Switchboard, from NRDC › Jennifer Sass's Blog

Guilty Verdict in First Ever Criminal Trial of Asbestos Magnate

2012-02-13T15:20:36Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Today in Turin, Italy, a criminal court issued its a guilty verdict in the criminal trial of Stephan Schmidheiny and Belgian baron Louis de Cartier for creating an environmental disaster that has claimed over 3,000 lives. The prosecutor had asked the 3-judge panel to sentence the defendants to 20 years each in jail - they got 16 years each instead.

Schmidheiny and the baron owned and managed a company called Eternit that made asbestos-cement building products in many countries in Europe, South America, and South Africa. The defendants are charged with failing to take reasonable measures to protect the workers and communities around their factories from asbestos. Neither of the defendants has appeared in the trial.

Assunta Prato, asbestos widow and another member of the Casale community group, said, “The deaths of our beloved were not from natural causes but by the greed of some people. We hope the judgment will deter the people who say the same lies now in other countries that were said in Casale 30 years ago. We hope that compensation ordered by the court will demonstrate that the production of asbestos is no longer good business anywhere in the world.”

"Our battle is a battle for civil justice, not a request for economic compensation" said Romana Blasotti Pavesi, 82, President of Association of Families and Victims of Casale Monferrato, whose husband and daughter and other family members died from asbestos, most from environmental non-occupational exposure.

The World Health Organization estimates over 100,000 people die each year from asbestos, but this may be the first time in the world that executives with the asbestos industry are convicted and sentenced by a criminal court. Over 1000 asbestos victims and their families from Italy and France are coming to attend the reading of the court's verdict.

The trial has been going on for over two years. Schmidheiny has a net worth of about $3 billion and has reportedly spent over $10 million a year on lawyers and public relations representatives in this case.

More information on the Eternit trial from the Italian Asbestos Victims Families Casale (in English) here: http://asbestosinthedock.ning.com/

And here from the U.S. Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/archives/9409

http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/archives/9766

EPA misses deadline to finalize dioxin health assessment

2012-02-01T12:46:59Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

EPA made a public promise to complete its assessment of the highly toxic chemical Dioxin by the end of January - yesterday. Deadline missed. Why does it matter? We, the people, need the federal government - our government - to issue a clear scientific report that dioxin is a highly toxic chemical, so that state and federal regulators can use that to set health-protective limits on dioxin in our food, water, and environment.

So, why the delay? Since 1985 - 27 years ago! - efforts by EPA to assess the risks of dioxin have been delayed time and time again despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting EPA’s assessment, and approval in 2010 by EPA’s independent Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). On August 29, 2011, EPA announced its final plan for completing the Dioxin Reassessment. EPA committed to completing the non-cancer portion of the reanalysis and posting it to its IRIS database by the end of this month, and to then complete the cancer portion of the reanalysis soon thereafter.

Now, the industry is in a lather over EPA’s imminent release of the non-cancer portion of its assessment of dioxin with a non-cancer risk estimate (i.e. reference dose, RfD), rather than waiting until completion of its cancer assessment. However, after nearly three decades of work on the dioxin assessment, EPA’s procedural decision to issue the portion of the assessment it has completed will provide the public and regulators with a clear consensus statement on the most current estimated risk associated with dioxin exposure, and the supporting scientific evidence and rationale. Industry’s disparagement of EPA’s release of the assessment in two parts as a “split-decision” makes about as much sense as criticizing J.K. Rowling for not waiting to complete all seven Harry Potter books before releasing the first one.

How bad is dioxin for my health? The term "dioxin" refers to a family of chemicals that contain one or more chlorine atoms attached to a double ring of carbon atoms. The most toxic and potent of the dioxins is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). High levels can cause liver damage and a host of other problems, most visibly including a skin condition called chloracne. However, animal and human studies show that even very low levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD -- levels many people contain in their bodies today -- can cause a variety of health problems, including immunologic impairments, and hormonal alterations. The hormone alterations and immune dysfunction increase risks of reduced fertility, birth defects, and cancer. For example, animal studies have found that the chemical can reduce sperm production, alter sex hormone levels, and increase miscarriage rates.

