Not My Breasts

Slow Death by Rubber Duck

On Tuesday evening in San Francisco, the Breast Cancer Fund and the Center for Environmental Health sponsored a reading by two of our
Canadian colleagues, Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, of their new book, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things. 

I know, it sounds ominous and terrifying, but as the authors claim, the book is actually “downright hopeful.”

The frightening news first: There are over 80,000 chemicals in use today in the United States, with 700 new ones added every year. Less than 10 percent have been fully tested for their effects on human health, and only five have ever been banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act, our current and broken system for regulating chemicals in this country. Not even asbestos, a well-known carcinogen, has been banned in the U.S.

Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defense Canada, and Lourie, an environmental consultant and funder, began working together to test a variety of Canadians for the presence of these chemicals in their bodies, a process known as biomonitoring.

The study soon became personal. On a dare, they decided to exposure themselves over a week to common off-the-shelf food and personal care products, making sure to mimic everyday life. They had their urine and blood tested at the beginning of the week and again at the end of the week, and they focused the study on the presence and levels of seven key chemicals that are some of the most pervasive in everyday products and surroundings, including phthalates, Teflon and mercury.

For example, their lunch would simply consist of a tuna sandwich or canned food that was microwaved in plastic (tuna contains high levels of mercury and bisphenol A (BPA) is found in can linings and hard plastics). They would also shower and shave using commonplace personal care products, and they sat in a living room with a plug-in air freshener and furniture sprayed with STAINMASTER (personal care products contain a variety of chemicals including phthalates and lead, as well as “fragrance” which allows companies to avoid disclosing its ingredients, and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are used in water-repellant fabrics). 

I won’t give anything way, but I think you can guess what happens.

Smith and Lourie took on a simple but powerful science experiment – one that the average American goes through every day and, for the most part, is unaware of.

There is a happy ending to this book, though. Outside of telling an entertaining story, the book provides helpful, everyday tips for reducing your exposures. (HINT: if you’re still microwaving in plastic, stop!) They also cite some of the significant progress happening globally, giving credit to the growing movement concerned about the impact of this “new pollution” on human health and the work being done by organizations, including the Breast Cancer Fund, to eliminate the environmental causes of disease through proper chemical regulation.

And, after you buy the book (which we highly recommend) look to Chapter 2 for a recap of the Breast Cancer Fund’s successful campaign to rid phthalates from children’s toys, told through our own director of program and policy, Janet Nudelman!

Fix our broken chemical system AND save health care costs AND reduce human suffering

 
Our friends at Safer Chemicals Healthy Families released a report today that's another nail in the coffin
of the antiquated law that governs our broken chemical management system, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Check out the Breast Cancer Fund's statement: 

Statement in Support of The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act

The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign, of which the Breast Cancer Fund is a member, released a report today:  The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act. This report affirms that a growing body of scientific evidence links chemical exposure to a wide range of serious diseases and draws attention to the urgent need to reform how chemicals are managed in the United States. It points to the fact that, by reducing exposure to toxic chemicals, we will reduce disease incidence and the related health care costs.

This analysis supports the findings of the Breast Cancer Fund’s State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment – a comprehensive report that aggregates the scientific evidence linking chemicals and radiation to increased risk of breast cancer and outlines research and public policy changes needed to reduce breast cancer risk.

The Breast Cancer Fund joins Safer Chemicals Healthy Families in calling for the overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the federal law governing chemical safety which has never been significantly amended since its adoption in 1976. By passing legislation to bring the toxics law into the 21st century, we will not only reduce disease incidence and health care costs, we will also achieve unquantifiable “human savings,” as we will prevent countless families from having to confront the suffering and death of loved ones.

As science confirms the links between chemicals and disease, it becomes an ethical imperative that we fix our broken chemical management system, which will help control skyrocketing health care costs and reduce human suffering.

FDA taking positive steps on BPA, but its actions don't go far enough

The Breast Cancer Fund released the following statement this afternoon in response to today's long-awaited announcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the safety of BPA in children's products:

The Breast Cancer Fund is heartened that the FDA has registered concern about BPA and is advising parents to reduce children’s exposure while it further investigates the chemical. We support the measures announced by the FDA to encourage industry efforts to replace BPA in baby bottles and infant formula, to further develop alternatives, and to replace or minimize BPA in other food containers.

We agree with the FDA’s assessment that a complete overhaul of the regulatory framework that allowed BPA to be approved as a packaging additive is critically needed.

