Inside Prevention

DES and breast cancer lawsuit settled

Big news yesterday out of Boston: Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly has settled a case brought against it by four sisters who developed breast cancer in their forties, decades after their mother took the synthetic estrogen DES (Diethylstilbesterol) during her pregnancies. A total of 51 women have filed lawsuits in Boston against more than a dozen companies that made or marketed DES, and this was the first case to go to trial. The settlement was announced Wednesday on the second day of testimony.

This is the latest chapter in the tragic legacy of DES. Between 1938 and 1971, doctors prescribed DES for millions of pregnant women to prevent miscarriages – without having been tested for its effect on fetuses. It is now clear that not only was DES ineffective for preventing miscarriages but it had devastating effects on those exposed in the womb. The drug was banned when daughters of women who took the drug were found to have higher rates of an extremely rare vaginal cancer when compared to the daughters of women who did not take the drug. Later, evidence emerged that DES exposure is also associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in the women who took it during the 1950s.

In a follow-up study of daughters who were exposed prenatally to DES, a nearly twofold increase in breast cancer risk was observed in women older than age 40. An even greater effect was found for women over the age of 50, although relatively few of the daughters had yet reached that age at the time of the study. Women exposed in utero who had the most severe abnormalities of their vaginal epithelial cells (an indicator of exposures to higher doses of DES) also had a higher risk for developing breast cancer. The evidence about the health consequences of DES was one of the first indicators that exposure to endocrine-disrupting compounds in the womb can increase risk for later life breast cancer.

The story of DES should serve as a cautionary tale. This tale underscores the need for chemicals testing protocols that consider the risks of exposures early in life. We need chemical testing that looks at the effects of chemicals across the lifespan and that measures early signs for concern – such as exposure-induced changes to how the mammary gland develops – if we are going to prevent such tragic events in the future. And this evidence needs to be folded into comprehensive chemicals policies that ensure these kinds of exposures do not occur as the result of prescribed pharmaceuticals or from inadvertent exposure to chemicals used for other purposes. 

Chemical industry tries - again - to get rid of the Report on Carcinogens

Without the Report on Carcinogens, we would not have an unbiased, scientific federal government list of chemicals linked to cancer. And that's exactly why the chemical industry is trying to get Congress to defund it.

The National Toxicology Program has produced the Report on Carcinogens every few years for the last three decades. The Breast Cancer Fund bases our prevention work in part on the chemicals listed in the report, including the banned pesticide DDT, hormone replacement therapy and vinyl chloride. The RoC is one of the foundational sources for our State of the Evidence report, which, in turn, directs our public policy efforts and corporate campaigns.

In short, we need the Report on Carcinogens in order to protect public health.

The chemical industry, on the other hand, would like it to go away to protect profits. In fact, this latest attack on the RoC stems from last year's listing of styrene and formaldehyde, which of course industry opposed.

Today members of Congress received a letter signed by organizations representing thousands of parents, consumers, veterans, and environmental health advocates—including the Breast Cancer Fund—opposing this latest de-funding tactic. Breast Cancer Fund Director of Science Sharima Rasanayagam also signed on to a similar letter from scientists.

We'll continue to do everything we can to protect the Report on Carcinogens, for our health's sake.

For more on the chemical industry's latest maneuver, check out our colleague Jennifer Sass's post from the National Resources Defense Council's blog.

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.

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.

Guest blog: What's a mother to do?

By Lena Brook

I thought that I was in the clear. That I dodged some bullets. I had two healthy pregnancies, during which I tried to do all the right things: I avoided gas stations and mainstream cleaning products. I didn’t color my hair, polish my nails or smoke.  Now nine years later, I have two healthy and thriving little girls, and we try to create a healthy home together.

But then two weeks ago, I found myself at the 20th Anniversary celebration of the Breast Cancer Fund. The Breast Cancer Fund fights to get scientists, the medical establishment and policy makers to pay as much attention to the cause of breast cancer as the cure. During the evening, I was reminded once again how vulnerable women are to environmental exposure to chemicals, how our breast tissue is particularly sensitive. And most importantly, how puberty is a crucial window of vulnerability for girls, opening up channels of influence to chemicals much like those months in-utero. Only now our kids are older, a little more out of our grasp and control than when they were babies. Breast Cancer Fund President Jeanne Rizzo's speech shook me to the core. Suddenly, it feels like that bullet is coming right at me again.

