Inside Prevention

NYT's Kristof sounds alarm re: toxic chemicals and disease

Have mainstream journalists been too dismissive of the connection between toxic chemicals in our everyday environment and increasing rates of development disorders, cancer and other illnesses? Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times thinks so. In his latest hard-hitting column on the importance of the precautionary principle in chemical reform, Kristof writes:

[I]n the case of great health dangers of modern times — mercury, lead, tobacco, asbestos — journalists were too slow to blow the whistle. In public health, we in the press have more often been lap dogs than watchdogs.

Kristof says while “there’s a danger of sensationalizing risks,” there is a critical need to educate the public and government officials about the about the ever-mounting evidence linking industrial chemicals in consumer products – phthalates in cosmetics, bisphenol A in food containers, and many more – to autism, breast and prostate cancer, and reproductive disorders. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who is writing legislation to rewrite the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act, told Kristof that of more than 80,000 chemicals on the market, the EPA has conducted safety testing for only 200.

Kristof’s column is not just a clarion call for chemical reform, but a reminder that what scientists and doctors call the precautionary principle is just common sense. If you aren’t sure whether a wild mushroom is safe, don’t eat it. If we aren’t sure that phthalates and BPA are safe – and in fact, a preponderance of evidence suggests they may be harmful – why take chances?

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.

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.