Inside Prevention

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.

Breast cancer awareness should be a year-round event (Huffington Post, 10/27/2011)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) champions breast cancer prevention and elimination of the environmental causes of this disease in a piece for the Huffington Post. In it she mentions some of our proudest achievements, including our State of the Evidence report on environmental exposures linked to breast cancer, as well as a ban on phthalates in children's toys that Sen. Feinstein authored and we supported through its passage in 2008.

Mounting scientific evidence links exposure to everyday chemicals -- in our food, our products, our air and our water -- to breast cancer. The President's Cancer Panel released a report in 2010 that highlighted how little we know about environmental links to cancer and the need for more research.

I could not agree more with the report's recommendation that "a precautionary, prevention-oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants."

Similarly, the Breast Cancer Fund's 2010 report, the State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, linked breast cancer to synthetic hormones in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and meat, pesticides in food, solvents in household cleaning products; bisphenol A (BPA) in food containers and flame retardants in furniture, to name a few.

In our daily lives, we can take steps to reduce exposure to some chemicals, such as buying BPA-free products. But we need more than personal action; we need policies that ensure the public is protected. And we need to understand the chemicals we interact with every day and what they are doing to our bodies. (Read complete article.)

Thank you, Sen. Feinstein, for standing up for environmental health. Human health depends on it.

Feinstein thanks the Breast Cancer Fund for BPA work

Last week, after the American Chemistry Council reversed its position on BPA in baby bottles, the Breast Cancer Fund received a very special thank-you letter from Sen. Dianne Feinstein for our hard work in the fight against BPA. In the letter, the Senator says:

Your efforts have paid off; the chemical industry is listening… At both the state and federal level, the chemical industry has spent millions lobbying against any restriction on the use of BPA. You helped lead the way in California, and now the chemical industry has realized that consumers, advocates, and legislators will not stand down against a chemical that could harm their health… My sincere thanks.

We're honored by the Senator's recognition, and we're thankful for her strong leadership in Congress on critical environmental health issues including BPA. Last November, after the chemical industry successfully blocked her amendment to the food safety bill that would have instituted a federal ban on BPA in baby bottles, Sen. Feinstein said so eloquently:

One day our children will look back and wonder why we willingly risked our health by exposing ourselves to harmful chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA)... Unfortunately, chemical industry lobbyists wish to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. Just as the tobacco industry once told us it was safe to smoke cigarettes, the chemical industry is trying to tell us it's OK to ingest harmful chemicals. It's not OK.

Thank you, Senator, for using your clear and compelling voice to amplify the message that BPA has no place in our food packaging.

Chemical industry shifts on BPA after spending millions to fight legislation (New York Times, 10/12/2011)

Days after California passed a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, the American Chemistry Council—trade group for the chemical industry—declared that it was petitioning the FDA to ban the chemical from these products nationwide. It's an intriguing reversal in the ACC's history of lobbying against state and federal BPA bills (including the California ban) over the last several years.

Despite the move, the ACC still maintains that BPA is of no concern for health. We disagree.

As reported by the New York Times yesterday:

The trade group's announcement came after [Gretchen Lee] Salter, the policy manager of the Breast Cancer Fund, had spent the past six years on the frontlines of a major battle over California legislation to ban BPA from those products.

Salter's group and others were able to declare victory when Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed A.B. 1319 into law last week -- only to see ACC say three days later that the problem does not exist.

To Salter, something didn't ring true.

"The amount of resources they poured into states trying to regulate baby bottles and sippy cups and the amount of resources they poured into California," Salter said, then paused. "To all of the sudden say, 'Folks, there is no problem here, we don't use BPA anyway.' It's this weird, almost Orwellian double speak."

ACC had doggedly insisted that BPA is safe, and the group has fought fiercely against federal and state legislative proposals to ban the chemical, which public health advocates have linked to a hormonal disruption and other developmental problems in children.

Disclosure forms shows that ACC has invested heavily in lobbying in California since 2005, when the first bill limiting BPA was introduced in the state Legislature. (Read complete article.)

Neither the California law nor the ACC petition to the FDA include canned foods or other products known to contain BPA. The Breast Cancer Fund continues to push for safe alternatives to BPA in canned foods through our Cans Not Cancer campaign and support of Rep. Ed Markey's (D, Mass.) Ban Poisonous Additives Act, currently in the U.S. House.

BPA-free baby bottles become California law

California babies have a better chance at being BPA-free, thanks to legislation signed into law yesterday by Gov. Jerry Brown. The law bans the estrogenic chemical BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the state.

California is the eleventh state to restrict BPA in baby products, adding to the mass of governmental, corporate and scientific concerns about the chemical's effect on health, even at low levels. BPA exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, infertility in men, early puberty in girls, diabetes and obesity.

Because of BPA's link to breast cancer in lab studies, the Breast Cancer Fund has been advocating to get it out of consumer products for the last six years: We've supported the new California law through previous iterations in 2008, 2009 and 2010; we're working with Congress on federal bills that take aim at BPA in kids' products as well as BPA in food-related products for all ages; we've done research that demonstrates the close link between our eating habits and our BPA exposure; and we recently launched a market-based effort to get BPA out of canned goods.

All to say, we're thrilled California has finally taken this important step to make sure ALL babies in the states are protected from BPA in their baby bottles. While the big bottle manufacturers have already moved away from BPA because of consumer concerns, only a law like this can guarantee that all stores, from health food stores to dollar stores—regardless of the brands they carry— stock only safe products.

