Inside Prevention

Will Your Canned Soup Carry a Warning Label? (Rodale, 4/12/2013)

A Rodale article about California’s declaration that BPA would be added to the state’s list of Prop 65 chemicals quotes our policy manager, Gretchen Lee Salter:

“The Prop 65 listing is yet another indictment of this toxic chemical that industry continues to argue is safe, despite waves of peer-reviewed scientific studies finding that BPA harms reproduction and is linked to breast cancer," says Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. "And the listing is happening the same week that the French government began warning pregnant women to avoid BPA because fetal exposure has been linked to later-life breast cancer. This is a seriously toxic chemical that none of us should be exposed to." Read the full article here.

Proposition 65 requires the governor of California to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The law also requires labeling of  products that contain high levels of these chemicals, but because BPA can exert negative effects at extremely low levels, environmental health advocates and state officials are still hashing out acceptable levels for labeling.  For more information on the health effects of BPA, check out our recently updated State of the Evidence on BPA.

California says BPA is toxic, France warns pregnant women

Gretchen Lee Salter, the Breast Cancer Fund's senior policy manager, reacts to this week's big BPA news.

There were two big strikes against BPA this week. Yesterday California added BPA to the state's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. 

On Monday, the French government warned pregnant women to stay away from BPA. In their warning, French authorities point to the numerous studies linking prenatal exposure to BPA with increased risk for later breast cancer. This warning comes on the heels of a new French law that will ban BPA from all food packaging, including food cans by 2015. 

The Prop 65 listing and French government's warning are powerful indictments of this toxic chemical that the industry has argued is safe, despite waves of peer-reviewed scientific studies finding that BPA harms reproduction, and is linked to infertility and breast cancer.

While I'm heartened by these steps, we need our governments and industry to take even more decisive action to protect the public health. We’ve known for years about the dangers of BPA, especially to pregnant women, who should not have to worry whether or not their canned food is toxic. When I was pregnant three years ago, I did everything I could to stay away from BPA in canned food. But I was lucky. I had access to fresh fruits and vegetables and alternatives to canned soups and meals.

The Breast Cancer Fund's Cans Not Cancer campaign is working to make sure everyone is protected from BPA. We're pressuring canned food manufacturers to stop using BPA and to ensure the safety of any alternative chemical used in its place. We're also working with states around the country and with members of Congress to pass legislation to require the labeling of canned food containing BPA.

So while we applaud California and France, we all need to call on governments and industry to get this toxic chemical out of our products.

 

Breast cancer ties to environment probed (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/2013)

News stories exploring the links between breast cancer and the environment are popping up all over the place. A great trend piece in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights some of the recent research and reports, and tells the story of Breast Cancer Fund Strong Voice Marika Holmgren who was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 37 and started to ask questions that spurred her into activism: 

Could it have been the chemicals in the blush and lipstick she once wore daily? Did it matter that she lives in Half Moon Bay, where breast cancer rates exceed the state average?

"When I got diagnosed, I really started to understand how many women were out there with very few risk factors, including myself," she said. "It makes us start to wonder, what can we be doing to lower those numbers and increase prevention and eradicate environmental risk factors?"

The San Francisco Chronicle also re-printed an Environmental Health News series that poses the question: 

"How can we begin to find a cure if we don’t first know the cause?"

The series features a longitudinal study of the environmental causes of breast cancer, which uses data from 15,000 Bay Area women.

Phthalates and BPA make an unexpected appearance

A new dietary intervention study suggests that an individual may not be able to avoid food packaging chemicals like phthalates (plastic softeners) and BPA (found in canned foods and older hard plastic containers) by cutting out canned and plastic-wrapped foods because these chemicals can—and do—enter the food during processing.

Researchers from the University of Washington replicated the 2011 Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute dietary intervention study and found DEHP (a phthalate used in food packaging) levels increased 24-fold during the intervention.

The researchers were puzzled by this finding—our study found phthalate and BPA levels declined during the intervention diet—so they followed up by testing spices and dairy used in the intervention diet. They found high levels of DEHP in spices like coriander, cinnamon and cayenne pepper, as well as in dairy products.

The researchers also found modest increases in BPA during the intervention. This finding may be due to a study population who already ate mostly fresh foods—in fact, only three of the 10 families who participated indicated eating canned foods.

These findings underscore the need for federal reform of food contact laws that can ensure chemicals linked to hormone disruption don't end up in our food supply. The FDA has the authority to regulate chemicals our food touches at all points in the process from field to table: from the type of plastic tubing used in milking equipment, to the containers spices are held in before being divvied up in store-shelf sizes, to the plastic wrap on supermarket cheese.

Our role is to see that the FDA actually uses this power to protect our health.

For more on this study, check out Fast Company (You’re Eating Toxic Chemicals, Even If You Eat Organic And Avoid Plastic) and the NRDC blog (What's for lunch? Likely a few hormone-disrupting chemicals - phthalates and BPA).

