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.

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.

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.

How lobbyists are spinning weak science to defend BPA (The Atlantic, 9/27/2011)

The Atlantic has published a must-read article about our BPA in Kids' Canned Food report and the food packaging industry's effort to generate controversy about the formidable body of scientific evidence linking BPA to harm. In particular, industry is pointing to one apparently flawed study to defend its continued use of BPA in food cans:

The chemical industry, NAMPA [the North American Metal Packaging Alliance], and other industry groups have consistently defended the safety of BPA -- and lobbied extensively against its regulation. But that such a flawed study would be published and its findings so misrepresented has outraged prominent members of the scientific community. "Its conclusions are preposterous," says Fred vom Saal, professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia whose research on endocrine hormones dates back to the 1970s.

...

In criticizing the Breast Cancer Fund study, NAMPA also said the levels of BPA found in the kids' canned food tested -- an average of 13 to 114 parts per billion -- "are well within the safety recommendations of government agencies." But such levels of BPA, which is known to be biologically active at very low levels of exposure, according to vom Saal, are sufficient "to prompt an entire range of effects." (Read complete article.)

More bad news on BPA? (KQED-FM, 9/16/2011)

A few days ago we told you about significant new research that found both BPA and methylparaben can cause human breast cells to act like cancer cells, AND interfere with the drug tamoxifen.

Today NPR station KQED hosted lead researcher William Goodson, M.D. of California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, as well as San Francisco Chronicle health care reporter Victoria Colliver, in a conversation about this important research and what it means.

They also reference the study of BPA in food packaging we published with Silent Spring Institute in March, in which we found that avoiding packaged food for just three days resulted in significantly lower BPA levels in study participants.

Listen now:

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.)

Study explores chemical effects on breast tissue - and why we don't have enough of this data

Our colleagues at Silent Spring Institute have published a landmark review of the effects of mothers’ exposures to environmental chemicals on their daughters' breast development before and soon after birth.

Research into effects of common chemicals on breast development is a crucial strategy for breast cancer prevention, but one that's frequently omitted from research models. In other words, the breast often isn't studied when scientists assess the health risks of chemicals—researchers look at other tissues and systems instead. That's why only 212 chemicals have been identified as mammary carcinogens—not because other chemicals are not linked to breast cancer, but because most of the 80,000 chemicals registered for use in the United States have not been tested for their effects on the mammary gland.

The review, published in Environmental Health Perspectives in late June, brings together for the first time what we know about the effects of common chemicals on breast development.

Breast development begins in the womb and continues until a woman breastfeeds an infant. Thus, breast development spans decades. As noted in our State of the Evidence report, there are critical periods of development—such as in the womb, during puberty or during pregnancy—when breast tissue is especially vulnerable to exposures to environmental chemicals.

One of the key findings of the review is that for some chemicals, such as atrazine, bisphenol A, DDT and genistein, breasts are affected at lower doses than other tissues. In addition, these and other endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), such as dibutyl phthalate, nonylphenol and polybrominated diphenyl ether fire retardants (PBDEs), can alter the structure of breast tissue and the timing of breast development at puberty.

The review recommends that changes in breast development be included in chemical risk assessment, and that research consider exposures during the key periods of development when breasts are most vulnerable. When 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime, the lack of breast development outcomes as part of chemical safety assessment is a clear oversight.

Addressing this oversight requires that chemicals be tested for effects on breast development before we put them into products. To this end, the National Toxicology Program and EPA need to make testing for later-life effects of prenatal and early life exposures on the breast part of their standard protocols. The California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) has developed a model research program on breast cancer prevention, but the federal government needs to expand this, and other models of cancer prevention, into a national cancer prevention strategy.