Clearly, though, this new law isn't our endgame. We took aim at baby bottles and sippy cups first because babies are most vulnerable to the effects of chemicals like BPA. But there's still BPA in baby food jar lids and cans of ready-to-feed formula. And older children, pregnant women, and women and men of all ages are almost certain to be exposed to BPA on a daily basis, and susceptible to the chemical's effects, too.

Our aim: a BPA-free dinner table for all ages, all income levels, all degrees of BPA-savvy and all states. This is a start; help us get further.

Could BPA predispose girls to breast cancer? (California Watch, 10/4/2011)

An important new study published in Molecular Endocrinology demonstrates that BPA exposure in utero and through nursing appears to alter mammary tissue in such a way that predisposes the breast to later-life breast cancer.

In fact, the researchers tested BPA alongside DES, the notorious chemical prescribed to pregnant women from 1938 to 1971 that was later found to increase the risk of various cancers in "DES daughters," and found the two chemicals' effects on the mammary glands to be similar. That's serious cause for concern for pregnant and nursing women, as our president and CEO explained to California Watch:

"This is really an important piece of research," said Jeanne Rizzo, president and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that advocates for the elimination of breast cancer. "It validates other work that has been done and brings the focus to the pregnant mother, the in utero exposure that’s so critical to our understanding of the influence on breast development."

She said that based on this research, she would advise all pregnant women to do all they can to avoid BPA exposure.

"Don’t eat canned foods, buy glass, avoid plastic," she said. "You can do a lot to cut back on your exposure." (Read complete article.)

In addition to Jeanne's advice, we recommend using glass or stainless steel bottles and food containers instead of plastic. You can find tips for replacing canned foods with safe alternatives on our website.

Taking steps on food chemicals (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/2/2011)

Marion Nestle, author of "Food Politics" and "What to Eat," as well as a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University, writes a monthly column in the San Francisco Chronicle Food section. This month she responds to a reader question about food policy and includes a reference to our September report, BPA in Kids' Canned Food:

Q: I don't understand why the FDA does not ban aspartame, food colors, BPA, pesticides and all those other nasty chemicals in food. I can't believe they are good for us.

A: ...Recent studies raise concerns about BPA's effects on the brain and behavior of fetuses, infants and young children, and on cancer, obesity and infertility in adults. Some studies suggest that exposure to BPA is higher than previously estimated. Just last week, the Breast Cancer Fund released a study finding BPA in canned foods designed for children. (Read complete article.)

She closes with some guidance on personal and political action you can take to reduce exposure to food chemicals, including BPA. Find more tips for eating better on our website.

Industry spin zone of bad science on BPA

Last week, the Atlantic published a great piece outlining how industry lobbyists and trade groups are using bad science to make consumers question the toxicity of BPA. The day after the Breast Cancer Fund released our report, BPA in Kids' Canned Food, the lobbying arm of the canned food industry was spinning science in their own press release touting the safety of BPA in consumer goods. These lobbyists claim that BPA is flushed through our bodies so fast that it can't do any harm.

Don't we wish it were that simple! Independent, academic scientists are furious over this "spin zone" of bad science. It turns out that a single study is prompting canned food lobbyists to claim a slam-dunk victory on the safety of BPA, while leading researchers in the field say the study design is fatally flawed for a litany of reasons.

Here's the bottom line, though: we shouldn’t have to be scientists or toxicologists to go to the grocery store and be confident that the food we are buying doesn't contain toxic chemicals that have been shown in over 250 laboratory studies to cause harm. As a consumer, I want to know that companies are protecting my health before their bottom line and I also want to know that my concerns as a purchaser of products are being heard by companies.

After we released our report last week, we watched social networking sites, blogs and media stories light up with canned food manufacturers responding to consumer outrage. While some companies responded openly and honestly, others continue to stand behind old science and outdated regulations to argue the safety of BPA in canned foods.

In reality, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains a list of more than 3,000 chemicals and other substances that are approved for use in food packaging. More than two-thirds of them were approved under a process that began in 1958, including known or suspected reproductive toxins and carcinogens like BPA and formaldehyde. That's why countries including France, China, Denmark, Sweden and 10 states in the U.S. aren't basing their decisions to regulate BPA on current regulations, but instead are using the 200-plus independent lab studies that have come out in the past 10 years showing the negative health consequences of BPA exposure.

It's time for corporations to stop hiding behind legal speak and own up to the fact that the way our regulatory system allows chemicals to get into consumer goods is broken. That's why on top of consumer actions to tell companies that we think BPA needs to be out of their products, we need to support legislation like Rep. Edward Markey's (D, Mass.) bill, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act, which would overhaul the way the FDA approves chemicals used in food containers.

As we say at the Breast Cancer Fund, we need to stop this disease before it starts. Changing the way we regulate toxic chemicals in our food supply is a great step in achieving that goal.

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.)

How to reduce BPA exposure from food (San Francisco Chronicle, 4/17/2011)

A useful article in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle gives practical tips for reducing BPA exposure in the kitchen (many of which echo our own) and talks about the study of BPA in food packaging that we co-released just a few weeks ago:

Reading about the study in The Chronicle prompted Gary Kelly of Orinda to consider ridding his kitchen of plastic containers.

"I never microwave in plastic, and now, I think, perhaps the next step is to get rid of plastics," says Kelly. He says his only doubt about switching to glass containers is whether they will break or take up too much storage space.

BPA is also found in the epoxy resins used to line metal food cans. In 2009, Consumer Reports tested 19 name-brand canned foods and found almost all contained some level of BPA. The levels varied wildly, with the highest found in canned green beans and soup. It didn't matter whether the food was certified organic or not. (Read complete article.)