Inside Prevention

Five Things You Should Know About Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (Forbes, 12/7/2011)

Amy Westervelt's article on Forbes.com does a great job of parsing through the intricacies of the Institute of Medicine's new report, Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Here's an excerpt, including a quote from our president and CEO, Jeanne Rizzo:

In the absence of clear advice from the IOM, consumers might want to consider reducing their exposure to these chemicals. “The failure to take a precautionary approach may leave the public confused and even misinformed, as is evidenced by some of the initial media headlines about the report that say that chemicals are unproven to raise breast cancer risk, when the report itself indicated there are plausible reasons for concern,” Rizzo says.

Read the full article and share it with your networks or submit a comment.

New (yet not so new) report on breast cancer and the environment

Today the Institute of Medicine released a report, funded by Komen for the Cure, entitled Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Our President and CEO, Jeanne Rizzo, responded to the report:

The Breast Cancer Fund has reviewed the Institute of Medicine’s new report Breast Cancer and the Environment, and our takeaway is that while it offers a useful review of some of the existing data on the disease’s links to environmental factors, it relies on an antiquated model of weighing the evidence and, therefore, does not go far enough to protect public health.(Read Jeanne's full statemet.)

Unfortunately, the report did not go far enough in its warning about the potential harm of chemical exposure. For example, the report finds that the chemical BPA is a ‘biologically plausible hazard,’ but says that the evidence does not necessarily warrant individual action to avoid the chemical. 

But that doesn't make sense to us. If BPA were, say, a potential pharmaceutical drug, it is highly doubtful that, given the adverse effects seen lab studies, the chemical would ever be allowed into clinical trials in humans. Yet, when you think about it, we are all currently part of an uncontrolled human experiment on the effects of BPA exposure. Are you concerned about BPA? Want to help get BPA out of canned foods--one of our biggest expousure sources to the chemical? Join our Cans Not Cancer campaign! 

The BPA lurking in your Thanksgiving dinner (Fast Company, 11/15/2011)

Fast Company published a great blog about our BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food report, out today. It's a great piece to share with friends and family to help spread the word:

BPA is hard to avoid, mostly because it’s in almost everything—soup cans, water bottles, plastic-packaged foods, even store receipts. But here’s one thing that’s easy to remember: Steer clear of certain canned foods in your Thanksgiving dishes unless you want to dose your entire family with high levels of the potentially toxic compound. (Read complete article and comment.)

If you haven't seen our BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food report yet, check it out! We provide our product-testing data as well as recipes for a no-can Thanksgiving dinner and a chance to tell canned food makers what you think about BPA in their products.

Turkey, stuffing and BPA?

Pumpkin pie and green bean casserole were staples of our Thanksgiving table growing up. And, like in most hectic holiday households, the staple ingredients—pumpkin, evaporated milk, cream of mushroom soup—came from cans.

More recently my mom has discovered Martha Stewart and makes her own mushroom sauce for green bean casserole. But even TV chefs and cookbooks advise going straight for the can opener when it comes to pumpkin—who has time to roast a pumpkin at Thanksgiving?

This year I'm making time. The Breast Cancer Fund's new product-testing report, BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food, has opened not just my eyes but my entire family’s eyes. Though we know there's BPA in canned food and avoid it most of the year, Thanksgiving always felt like the one day when we might as well overlook it.

But this will be my 1-year-old daughter's first Thanksgiving meal. We know that low doses of BPA can affect her rapidly developing endocrine system, and that lab studies link this chemical to breast cancer, infertility, early puberty and neurological problems.

Of the products we tested for the report, half of them contained enough BPA in a single serving to show health impacts in lab studies. A table full of can-supplemented classics—the pie, the casserole, a dish of gravy, a bowl of creamed corn—adds up to a concerning dose of BPA.

The trouble is most people have no idea that BPA is in their canned food. And sadly, even when confronted with the evidence, most manufacturers are not acting quickly enough to ensure that this chemical, and all chemicals linked to health harms, are out of food packaging.

That's why the Breast Cancer Fund started the Cans Not Cancer campaign. We're educating consumers about BPA in canned food and, together, we're pressuring manufacturers to replace BPA in cans with a safe alternative.

Join the Breast Cancer Fund as we urge manufacturers to go BPA-free and urge lawmakers to pass legislation to ensure that all food packaging is free from harmful chemicals. Let’s make sure that next year’s Thanksgiving can safely include canned food again.

As for this year, we'll be spending more time in the kitchen but less time worrying about BPA. If you're inspired to do the same, check out our can-free solutions for some favorite Thanksgiving recipes.

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 in Kids' Canned Food report media roundup (9/21/2011-9/24/2011)

The Breast Cancer Fund report, BPA in Kids' Canned Food, generated attention across the country when we released it on September 21. In addition to nearly 250 local television news stories, our finding that BPA is in canned food for kids was reported in the following print and online media outlets:

ABCNews.com

AFP

Associated Content

The Atlantic

BlameCancer.org

CafeMom

CBS.com

Chemical Watch

Discovery News

Examiner.com

FoodCt.com

FoxNews.com

France 24

GreenOptions.com

Greenwire

Growing a Green Family

Indiana Public Media

Inhabitots

International Business Times

KGO Radio San Francisco

MSNBC

Non-ToxicKids.net

Packaging Digest

Parenthood Blog

San Francisco Chronicle

SF Chronicle Editorial

Science News

Shape Magazine

ThirdAge.com

United Press International

Washington Post Blog

Washington Times

WebMD

WIBC radio Indianapolis

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.