Switchboard, from NRDC › Sarah Janssen's Blog

Beyond the headlines - the IOM report on breast cancer and the environment.

2011-12-09T01:18:13Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Yesterday, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on breast cancer and the environment. The report (downloadable for free) was commissioned by the Susan G. Komen foundation and was written by a committee of experts who spent over a year reviewing and summarizing scientific evidence. The committee adopted a broad definition of “environment” to include anything that didn’t involve factors inherited through DNA.

The 360 page report was widely covered in the media yesterday and many of the headlines focused on personal responsibility for avoiding the “environmental” factors identified as being most strongly linked to breast cancer. The advice will not be new to most of you – don’t smoke or hang out around smokers, don’t drink excessively, don’t take hormone replacement therapy, avoid unnecessary medical radiation, and maintain your ideal weight and get regular exercise.

However, with a few exceptions, most of the news articles did not delve deeper into the report nor discuss some of its more signficant recommendations. Unfortunately, the impression that many of the headlines left was the ability to avoid breast cancer is in your control, if you just live a healthy life. However, the report was much richer than this and there were some important observations and recommendations which were left out of the mainstream media reports that I think are important to point out.

First, for the Komen foundation, this report is a significant step forward in the turning the conversation from how to cure breast cancer to how to prevent it. While we have made great strides in better detection and treatment of cancer, there has not been much of an emphasis on how to prevent breast cancer in the first place or in identifying factors which might cause it. This report starts that conversation at a national level.

Second, the report did identify a number of chemicals which have been linked to breast cancer, many which are found in cigarette smoke, such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene. Other chemicals such as pesticides, BPA, phthalates and were reviewed and found to have “biological plausibility” for causing breast cancer, but because there had not been an authoritative review by a government body or because most of the research had been done in animals, the committee concluded further research was needed.

Somewhat paradoxically, while the committee stated there wasn’t enough human research, the committee also recognized that it is not possible to do large scale human experiments with chemicals found in our every day environment and that at a population level, their impacts could be significant. Based on limited human data with supporting animal data, the committee actually supported government regulation of these chemicals, by making these statements, “The committee recognizes, however, that existing data indicate that BPA and some other substances may be hazards to human health and may well warrant consideration of actions by regulatory agencies that are aimed at reducing future population-based exposures.” and “Other considerations for regulators may include the possibility that exposure to multiple chemicals that contribute to mechanisms involved in breast cancer (e.g., mutagens, endocrine disruptors, etc.) may present a cumulative risk that could be controlled in part through regulatory actions on individual substances.” (IOM report, p. 6-18)

Third, the committee acknowledges that limited chemical testing data exists in our current regulatory environment which does not require chemicals be tested before they enter the market. Most chemicals have never undergone any toxicity testing. And if they have undergone some testing, most have never been tested for their impacts on the development of breast cancer.

This is one of the biggest reasons we need reform of federal chemical policy laws, such as TSCA, and why this is an issue that NRDC has been working on for several years. The committee encouraged “… efforts to better inform consumers and health professionals about the limits of FDA’s role, to encourage manufacturers to identify hormonally active ingredients in cosmetics and dietary supplements, and to ensure that FDA has effective tools to identify contaminants or ingredients that are potential contributors to increased risk of breast cancer.” and also “…encourage manufacturers to improve testing and make existing information on their products more readily available.” (IOM report, p. S-10)

Fourth, the report makes 13 research recommendations for better identifying and characterizing environmental links to breast cancer. Many of the recommendations are thoughtful and if incorporated, could make significant inroads into our understanding of breast cancer causation.

One overarching recommendation is that future breast cancer research considers the entire life course. As our scientific knowledge has grown, we have learned that breast development begins in the womb and continues through pregnancy and lactation. However, much of the breast cancer research looking at chemical exposures has focused on adult animals. By looking at exposures during critical periods of development, we will gain more useful information about how breast cancer develops and how important exposures during these vulnerable periods are.

Many of these recommendations support the recommendations made recently by another expert committee, the Breast Cancer and Chemicals Policy project supported by the California Breast Cancer Research Program. I was co-director of that project and have blogged previously about the report.

These recommendations include calls for research that incorporate the entire life course from prenatal through adult life, that identifies early changes that herald the development of breast cancer and could predict a chemical to be a carcinogen, that focuses on mechanisms such as endocrine activity and epigenetic changes, and that considers the impact of mixtures of chemicals. It makes important recommendations for improved chemical testing that could be started today if only the resources were directed towards them.

