Inside Prevention

J&J removes some chemicals from its baby shampoo, other products (5/6/13)

Breast Cancer Fund Director of Program and Policy Janet Nudelman was quoted in an Environmental Health News article about Johnson & Johnson's landmark decision to remove many harmful chemicals from its personal care products:

"The small companies demonstrate to the big cosmetic giants that making safe products is not only possible, but it's also profitable. It's what consumers want."

She points out that disclosure requirements can serve as de facto bans on toxic chemicals:

"Companies would rather quietly reformulate their products than have consumers know there are carcinogens or reproductive toxins in the product."

 Read the full article here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pressure increases on FDA to ban BPA from food packaging

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration must be feeling the pressure to do something about BPA pretty intensely right now. And right it should. As we wait for the agency to meet its March 31 deadline to respond to a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Fund to ban this toxic chemical linked to breast cancer from food packaging, today Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., added his own petitions to the FDA asking for a similar ban. This is the first time a member of Congress has used the FDA’s citizen petition process to pressure the FDA to take regulatory action, signaling a growing frustration on the part of policymakers and the public alike with the FDA’s failure to act on this critical public health issue.

The FDA’s inaction is in stark contrast to consumer and industry action. Last week, the Breast Cancer Fund’s Cans Not Cancer campaign publicized the fact that Campbell Soup Company will phase out the use of BPA in its can linings. Baby bottle and sports water bottle manufacturers abandoned BPA over the last few years. At the public policy level, 11 states have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, and three of those states have also banned it from infant formula and baby food.

The Breast Cancer Fund submitted a letter of support for Markey’s petitions, signed by organizations representing millions of concerned citizens who are saying loud and clear that it’s time the FDA get BPA out of all food packaging.

And you can make your voice heard today: tell the FDA to declare BPA in food packaging unsafe once and for all.

Under Pressure from Parents, Advocacy Groups, Campbell's Goes BPA-Free (Forbes, 3/5/12)

On Monday, we shared the news that our Cans Not Cancer campaign scored a huge victory: After months of pressure from our campaign, Campbell's Soup Company announced it will phase out the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in its can linings.

Amy Westervelt''s great story for Forbes, Responding to Consumer Concern, Campbell's Goes BPA-Free, says:

Back in September, the traditionally family-friendly Campbell's Soup brand was attracting attention from moms for all the wrong reasons: A report released by advocacy group Breast Cancer Fund found the company’s soup to have some of the highest BPA levels among a variety of canned foods it tested... BPA (bisphenol A), a commonly used additive in food packaging, mimics human estrogen and is thought by some health advocates to be harmful to health, while others maintain that it is perfectly safe. At the time, Campbell Soup Company spokesman Anthony Sanzio said the company was confident in the safety of its products. ”The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the use of BPA in can lining poses no threat to human health,” he said. “That being said, we understand that consumers may have concerns about it. We’re very aware of the debate and we’re watching it intently.” (Read the full article.)

The victory was also covered by other news outlets, including:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Campbell's to end use of BPA in can linings

Discovery News: Campbell's to Phase Out BPA

Consumer Affairs: Campbell's Will Phase Out BPA From Soup Cans

Treehugger: Campbell's Says It's Heading BPA-Free

Grist: Campbell's to ditch BPA from soup cans

Campbell's announcement is is a victory for consumer health and safety, but the company still needs to provide consumers with a clear timeline for its transition away from BPA and proof that any alternative can-lining material is safe. Tell Campbell's CEO that you want to see the company’s words turn into real action to make its products safer. Take action!