2,3,7,8-TCDD can also cause birth defects such as skeletal deformities, kidney defects, and learning and behavioral problems. More recent studies have found a potential link to increased diabetes risk. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

How might I be exposed to dioxin? Food is a significant source of dioxin exposure. Because dioxins accumulate in fat, the foods that contain the highest amounts are meat, dairy products, and fish. All people have some level of dioxin stored in their body fat, according to a representative sampling of people in the U.S. conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It takes at least 7 years to excrete half of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD load, so clearing the body of the chemical takes a long time and most of us are being continually re-exposed through our diets.

What can I do? Children born in 1985 when EPA started this assessment -- with dioxin in their bodies at birth -- are now 27, perhaps with children of their own, also born polluted with dioxin and hundreds of other toxic chemicals. Don’t let the chemical and food industries stall the dioxin assessment for another generation. Urge EPA to reject the latest wave of industry pressure to further stall the release of the dioxin reassessment and finalize the non-cancer portion of the dioxin reanalysis by the end of this January and the cancer portion as quickly as possible thereafter.

NRDC files lawsuit blocking untested nanosilver pesticide from clothing

2012-01-26T15:56:00Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Today we filed a federal lawsuit to block nanosilver, a potent antimicrobial pesticide, from market access. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conditionally registered nanosilver for use in textiles including such things as clothing, baby blankets, and pillow cases.

The "conditional" part of the registration means that EPA does not have all the legally required toxicity data, but is letting the pesticide on the market anyway, on the "condition" that the manufacturer, HeiQ, provide it sometime over the next four years. Four years! (More on the registration process from my colleague Mae Wu here)

Ironically, a report of the National Academies just yesterday found that, "Despite extensive investment in nanotechnology and increasing commercialization over the last decade, insufficient understanding remains about the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials."

Silver, a well-recognized antimicrobial, is highly toxic and kills both harmful and beneficial bacteria. Nanosilver is engineered from silver and marketed as an even stronger antimicrobial than silver. Because of its smaller size, nanosilver penetrates organs and tissues in the body that larger forms of silver cannot reach, like the brain, lung, and testes. That can't be good!

Unfortunately, while HeiQ came to EPA to have its product registered, other nanosilver manufacturers have not. The unregulated and untested use of nanosilver in such products as food storage containers and hair dryers continues to grow, despite potential dangerous health effects.

What can you do? Think twice before you purchase any products with germ-fighting or antimicrobial claims. No one needs chemical-impregnated clothing. Soap and water is all the germ-fighting we need.

New study links toxic chemicals in consumer products with impaired immune system

2012-01-25T12:47:14Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Never heard of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)? They're used in many of the most common consumer products, including non-stick coatings, waterproofing chemicals, and stain-resistent coatings on clothing, furniture, food packaging, non-stick pans, shiny coatings in pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, etc. They get into food, drinking water, and dust from coated products. And, then, into our blood and bodies.

This "chemical trespass" without our knowledge and permission is bad enough, but now a new study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is linking these chemicals with impaired immune responses in exposed children. The research group, from Harvard School of Public Health in collaboration with Danish Universities, studied over 650 children and found that their exposure to PFCs in the womb (pre-birth) from their mother's exposure was associated with impaired immunity in childhood, making them much more vulnerable to disease. The full study is here.

What can you do? Almost all disease is a combination of genetics and environmental exposure. We can't do much about our genes, but we can do something to make our environment safer for ourselves and our loved ones. Big business chemical industries have repeatedly blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other government bodies from assessing the harms of hazardous chemicals (see here for my recent report documenting evidence of this obfuscation of science).

My report outlines the “Four Dog Defense” that big business has developed to defend its dangerous products, first tobacco, then asbestos, and now toxic chemicals generally: 1) My dog (product) doesn’t bite, 2) My dog bites, but it didn’t bite you, 3) My dog bit you, but it didn’t hurt you, and 4) My dog bit you, and hurt you, but it wasn’t my fault. Skeptical? You should be!