I hope that regulatory agencies and the Komen foundation will look beyond the headlines of this report and take these research recommendations seriously by directing more of the research dollars towards them.

NRDC lawsuit finally prompts FDA to agree to determine safety of BPA

2011-12-07T16:35:59Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finally committed to a decision by March 31, 2012 on whether to ban BPA from use in packaging for food and drinks. This was announced today as part of a settlement agreement with NRDC.

More than three years ago, NRDC filed a petition with FDA asking it to ban the use of BPA as a food additive. We waited and we waited, but never got an answer. FDA could have agreed to ban BPA, rejected our petition, or accepted some parts of it and not others, but instead it chose not to respond at all.

Legally, FDA has no more than 180 days to respond to a written petition. We filed that petition in October 2008, so that deadline came and went long ago without any ruling. After waiting 18 months without a response, we filed a lawsuit asking the court to intervene and require a date certain for the agency to respond.

Now, FDA has agreed to give us an answer – 41 months after the petition was filed.

While we are glad FDA is finally going to make a decision BPA in food packaging and this is a major step forward in the legal process, it is discouraging that FDA has not responded and that we had to ask the court to intervene just to get FDA to do its job. The agency has been dragging its feet on making a decision about BPA for far too long.

BPA is a synthetic chemical which mimics the female sex hormone, estrogen. Many scientific studies have linked it to reproductive harm, cancer, and abnormal brain development. It has no place in the food supply and its use in food and beverage containers needs to be banned.

Evidence has been mounting for over a decade but it wasn’t until 2007, when FDA began a re-assessment of BPA safety as a food additive. It drafted a report concluding BPA was safe as a food additive but its draft was strongly criticized by its science advisors and FDA was sent back to the drawing board. In 2009, FDA returned with another draft, which was again rebuked by external scientists. In 2010, in lieu of its own report, FDA announced it would adopt another inter-governmental agency’s report on BPA toxicity and would be conducting its own research. That report, which had been published two years before FDA accepted it, found “some concern” for the impacts of early life exposure of BPA on development of the brain and for contributing to the onset of prostate cancer later in life.

Beginning in 2010, FDA’s website promised the public a definitive answer on BPA safety by June 2011, but that statement has been removed without explanation. There have been no further updates from FDA since January 2010. In the meantime, more and more scientific studies and reports continue to be published raising concerns about the safety of this chemical in our food supply.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the only case where FDA has failed to act in a timely manner to respond to the public’s concern. Just last week, NRDC sued the agency again for failing to provide records requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In addition not being responsive to the public, FDA has stalled making decisions, used outdated science, and lacked transparency in its decision making. We have a new website which summarizes a few examples of situations where the public has been let down by FDA.

From the use of antibiotics in healthy livestock, to allowing the use of unproven and unsafe chemicals in hand soaps, to using inadequate science in assessing the safety of Gulf seafood, FDA has not been fulfilling its mission to protect of public health.

We hope that FDA will respond sooner than March to our request to remove BPA from the food supply. It already seems poised to respond to an industry petition to revoke approval of BPA for use in baby bottles and sippy cups. And that petition was only filed two months ago!

But we know that the major source of exposure isn’t baby bottles, but canned food. Every day, millions of American consumers are exposed to this dangerous chemical, found in most canned foods, beverages and even baby formula. The FDA has an obligation use scientific evidence to assure us that food additives such as BPA are safe.

While we wait for FDA to come to a decision, here are a few things you can do to reduce your BPA exposure:

Limit your consumption of canned or processed food by eating fresh or frozen produce and buying processed food in "brick" cartons, pouches or glass.
Limit your consumption of canned soda and beer - where possible choose glass as an alternative.
If you have a newborn, avoid feeding him/her any prepared liquid formula in a can. Breast is always best, but if you are using formula, powdered formulations are known to be BPA free.
Use a BPA-free reusable water bottle, such as an unlined stainless steel bottle.
Don't allow your children to have dental sealants made from BPA (or BADGE) applied to their teeth, and don't have these sealants applied to your teeth while you are pregnant. Ask your dentist to provide BPA-free treatments.
Tell the store clerk to keep the receipt. Thermal paper receipts are coated with high levels of BPA which can transfer through your skin into your body.

Another public health victory in California.

