Inside Prevention

Hey Guy, Toxic Shampoo Is Bad for You Too! (Huffington Post, 5/21/2013)

It's not just the ladies who are exposed to chemicals that reduce fertility or may cause cancer. There are plenty of toxic chemicals in men's products as well, especially those marketed to teenage boys, according to a Huffington Post piece by Breast Cancer Fund Director of Program and Policy Janet Nudelman.

A recent analysis by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics indicates that many men's personal care products contain a range of unsafe chemicals of concern linked to cancer and reproductive and developmental harm, including lead acetate, triclosan and coal tar among others.

Read more in the Huffington Post.

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.

Breast Cancer and the Environment (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences podcast, 3/15/2013)

Our fearless leader, Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo, was featured in a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences podcast about breast cancer and the environment. She talked about why translating breast cancer research is critical for the decisions we make in our everyday lives.

"We deal with what personal actions individuals can take to reduce their exposure to known or suspected carcinogens or endocrine disrupting chemicals. We also talk about corporate accountability and responsibility, the businesses that manufacture and sell those products, and how can we engage you, the public, in helping us drive industry to make better decisions." 

Have a listen and let us know what you think.

American Chemistry Council blocks state scientists from doing their jobs

Just as BPA disrupts our hormones, Big Chem is doing everything it can to disrupt the democratic process, using its money, power and influence to block government action that would protect pregnant women and children.

On Friday, shortly after California’s Environmental Protection Agency had announced its decision to add BPA to its list of Prop 65 reproductive toxicants, a judge ordered BPA off the same list.  The judge granted an injunction in the American Chemistry Council's case against California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The chemical industry is trying to argue in court that BPA does not cause birth defects.

Prop 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 and, in some instances, requires labeling of products containing those chemicals.

If BPA is safe, as the chemical industry asserts, why would the FDA have banned it from baby bottles and children’s drinking cups in 2012? Why would 12 states have introduced legislation either banning or requiring the labeling of BPA in food packaging? Why would France have banned it all together from food packaging? Why would countless studies have demonstrated a clear link between BPA and a long list of health problems including infertility and breast cancer?

Stay tuned. We will be following this issue as it progresses. In the meantime, please share your thoughts and comments below!

 

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.

 

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.

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).

We're making history today

"Evidence suggests that breast cancer can be prevented."

While these words might not seem revolutionary to those of us who have been working to prevent the disease for years, they will make big news today because of who is saying them: a federal committee of leading breast cancer experts, co-chaired by Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo. The committee’s report calls for a shift in the multi-billion dollar breast cancer research agenda toward prevention. That’s groundbreaking! 

This congressionally mandated Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee concludes that preventing exposure to environmental risk factors is the most promising path to decrease incidence of the disease, and is the "key to reducing the burden" on individuals, families and society. 

Sound familiar? That’s because this report builds on work the Breast Cancer Fund has been doing for more than a decade. We were honored to be part of developing this important report, and will continue to work to bring about its vision of a sea change in the way our society views and understands breast cancer.

Read our press release, take action and stay tuned for more information about this paradigm-shifting report.