Tell EPA to call off the dogs! Support federal and state laws to reform chemical regulations. And, see the blogs here of my colleague, Daniel Rosenberg, about how cancer-causing chemicals have more friends in Congress than you do (blogs part 1 and part 2)!

And, most important, support federal funding of independent science like this study, because without it we have only the science funded and conducted by the chemical industry.

New NRDC report, The Delay Game, documents chemical industry efforts to delay health assessments of toxic chemicals

2011-10-18T12:35:00Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Big business chemical industries have repeatedly blocked the Environmental Protection Agency and other government bodies from assessing the harms of hazardous chemicals. NRDC provides a meticulous accounting of the evidence behind this in The Delay Game. This new report, released today, uses three chemicals, formaldehyde, trichloroethylene (TCE) and styrene, to illustrate a larger systemic breakdown, in desperate need of a fix.

Our report outlines the “Four Dog Defense” that big business has developed to defend its dangerous products, first tobacco, then asbestos, and now toxic chemicals generally: 1) My dog (product) doesn’t bite, 2) My dog bites, but it didn’t bite you, 3) My dog bit you, but it didn’t hurt you, and 4) My dog bit you, and hurt you, but it wasn’t my fault. Skeptical? You should be!

Without government experts to assess the health harms of industrial chemicals, we have only industry science to turn to. If you think the government isn’t looking out for you, do you think that the corporate boardrooms of America will do better?

We are putting our own health and the health of our families and communities in the hands of the chemical industry when we fail to defend our government scientists and experts from public calls to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, cut funds for our public servants or just sit idly by while the industry blocks the health assessments and subsequent safeguards that protect our air, water, and land.. This is a recipe for more cancer, asthma, birth defects, and other illnesses and deaths from increased exposure to toxic chemicals in our consumer products, our homes, our food, our drinking water, and ultimately our bodies.

See the Delay Game report for details, and decide for yourself if the chemical industry can be trusted to protect our health.

Ater reading Delay Game, I hope you can support NRDC and other environmental health advocates in fighting to reform our laws so that hazardous chemicals are phased out of use where they are not necessary, or used with care and oversight where they must be used.

See today’s related blog from my colleague and co-author, Daniel Rosenberg, for details about our chemical reform work.

US Fish and Wildlife Service finds pesticides, including atrazine, harms frogs.

2011-10-07T19:39:17Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

As my NRDC colleague Andrew Wetzler has noted, on October 5 "the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it would not protect the northern leopard frog under the Endangered Species Act. Hidden in that announcement was the admission, however, that pesticides (particularly atrazine) 'has likely contributed to northern leopard frog population extirpations throughout their range.'"

Unfortunately, the EPA Office of Pesticides is still failing to take any meaningful action to limit or ban this pesticide! (see EPA website here). The chemical is one of the most widely used herbicides in the US, and runs off corn fields and golf courses all over the country, polluting our nation's rivers and streams at levels that have been shown in the lab to turn male frogs into females, impair frog immunity, and threaten frog survival. EPA even identifies it as a potential risk for human male and female reproductive harms and birth defects in infants (details at my blog here).

All pesticides in the US have to be registered by EPA, including atrazine. EPA may restrict or limit use of the pesticide to mitigate any unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. If various restrictions or mitigations will not be enough to protect human health or the environment from unreasonable adverse effects, then the pesticide should not be registered.

NRDC has called on EPA to ban atrazine (see my blog here). EPA should take action on the findings of its government colleagues at US Fish and Wildlife ,and take this dangerous pesticide off the market! We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can stop pouring it all over our land and water.

TAKE ACTION! You can send EPA a message about the importance of phasing out atrazine use in the United States--not just for the frogs, but for us all--here.