2011-10-13T03:16:06Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Today, the state of California has added the flame retardant, chlorinated Tris, or TDCPP to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Today’s listing will not ban the chemical from use, but could result in labeling of consumer products that contain the chemical. In 1977, this same chemical was banned from use in children’s pajamas because of concerns about cancer, but it is still legal to use in any other consumer product.

The Carcinogen Identification Committee, a scientific committee appointed by the Governor, voted 5 - 1 to add TDCPP (chlorinated Tris) to the Proposition 65 list. Prop 65 requires California to publish of a list of chemicals, known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. If you live in the state, you might recognize this label:

“WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

Such a warning label would have come in handy when I purchased my couch 3 years ago. I recently found out that couch contains chlorinated Tris!

The listing of chlorinated tris on Prop 65 is a public health victory.

Tris is the most commonly used flame retardant in foam in U.S. furniture and baby products according to recent studies, where Tris was found over one-third of baby products like changing pads, car seats, and infant positioners.

Flame retardants do not stay put in the foam but migrate out where they attach to dust particles that can be inhaled or ingested. Chlorinated tris has been found humans bodies as a result of their use in consumer products.

The fact that this chemical, which has been identified as a cancer-causing chemical for over 30 years, has been allowed to be used in consumer products is a glaring example of our broken chemical regulatory system which allows chemicals to be introduced into the market before they are shown to be safe. NRDC is working to reform this law. Learn more and get involved at www.takeouttoxics.org

FDA finally answers -- to the chemical industry.

2011-10-12T06:42:57Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Yesterday I posted a blog about an industry group who declares all baby bottles and sippy cups in the U.S. are now BPA-free. They have filed a formal request at FDA asking them to ban the use of BPA in these products.

Today, a news report came out saying that FDA plans to grant the industry’s request. According to this report, FDA will publish a public notice of their intent to ban use of BPA on baby bottles and sippy cups, just a few weeks after the industry asked them to.

This is great news as it means that BPA baby bottles will once and for all be gone from store shelves.

But I have to ask, FDA, where have you been all these years??

Three years ago, NRDC filed a similar request to the FDA asking them to revoke approval of BPA in all food contact applications, including baby bottles and sippy cups. Even then, there was good scientific evidence that BPA was harmful. FDA has still not responded to our request. In fact, we have had to sue the Agency to get a response.

But it took them only 3 weeks to decide they were going to grant the industry’s request.

Clearly, FDA answers to corporate interests and thinks it is OK to ignore public health interests. They have given us the silent treatment for three years. Until now, they have refused to regulate use of BPA in the face of abundant scientific evidence that has not shown this chemical to be safe.

This is no way to carry out its mission.

FDA is a broken agency that needs real reform. FDA should not wait for a green light from industry before deciding to regulate a chemical. Instead, they should be more responsive to public demands, transparent in their process, and let science, not corporate surveys, lead their decisions.

Check out our new website: www.nrdc.org/fixfda and tell the FDA you expect them to do better!

Getting BPA out of baby bottles isn't enough.

2011-10-11T06:14:57Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

UPDATE: The FDA announced that it plans to grant the chemical industry’s request to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups in the U.S. Sarah responds.

Like most parents, I have invested a lot of time and money in buying baby bottles, sippy cups and other children’s products that were labeled “BPA-free”. Today, if you shop at any major retailer every bottle on the shelf is labeled “BPA-free”. But this wasn’t always the case.

It has only been because of consumer demand that the use of polycarbonate baby bottles containing BPA has been phased out. By 2009, all of the major baby bottle manufacturers and major retailers had gone "BPA-free".

BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical which mimics the female sex hormone, estrogen, and exposure during development has been linked to wide range of health problems including reproductive harm, altered brain development and even cancer later in life.

But parents have to be on their guard - because polycarbonate bottles containing BPA are still legal to sell. I have often worried about what happened to all those polycarbonate baby bottles that were taken off the store shelves. Are they being sold in at a deep discount elsewhere? Were the bottles stocked away in some warehouse and will they re-surface after the “BPA-free” marketing craze ends? And who is making sure the alternatives are safe?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety of our food supply, including the safety of food containers. They regulate chemicals used in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, food and beverage cans. All of which can have BPA in them.

My organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed a petition over three years ago asking the FDA to revoke their approval for the use of BPA in all food contact applications. This included baby bottles and sippy cups. The FDA never responded to that petition and we have had to resort to suing them to get a response.

Over the past three years, in the absence of any federal regulation, eleven states (the latest being California), have banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. Canada, the European Union and even China, have banned this use of BPA.

