Inside Prevention

Calif. governor proposes reforms to landmark toxics law (Environment & Energy Publishing, 5/8/13)

Calif. Governor Jerry Brown has proposed significant reforms to Prop. 65, the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. We generally support the Brown administration's efforts—particularly when it comes to warning labels. Brown's proposal would make warning labels much more specific, telling people about particular chemicals while providing tips on how to minimize exposure.

We also support efforts to limit frivolous lawsuits that don’t make California’s products any safer. While there may be some unscrupulous attorneys only looking to make a quick buck using Prop 65, it is important to note that many Prop. 65 lawsuits have propelled momentum on regulations of toxic substances including caramel coloring and lead.

Despite our support of these items, we are concerned about one portion of the proposed reform. Brown is considering lowering the threshold levels of chemicals that would trigger warning labels. Though his newly proposed no-observed-adverse-effect levels may make sense for some chemicals, endocrine disruptors like BPA and phthalates require a more nuanced approach since they can be harmful (especially to pregnant women, infants and children) at extremely low doses. In the end, any provisions should maintain the integrity of Prop. 65 and avoid rendering it toothless regulation.

Gretchen Lee Salter, the Breast Cancer Fund's senior policy manager, was recently interviewed for an E&E article about the proposed changes: 

The law has "really been successful taking toxic chemicals out of consumer products," said Gretchen Lee Salter, senior program and policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. Companies have reformulated items rather than disclosing chemicals, she said, because landing on the state's Proposition 65 list is like the "Scarlet Letter."

"We just want to make sure that any reforms that may happen, that we don't lose that aspect of Proposition 65," Salter said.

And as other states enact toxics policies and create lists of problematic chemicals, they often look to the Golden State's list as authoritative, she said, adding "we want to make sure that California maintains its leadership."

Salter also said she was concerned that the process of changing the law could open the door for the chemical industry lobby to advance the rewrites it wants.

We’ll continue to work with the administration to ensure Prop 65  protects public health in the way it always has.

The E&E story is not available online, but you can read more about Gov. Brown's proposed changes in the San Francisco Chronicle and the LA Times.

Media Roundup: Metals linked to breast cancer found in lipsticks (5/2/13-5/6/13)

A UC-Berkeley study finds that many common lipsticks contain heavy metals like cadmium and chromium, which are both linked to breast cancer. Our Campaign for Safe Cosmetics broke the story about lead in lipstick 6 years ago, but this latest research also tested for concentrations of additional metals.

Breast Cancer Fund Director of Science Sharima Rasanayagam was quoted in The Huffington Post:

"It's definitely a preliminary study and something that needs more research, but we're concerned about there being potentially toxic chemicals in lipstick and consumers not knowing about it."

Rasanayagam was also featured in The San Jose Mercury News and Mother Jones, which directs readers to our State of the Evidence on Cadmium and Other Metals web page:

"Cadmium, for example, is a carcinogen that has been found in breast cancer biopsies and shown to cause cancer cells to multiply in lab experiments. Metals are often used in mineral dyes, which give lipstick its pigment, and are also often found in soil and groundwater. 'Cadmium is a very common contaminant in soil,' says Sharima Rasanayagam, a scientist at the Breast Cancer Fund. 'What's concerning is that consumers don't know they're in the lipstick.'"

Since cosmetics companies and the FDA have failed to take steps to protect consumers from toxic metals found in lipsticks, consumers must educate themselves about how to make safe choices. Lipstick lovers may want to start cutting back on the product, saving it for special occasions, or to choose safer options. Parents should prohibit children from wearing lipstick because toxic metals found in these products are too dangerous for developing minds and bodies.

Check out our Storify, which is tracking the buzz.

Does ExxonMobil have your senator's ear?

If you live in Louisiana, the answer is yes. But even if you don't, you might want to chat with the public officials you voted into office.

We see a lot of chemical industry shenanigans in our legislative efforts to protect people from toxic chemicals, both in Washington and in statehouses. But this is too much:

Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, last year opposed the Safe Chemicals Act, and pledged to write his own bill on chemical regulations. Based on reports of who he's been meeting with—Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil—and who he's not—no health or environmental groups, to our knowledge—this bill promises to be less about protecting people from toxic chemicals than about protecting chemical companies from regulation. 

Now Sen. Vitter is trying to drum up bipartisan support for his "Pro-Chemicals Act." If you're not sure where your senators stand on chemicals policy reform, now's the time to ask.

We suspect Sen. Vitter's bill will be introduced around the same time as Sen. Lautenberg reintroduces the Safe Chemicals Act—a classic case of strategic confusion. But make no mistake: the Lautenberg bill is the one that protects our health.

In fact, a recent federal advisory committee report on breast cancer points to key elements of the Safe Chemicals Act—safety standards that protect human health (and follow recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics), required safety reviews of new chemicals by manufacturers, action on chemicals found to be toxic—in its recommendations for breast cancer prevention.