But we are concerned that the announcement today does not go far enough to protect public health, and even sends a mixed message to consumers.

Fortunately, there is legislation in front of the Senate that would take more decisive action to protect children’s health, and it goes one step further by protecting pregnant women as well. The bill, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would ban BPA from baby bottles, sports water bottles and reusable food containers. The bill would also ban BPA from canned foods where safe alternatives exist and require labeling where they don’t. And the bill would give the FDA the authority to modernize its process for reviewing and approving food-packaging additives like BPA.

The Breast Cancer Fund calls on Congress to prioritize the passage of this important public health legislation.

Breaking BPA news: FDA to say BPA affects development, should not be used in baby bottles

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Meg Kissinger is reporting that the FDA is expected to make a major announcement about BPA today:

Posted: Jan. 15, 2010 10:56 a.m.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce Friday that bisphenol A affects human development and should not be used in infant formula cans and baby bottles, the Journal Sentinel has learned.

The agency has scheduled a press briefing for noon.

We will update this story as more information is available. (Visit the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Web site for more on the story.)

Eight going on eighteen (Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families blog, 1/8/2010)

Is early puberty really cause for concern? Yep, it's a risk factor for breast cancer. And, like breast cancer, it may be triggered in part by hormone-disrupting chemicals in our everyday environment. If you have a daughter, today's blog post from the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition (of which the Breast Cancer Fund is a part) is a must-read:

A few years ago, I noticed that my beautiful, vivacious seven-year-old daughter had breasts. Wasn't this a little young? She was into Harry Potter, rainbow sherbet and puppies — not bras and pads. (Read complete post.)

For more information, access our free publication, The Falling Age of Puberty.

Bill sponsor sees support for BPA ban (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/6/2010)

Could Wisconsin become the latest state to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups? The bill's sponsor thinks so, as reported yesterday:

The sponsor of a state bill to ban bisphenol A in baby bottles and sippy cups said Wednesday she is confident there is enough support to institute such a ban in Wisconsin.

State Sen. Julie Lassa (D-Stevens Point) said a Senate committee vote on the matter could come in the next few weeks. (Read complete article.)

Wisconsin is one of dozens of states, counties and cities nationwide that have considered laws to limit human exposure to this estrogenic chemical. Alongside these efforts, the Breast Cancer Fund is working on a proposal now in Congress that would enact a nationwide ban on BPA in food and beverage containers. So no matter where you live in the U.S., you can voice your support for protection from BPA.

A missed deadline (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/5/2010)

Editorializing on BPA and the FDA's failure to act, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said earlier this week:

It's better to make the right decision than a hasty one. But we know this: There is ample reason to suspect BPA in a range of human illnesses. The ubiquitous chemical is found in everything from hardened plastics to the lining of metal food containers and is present in the urine of more than 93% of American adults and more than 90% of newborns. Even at very low doses, it is believed to interrupt the body's endocrine system. (Read complete article.)

We certainly agree.

FDA to miss third deadline on BPA ruling (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/29/2009)

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel continues to track the BPA story, reporting most recently on the FDA's lack of action. If you haven't been following closely, the agency has now postponed its ruling on BPA's safety three times. For some insight into why this matters, the paper spoke with our policy director:

"I'm extremely frustrated by the FDA delay, and I'm even more frustrated by their silence about the delay," said Janet Nudelman, policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund. "Each day it further delays taking action, more newborn babies, children and pregnant women are left unprotected from this hormone-disrupting compound linked to breast cancer and birth defects." (Read complete article.)

It's best to avoid BPA, federal official says (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/12/2009)

The Breast Cancer Fund's concern about BPA in food and drink containers was echoed by a top health official in Saturday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The head of the primary federal agency studying the safety of bisphenol A said Friday that people should avoid ingesting the chemical - especially pregnant women, infants and children.

"There are plenty of reasonable alternatives," said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, in an interview with the Journal Sentinel.

While stressing she is not a medical doctor, Birnbaum said she has seen enough studies on the chemical to be concerned about its effects on human health. (Read complete article.)

Cancer from the kitchen? (NY Times, 12/5/09)

Another excellent op-ed from New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof, this time focusing on the endocrine disruptors in plastics, cosmetics and more that can put us at greater risk for diseases like breast cancer:

The battle over health care focuses on access to insurance, or tempests like the one that erupted over new mammogram guidelines.

But what about broader public health challenges? What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air -- or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves? (Read complete article.)