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.

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. 

Reducing breast cancer risk: what we've learned from the Women's Health Initiative

Ten years ago, the medical world was rocked by the discovery that estrogen-progestin hormone-replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and other diseases in post-menopausal women. Hundreds of thousands of women came off HRT and within a few years we saw the first-ever documented decrease in breast cancer rates.

The discovery was made by the government-funded Women's Health Initiative, a study designed to explore the benefits and risks of combined estrogen-progestin HRT in post-menopausal women. The study was halted in 2002 when researchers saw a 26 percent increase in the relative risk of breast cancer in women taking the combined estrogen-progestin HRT compared with those taking a placebo. There were also significant increases in the risk of heart disease, stroke and blood clots.

A follow-up study done three years later showed increases in invasive cancers in women who had been on HRT. But while breast cancer rates remained elevated in this group, there was a trend towards lower rates similar to those in the placebo group, suggesting that the increased risk for breast cancer from combined HRT is reversible within a fairly short period.

As we look at other chemical exposures linked to breast cancer, the WHI study and the resulting drop in breast cancer incidence should give us great hope. The study showed us that by eliminating an avoidable exposure to chemicals we can reduce breast cancer risk. It gave us a tangible example of why we do the work we do—why we work every day to reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation linked to the disease. So on this 10^th anniversary, we are thankful to the researchers and women who were part of the study. Because of their contribution, millions of women now have clear information about the risks of estrogen-progestin HRT, and all of us working to prevent breast cancer have a case study for why we must continue to call for more research on the causes of breast cancer and for action—by individuals, corporations and government—to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation linked to the disease.

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.

Study: BPA, methylparaben block breast cancer drugs (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/13/2011)

For years, the Breast Cancer Fund has advocated to eliminate BPA (in hard plastics and can linings) and parabens (in cosmetics) from consumer products because of their links to breast cancer risk. Now we have new evidence that BPA and methylparaben not only spur normal human breast cells to behave like cancer cells, they also resist the cancer-inhibiting effects of the drug tamoxifen.

Our CEO Jeanne Rizzo spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle about this new research from California Pacific Medical Center:

Jeanne Rizzo, chief executive officer of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco advocacy group, said the study shows that BPA and methylparaben have a triggering effect when it comes to cancer. The next step, she said, has to be for consumers to demand changes that reduce environmental exposure to these chemicals.

A bill sitting on the governor's desk would ban BPA in sippy cups and baby bottles manufactured or sold in California. AB1319 was authored by Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, D-Los Angeles.

This research is sharp warning to consumer, legislators, manufacturers and researchers alike. As the Chronicle article explains:

Since most breast cancers are driven by the hormone estrogen, the bulk of the drugs used to treat breast cancer are designed to knock down estrogen. BPA and methylparaben not only mimic estrogen's ability to drive cancer, but appear to be even better than the natural hormone in bypassing the ability of drugs to treat it, [lead researcher Dr. William] Goodson said. (Read complete article.)

Flight risk and radiation

Two days before Thanksgiving, and odds are you're traveling somewhere this week. If an airport is in your immediate future, you may have a new choice to make: full-body radiation scan or the dreaded pat-down.

Particularly if you've been exposed to a lot of radiation in your life (cancer survivors who've had radiation treatment, anyone who's had a lot of X-rays or CT scans, those whose jobs expose them to radiation), you might consider the pat-down.

Ionizing radiation is the best-established environmental cause of breast cancer. What's more, radiation's carcinogenic effects are cumulative over your lifetime. That cumulative concern led a pilots' union earlier this month to advise its members to skip the scan and go for the pat-down.

And while scanners may be considered "safe" by the federal government and FDA if correctly set up, monitored and used, the reality is that even X-ray equipment in health care settings, run by medical professionals, may be miscalibrated, malfunctioning or otherwise deliver an excessive dose of radiation accidentally.

Like the screening process itself, the choice to get a scan or a pat-down is a very personal decision. Whatever you decide is best for you this week, we wish you a happy, healthy Thanksgiving! May you and yours be well.

Study: HRT increases breast cancer mortality

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and reported in today's New York Times found that women with breast cancer who took hormone replacement therapy more than a decade ago have a greater risk of dying than breast cancer patients who never took HRT.

In 2002, the medical world and thousands of women were rocked by the discovery that HRT increased the risk of breast cancer and other diseases. The study that produced that data, the government-funded Women's Health Initiative, was halted immediately.

Now with 11 years of follow-up to study on the original participants, the authors of this new study conclude: "Estrogen plus progestin was associated with greater breast cancer incidence, and the cancers are more commonly node-positive. Breast cancer mortality also appears to be increased with combined use of estrogen plus progestin."

This disproves the suggestion made early on that HRT increased non-aggressive breast tumors and wouldn't affect mortality rates. Not so, according to the new study. In fact, postmenopausal HRT use appeared to be associated with greater spread to lymph nodes. And ultimately, those taking combined E+P HRT had a doubled risk of death from breast cancer alone, as well as an increased death from all causes.

And while far fewer women are taking HRT today than 10 years ago, we're all being exposed to environmental chemicals that mimic estrogens and otherwise disrupt our hormone systems.

We don't have the data -- yet -- to say whether postmenopausal exposure to BPA, for example, increases breast cancer incidence and mortality in the same way as HRT. But it does give us pause, and inspires us to keep pushing for limits on chemicals that we know are hormonally active.

Read our tips for making safer healthcare choices.