Inside Prevention

Pioneering Prevention: A public conversation on breast cancer and the environment

What happens when you put a champion of breast cancer research, an award-winning science journalist, a fearless advocate for underserved communities and a fiery breast cancer prevention leader in a room together?

A fascinating conversation and a breeding ground for real and lasting change.

On May 30 a group of trailblazers in the movement to prevent breast cancer gathered at UCSF Mission Bay for the Breast Cancer Fund's Pioneering Prevention event.

The panelists, including Jeanne Rizzo, Breast Cancer Fund President, Florence Williams, award-winning journalist and author of Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History; Mhel Kavanaugh Lynch, M.D., M.P.H., director of the California Breast Cancer Research Program; and Ysabel Duron, founder of Latinas Contra Cancer talked about their inspiration in joining this movement, the implications of the recently released Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee report and turning the report's conclusion into a national breast cancer prevention strategy.

Listen to the full conversation below.

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.

Focus on preventing cancer (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/15/2013)

Thousands of women each year face decisions like Angelina Jolie's bold choice to undergo a preventative double mastectomy. But in her San Francisco chronicle op-ed Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo asks: what if fewer women had to?

Most women who develop breast cancer do not have a family history of, or genetic predisposition to, the disease. In fact, the majority of cases can be attributed to environmental causes including toxic chemicals and radiation:

"Decades of scientific evidence points to modern living as a major culprit. In our daily lives we are exposed to toxic chemicals and radiation from a wide range of sources, including cleaning and personal-care products, plastics, food, air, water, medical treatments, our workplaces and our neighborhoods."

We have the power to stop breast cancer before it starts, and reduce risks for the vast majority of women who have no genetic predisposition to the disease:

"We need to develop a federal research agenda that prioritizes investment in the study of chemical agents that contribute to the disease, and public health measures to reduce exposures."

Read more at the San Francisco Chronicle , join us in creating a breast cancer prevention strategy and learn about a groundbreaking report, which concludes that identifying and eliminating the environmental causes of breast cancer presents the greatest opportunity to prevent the disease.

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.

Beauty tips for the FDA (The Investigative Fund, 5/6/13)

After John Wasik's wife, Kathleen, was diagnosed with breast cancer, the couple started to ask "why"? She didn't have the BRCA breast cancer gene, and her surgeon suggested that environmental factors might be responsible. Eventually, Kathleen discovered the Breast Cancer Fund, and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. She proceeded to throw away her cosmetics—and Wasik started a journey exploring the vital question that we at the Breast Cancer Fund have been asking for the past ten years:

"How is it, I wanted to know, that the FDA, which was created by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, leaves the regulation of cosmetics largely up to the cosmetics industry?"

He explains how the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, the entity that is supposed to be responsible for ensuring the safety of cosmetic products, is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and would not disclose its budget.  As Wasik points out: “the CIR has no power over the industry that finances it.”

Wasik also explores pinkwashing and cosmetic company lobbying: two powerful explanations for our lax regulatory environment. The piece ends on a guardedly hopeful note with the introduction of the Safe Cosmetics Act. 

Wasik reported this piece for the Investigative Fund, which is part of The Nation Institute. He has been working as a financial reporter for the past 25 years, and this article is a must read.

To learn more about the cosmetic links to breast cancer: http://bit.ly/12Wa8YM

To take action on the Safe Cosmetics Act: http://bit.ly/2013SafeCosmeticsAct

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.

Congress re-introduces safe cosmetics legislation in attempt to update 1938 law

Today, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013, which would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the products we use for grooming, primping and beautifying.

Loopholes in current federal law have left the U.S. cosmetics industry basically unregulated. That means that companies can put ingredients linked to breast cancer (or any other other disease), including phthalates, 1,4-dioxane, parabens and ethylene oxide in everything from shampoo to hand soap to lipstick.

Instead of meeting public demand for truly healthier products, the cosmetics industry would prefer to maintain the status quo. In fact, the industry has spent more than $3.5 million lobbying against similar legislation, according to ABC News.

The 1938 law that currently regulates cosmetics companies has created a free-for-all—one in which consumers are the big losers. Companies essentially can put whatever they want in their products and they don’t even have to tell the public about the ingredients they use. To top it off, they can slap an organic, natural or unscented label on a product, with no oversight. As a result, the majority of chemicals in cosmetics have not been assessed for safety, and more than 500 products sold to U.S. consumers contain ingredients banned in cosmetics in Japan, Canada or the European Union, according to the Environmental Working Group.

At the Breast Cancer Fund we believe preventing exposure to environmental risk factors, including exposures to harmful chemicals in personal care products, will enable us to protect women from being diagnosed with breast cancer in the first place.

Tell your member of Congress that it’s time to fix this broken regulatory system. Take action today.