We, as a nation, are woefully behind in protecting our most vulnerable.

Last Friday, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade organization for the chemical industry, issued a press release which was widely covered in the news. The ACC is also asking the FDA to revoke approval of BPA for use in baby bottles and sippy cups.

This is good, right?! Isn’t this something we all want the FDA to do? Won’t this ensure that BPA is removed from baby bottles once and for all?

Yes... but wait a minute, there is something else going on here.

The ACC represents all the BPA manufacturers. They have a vested interest in keeping BPA on the market and they already lost the baby bottle market over two years ago. The ACC has wasted millions of dollars trying to block any regulation of BPA, including Californian’s recent ban on the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. They even had a secret meeting where they concluded the best way to improve BPA’s image was to find a pregnant young mother who could be their spokesperson!

Removing BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups is not enough. We still need to be on our guard and we need to demand more change. Over 90% of the population carries BPA in their bodies and we aren’t getting it from baby bottles.

Canned food, including liquid infant formula, is still the biggest source of BPA exposure for most people. We know that simple changes in diet can have dramatic effects on a person’s BPA level. And some canned food manufacturers are already moving away from using BPA in their cans. We have more tips on how to avoid BPA exposure here.

Though, this isn't a problem we should solve ourselves. We need the FDA to step up and remove BPA entirely from the food supply. Their job is to protect the public’s health, not corporate interests.

Furthermore, we need assurance that the alternatives to replace BPA are safe.

Years after we were done with them, I found out that the BPA-free bottles I bought for my daughter were made with a chemical called bisphenol S – a common BPA replacement which has not been adequately tested but is concerning for its own endocrine disrupting potential.

The reason chemicals end up being used in consumer products without being adequately tested is because of an outdated and ineffective law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. NRDC is a co-founding member of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign and we are working to revise this law and ensure that chemicals are safe before they can be used.

Please join us in calling for reform – become our facebook fan, check out our website, and educate your family and friends.

Finally! California bans BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups!

2011-10-05T01:24:42Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

This afternoon Governor Brown signed the "Toxin Free Infants and Toddler Act" a bill that will ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups sold in California. The bill, AB 1319, was authored by Assemblywoman Betsy Butler (D-El Segundo) and co-sponsored by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Santa Monica).

BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastics and is known to be an endocrine-disrupting chemical which mimics the female sex hormone estrogen. Exposures during development have been linked to a wide range of problems including prostate and breast cancer, reproductive harm, and abnormal development of the brain. Baby bottles and sippy cups are a significant source of exposure during vulnerable periods of development.

The Governor's signature makes California the eleventh state to ban BPA in these products. This is a long fought victory for health and environmental advocates who’ve sought a similar measure since 2008. During that time we have watched other states pass not only bans on BPA in sippy cups and baby bottles, but also in infant formula and paper receipts.

States have been forced to take health protective measures in the absence of any federal regulation of BPA. But other countries have - Canada, the European Union and even China have already banned BPA in these children's products.

Thank you Governor Brown for removing one of the biggest sources of exposure to BPA in infants and toddlers. And Thank you Assemblymember Butler and Senator Paveley for your persistent leadership on this issue.

New study links flame retardants to low birth weight.

2011-08-31T02:53:40Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

A study published today by a group of researchers at UC-Berkeley has found that exposure to a group of flame retardants, PBDEs, is linked to lower birth weight in infants.

I have written blogs before about the health concerns associated with exposure to PBDEs, including reduced fertility and impaired development. This new study adds to the growing list of harmful effects that have been associated with exposure to flame retardants.

When looking at the birth weights of over 250 infants, infants whose mothers were exposed to higher levels of PBDEs had lower birth weights. Though none of the infants were considered to be “low birth weight”, a clinical term reserved for infants weighing less than 5.5 pounds (2,500 grams), each 10-fold increase in blood levels of PBDEs was associated with a 4 ounce (115 gram) decrease in birth weight.

Four ounces might not sound like much, but it is similar to the decrease in birth weight seen with prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke. Low birth weight is a risk factor for health problems later in life, including developmental delays and cardiovascular disease.

The importance of this new study is that it has identified another potential contributor to low birth weight in a population of infants already at risk –those born to low income populations with poor access to good nutrition and prenatal care. Previous studies have identified low income populations as having higher exposures to PBDEs, the same flame retardants linked to low birth weight in this study.