Again! Chemical industry pushing to delay EPA health assessment of hexavalent chromium in our drinking water

2011-10-03T18:00:00Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Chrome looks pretty sweet on car parts and motorcycles. Not so much in your drinking water. At least, that what the new science from the US National Toxicology Program indicates, when the rats drinking hexavalent chromium (Cr6) over a lifetime got intestinal cancers. Unfortunately for us, Cr6 is in the drinking water piped into homes across the country.

EPA is on the ball, with a health assessment issued this past summer for public comment and peer review by its IRIS staff scientists (IRIS stands for Integrated Risk Information System).

The chemical industry has called for EPA’s assessment to be halted until new industry-sponsored studies can be completed. Similar calls came from two members of the 9-member "independent" expert peer reviewers who NRDC later learned were paid consultants to the chromium industry! Dr. Steven Patierno's research on chromium is funded by the chromium industry through ToxStrategies Inc, a consulting firm that is coordinating the industry research. Dr. Joshua Hamilton is a litigation witness for PG&E, the utility responsible for the chromium ground water contamination in the Hinkley case made famous in the Erin Brockovich movie. The EPA IRIS program needs to get control of its peer review process, so this doesn't happen again!

Although the peer review panelists agreed with EPA's use of the government-sponsored rodent drinking water study, there was a split vote on whether the chemical was likely to cause cancer from ingestion (drinking water) - a split that would have been decisively supportive of EPA's classification of "likely to be carcinogenic to humans" had the two industry-funded scientists not been included. Chromium has long been known to cause cancer in people and animals via inhalation, and all panelists agreed that it was a genotoxic chemical (causes damage to cellular DNA, which could lead to cancer).

(The water utilities are supporting industry's request for a delay. See the blog of my colleague and drinking water policy expert, Mae Wu here for details).

According to the 2009 EPA Toxic Releases Inventory (the most recent data available), 44 million pounds of chromium and chromium compounds were released to the environment that year, including almost 2 million pounds into underground wells, almost 99 thousand pounds as surface water discharges, and 1 million pounds into the air as fugitive and point source air emissions.

We urge EPA to move ahead with finalizing the EPA Cr6 Assessment, so that water providers will have a clear mandate to reduce chromium contamination in drinking water.

Today, we sent a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson signed by 35 environmental, environmental justice, and public health groups asking EPA to stick with their schedule and get the assessment finalized on time.

More from the California perspective from my colleague, Dr. Gina Solomon here.

EPA finalizes long-delayed TCE assessment - big step to protecting public health

2011-09-28T18:22:58Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Today EPA took an important step towards protecting the public and wildlife from trichloroethylene (TCE), a very hazardous mutagenic cancer-causing chemical that pollutes the nation’s water and air. TCE is also the culprit involved in the Woburn, MA cancer cluster of childhood leukemia cases (and the subject of the movie, “A Civil Action” starring John Travolta). EPA's press release is here.

This much-delayed action is a triumph of science over special interest politics. The public won today. Here I tell the history of science-manipulation for this chemical, but for the political shenanigans see today's blog of my colleague Daniel Rosenberg.

TCE is a chlorinated solvent used primarily for metal degreasing—most notably for jet parts—and is a widespread drinking water contaminant that is leaching from military bases and industrial sites throughout the country. In addition to cancer, TCE causes harmful effects to the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system, and the developing fetus. The EPA has been trying to finalize its assessment of TCE for 22 years, making today’s announcement a long-overdue victory for health.

The last EPA assessment of TCE was 24 years ago, in 1987, classifying TCE as a "probable" human carcinogen (Group 2B). In 1989, the EPA started to update its TCE cancer assessment, but didn’t issue a draft for public and peer review for a dozen years, until 2001. The 2001 EPA draft for TCE calculated that the chemical was 5 to 65 times more toxic than previously estimated, and classified it as "highly likely" to cause human cancer. It identified children as a susceptible population, and noted that co-exposure to some other chemicals may augment the toxicity of TCE.

The 2001 draft also triggered a decade-long firestorm of criticism from the chemical industry, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), which together are responsible for about 750 TCE-contaminated dump sites in the nation.

