Inside Prevention

Flame retardants prompt historic vote on Safe Chemicals Act

"We missed it."

Those were words from the head of the Environmental Protection Agency's chemical safety division, Jim Jones, to Senators last week. He was describing how a supposedly safer flame retardant marketed as Firemaster 550—now shown to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic—was approved by the EPA under our broken Toxic Substances Control Act. And he was appealing for a stronger law that would enable the EPA to protect Americans from toxic chemicals.

From a stunning investigative series in the Chicago Tribune, which uncovered the devious industry tactics that propelled huge quantities of toxic flame retardant chemicals into American homes, flame retardants have emerged as the poster child for how our current system of managing chemicals is failing.

As a direct result, tomorrow morning the Safe Chemicals Act is scheduled to be voted on for the very first time, in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It's the hopeful and historic moment we've been working toward for years.

While flame retardants aren't unique among chemicals in their toxicity, prevalence or industry maneuvering, they are grabbing attention—including the attention of lawmakers. In the last week, the Senate has held two hearings on the dangers of flame retardants. Yesterday retired San Francisco firefighter and cancer survivor Tony Stefani told lawmakers about the high incidence of breast cancer and other cancers among the city's firefighters.

"[I]t is probably too late for this generation of firefighters to be protected by a change in the current toxic flame retardant standard," said Stefani, "but the generations of firefighters to come will be forever thankful that this very important step was taken. One of the researchers of our flame retardant study made a profound statement by saying, 'You are the modern day canaries being sent into the cave.' With our rising rate of cancer this is very close to the truth. We urge the Committee to pass the Safe Chemicals Act."

As individual flame retardant chemicals have been banned, other toxic options have marched right into their places. In 1995, Firemaster 550 was presented as a safer alternative to older flame retardants like penta-BDE. But in his testimony to Senators last week, the EPA's Jones explained that Firemaster 550 "highlights the critical need for the agency to have greater evidence that new chemicals are safe prior to commercialization and to be able to take effective action after commercialization."

These public servants, who work every day to protect our health, are calling for change. We stand beside them in urging Senate committee members to pass the strongest possible version of the Safe Chemicals Act tomorrow. The bill's next step is a Senate floor vote.

FDA bans BPA in baby bottles -- but what does it really mean?

Too little, too late is how Janet Nudelman, the Breast Cancer Fund's Director of Program and Policy, characterizes the FDA's decision to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. The ban, announced today, will have little impact on the market, which has already turned away from BPA in children's products.

[G]iven that Canada, the European Union, China, and at least five other countries as well as 11 U.S. states have prohibited the use of BPA in children’s products, that every major baby bottle manufacturer has already stopped using the chemical, and that BPA is also found in canned food linings, some infant formula containers and other food packaging, this action is too little, too late.

...

Now the FDA needs to catch up. The FDA needs to take decisive action to ensure that all of us are protected from this toxic chemical.

Read Janet's complete statement and learn more about BPA and breast cancer.

Reducing breast cancer risk: what we've learned from the Women's Health Initiative

Ten years ago, the medical world was rocked by the discovery that estrogen-progestin hormone-replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and other diseases in post-menopausal women. Hundreds of thousands of women came off HRT and within a few years we saw the first-ever documented decrease in breast cancer rates.

The discovery was made by the government-funded Women's Health Initiative, a study designed to explore the benefits and risks of combined estrogen-progestin HRT in post-menopausal women. The study was halted in 2002 when researchers saw a 26 percent increase in the relative risk of breast cancer in women taking the combined estrogen-progestin HRT compared with those taking a placebo. There were also significant increases in the risk of heart disease, stroke and blood clots.

A follow-up study done three years later showed increases in invasive cancers in women who had been on HRT. But while breast cancer rates remained elevated in this group, there was a trend towards lower rates similar to those in the placebo group, suggesting that the increased risk for breast cancer from combined HRT is reversible within a fairly short period.

As we look at other chemical exposures linked to breast cancer, the WHI study and the resulting drop in breast cancer incidence should give us great hope. The study showed us that by eliminating an avoidable exposure to chemicals we can reduce breast cancer risk. It gave us a tangible example of why we do the work we do—why we work every day to reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation linked to the disease. So on this 10^th anniversary, we are thankful to the researchers and women who were part of the study. Because of their contribution, millions of women now have clear information about the risks of estrogen-progestin HRT, and all of us working to prevent breast cancer have a case study for why we must continue to call for more research on the causes of breast cancer and for action—by individuals, corporations and government—to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation linked to the disease.