The solution to this problem is smarter and more effective regulation of chemicals. PBDEs have been phased out of production but exposures continue because these chemicals persist in the environment and people, especially those on a limited income, who tend to have older furniture which still contains these chemicals. The problem isn’t solved by buying a new couch or recliner, because the chemicals replacing PBDEs may be just as toxic.

Join us in calling for reform of the federal chemical policy laws that have allowed this problem to happen. And in the meantime, here are a few tips on how to reduce your exposure to these and other toxic chemicals:

Vacuum often (with an HEPA filter) and wet-mop to reduce build-up of dust in your home.
Dust with a damp cloth or a microfiber cloth to avoid kicking up dust particles in the air as you work. For example, don’t use a feather duster as this only releases dust particles into the air.
Wash hands frequently, (with plain soap and water!) as hand-to-mouth contact with dust is a major pathway for exposure.

And if you live outside of California, buy furniture without the TB 117 label as shown below.

New study lends further evidence that California's flammability standard puts vulnerable populations at risk.

2011-08-10T13:54:02Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

A study published today in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology, is further evidence that Californian’s are the most highly polluted people in the world with toxic flame retardant chemicals. Most concerning is that these high levels continue to be found in vulnerable populations, like pregnant women and children. This contamination has occurred because of an outdated and ineffective California flammability standard for furniture foam.

The study done by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found very high levels of PBDE flame retardants and their breakdown products in a pilot study of 25 pregnant women in their second trimester. This study is important not just because it found the highest levels of PBDEs ever measured in pregnant women, but also because it supports previous studies which have found low income groups are the most highly exposed to these chemicals.

Previous studies have shown that Californian’s carry the highest levels of flame retardants in the world. This study confirms that finding and raises further concerns that these exposures are interfering with thyroid hormone function, which is critical for a healthy pregnancy and proper development of the brain. I have blogged previously on the health effectsof PBDEs and other flame retardants which have been associated with disrupting hormones, interfering with development and reproductive harm.

Flame retardants are a group of chemicals added to many consumer products such as electronics, furniture foam, carpeting, curtains, automobiles and even children’s products.

California has a unique flammability standard, TB 117, for upholstered furniture sold in the state. All upholstered foam furniture in California must be in compliance with this standard and though the standard doesn’t require the use of chemicals, the cheapest way to meet it has been to impregnate furniture foam with a lot of flame retardant chemicals. Millions of pounds of flame retardant chemicals are used for just this purpose, every year.

The trouble is - as well-intentioned as the standard may be - it has never been proven to be effective. Improved building codes requiring smoke detectors and water sprinklers, self-extinguishing cigarettes, and overall decreased rates of smoking have probably had a much bigger impact on the number of fires and fire deaths than the flammability standard.

One of the reasons we are so over-exposed to flame retardants is that they don’t stay put in furniture foam or electronics but migrate out and attach to dust particles which are inhaled or ingested. California homes have up to ten times higher amounts of PBDEs in house dust when compared to other parts of the U.S. or Canada. Furniture outside of California also carries the TB 117 label, and as a result, the U.S. population is much more highly exposed than anywhere else in the world and nearly everyone carries residues of these chemicals in their bodies.

Another problem with the PBDEs is that they persist in the environment and in people. So though PBDEs have been banned for use in California since 2004, they resist breakdown and will remain in the environment and in us for many decades to come.

On top of that, it is perfectly legal to resell that couch you bought 10 years ago, which likely contains PBDEs. Second hand furniture full of PBDEs is undoubtedly remains in many homes across the country, especially in low income homes, like those of the women who participated in this study.

So what’s the solution?

Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as replacing your old couch with a new one. Yes, that will reduce your exposure to PBDEs, but another unknown chemical will replace it.

If you live in California, your couch still has to meet the state flammability standard and with no labeling requirement, we don’t know which chemicals are being used to meet that standard. But we have good evidence that other toxic chemicals are being used as replacements.

The problem of one toxic flame retardant being banned only to be replaced by another toxic flame retardant has happened because of the weak federal law regulating the use of most chemicals in consumer products.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), first passed in 1976, was intended to prevent this problem from happening. Because the law has never been updated and because there are a lot of weaknesses in the law, it has been ineffective for over 35 years. NRDC has been leading efforts to revise TSCA and ensure that once a known bad actor chemical is phased out, the replacement chemical is found to be safe BEFORE it is used in consumer products.