EPA sent its TCE draft assessment to its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) in 2002 for peer review by independent scientific experts. The SAB issued a very favorable report. Nonetheless, Bush Administration political appointees forced the EPA to put the draft assessment on hold.

The Pentagon forced the draft into a further delay by insisting on a consultation from the National Academies, delaying the report by two more years and costing more than $1 million of taxpayer money. However, the review, completed in 2006, was very favorable of the EPA draft, urging EPA to finalize it as soon as possible.

In the spring of 2007 the Bush Administration side-stepped the science by issuing a rule exempting the military and certain industries from laws that would put a limit on air emissions of TCE and other halogenated solvents. The exemption was challenged in court by NRDC and other environmental groups. In 2009 the Obama Administration agreed to reconsider the Bush-era air emission exemptions. The outcome of that process is still pending.

In 2009, the EPA staff again updated its still-draft TCE assessment, classifying TCE as carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure, based mainly on its high risk of causing kidney cancers, but also on Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and liver cancer. It is the 2009 draft with minor changes that was finalized today and issued to the public as the new 2011 health assessment, to be used to set more protective clean-up standards and exposure limits across the country.

Details on the history of industry obfuscation for TCE and other chemicals will be forthcoming in my soon-to-be-released report. Learn the tricks of the trade, how to recognize when public health is getting snookered, and much more. Watch for it!

PSR series on pesticides, regulations, and farmworker health

2011-08-28T13:20:34Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

My colleagues and friends at Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) have just published a series of short commentaries titled, "How does our nation’s reliance on pesticides affect the health of those who plant and harvest our food?" Among the excellent short essays is one by myself and my colleague, Mae Wu, on "US Pesticide Regulation: Weaknesses, Loopholes, and Flaws Undermine Farmworker Health". I know that readers will find these short essays useful and interesting. Enjoy, and big thanks to PSR for putting this series together with such respected and knowledgeable authors!

Despite Industry Pressure, Government Cancer Report Finally Released

2011-06-10T19:28:55Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Today the government released its 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC) - naming styrene and formaldehyde as among the chemicals that are known (formaldehyde) or reasonably anticipated (styrene) to cause cancer in humans (see the media announcement here). This is a really big deal, because the chemical industry has been fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent these assessments - actually to prevent the whole report - from being finalized. It’s been held up for four years by industry interference, but the public has a right to know about the chemical risks that are foisted upon us through air and water pollution, off-gassing from consumer products, inadequate or unenforced regulations, etc. (see NRDC's Dr. Janssen's blog on chemical reform here)

The 12th RoC formaldehyde classification of a known human carcinogen is consistent with the determination by the World Health Organization, EPA, and a recent National Academies review (see my blog here for details and links). Specifically, all these prestigious scientific bodies identified cancer risks of the nasal cavity, and some types of leukemia. It was the leukemia risks that the chemical industry fought so hard against, even though the evidence comes from human epidemiology of industrial workers and embalmers. In fact, industry has used political pressure to hold up EPA's scientific assessment for 13 years, since 1998, and it's still in draft form.

Styrene has been tied up in similar political knots. Styrene is used to manufacture many plastics, latex paints, synthetic rubbers, polyesters and coatings. It is also approved for use in food-contact materials, and as an FDA-approved synthetic flavoring in ice cream and candy (see 12th RoC fact sheet here, and EPA fact sheet here). It is regulated as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by EPA, and considered possibly carcinogenic to humans by the World Health Organization. EPA has been trying to update its styrene assessment since 1998, with no end in sight.

Atrazine, a toxic pesticide that is associated with birth defects in people, and in lab animal studies has been shown to cause cancer and impaired reproductive and immune development, was not listed in the 12th RoC after significant industry pressure (see letters from the grain growers here and from Syngenta, the chemical manufacturer here). More about atrazine harms is here.

The chemical industry fought the truth, the science, and the public - but, in the end our government experts came through for us, giving the public accurate information about the health risks from chemicals that are commonly found in our homes, schools, and workplaces.

