Inside Prevention

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.)

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Values. Trust. Power. Rizzo reflects on Komen controversy

Our president and CEO Jeanne Rizzo shares with the Breast Cancer Fund community her reflections on the controversy unleashed on Tuesday when Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced it would end its funding of Planned Parenthood's breast-health programs. Your comments are welcome!

Over the last few days, we’ve all watched as the Susan G. Komen for the Cure story broke and exploded. It has consumed my attention and dominated my conversations, as perhaps it has yours too.

I was disappointed by Komen's decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood's breast-health services, as I am whenever women's health and wellness programs are cut. I was concerned about the implications for the breast-cancer-prevention initiatives that Planned Parenthood and the Breast Cancer Fund partner on. My heart went out to the women who rely on Planned Parenthood's breast-health services, to the frustrated Komen supporters, and to those who unleashed their outrage online and in conversations everywhere. And I’m heartened that the outpouring of support for Planned Parenthood's breast-health services is forcing Komen to reconsider its decision.

As the president of the Breast Cancer Fund, this incident has made me think deeply about those who support our work and what they expect from us in return. I believe you expect us to have clear and unwavering values that guide all of our decision-making. I believe you need to trust us to hold true to these values, to be good stewards of your support and to do the most effective work we can to prevent breast cancer. And I believe that you need to have power—you need to know that your voice counts and that you can meaningfully contribute to stopping this disease before it starts.

Values. Trust. Power.

The Breast Cancer Fund’s values are clear and unwavering. We value working for a world in which we live without fear of losing our breasts or our lives as a result of what we’ve eaten, touched or breathed. That’s why we are single-focused in our work to identify and eliminate the environmental causes of breast cancer.

The Breast Cancer Fund works every day to earn your trust. Our work stays true to our mission. We use every dollar donated responsibly. And we value you, our supporters, and invite you to engage with and help shape our work through our events, online communities, volunteer opportunities and more.

The Breast Cancer Fund is committed to giving you the power to prevent breast cancer. In fact, our work is fueled by your power. With your power, we’re making sure that everyone has access to the tools they need to help reduce their risk and protect their families. With your power, we're convincing elected officials and corporations to protect our health and reduce breast cancer risk. With your power, we’re leading the breast cancer movement to move beyond awareness to prevention.

The Breast Cancer Fund is an organization you can count on.

If you know people who are looking for a breast cancer organization they can count on too, please introduce your family, friends and networks to the Breast Cancer Fund. They can visit our website and sign up to receive our emails, join us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

And if you're looking for a way to show your continued support for our work, please make a donation today.

Warm Regards,
Jeanne Rizzo, R.N.
President and CEO

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.

Five Things You Should Know About Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (Forbes, 12/7/2011)

Amy Westervelt's article on Forbes.com does a great job of parsing through the intricacies of the Institute of Medicine's new report, Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Here's an excerpt, including a quote from our president and CEO, Jeanne Rizzo:

In the absence of clear advice from the IOM, consumers might want to consider reducing their exposure to these chemicals. “The failure to take a precautionary approach may leave the public confused and even misinformed, as is evidenced by some of the initial media headlines about the report that say that chemicals are unproven to raise breast cancer risk, when the report itself indicated there are plausible reasons for concern,” Rizzo says.

Read the full article and share it with your networks or submit a comment.