Fortunately, there have been calls from all sides to update this law, and legislation was introduced by Senator Lautenberg to reform TSCA. We are in strong support of this bill and today, concerned parents all over the country will be participating in a stroller brigade with their young children, asking their Senator to support this legislation. You can send your Senator a note from here.

In the meantime, to reduce your exposure to PBDEs and other toxic chemicals which accumulate in dust, follow these simple recommendations:

Vacuum often (with an HEPA filter) and wet-mop to reduce build-up of dust in your home.
Dust with a damp cloth or a microfiber cloth to avoid kicking up dust particles in the air as you work. For example, don’t use a feather duster as this only releases dust particles into the air.
Wash hands frequently, (with plain soap and water!) as hand-to-mouth contact with dust is a major pathway for exposure.

And if you live outside of California, buy furniture without the TB 117 label as shown below.

Jessica Alba: Super Mom

2011-05-20T16:16:32Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

You may not have heard about it yet, but you will. Actress and mother Jessica Alba is travelling to Washington DC next week to lend her name and star power to an extremely worthy cause: reducing our exposure to unsafe chemicals by reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). She will be lending her support to the Safer Chemical Healthy Families coalition, which is leading the campaign. NRDC is a member of this broad coalition to pass smart federal policies that protect us from toxic chemicals.

One of Jessica Alba’s movie roles was Sue Storm Richards in the Fantastic Four, part of a quartet with individual super powers. Among Sue Storm’s powers is that she can create an invisible force field to protect herself and others from bullets, lasers and other weapons. But even a super hero with an invisible force field wouldn’t be able to prevent herself, or her children from being exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals, most of them untested and unregulated. Like flame retardants. This week a report was released that found flame retardants suspected of causing cancer are widespread in household and children’s products, including infant carriers and nursing pillows. Sue Storm and her family would probably have been exposed to a lot of flame retardants around the house, particularly since her brother Johnny’s signature superpower was being able to burst into flame, on self-command (“Flame On!”).

And flame retardants are just one class of chemicals that are routinely found in our bodies, some of which have been associated in scientific studies with a host of chronic illness and diseases including cancer, learning and developmental disabilities, birth defects and reproductive harm. That widespread exposure to chemicals, which includes exposures that have been measured in pregnant women and newborns, and the lack of restrictions on the use of chemicals, even those we know are unsafe, has led numerous science and medical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association -- to call for Congress to act to reform TSCA and protect the public.

I’m a doctor, and a mom, and, like Sue Storm’s superpower, my medical knowledge and experience aren’t enough to protect my daughter from exposure to toxic chemicals. Jessica Alba has her own set of superpowers as a successful actress, mother and activist, which can be used for good or evil. And she is a mom, which is another source of power (and inspiration).

Of course, the chemical industry has its own source of power, particularly in Washington DC, and, so far, the industry’s power has successfully blocked reform, and been able to maintain the status quo, despite the public’s strong concern about toxic chemicals and chronic illness. Most politicians in Washington have managed to tune-out the publics’ concerns, and have avoided the unpleasant reality that to protect the public they must be willing to make decisions that will displease the chemical industry.

So I’m excited, and hopeful, that Jessica Alba’s unique skills and high profile will raise the awareness of the problem, and the need for reform, in Washington, and inspire others to raise their voices and make their own contributions to the effort. That would be Fantastic!

Join Jessica Alba and urge your senators to co-sponsor the Safe Chemicals Act.

New study finds flame retardant chemicals are in most baby products.

2011-05-18T01:15:28Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Today a new study published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Environmental Science & Technology, found that out of 101 baby products tested, 80 contained flame retardant chemicals. The products tested included nursing pillows, car seats, changing table pads, sleep positioners, infant carriers and strollers. In all, 8 different types of flame retardant mixtures were identified and some products contained more than one class of flame retardant chemical.

The majority of baby products tested in this study contain flame retardant chemicals with names that resemble alphabet soup – TCEP, TDCPP, PBDEs, TCPP, TBPH, and TPP. But unlike soup, they aren’t good for you - some of these chemicals have been linked to a lowered IQ, reproductive problems including an increased time to pregnancy and poor sperm quality, hormone disruption, and cancer. If this wasn’t concerning enough, only a small number of flame retardants have undergone adequate testing and the toxicity of some of the flame retardants identified is unknown.