Eat like a Mennonite (New York Times, 1/18/2013)

What does it take for a modern American family to lower its BPA levels? Author Florence Williams offers a peek into her stint in the nearly-plastic-free world in an opinion piece for the New York Times:

On the second day of my chemical-detox diet, I was very hungry. I’d been eating like a rabbit, all carrots and greens that I’d gathered, barehanded, from the baskets of the farmer’s market, no gloves or plastic bags allowed. I cooked up some quinoa that I bought packaged in paper from the supermarket sometimes known as Whole Paycheck. I was effectively a vegan because I couldn’t find meat or cheese that wasn’t wrapped in plastic, and I didn’t have access to accommodating livestock.

My 7-year-old daughter and I were participating in a pilot study conducted in 2011 by the Silent Spring Institute and the Breast Cancer Fund (a follow-up study was published later that year in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives). We had urinated into some glass containers a few weeks earlier, back when we were "normal" Americans, and now we were spending three days trying to reduce our exposure to plastics before supplying our urine again.

As Williams notes, the "normal" phase of the study, which allowed for painted toenails and canned beans, was more fun. Yet it's possible to create modern conveniences that don't leave toxic traces in their human consumers.

Says Williams, "It's why we need the government to require testing of commercial chemicals for hormonal effects, and to regulate them in a meaningful way. And it's why we need manufacturers to design products with safer substances in the first place." (Read complete article.)

Prevention Is Power: Why it matters so much

As we wind down our October Prevention Is Power campaign, we're reminded of how important our work to prevent breast cancer is for our community, their loved ones and our collective future. Thank you, Liz, for sharing your powerful story. This blog post was also featured on Care2.com.

By Liz Jones, Guest Blogger

When something big and unexpected happens to you, when you get your socks knocked off and aren’t sure you’ll be able to find them any time soon, when you find yourself overwhelmed in a way you’ve never experienced before, what do you do? Sit still or pace around in circles? Get very quiet or talk to everyone? Pull the covers over your head or develop a game plan? Decide you have enough information or research, research, research?  In 1993 when I was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 48, I did all of the above.
 
Ten years later, after making many changes in my life and saying “yes” to several paths I would never have entertained during my prior-to-breast-cancer life, I was diagnosed with a second primary breast cancer. It was 2003 and I was 58. I was aware I was at risk for developing metastatic breast cancer, but it never entered my mind that my body might develop two unrelated breast cancer tumors. The nerve of it! I mean, after all!

This time around I made decisions more quickly and surely, and I became more convinced than ever that the causes of my two breast cancer tumors were related to my past. I now know I had been inadvertently exposed to carcinogens as a child. I grew up in the 1940s and 1950s in Niagara Falls, New York, home to inexpensive hydroelectric power and many chemical manufacturing plants. It was a time when the effects of chemical pollutants on our bodies were not well understood. I remember taking in the chemical smells and looking at the gray clouds of pollutants hanging over the city and telling myself they were my “bread and butter.” Hard to fathom now, but I actually viewed the pollutants positively. Well, now is very different from then, when I had completely bought into the popular marketing line, “Better living through chemistry.” The only downside I remember is our frequently wiping the accumulated layers of soot from our lawn furniture every summer.

The statistics tell us that 1 woman in 8 will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. Last month I was in Niagara Falls attending my 50th high school reunion. One evening as I sat around a table with six of my female classmates, the subject turned to breast cancer. We discovered that four of us have had breast cancer. I know this sample is small, but I believe our tally at the table that evening might well be telling us something.

In the fall of 1997 the Breast Cancer Fund entered my life. I began to learn about the effect of under-studied and unregulated chemicals on our bodies and our lives. Now I know that endocrine-disrupting chemicals and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives lurk in the products we use every day. I know that even very low doses of bisphenol A (BPA), found in the lining of food cans, can cause harm to babies and young children. I know that the beauty industry, whose products we slather all over our skin, manufactures products containing substances toxic to humans. I know that biomonitoring (measuring the levels of chemical pollutants in people’s bodies) and health-tracking programs (examining regional disease rates) are critical to larger efforts to reduce chemical exposures linked to disease.

And so I became a fundraiser and strong voice for the Breast Cancer Fund. To spread the word, I ask my community, year after year, to contribute to my hiking effort in the Breast Cancer Fund’s Peak Hike for Prevention. My loyal following of 50 appreciates both learning from me and making a financial contribution to this important work.

I also choose my personal care and household cleaning products carefully, bypassing the advertising and going straight to an examination of their contents. I buy locally grown, pesticide-free produce as much as possible, minimize my use of canned foods, choose wild fish over farmed, and free range chickens over those confined to crowded quarters in too-small cages. I try to “live lightly” on this earth, respecting its land, water, air and living things. And I model my behaviors and choices for my children and grandchildren – my most precious legacy. I see myself as one of the many human faces of people living with the effects of diseases linked to chemical exposure. Do you see yourself this way too?