What we really need to prevent this from continuing to happen is a chemical regulatory law that works to ensure safe use of chemicals BEFORE, not after they are sold to us. I hope you can support reform of our Nation's chemical law, called TSCA (more information here).

Save the Frogs - ban atrazine and other frog-toxic pesticides

2011-04-28T14:08:25Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Friday is Save the Frogs day, with a big rally in Washington DC and an online petition to ban atrazine, a weed-killing pesticide that is very harmful to frogs.

Pesticides are harmful – that’s why they end in “…cide”, like the words genocide and suicide. Pesticides kill things, by design. But, not just the intended targets like weeds or harmful insects. They also can be deadly to non-target or unintended things like frogs, fish, birds, bees, and us. And, by design, they are used in a way that releases them all over our land, water, and food crops. That’s why Congress established special rules for pesticides, different from other industrial chemicals, requiring that pesticide manufacturers, called ‘registrants’, provide toxicity data up front. And, the law requires, and obligates the EPA to evaluate the data and regulate pesticides with restrictions so that they are used “without causing any unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment”.

Atrazine is one of the most common pesticides in the US, used at about 60-80 million pounds a year in the US, mainly on corn, golf courses and lawns. It has been shown to interfere with male frog gonad development, impair amphibian immunity leading to increased susceptibility to infection, and reduce long-term survival. I’ve covered a lot of that in my earlier blog here.

EPA has assessed a number of pesticides including atrazine for their potential risk to frogs. The results are on EPA’s website here.

EPA found in 2009 that atrazine “is likely to adversely affect” the California Red-legged frog and the Delta smelt – both endangered species.

Atrazine isn’t good for humans either. As detailed in my blog here studies in women it’s been associated with delayed menopause and an increased risk of gestational diabetes. In men its been associated with poor semen quality. And, in EPA has found that it “may play a role in developmental effects” like abdominal wall defects, infant limb abnormalities, and low birth weight.

And, the economics of atrazine don’t add up – if it were cancelled, corn yields wouldn’t be harmed significantly, according to a rigorous economic analysis discussed here.

Although no studies on frogs or even on amphibians are required by EPA, it does require studies of fish (bluegill and trout) and aquatic invertebrates like Daphnia. NRDC has learned that EPA approved pesticides even when the manufacturing companies did not provide fish toxicity tests (for example acequinocyl, boscalid, dimethomorph, dinotefuran, etoxazole, flazasulfuron, imazamox, metofluthrin, pinoxaden, spinetoram, spinosad, spirodiclofen, spirotetramat, ) or studies on whether the pesticide bioaccumulates in fish (for example, thiacloprid, dimethomorph, fenhexamid,and fluroxypyr). Without these important fish data, how then is EPA supposed to evaluate potential risks to fish and amphibians? Not very well, I’m thinking.

What can EPA do? Don't approve pesticides until they have been fully tested, and can be used without harming non-target species like frogs, bees, and people. Cancel pesticides like atrazine when the science shows that their use is harmful to frogs and other aquatic amphibians, and likely people also.

What can we do? Avoid pesticides on our lawns, gardens, and around our homes. Talk to our local schools and see if they would consider avoiding pesticides in the school yards where children play. Live with a few weeds and a less-green lawn, in exchange for the happy sound of pesticide-free birds, bees, frogs, and children.

Three new government-funded studies link pre-natal pesticide exposure and later learning disabilities

2011-04-22T01:09:35Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Pre-natal exposure to an especially toxic class of pesticides called "organophosphate pesticides" or OP's, has been linked to poor memory, learning deficits, and lower IQ when the children are school-aged in three studies just published today. These studies show that the fetus is a uniquely vulnerable time of development, and confirm the wisdom of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it cancelled household uses of most (but not all) OP's in 2001 based on evidence of harm from laboratory studies. However, despite repeat calls by NRDC for EPA to cancel the agriculture uses of OPs, millions of pounds are still used every year on our food crops.