This study is significant for several reasons:

It the first study which has attempted to identify what types of flame retardant chemicals are present in a wide range of baby products. A previous smaller study by the same authors, found some of the same chemicals in 2 nursery items. Today's study looked at a much wider range of products that were collected from homes across the U.S.
Though today's study did not look at exposures in the children while using the tested products, based on previous studies it is quite probable that kids are being exposed to these chemicals. Flame retardant chemicals do not stay bound to polyurethane foam and are released with use. They can be absorbed across the skin and they can attach to dust particles which can be inhaled or ingested from a sticky toddler’s hands. Other studies have found that the levels of flame retardants in house dust are closely linked to the amounts measured in people.
Children carry disproportionately higher levels of flame retardants in their bodies when compared to adults. I recently blogged on a California study which found that children carried on average 7 times higher levels of the flame retardants, PBDEs, when compared to their Mexican counterparts. This difference in exposure is likely explained by the outdated California flammability standard, TB 117, which I will explain more about later.
Finally, this study is a good example of how pervasive these chemicals have become in our everyday life and how broken the federal law is which should prevent this from happening. When one chemical is removed because of toxicity concerns, another replaces it which is later found to have its own toxicity, to be replaced by yet another, which has not yet been tested. This is a loud call for reform of TSCA, the federal law which has failed to protect us from unsafe chemicals in consumer products.

Part of the reason that so many polyurethane foam based products, like the baby products in this study, contain flame retardant chemicals is because of an outdated flammability standard in California called TB 117. Because manufacturers don’t make products specifically for California, many foam-based products across the country are made to comply with this standard. Though the standard does not require the use of chemicals, it has been the cheapest and most frequently used way to meet it.

However, you might ask yourself, do baby products really pose a fire threat?

Is my nursing pillow in danger of catching on fire?

Probably not.

The State of California has recognized that some infant products are not fire hazards and has exempted strollers, nursing pillows and infant carriers from having to comply with their flammability standard, TB 117. The exemption went into effect after the products in this study were purchased. Manufacturers should have taken note of this and hopefully are no longer dousing their products unnecessarily with chemicals.

What should you do if you have an infant and a home filled with baby gear?

My colleagues at the Green Science Policy Institute have put together a list of recommendations with which I whole heartedly agree:

1) Purchase safe baby products and furniture

Consider buying baby products and furniture that contain polyester, down, wool or cotton (not polyurethane foam) which are less likely to contain harmful flame retardant chemicals.

If you aren't sure, write or call manufacturers to inquire whether flame retardants were added to the product and if they were, what kind.

2) Avoid products with the TB 117 label, as it is an indicator the product likely contains flame retardant chemicals. Next time you see a foam product, look for this label:

3) Reduce exposure to house dust.

Vacuum often (with an HEPA filter) and wet-mop to reduce build-up of dust in your home.

Wash hands frequently, (with plain soap and water!) as hand-to-mouth contact with dust is a major pathway for exposure.

4) Finally, get involved! I invite you to join us in calling on Congress to reform the federal law, TSCA, so that chemicals are proven to be safe before they are introduced into consumer products. Find out more here: http://www.takeouttoxics.org/ and then take action!

Just what the doctor ordered: TSCA reform

2011-04-25T09:09:21Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Today the professional organization of pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), issued a strong policy statement calling for better protection of children and pregnant women from hazardous chemicals. Citing the unique vulnerabilities of the fetus and children, the group states that the current law governing the use of most chemicals, the Toxic Substance Control Act (TCSA), “fails to protect children and pregnant women”. And the pediatricians have written a prescription to Congress on how to fix it.

The AAP makes a long list of recommendations, including a rewrite of the legislation which:

Requires chemical manufacturers prove their products are safe before they are marketed;
Establishes the same standard of safety for old and new chemicals;
Makes chemical testing relevant to the special needs of pregnant women and children, by including data on reproductive and developmental toxicity, including endocrine disruption, as it relates to reproduction, neurotoxicity, and puberty;
Allows for bans of chemicals based on reasonable levels of concern rather than demonstrated harm after release; and
Gives EPA the authority demand additional data about a chemical and to limit or stop the marketing of a chemical when there is a high degree of suspicion that the chemical might be harmful to children, pregnant women, or other populations.

The AAP also made calls for expanded biomonitoring, increase federal funding for research to prevent, identify and evaluate the effects of chemicals on children’s health, and the promotion of green chemistry efforts to develop safer replacements.

Many of these recommendations are incorporated in the recently introduced TSCA reform bill introduced by Senator Lautenberg. As pointed out in the pediatrician’s statement, TSCA was first introduced in 1976 but has never been revised and reform is long overdue.

