Inside Prevention

FEMA Formaldehyde Cover-up Alleged

FEMA is under pressure again, this time from the House Homeland Security Committee, over an alleged cover-up of formaldehyde exposure from trailers provided to hurricane survivors.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita set down on U.S. soil in August 2005, displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Two and half years later, FEMA says 40,000 families are still living in "temporary" FEMA travel trailers.

From the beginning, trailer occupants complained of fumes and classic symptoms of over-exposure to formaldehyde: headache, chronic nosebleeds, asthma, bronchitis and sinus infections. It turned out that these government-provided trailers were off-gassing toxic levels of formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde, used as a preservative in plywood and other construction materials, is a known carcinogen. So when it came to light that FEMA continued to distribute the toxic trailers to families even after they knew of the formaldehyde issue, the Breast Cancer Fund asked its supporters to write letters to President Bush in August 2007. Our ask then: an executive order to FEMA to stop distributing the tainted trailers and replace those already in use with formaldehyde-free trailers.

Now, FEMA stands accused of stifling the release of information that formaldehyde in the trailers could be harmful, and of ignoring a CDC recommendation that the trailers were for temporary use only, not to be lived in.

Our hope now: that FEMA comes clean about formaldehyde exposure and moves all 40,000 families out of trailers and into safe, toxin-free environments.

Said Rep. Nick Lampson, who is asking for more information from FEMA and CDC: "Not following good science in advising people to do things as they try to recover from one tragedy is indeed a much greater tragedy this is compounding."

The Link Between Global Warming and Breast Cancer

Say "environment" today, and many brains go straight to global warming and polar bears floating on shrinking islands of ice. And understandably so.

When we say "environment," the Breast Cancer Fund is often talking about a closer, more personal environment: our cosmetics, our plastic containers, pesticides in our food, the stuff we use to clean the counters and dismantle the weeds from our lawns. We speak less about the bigger pollution problems affecting our air, water, oceans and soil.

It's not for lack of evidence. A current example: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. They're in the air as a result of combustion, and they're linked to both global warming and breast cancer. (For more on the science of PAHs and breast cancer risk, check back in February when BCF releases our fifth edition of State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment.)

So it came as a blow to both the environment and public health when the U.S. EPA--the agency charged with protecting our environment--in December denied California permission to set stricter regulations on tailpipe emissions. With 16 other states in line to adopt California's standards, the proposed state rules would have affected as many as half of all U.S. drivers.

California and 15 states filed suit against the EPA in early January, and some in Congress are asking questions about how EPA could deny California's request--when even the EPA's own experts had advised approval.

You can voice your support for higher state emissions standards--for our personal AND environmental health--by sending an e-mail through our Web site, at www.breastcancerfund.org/emissions.

Congress Questions FDA and Manufacturers on Use of BPA in Children's Products

A congressional investigation was launched this week into the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s products.   Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations, sent letters to the Food and Drug Administration and seven major baby product manufacturers, including Nestle(Download nestle_bpa_ltr_011708.pdf) and Wyeth, questioning the presence of BPA in the lining of metal cans used for infant formula.

“We have learned that BPA may be contained in the material used to line cans that contain infant formula and that BPA from this lining may leach into the formula itself, thereby exposing babies to BPA.  We are interested to know how often BPA is used in such lining, whether the companies that produce the infant formula are aware that BPA is being used in this manner, and if they have tested their produce for the presence of BPA.”

The legislators specifically questioned the FDA (Download fda_bisphenol_a_ltr_011708.pdf ) on the credibility of a review they conducted in 2007 on the safety of BPA.  According to a November statement, the FDA indicated there was no “safety concern at the current exposure level” and that a dietary exposure of 3.7 parts per billion in canned foods and baby bottles does not warrant regulatory action.  The congressional letter calls on the FDA to release the studies that they used to formulate their claim.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel did an investigation into industry studies and panel reviews on BPA and found that disagreements with scientific reviews implicating BPA have come exclusively from plastics industry scientists.  The paper examined a December report by the National Toxicology Program claiming the chemical was of minor concern and found that the panel members gave more weight to industry-funded studies and rejected studies from universities and foreign governments examining the growing concerns of BPA at smaller doses.

BPA is one of the most universal and pervasive chemicals in modern life - found in baby bottles, lining of metal food cans, dental sealants and countless other products - and has been linked to wide array of health concerns, including breast cancer.  Because BPA is an unstable polymer, it can leach into infant formula and other food products.  CDC researchers have found the endocrine disrupting chemical in 95 percent of urine samples from a broad national sample of adults.  A study released this week from the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology found that the chemical may be far more dangerous for infants and young children because they lack the enzymes necessary to break the chemical down into inactive form.