Inside Prevention

NYT's Kristof sounds alarm re: toxic chemicals and disease

Have mainstream journalists been too dismissive of the connection between toxic chemicals in our everyday environment and increasing rates of development disorders, cancer and other illnesses? Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times thinks so. In his latest hard-hitting column on the importance of the precautionary principle in chemical reform, Kristof writes:

[I]n the case of great health dangers of modern times — mercury, lead, tobacco, asbestos — journalists were too slow to blow the whistle. In public health, we in the press have more often been lap dogs than watchdogs.

Kristof says while “there’s a danger of sensationalizing risks,” there is a critical need to educate the public and government officials about the about the ever-mounting evidence linking industrial chemicals in consumer products – phthalates in cosmetics, bisphenol A in food containers, and many more – to autism, breast and prostate cancer, and reproductive disorders. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who is writing legislation to rewrite the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act, told Kristof that of more than 80,000 chemicals on the market, the EPA has conducted safety testing for only 200.

Kristof’s column is not just a clarion call for chemical reform, but a reminder that what scientists and doctors call the precautionary principle is just common sense. If you aren’t sure whether a wild mushroom is safe, don’t eat it. If we aren’t sure that phthalates and BPA are safe – and in fact, a preponderance of evidence suggests they may be harmful – why take chances?

Saving our skin (San Francisco Magazine, March 2010)

The San Francisco Bay Area is ground zero for natural and organic - including skincare. Not coincidentally, it's also the home of the Breast Cancer Fund and the affiliated Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, as reported in the new issue of San Francisco Magazine:

[T]he activists decided to create the Campaign for Safe Cos­metics, and turned to the San Francisco–based Breast Cancer Fund to host it. The powerful fund, the only national organization devoted solely to exploring the environmental causes of breast cancer, has also helped push laws banning toxic chemicals from toys and was instrumental in the 2003 passage of San Francisco’s pioneering Precautionary Principle ordinance, which requires the city, when making any decision, to choose the alternative that poses the least potential threat to health or the environment. Together, the CSC and the fund began to argue that cosmetics were a powerful teaching tool about the reach of toxic chemicals in our lives. (Read complete article.)

EPA backs off BPA. But why?

The chemical industry is at it again--defending the toxic plastics chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, to anyone who will listen. This time, was it the EPA who was listening?
 
Meg Kissinger of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – whose relentless 3-year investigation has uncovered mountains of dirt on BPA and the government’s failure to regulate it – recently reported that eight days after industry lobbyists met with Obama administration officials, the EPA released a list of chemicals subject to stricter labeling and reporting requirements. BPA wasn’t on it.

That was surprising, given that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had been talking tough about the need to protect the public from hazardous chemicals, including BPA, a hormone-disrupting chemical in baby bottles, sports water bottles and the lining of food cans. In September, Jackson singled out BPA as a "chemical that can affect brain development and has been linked to obesity and cancer."

According to White House notes, on Dec. 22 five lobbyists from of the American Chemistry Council, plus two representatives of BPA manufacturer SABIC, met with four officials from the Office of Management and Budget – the agency that advises the White House about the economic impact of federal policy. Kissinger reported that the lobbyists “aggressively pleaded [the industry’s] case that BPA should not be flagged for greater regulation.”

Lobbyists for the trade group presented studies - most of which the industry paid for - that downplayed the risks of the chemical. They complained that the EPA's plan to designate certain chemicals as a "chemical of concern," prompting tougher scrutiny, will hurt their profits. And they asked the government for preferential treatment - to give them notice of any action before letting the public know.

On Dec. 30, the EPA announced its list of “chemicals of concern”  that will face stricter regulation, omitting BPA despite the fact that it met most of the criteria cited for the others. It’ll be two years before EPA adds more chemicals to the list.

Hmmm.

When the Journal Sentinel asked Jackson about the chain of events, she said only that EPA is "working diligently to address chemicals that may pose a risk to the public and the environment." So when will the EPA act on BPA?

Domino effect: more states move to restrict BPA

For those of us who care about public health and chemical safety, the progress of the campaign against bisphenol A is like watching the electoral map on Election Night, waiting for another state to change color. For the chemical industry, it must feel like the story of the Dutch boy and the dike – every time they try to plug a leak, another bursts through.

The movement to ban or restrict BPA – the hormone-disrupting carcinogen found in hard plastics like baby bottles and sports water bottles, and in food can linings – is spreading from the West Coast to the Midwest to the Eastern Seaboard, and across the Atlantic to Europe. Bans on BPA in baby bottles and some other children’s products are in place in Minnesota, Connecticut, Chicago and three counties in New York.

Last week, Wisconsin and Maryland took big steps toward banning BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups for children age 3 and under. Wisconsin’s bill passed the state Assembly 95-2, and having already passed the state Senate unanimously, is headed this week to the desk of Gov. Jim Doyle, who is expected to sign it.  Maryland’s bill passed the House 137-0, and is headed to the Senate, where its sponsor believes it has “a good chance this year.”

"Today, we are putting the safety and well‐being of citizens before corporate profits," Wisconsin State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, the bill’s co-sponsor, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

Unfortunately, the chemical industry’s $10 million lobbying campaign did succeed in getting lawmakers in both Wisconsin and Marland to weaken the bills so they do not ban or restrict BPA in the sports water bottles used by adults. That’s also the case in Washington state, where different versions of legislation banning BPA in baby bottles have passed the House and Senate, but the differences must be reconciled before the bill can be sent to Gov. Christine Gregoire.