All three of today's studies were done by federally-funded university scientists, and published in the government-supported high quality scientific journal, Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), which allows free access to all its articles online.

These findings are a game-changer - they provide irrefutable evidence from children whose mothers were exposed to household pesticides while pregnant that early-life exposure to OP pesticides causes long-lasting serious neurological impairments.

My colleague, medical doctor and environmental health expert Dr. Gina Solomon has blogged with more detail about the health effects and results of these three studies.

I would like to point out something about these studies that may otherwise go unnoticed - the value of taxpayer support for this important independent high-quality research. Without government research funding to support independent university researchers we would have to trust the manufacturers regarding the safety of their products.

Here is what the chemical manufacturers say: "Dow AgroSciences is prepared to support continued registration of chlorpyrifos and has extensive scientific data and 40 years of experience with the product under labeled use to bring to these evaluations." Not very comforting, is it?

In response to a 2007 petition and 2010 lawsuit by NRDC and Pesticide Action Network (PANNA), EPA has committed to reviewing the health effects of chlorpyrifos, the OP pesticide that is the culprit in the three studies released today. We hope that this time EPA will cancel all uses, and get it out of our food supply forever.

“Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphates, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development in Childhood” will be available here. Study coauthors include Stephanie M. Engel, James Wetmur, Jia Chen, Chenbo Zhu, Dana Boyd Barr, Richard L. Canfield, and Mary S. Wolff.

“Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children” will be available here. Study coauthors include Maryse F. Bouchard, Jonathan Chevrier, Kim G. Harley, Katherine Kogut, Michelle Vedar, Norma Calderon, Celina Trujillo, Caroline Johnson, Asa Bradman, Dana Boyd Barr, and Brenda Eskenazi.

“7-Year Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common Agricultural Pesticide” will be available here. Study coauthors include Virginia Rauh, Srikesh Arunajadai, Megan Horton, Frederica Perera, Lori Hoepner, Dana B. Barr, and Robin Whyatt.

National Academy of Sciences: Formaldehyde Still Causes Cancer in Humans

2011-04-08T21:09:12Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Today the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its long-awaited report on formaldehyde. The report confirms EPA’s determination that formaldehyde causes cancer in humans. The Academies recommended that EPA re-write its report to more clearly communicate the scientific reasoning underpinning its assessment, and to finalize it as soon as possible.

In addition to scientific consensus that formaldehyde causes cancer of the nose and nasal cavity in humans, EPA identified a risk of leukemia associated with formaldehyde. Although the chemical industry disputes this, The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the World Health Organization (WHO/IARC), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have all identified a possible link with leukemia. While asking EPA to state its reasoning more concisely, and to separate out leukemia risks from lymphoma risks, the Academies supported EPA in developing a cancer risk estimate for leukemia.

But, let's not lose sight of what is important. Formaldehyde has been known for years to cause cancer. And, it contaminates the air in our homes and workplaces, leaching from plywood and particle board furniture and other household products. The people who are still inhaling this toxic and cancer-causing chemical deserve protection.

Unfortunately, the Academies also questioned EPA's decision to develop its risk estimates based on observed cancers in laboratory animal studies and from government-supported workplace studies that included tens of thousands of people. Instead, the Academies seems to want EPA to re-consider using a mathematical model of nose cancer that was developed with industry funding, which fails to account for leukemia risks, and which has been widely criticized. Importantly, the model proposes that formaldehyde only causes cancer at higher doses, but may be safe at low doses. Although EPA may need to better communicate its decision to move away from this model, as a publicly-funded Agency charged with protecting human health and the environment, it would be a dangerous precedent to follow the regulated industry down the road of calling cancer-causing chemicals safe, at any dose, based on a mathematical model.

It's time to move forward to eliminate dangerous exposures to formaldehyde.

Today's report contains strong recommendations from the Academies about the way that EPA communicates its assessments, including that EPA needs to be more transparent about its methods, its criteria for evaluating individual studies, and its system for assessing the weight of evidence.

