Inside Prevention

The climb of her life (Harvard Gazette, 6/11/2013)

Climb Against the Odds team member Pam Thompson was featured in The Harvard Gazette in a fascinating article about Thompson's experience with breast cancer and her commitment to ensuring that breast cancer risks are reduced for future generations.

"'We’re not getting it from our mothers and grandmothers,' Thompson said. 'I’m the first one in my family. … I really would like answers. I’d like my daughter to know more.'"

Read more here.

Fiery leader of breast cancer group puts chemical exposures in spotlight (Greenwire, E&E, 5/28/2013)

This in-depth Greenwire profile of our fearless leader Jeanne Rizzo explores how she has steered us "with a highly tuned focus, delicately balancing science and advocacy to ensure the organization can never be marginalized or dismissed."

Gwen Collman, director of extramural research and training at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, describes Rizzo's agility while commanding the team:

"Her leadership of the [Breast Cancer Fund] probably brought the organization to the next level because she is such a people person," Collman added. "She really engages with people, and people leave thinking, 'My God, I just met someone truly extraordinary.'"

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.

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.

 

Big day for safer chemicals initiatives

If we want to transform how our society thinks about and uses chemicals, we need to shift markets and shift policy.

Today two initiatives were launched that will take us in the right direction:

• The reintroduction of the Safe Chemicals Act in the U.S. Senate by Frank Lautenberg and Kirsten Gillibrand
• The launch of Mind The Store, a campaign  targeting retailers headed by our partners at the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition

The Safe Chemicals Act  would overhaul the archaic Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. A Philadelphia Inquirer article mentions our involvement in this issue and notes that TSCA is the only major environmental law passed in the 1970s that hasn’t been updated:

“When it was passed, TSCA grandfathered in about 60,000 chemicals. Now, more than 80,000 chemicals are in common use. The EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence of potential danger. The EPA has been able to require testing on only about 200 chemicals, and has regulated or banned five.”

The bill would give the EPA the necessary tools to oversee safety testing of toxic chemicals. It would put the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe before being put in products we use in our homes and schools.

We were also mentioned in a USA Today article about Mind the Store, a campaign headed by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition asking the top 10 retailers in the country to determine whether or not hazardous chemicals are present in the products they sell. If these retailers do sell products containing chemicals from the Hazardous 100+ List, we're asking them to develop a public action plan within the next 12 months to address these chemicals, including reducing, eliminating or safely substituting the chemicals as appropriate.

In the end, we need both market and legislative initiatives to change the landscape of chemical use in our country. Take action by telling your senator to support the Safe Chemicals Act. Its passage will reduce breast cancer incidence in our country and lead to a healthier world for future generations.

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.

Breast Cancer Fund celebrates 10 years scaling Mt. Shasta (Mt. Shasta Herald, 3/18/2013)

Jen Bray is a firefighter for the U.S. Forest Service and is the subject of a new article in the Mt. Shasta Herald. As this year’s “Community Climber” the money Jen raises will go toward Breast Cancer Services of Siskiyou County.

“I am inspired by survivors of cancer and the strength and passion they have for life and I vow to do more to eliminate this disease... for my children’s children,” Jen was quoted as saying in the article.  

The Breast Cancer Fund embraces mountain climbing as a metaphor for the critical work we are doing to prevent the environmental causes of this devastating disease.

This is the second year Jen is participating in Climb Agains the Odds, and she is on a roll. Check out her interview with KOBI-TV NBC5.

To learn more about Climb Against the Odds and this year's team, visit the event website.