Two-time breast cancer survivor Liz Jones is a mother of two and grandmother of six who lives in San Jose, California.

Prevention Is Power: Moving beyond breast cancer awareness (blog roundup, 10/2012)

Prevention Is Power! This October blogs have been buzzing about preventing breast cancer, not just putting a pink ribbon on it. Spread the word about our Prevention Is Power campaign, and check out what others are saying:

Glamour, 4 Easy Ways You Can Reduce Your Breast Cancer Risk in Your 20s and 30s

Mommy Greenest, Fight Breast Cancer, Carcinogen-Free. Also reposted at EcoStiletto, Cancer Kick and Yoga Blog. Plus, check out the accompanying video!

AlterNet, Corporations Cashing in Big Time on Breast Cancer -- 5 Shocking Hypocrisies

Living Green Magazine, Prevention is Power: A Better Goal for Breast Cancer

Everything's Abuzz, Breast Cancer Prevention Is Power

MommaWords, Why I’m detoxifying our life

Mommybites, Breast Cancer Awareness: Power in Prevention

Non-Toxic Kids, Protect Women, Prevent Breast Cancer

Celebrate Green, Let’s put focus on ​preventing cancer

Motherhood Moment, Healthy Habits: Prevention is Power

The Life Atlas, Prevention Is Power

Retro Housewife Goes Green, Toxic Chemicals and Pink Ribbons

The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide, Breast Cancer Fund offers tips for cancer prevention

Watch Jeanne Rizzo in conversation with Deepak Chopra and Seventh Generation CEO

We have really exciting news: On Wednesday, September 19 at 10:30 a.m. EDT/7:30 a.m. PDT, Breast Cancer Fund president and CEO Jeanne Rizzo will join Deepak Chopra and John Replogle, CEO of Seventh Generation, for a panel discussion on the findings of a new study on Americans' concerns about harmful chemicals and what we can do to ensure safer products. The discussion will be moderated by Sara Snow, green-living expert and TV host.

Watch it live right here! The video will continue to be available after the live webcast.

Watch live streaming video from seventhgeneration at livestream.com

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.

FDA one step closer to banning BPA in infant formula packaging

If you've been following the BPA issue closely, then you know that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been dragging its feet for years on regulating the toxic chemical. But this week we saw a glimmer of hope that the agency is poised for action: On June 6 the FDA accepted a petition from Rep. Edward Markey, D - Mass, to ban the use of BPA in infant formula packaging. Within 90 days the agency will file the petition in the Federal Register to allow for public comment and then propose a final rule that will change federal food packaging regulations so that BPA can no longer be used in infant formula packaging. There's also indication that the FDA will accept a similar petition filed by the American Chemistry Council to ban BPA from baby bottles.

There is virtually no U.S. infant formula or baby bottle manufacturer that still uses BPA. Still, an official ban would be significant not only because it would eliminate the possibility of any future use of BPA in infant formula packaging and baby bottles, but also because this would be the first federal restriction on the use of BPA in food packaging.

Assuming the bans are enacted, as it looks likely they will be, parents everywhere will be able to breathe a little easier knowing the infant formula and baby bottles they are buying are not contaminated with BPA. But that’s just the tip of the BPA iceberg, and the FDA still is not doing enough to protect us. The agency rejected petitions filed by Rep. Markey requesting a ban on BPA in baby food packaging, reusable food containers and food cans.

Why the mixed message? Why would the FDA say BPA should not be used in infant formula packaging and baby bottles, but still allow it in other food containers? BPA has been detected in the blood and urine of pregnant women, in the umbilical cord blood of newborns and in breast milk soon after women gave birth. A mountain of troubling lab research has linked BPA exposure to breast cancer and a host of other diseases. The FDA seems to be saying we should get it out of formula and baby bottles, but not out of the other packaging that exposes kids and pregnant women to BPA like baby food and canned foods.

According to Rep. Markey's office, the FDA says it was unable to move forward with the other petitions because it could not verify whether the major manufacturers in those industries that had abandoned the use of BPA represented the entire industry and because some canned food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola ConAgra and Pepsico, have openly opposed transition away from use of BPA.

Sorry, WHAT? So, the FDA won’t ban BPA in other food packaging because companies still want to use it and will oppose a ban? And because the agency needs assurance that the industry in question has stopped using BPA before it will tell that industry it can’t use it anymore? It’s a sobering reality to confront: the federal agency responsible for safeguarding our food supply is more concerned with maintaining the status quo than addressing the growing body of scientific evidence that makes it crystal clear that this hormonally active chemical has no place in our food supply.

So, while we’ll welcome a ban on BPA in formula and baby bottles, we won’t stop there. Not for a second. If the FDA won’t act on its own, then Congress needs to step in by quickly and pass Rep. Markey’s Ban Poisonous Additives Act, which would direct the FDA to ban BPA from all food packaging and to overhaul and modernize the outdated federal food packaging program that allowed BPA and other toxic chemicals into our food supply in the first place. Americans deserve nothing less.