By contrast, Sen. Vitter has gone on record opposing both the safety standard proposed in the Safe Chemicals Act and safety reviews for new chemicals.

Email or call your senator's office now and ask him or her to steer clear of Sen. Vitter's bad bill and instead support Sen. Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act. ExxonMobil and Sen. Vitter don't speak for us.

Media Roundup: Groundbreaking report on breast cancer and the environment (2/11/13- 3/7/13)

A congressionally mandated federal advisory committee of leading breast cancer experts, co-chaired by Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo, released a report on Feb. 12 entitled "Breast Cancer and the Environment: Prioritizing Prevention." The report could mark a turning point in how our government acts on breast cancer, and it generated the attention of more than 80 media outlets across the country including:

Courier Journal

The Philadelphia Inquirer

The China Post

WTOP-FM

HealthyCal

Los Angeles Daily News

Can certain jobs cause breast cancer? A new study suggests yes (The Daily Beast, 11/21/2012)

Florence Williams, author of the acclaimed book, Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History, spoke with Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo for a piece on The Daily Beast describing a new Canadian study.

The study authors found a higher risk of premenopausal breast cancer among women working in factories that make canned foods and plastic parts for automobiles:

Both the automotive and canning industries are known to use chemicals that affect hormone systems in lab animals, such as BPA, phthalates, and flame-retardants. Phthalates, which are used to make plastic malleable for molding car interiors, have been associated with lower sperm counts in men. BPA, used in the lining of food cans, has been banned from some products in Canada.

“The U.S. has not conducted this kind of workplace study,” said Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, a California-based nonprofit. “Federal agencies should immediately look into similar occupations in this country and take this seriously.” (Read complete article.)

Study spotlights high breast cancer risk for plastics workers (Center for Public Integrity, 11/19/2012)

Researchers have found a fivefold increase in breast cancer risk for pre-menopausal women who worked in factories that make food cans or plastic automotive parts, as compared to a control group from the same industrial community. In the course of their work, these women were likely exposed to carcinogens and hormone-disrupting chemicals like BPA, phthalates and flame retardants.

The study was published today in the journal Environmental Health; the Center for Public Integrity interviewed Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo for an in-depth story also out today: 

“These workplace chemicals are now present in our air, water, food and consumer products,” said one of the two principal investigators, James Brophy, an adjunct faculty member at the University of Windsor and a former occupational health clinic director. “If we fail to take heed then we are doing so at our own peril.”

Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco-based group that has pressed for more research into environmental causes of a disease that claimed nearly 40,000 lives in the United States last year, called the Windsor study “a very powerful piece of work. The piece that’s really been missing for female breast cancer is occupation.” (Read complete article.)

This is big news—and a call to action for industries and governments to do more to protect workers from toxic chemicals.

Fracking and health: Our right to know and responsibility to protect

Does fracking cause breast cancer? Circulating in the news this week is debate about the impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on breast cancer rates.

Though a conclusive link to breast cancer has yet to be established, we do know a few important facts about fracking and our health:

1. Through fracking, we are pumping enormous quantities of water with unknown mixtures of chemicals—some of them known carcinogens—into fracking wells (1).
2. Most of that water-and-chemical mix comes back out of the wells and has to be stored and disposed of safely.
3. Natural gas and other volatile emissions (again, some of which are known carcinogens) from the wells and other equipment and vehicles used in the process cause local air pollution.

The potential exposure of local communities to unknown toxic chemical cocktails through potential contamination of underground water sources, spills from waste storage facilities, unsafe disposal practices and local air pollution illustrates our ongoing failure to consider and protect public health when implementing this new energy extraction technology.

We share the concern of scientists, advocates and the communities that are struggling to understand what fracking means for local health in the absence of vital information.

In order to identify potential health impacts, we need full disclosure on exactly which chemicals are being pumped into fracking wells, and data on which of them are showing up in the air and water in surrounding communities. We need extensive monitoring of fracking sites before and after fracking takes place, and we need to closely examine possible health and ecological impacts.

Moreover, we need this disclosure and monitoring to be consistent across the whole country—not a patchwork of state-by-state legislation that is poorly coordinated and enforced (see the recent NRDC report to find out more (2)). At the very least, we need federal legislation requiring full disclosure of the chemicals used to frack wells, ongoing monitoring of exposures, and a focus on protecting the health of both workers and local residents.

1. "Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing." U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff Report, April 2011. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf. Accessed August 2012.
2. "State Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rules and Enforcement: A Comparison." Natural Resources Defense Council, July 2012. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/fracking-disclosure.asp. Accessed August 2012.

Lessons from our Mothers: Joey Beauregard

In honor of Mother's Day this Sunday, our partners in the Safer States network are publishing a series of blogs, Lessons from our Mothers. Breast Cancer Fund advocate, Climb Against the Odds team member and breast cancer survivor Joey Beauregard shared a lesson from her mom for the series:

If everyone else jumped off of a bridge, would you? My mother drove those words into my head like a mantra. During my adolescence when I tried desperately to fit in, I heard them every day. Although my mother complained that her advice went in one ear and out the other (another phrase she liked to use), I did listen. Her wisdom has become a cornerstone on how I view the world today.