The Academies encouraged EPA to complete its re-write as soon as possible, and we agree.

NY Times report on hydro fracking pollution - shocking!

2011-02-28T15:39:18Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

This weekend the first in a series of stories in the New York Times on natural gas hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking' hit the newsstands. It was jam-packed with information about how reckless and poorly-managed this industry can be. Our NRDC experts have already blogged with more information from Kate here and Amy here.

Imagine a community where extraction industries are under-regulated, unchecked, and unfettered in their activities. You don't have to imagine too hard - just read the NY Times reports on weekly spills, creek contaminations, well-water contamination, and sick families. These risks are real - and, can have significant impacts on wildlife, livestock, and people.

This story really highlights the much-needed role that governments (federal, state, and local) play to regulate industries and protect human health and the environment. Everyone in the NY Times story was looking towards government to fix the problem - right at the time when Congress and the Republican budget proposals are slashing funds that would have supported compliance and enforcement capacity. How disastrous!

And, what should the public and government officials be requiring from this industry?

Clearly the natural gas industry should be using best available technology(BAT) wherever possible to protect human health and the environment - if not by law, then by voluntary effort.

Some technical innovations that represent BAT include: capturing air emissions; reusing toxic fracking fluids to reduce waste; using non-toxic substitutes where available; using closed-loop pitless drilling; preventive maintenance to prevent leaks; and, well-clustering and centralized operations.

Voluntary use of the above BAT (by some companies, sometimes) has had the following proved benefits: wells fractured with non-toxic fluids were found to be effective and less costly; closed loop drilling incurs a cost-savings and also reduces road use, truck noise, emissions and dust, and water waste; capturing methane emissions from a well reduces air pollution and the methane can be sold to offset the costs associated with installing BAT. In summary, BAT can pay for itself if companies only put in the effort to install and use it!

Since the industry already wrangled exemptions from sections of most of the environmental protection regulations (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and RCRA), Congress needs to close these loopholes as soon as possible, and regulators need to ensure they have the most up-to-date and strict regulations that incorporate BAT. Until then, the public needs to push each company to set a voluntary compliance bar high enough to protect human health and the environment.

Most states do not adequately inspect or enforce the regulations that are required. For example, Texas has 250,000 wells and 83 field inspectors. So, for now, companies must reform their corporate culture and take the initiative in setting safe practices.

US pesticide trends - what, where, and how much. EPA's long-awaited Bush-blocked report is out today!

2011-02-18T21:29:36Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Everything you wanted to know about pesticides, but were afraid to ask. Well, not everything - but, market trends from the industry sales and usage data. Wow, my heart rate is spiking! This report is supposed to be issued by EPA every two years, but hasn't seen daylight since 2001. Remember that election year? But, its back! Yay EPA!

Okay, okay - what's it say? Good news first, from today's EPA's announcement:

Total pounds of U.S. pesticide use decreased by approximately 8% from 1.2 to 1.1 billion pounds from 2000 to 2007. (But, this is still a LOT of toxic chemical going out onto our lawns and fields)
Use of conventional pesticides (usually considered the most toxic ones) decreased about 3% from 2002 to 2007 and 11% from 1997 to 2007.
Organophosphate insecticide (the big nasty ones that NRDC has been working to get banned) use decreased about 44% from 2002 to 2007, 63% from 2000 to 2007, and 55% from 1997 to 2007.

And, the less-good news:

Agriculture accounts for about 80% of all pesticide use (680 million pounds in 2007). Home and garden uses are about 8% (66 million pounds), and the rest is used in the industry/commercial/government sector (12%, 107 million pounds).
Among the top 10 pesticides used in terms of pounds applied in the agricultural market were the herbicides glyphosate, atrazine, metolachlor-s, acetochlor, 2,4-D, and pendimethalin, and the fumigants metam sodium, dichloropropene, methyl bromide, and chloropicrin. (Yeuch!)

The report is here, so check it out. But, we must do better - this spring, let's all take a stab at reducing that 66 million pounds of home and garden uses!