits Coalition; which includes labor, nonprofits, faith communities, worker centers and public health; have come together to support the “Earned Sick and Safe Time” bill in the Minnesota legislature; and WHEREAS, the Earned Sick and Safe Time bill would allow workers in Minnesota to earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, therefore giving families the ability to care for themselves and their loved ones without losing valuable income or their employment.

    Therefore, be it resolved that the Minnesota Public Health Association:

    1. Supports policies that provide earned sick time benefits to all employees in the state, including the proposed Earned Sick and Safe Time bill.
    2. Supports the right of local governments to strengthen local laws that give Minnesota families a paid sick time benefit.

    1. American Public Health Association. Public Health Policy Statement: Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies. Nov 05 2013 Policy Number: 20136 Available at: http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy- database/2014/07/16/11/05/support-for-paid-sick-leave-and-family-leave-policies
    2. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee benefits in the United States, March 2012, Table 6. Selected paid leave benefits. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.nr0.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    3. Heymann J, Rho HJ, Schmitt J, Earle A. Contagion Nation: A Comparison of Paid Sick Day Policies in 22 Countries. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research; 2009.
    4. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee benefits in the United States, March 2012, Table 6. Selected paid leave benefits. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.nr0.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    5. Collins SR, Davis K, Doty MM, Ho A. Wages, health benefits, and workers’ health. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2004/Oct/Wages--Health-Benefits-- and-Workers-Health.aspx. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    6. Hamman MK. Making time for well-baby care: the role of maternal employment. Matern Child Health J. 2011;15:1029–1036.
    7. Cook WK. Paid sick days and health care use: an analysis of the 2007 National Health Interview Survey data. Am J Ind Med. 2011;54(10):771–779.
    8. Hamlett KW, Pellegrini DS, Katz KS. Childhood chronic illness as a family stressor. J Pediatr Psychol. 1992;17(1):33–47.
    9. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated CDC estimates of 2009 H1N1 influenza cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the United States, April 2009–April 10, 2010. Available at: www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    10. Drago R, Miller K. Sick at work: infected employees in the workplace during the H1N1 epidemic. Available at: http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/sick-at-work-infected-employees-in- the-workplace-during-the-h1n1-pandemic. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    11. Kumar S, Grefenstette JJ, Galloway D, Albert SM, Burke DS. Policies to reduce influenza in the workplace: impact assessments using an agent-based model. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(8):1406–1411.
  • May 31, 2015 10:50 AM | Anonymous

    WHEREAS, having time to take care of loved ones when they are sick, and bonding with a new child without losing valuable income or employment is a social determinant of health; and

    WHEREAS, the United States is the only industrialized country to not guarantee paid benefits to new parents1; and

    WHEREAS, the American Public Health Association passed a Policy Statement in 2013 supporting comprehensive paid sick leave and family leave policies2

    WHEREAS, only 12% of the US workforce has paid leave to care for a new child or a sick loved one3; and

    WHEREAS, the number of employees without this benefit is disproportionately people of color, low income people, and women making this a health equity concern4; and WHEREAS, federal law (FMLA) only allows employees to take UNPAID time off for these events and has restrictions that mean less than 60% percent of the workforce have access to that unpaid leave5; and

    WHEREAS, the public health community has acknowledged for a long time now the importance of development and investment in the earliest part of life; and

    WHEREAS, paid family leave would allow parents to bond with children, and therefore has been shown to: decrease infant mortality,6,7 decrease maternal depression (a known “Adverse Childhood Experience”),8 increase breastfeeding rates,9 increase use of well child visits,10 decrease stress for new parents,11 better management of chronic diseases in children,12 and there is evidence that shows there are a myriad of potential cognitive development benefits to bonding between a parent and child in the first few weeks of life13; and

    WHEREAS, allowing an employee to take paid time off when a loved one is sick decreases the stress of caregiving and also decreases health care costs by allowing familial caregivers to take the time to be present14; and

    WHEREAS, no family should have to choose between caring for a child or a loved one and being able to afford basic necessities; and

    WHEREAS, no family should have to face the added stress of losing their job or struggling to make ends meet when their family is facing a crisis; and

    WHEREAS, the Paid Family Leave Bill in Minnesota would allow all employees in Minnesota to take paid time off (up to 12 weeks) for the birth of a child or illness and/or death of a family member.

    Therefore, be it resolved that the Minnesota Public Health Association:

    1. Support policies that provide earned family leave to all employees in the state, including the proposed state Paid Family Leave Act, which provides all workers in Minnesota paid time off to care for loved ones in the event of a birth, adoption, illness or death of a family member.
    2. Supports the right of local governments to strengthen local laws that give workers the right to paid family leave.

    1. GlynnS,FarrellJ.TheUnitedStatesneedstoguaranteepaidmaternityleave.Availableat: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/03/08/55683/the-united-states-needs- to-guarantee-paid-maternity-leave/. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    2. American Public Health Association. Public Health Policy Statement: Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies. Nov 05 2013 Policy Number: 20136 Available at: http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy- database/2014/07/16/11/05/support-for-paid-sick-leave-and-family-leave-policies
    3. National Partnership for Women and Families. The case for paid family and medical leave. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/PFML_The_Case_FINAL.pdf?docID=7848. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    4. US Department of Labor. Balancing the needs of families and employers: family and medical leave surveys. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/chapter3.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    5. National Partnership for Women and Families. The case for paid family and medical leave. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/PFML_The_Case_FINAL.pdf?docID=7848. Accessed December 12, 2013.
    6. Ruhm CJ. Parental leave and child health. J Health Econ. 2000;19(6):931–960. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    7. Rossin M. The effects of maternity leave on children’s birth and infant health outcomes in the United States. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):221–239. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    8. Chatterji P, Markowitz S. Family leave after childbirth and the mental health of new mothers. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2012;15(2):61–76. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    9. Ogbuanu C, Glover S, Probst J, Liu J, Hussey J. The effect of maternity leave length and time of return to work on breastfeeding. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):e1414–e1427. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    10. Hamman MK. Making time for well-baby care: the role of maternal employment. Maternal Child Health J. 2011;15:1029–1036. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    11. Staehelin K, Bertea PC, Stutz EZ. Length of maternity leave and health of mother and child—a review. Int J Public Health. 2007;52(4):202–209. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    12. Hamlett KW, Pellegrini DS, Katz KS. Childhood chronic illness as a family stressor. J Pediatr Psychol. 1992;17(1):33–47. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    13. Ruhm CJ. Parental leave and child health. J Health Econ. 2000;19(6):931–960. (As cited in APHA Policy Statement 20136: “Support for Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Policies”.)
    14. National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregiving in the U.S. Available at: http://www.caregiving.org/pdf/research/CaregivingUSAllAgesExecSum.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 

Search our website!

©️ 2024 Minnesota Public Health Association 

A registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software