When I was 44, I received a diagnosis of breast cancer. Given that I had no family history of the disease, ate a healthy diet and exercised regularly, I could not understand why this happened to me. Within a few weeks of my diagnosis, I learned of other young women in my neighborhood that had also been told they had breast cancer during the past year.  We had all lived in our neighborhood for at least 16 years at that time. We also lived 1/2 mile from the Tower Chemical Superfund site where DDT and other toxic chemicals had polluted our environment.

I began questioning if our proximity to the waste site had caused our cancer. In search of an answer to my question, I reached out to the Florida Department of Health, the Florida Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA. Although none of the government agencies I contacted would admit that Tower Chemical had caused our cancer, the EPA did commence cleanup of the Tower site.

After learning what I could about toxic chemicals, I came to the realization that pollution in our environment affects more than just my neighbors and myself. It is a crisis that is affecting all of us. No matter where we live, we eat food, drink water and breathe air that is likely to be contaminated with toxic chemicals--and these chemicals are often hidden ingredients in every day products, like toys, cookware, shower curtains, even food containers. Mounting scientific evidence is linking the chemicals in our environment to breast cancer and a host of other diseases.

Our current chemical laws are outdated. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed in 1976.  Of the over 84,000 chemicals on the market today, the EPA has required testing on only a few hundred of them. Only 5 chemicals have been restricted since TSCA went into effect. The chemical industry would have us believe all these chemicals are safe, but the growing scientific evidence suggests otherwise.

The Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847) was introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey in April of 2011.  The legislation addresses many of TSCA’s breakdowns. S. 847 will require a chemical to be proven safe for all people before it can be sold, require chemical companies to supply health risk information about their products to the EPA and consumers, setup a prioritization system for chemical testing and action that gives the highest priority to chemicals that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic and will encourage development of safer chemicals.

It is time for our government to enact the Safe Chemicals Act to protect us from the toxic chemicals that lurk in our environment. Chemical companies are attempting to turn the clock back and erase the modern science that is reflected in this bill. I am not willing to jump off a bridge with the chemical companies leading the way. Are you?

Joey Beauregard lives in Clermont, Florida and was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 44 after living near a toxic waste site for 16 years. In 2010 Joey participated in the Breast Cancer Fund's Climb Against the Odds, climbing Mt. Shasta to raise awareness and funds to eliminate toxic chemicals in our environment. She hopes for a day when sound laws are put in place to keep all of us safe from toxic chemicals in our environment.

Kaiser Permanente detoxes AND saves money

Great news! Yesterday, health-care giant Kaiser Permanente announced it would stop using IV medical equipment made with the toxic chemicals PVC and DEHP.

 

When PVC is made, vinyl chloride—a known human carcinogen— is released, so any move to reduce the use of PVC plastic decreases our exposure to these toxic pollutants linked to cancer. DEHP is one of a group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals called phthalates that have complex effects on several hormonal systems. DEHP has been shown in lab studies to increase breast cancer cell proliferation and to interfere with breast cancer treatment.

 A Washington Post story notes that this switchover affects nearly 100 tons of medical equipment — 4.9 million IV tubing sets and 9.2 million solution bags — each year. Great, right? But it gets better: the change is also expected to save Kaiser almost $5 million a year.

Way to go, Kaiser, for showing that you can do the right thing to reduce toxic exposures and even save money along the way.

Quit the pesticide man (Huffington Post, 1/5/2011)

The "Dirt Diva" herself, Annie Spiegelman, has a great recommendation for your new year: ditch the pesticides. That includes household weed killers, chemical fertilizers, rat poison, ant traps, cockroach killer...all that stuff designed to kill other living things is likely not so good for you.

She wrote a piece on the Huffington Post this week featuring our Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) colleague Kristin Schafer, and together they do a great job weaving strawberry pesticides, breast cancer (and our State of the Evidence report), the problem with the EPA, safe cosmetics and being a Debbie Downer into something that you really do want to read:

Annie: Recent scientific studies show that the weedkiller atrazine changes the sex of male frogs. The pesticide methyl iodide, which is a known neurotoxin (nerve poison), will now be legal to fumigate onto California strawberry fields. American beekeepers believe the pesticide clothianidin, with a soil half-life of up to 19 years in heavy soils, is taking away their livelihoods. The latest President's Cancer Panel report on carcinogens in our environment is especially gloomy. Should we all just go hide under the covers?

Kristin: No. The more we know, the smarter choices we can all make. For the first time ever, the President's Cancer Panel analyzed the contribution carcinogens in our environment play in causing cancer. The Bush-appointed cancer scientists on the Panel found that the importance of these chemicals has been dramatically underestimated. They were so concerned that they actually recommended President Obama do something: get toxic chemicals that cause cancer out of our food, water and air. (Read complete article.)