Meanwhile, the Danish Parliament moved earlier this month to expand Denmark’s ban on BPA in baby bottles to include all food contact packaging materials for products aimed at children, including packaging used for infant formulas as well as foods and soft drinks aimed at toddlers. The Parliament also called on the Danish government to press for a European Union-wide moratorium on the use and sale of food contact materials with BPA.

So where’s the U.S. Congress in all this? Playing catch-up. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts have introduced legislation, supported by the Breast Cancer Fund, to ban BPA in all food and beverage containers, but the bills have not yet had either committee hearings or floor votes. Stay tuned.

California signals intent to add BPA to state's toxics list

California's Environmental Protection Agency today made a critical move in adding bisphenol A to the state's Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects.

Cal EPA said on its Web site today that BPA "appears to meet the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity." The agency is now soliciting public comments (add your thoughts!) regarding listing BPA.

The upside for Californians is that once BPA is listed, manufacturers and retailers may have to disclose the presence of BPA in products they sell in California.

The upside for residents of other states? In many cases, manufacturers have chosen to remove Prop. 65 chemicals from their products rather than label them, which could mean safer products nationwide.

You might recall that last summer the state failed to list BPA on Prop. 65 through a hearing process, of which the Breast Cancer Fund and some of our amazing advocates were a part. This new listing opportunity was put into motion via a different Prop. 65 process by our colleagues at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It's yet another knock for BPA, a chemical that doesn't belong in our food, our drinks or our kids' bottles.

FDA steps up radiation safety efforts

The terrible irony of medical radiation, be it mammography, X-rays, CT scans or radiation treatment, is that it not only diagnoses and treats cancer, it also causes cancer.

As individuals we weigh the risks vs. benefits. But we have no control over errors in treatment, which it turns out may be more common that anyone really knows. A gripping new series by the New York Times chronicles software flaws, improper training of radiation technicians, miscalibration of equipment and other errors that lead to overradiation, sometimes resulting in the patient's death.

Today the FDA stepped in to tackle CT scans, nuclear medicine and fluoroscopy, which deliver far higher doses of radiation than X-rays or mammograms. The agency's new proposal would require manufacturers to incorporate safeguards in the design of these machines to prevent overradiation.

According to the Times, no single agency oversees medical radiation, accidents are chronically underreported, many workers who have made mistakes during a patient's radiation therapy are still practicing, and, through a rather strict New York law, hospitals that report medical mistakes can have their identity shielded.

While today's news and the Times article focus on acute reactions to excess radiation, the long-term lifetime risk of cancer is also a serious concern -- a concern that we hope the FDA will address in the near future.

Some strides have been made, including the Breast Cancer Fund's successful passage of a California radiation standards law in 2005. Today's FDA announcement is good news, but we have far to go to ensure patients receive the lowest possible dose of radiation.

Slow Death by Rubber Duck

On Tuesday evening in San Francisco, the Breast Cancer Fund and the Center for Environmental Health sponsored a reading by two of our Canadian colleagues, Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, of their new book, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things. 

I know, it sounds ominous and terrifying, but as the authors claim, the book is actually “downright hopeful.”

The frightening news first: There are over 80,000 chemicals in use today in the United States, with 700 new ones added every year. Less than 10 percent have been fully tested for their effects on human health, and only five have ever been banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act, our current and broken system for regulating chemicals in this country. Not even asbestos, a well-known carcinogen, has been banned in the U.S.

Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defense Canada, and Lourie, an environmental consultant and funder, began working together to test a variety of Canadians for the presence of these chemicals in their bodies, a process known as biomonitoring.

The study soon became personal. On a dare, they decided to exposure themselves over a week to common off-the-shelf food and personal care products, making sure to mimic everyday life. They had their urine and blood tested at the beginning of the week and again at the end of the week, and they focused the study on the presence and levels of seven key chemicals that are some of the most pervasive in everyday products and surroundings, including phthalates, Teflon and mercury.

For example, their lunch would simply consist of a tuna sandwich or canned food that was microwaved in plastic (tuna contains high levels of mercury and bisphenol A (BPA) is found in can linings and hard plastics). They would also shower and shave using commonplace personal care products, and they sat in a living room with a plug-in air freshener and furniture sprayed with STAINMASTER (personal care products contain a variety of chemicals including phthalates and lead, as well as “fragrance” which allows companies to avoid disclosing its ingredients, and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are used in water-repellant fabrics). 

I won’t give anything way, but I think you can guess what happens.

Smith and Lourie took on a simple but powerful science experiment – one that the average American goes through every day and, for the most part, is unaware of.

There is a happy ending to this book, though. Outside of telling an entertaining story, the book provides helpful, everyday tips for reducing your exposures. (HINT: if you’re still microwaving in plastic, stop!) They also cite some of the significant progress happening globally, giving credit to the growing movement concerned about the impact of this “new pollution” on human health and the work being done by organizations, including the Breast Cancer Fund, to eliminate the environmental causes of disease through proper chemical regulation.

And, after you buy the book (which we highly recommend) look to Chapter 2 for a recap of the Breast Cancer Fund’s successful campaign to rid phthalates from children’s toys, told through our own director of program and policy, Janet Nudelman!