Inside Prevention

It's best to avoid BPA, federal official says (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/12/2009)

The Breast Cancer Fund's concern about BPA in food and drink containers was echoed by a top health official in Saturday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The head of the primary federal agency studying the safety of bisphenol A said Friday that people should avoid ingesting the chemical - especially pregnant women, infants and children.

"There are plenty of reasonable alternatives," said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, in an interview with the Journal Sentinel.

While stressing she is not a medical doctor, Birnbaum said she has seen enough studies on the chemical to be concerned about its effects on human health. (Read complete article.)

Cancer from the kitchen? (NY Times, 12/5/09)

Another excellent op-ed from New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof, this time focusing on the endocrine disruptors in plastics, cosmetics and more that can put us at greater risk for diseases like breast cancer:

The battle over health care focuses on access to insurance, or tempests like the one that erupted over new mammogram guidelines.

But what about broader public health challenges? What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air -- or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves? (Read complete article.)

Ask Janet!

On the next few Fridays (and perhaps beyond), Breast Cancer Fund Science Advisor Janet Gray, Ph.D., of Vassar College, will lend her scientific expertise in environmental health to answering burning questions around the link between breast cancer and environmental exposures.

Question from Ariane, California:
I recently noticed that some of our office supplies promise antimicrobial protection. With H1N1 and the start of the flu season, it seems that everyone is crazy for antimicrobial products, but I have heard some concerns about what’s in these products. Do we have anything to be worried about?

Dear Ariane,
Antimicrobials are currently present in a wide array of consumer products, from household cleaners to mouse pads, and scientists have expressed growing concern over the presence of the chemical triclosan, which is prevalent in many of these disinfectants—especially liquid soaps. Studies have linked the chemical to a range of health and environmental issues, including skin irritation and thyroid disorders (a risk factor for breast cancer). The Environmental Protection Agency recently reapproved triclosan, but only for another five years. The agency’s concerns about the chemical convinced them to move the next review date to 2013, 10 years ahead of schedule.

Another concern with popular hand sanitizers is synthetic fragrance, found in most personal care products. Fragrance is considered a trade secret, which allows companies to avoid disclosing what it contains, but it’s often made up of dozens or even hundreds of synthetic chemicals. Some of the hazards of synthetic fragrance include allergens, phthalates, sensitizers, neurotoxins and synthetic musks.

Don’t despair! Thanks in large part to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (the Breast Cancer Fund is a founding member and leading partner), an increasing number of responsible companies are signing the Compact for Safe Cosmetics and setting a high bar in the marketplace by agreeing not to use toxic chemicals in their products. Several companies are producing hand soaps and sanitizers free of fragrance and triclosan. Two of these with known efficacy are CleanWell, whose effective ingredient is based upon thyme oil, and EO Products, whose germ-killing ingredient is 62% alcohol.

But really, the best thing to do on a regular basis is to wash your hands thoroughly with warm water and mild, non-toxic soap. It’s the safest and most effective route for staying clean and healthy. But when you feel you need to use disinfectants to get you through the winter season, look for safer choices—ones without triclosan or synthetic fragrance. 

Send your questions to Ask Janet! askjanet@breastcancerfund.org

Study: Chemicals, pollutants found in newborns (San Francisco Chronicle, 12/3/09)

Besides BPA, umbilical cord blood of American infants may be contaminated with synthetic musks, according to yesterday's EWG study. These musks are chemicals commonly used in "fragrance," that mystery ingredient in shampoo, lotion, spray cleaner and, yes, perfume.

Fragrance can contain dozens or even hundreds of ingredients, none of which appear on labels, some of which may be toxic and most of which have never been tested for long-term safety. This fragrance loophole is one of the reasons the Breast Cancer Fund, EWG and colleague organizations launched the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics five years ago, and why we continue to push for smarter laws and safer cosmetics for everyone.

The story about musks was picked up by the San Francisco Chronicle:

Chemicals from cosmetics, perfumes and other fragrances were detected along with dozens of other industrial compounds in the umbilical cords of African American, Asian and Latino infants in the United States, according to a national study released Wednesday....

Seven of the 10 babies had in their umbilical cord blood synthetic musks known as Galaxolide and Tonalide, which are toxic to aquatic life and have been shown in preliminary studies to cause hormonal changes.

The musk is used in scented soaps, perfumes and colognes, indicating the infants were contaminated by cosmetics their mothers used. (Read complete article.)

BPA found in 90% of newborns (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/3/09)

Breast Cancer Fund board member Dr. Janet Gray was quoted in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article today about EWG's cord blood study:

A study released Wednesday which found that nine of 10 babies tested were born with bisphenol A in their systems has renewed calls for the chemical to be banned..."It's alarming," Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. "What more evidence do we need to act?" (Read complete article.)

Babies are born pre-polluted with BPA

Bisphenol A (BPA), an estrogenic chemical linked to breast cancer and other health problems, has been found for the first time in the umbilical cord blood of newborn American babies, according to a study out today. It's hard evidence that BPA crosses the placenta from mom to child, and that babies are exposed to toxic chemicals during the critical period of development before birth.

The new biomonitoring study (measurements of chemicals in blood, etc.) was conducted by our colleagues at the Environmental Working Group. In all, EWG found 232 toxic chemicals in 10 cord blood samples from babies of African American, Asian and Latino descent born in the U.S. BPA was in 9 of the 10 samples.

Though previous studies indicate that 93 percent of Americans over 6 have BPA in their bodies, this is the first time the chemical's presence has been confirmed in children under 6.

We want BPA out of everyone, infant to adult. A chemical linked to breast cancer shouldn't be circulating in our blood.

The Breast Cancer Fund has been working with members of Congress to get BPA out of a primary source of exposure: food and beverage containers, including canned goods and reusable water bottles. The Ban Poisonous Additives Act was introduced earlier this year, and you can help move it through Congress by asking your senators to sign on as co-sponsors. Either send a letter via our Web site, or call your senate offices (use our legislator lookup tool to find phone numbers).