My older daughter is on the cusp of puberty at 9 years old, my younger just a few years behind. All of those potent feelings I experienced during my pregnancies and their babyhood came flooding back. The momentary and false sense of control—if only I can buy the right sunscreen/feed them the right foods/clean with the right products, I can avoid unwanted exposures to environmental toxins like mercury, bisphenol A, phthalates, or flame retardants.  But now we know that exposure to these chemicals is beyond the control of any of us alone.

We as a society, for reasons complex yet unfolding, are foisting young girls into the turmoil of puberty long before they are developmentally ready. In 2010, researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center published a report on the effects of chemicals found in products we all have at home, like nail polish, cosmetics, perfume, lotion and shampoo. The results show a direct relationship between use of these products and early puberty development in girls. Studies have also linked early onset puberty to common household items, and foods like dairy and fish.

If only we collectively decided to honor their bodies’ natural trajectories and let them remain little girls for as long as was meant to be. As long as girls have over the course of history. Now, history is apparently a moving target, as implied by the title of a recent New York Times Magazine article on the topic of early puberty: “Puberty Before Age 10: A New ‘Normal’?” An article that unfortunately failed to mention any solutions to the problem of early puberty, like changing the way our country regulates the use of chemicals.

Which brings me to policy change, which is more imperative than ever. We know that changing our personal eating/cleaning/makeup/chemical use habits will only get us so far. As consumers, we should push the personal care, household products, and agricultural industries in the right direction. But at the same time, our legislators need to act to reform the outdated and broken 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and pass the new, updated Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which focuses on children’s health as a benchmark for chemical safety. Authored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and co-sponsored by 16 Senators, the Act will increase the safety of chemicals used in consumer products, and protect those most vulnerable to chemical exposure, like women and children.

Take action today to let your elected officials know there is strong public support for changing the way we regulate chemicals in the United States.

As for me, enough is enough. I don’t want my daughters dodging the same bullets for their daughters someday.

Lena Brook has advocated for environmental health and justice for over ten years with organizations like Clean Water Action, Health Care Without Harm and Physicians for Social Responsibility. She’s currently a strategic communications consultant with HavenBMedia in San Francisco and can be found blogging about all things related to food at A Happier Meal.

FDA warns of skin creams, lotions tainted with mercury (ABC7-TV San Francisco, 5/16/2012)

Mercury in imported skin-lightening creams is just the latest example of toxic chemicals in cosmetics. Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Breast Cancer Fund's Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, spoke with ABC7 News about how shoppers can protect themselves and explained the importance of the Safe Cosmetics Act.

(Read transcript.)

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.

Worth a read: How chemicals affect us

Nicholas Kristof calls out canned food and cosmetics as culprits and breast cancer as one tragic effect of our current stew of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. His latest column, published yesterday in the New York Times, makes a strong case for more research and better regulation of these chemicals.

Some of our Hereos, including Pete Myers (2008) and Linda Birnbaum on behalf of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2012) are involved with a new scientific analysis that raises flags about endocrine disruptors.

Big Chem says all this is sensationalist science. So far, it has blocked strict regulation in the United States, even as Europe and Canada have adopted tighter controls on endocrine disruptors.

Yes, there are uncertainties. But the scientists who know endocrine disruptors best overwhelmingly are already taking steps to protect their families. John Peterson Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences and a co-author of the new analysis, said that his family had stopped buying canned food.

“We don’t microwave in plastic,” he added. “We don’t use pesticides in our house. I refuse receipts whenever I can. My default request at the A.T.M., known to my bank, is ‘no receipt.’ I never ask for a receipt from a gas station.” (Read complete article.)

"Endocrine disruptor" is still a foreign term to most Americans, but this is an issue that needs your awareness and action. Read the article and pass it along.

Untested chemicals in beauty products? (ABC World News, 4/30/2012)

Women put an average of 120 chemicals—some linked to cancer and other health problems—on their bodies each day via cosmetics, shared Diane Sawyer on last night's ABC World News.

The Consumer Watchdog piece features our Director of Program and Policy, Janet Nudelman, and highlights the Safe Cosmetics Act, a proposed law supported by the Breast Cancer Fund and our Campaign for Safe Cosmetics that would protect our health.