Since then, a number of chemicals which should have been regulated by TSCA have been linked to harmful effects in children. These include bisphenol A, phthalates, flame retardants, TCE and other solvents.

The AAP’s statement is timely and their important voices join others in the scientific and medical community who have become increasingly vocal about the need for TSCA reform. This includes the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association and the 2010 President's Cancer Panel.

Pediatricians are concerned about the future health of our children and have just written a prescription to Congress. Congress should heed their advice and get to the business of reforming this outdated law.

California's flammability standard puts children at risk.

2011-04-15T07:35:25Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

A study published today in the journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, is further evidence that California children are the most highly exposed to flame retardant chemicals. Based on the results of this and previous studies, it is likely these high levels of exposure to flame retardant chemicals are due to the unique furniture flammability standards in the state.

The study done by UC-Berkeley researchers measured a group of flame retardants, called PBDEs, in 264 Mexican-American children born and raised in California and compared their levels to 283 children born and raised in the same areas of Mexico from where their mothers had emigrated.

What they found was startling and disturbing: the California children’s levels of PBDEs were seven times higher, on average, than levels in the Mexican children. The California children, who were 7 years old, had three times higher levels of PBDEs than their mothers. And most disturbing, the California children had the highest PBDE levels ever measured in a U.S. study of children. The only study which has ever reported higher levels of PBDE exposure was in children living and working in hazardous waste sites in Nicaragua.

Flame retardants are a group of chemicals added to many consumer products such as electronics, furniture foam, carpeting, curtains, automobiles and even children’s products. California has a unique flammability standard, TB 117, for upholstered furniture sold in the state. All upholstered foam furniture in California must be in compliance with this standard and though the standard doesn’t require the use of chemicals, the cheapest way to meet it has been to impregnate furniture foam with a lot of flame retardant chemicals. Millions of pounds of flame retardant chemicals are used for just this purpose, every year.

The other problem with flame retardants in upholstered furniture is that they don’t stay put in the foam but migrate out and attach to dust particles which are inhaled or ingested. California homes have up to ten times higher amounts of PBDEs in house dust when compared to other parts of the U.S. or Canada. For young children, dust is the biggest source of exposure to flame retardants. A lot of furniture outside of California also carries the TB 117 label, and as a result, the US population is much more highly exposed than anywhere else in the world.

PBDEs are a well studied group of chemicals which are hormone-disruptors capable of interfering with thyroid hormone and sex hormones. Exposure to PBDEs has been associated with a wide range of health problems in humans including altered hormone levels, abnormal development of the brain resulting in loss of IQ points, impaired fertility including longer time to pregnancy, decreased sperm counts and altered menstrual cycles.

Though certain PBDEs have been banned in California since 2004 and then were voluntarily withdrawn from the market, prior to this most furniture was treated with a PBDE formulation called penta-BDE. A lot of this furniture is still in use today.

After all, how old is your couch?

The penta-BDE formulation is a mixture of several different types of PBDEs and it was these forms of PBDE which were found at the highest levels in this new study.

If you have a newer piece of furniture, you may be wondering what is being done now to meet the flammability standard since PBDEs are no longer being used. The answer is that we don’t know for sure, but we have good evidence that other toxic chemicals are being used as replacements.

For example, do you remember when a flame retardant was banned in kid’s pajamas in the 1970s? This was because the flame retardant, Tris, was found to cause cancer in animals. Tris was removed from kid’s pajamas but it was not banned from any other use. And guess what – it is being used a flame retardant in furniture foam!

As one toxic chemical is removed and another toxic steps in as a replacement, we need to stop and ask ourselves whether or not this is really needed.

Flame retardants are not proven to be effective in preventing fires or deaths.

Their use in furniture foam is contaminating our homes and contaminating our bodies. Children are most sensitive to these exposures because their bodies are still growing and developing. Californian children are the most highly exposed to these chemicals.

A common sense solution to this is to change the California flammability standard so that fire safety can be preserved without compromising public health.

Senator Leno in California has proposed to do just that by introducing the Consumer Choice Fire Safety Act. This legislation calls for an alternative flammability standard that can be met without the use of chemical fire retardants, and that does not compromise fire safety. It will replace the outdated standard, TB 117, which was implemented before anyone fully knew about the toxicity of these chemicals and their ability to enter our bodies.

If you live in California, we need your help to get this legislation passed. Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles is a co-sponsor of this bill and has information on their website on how to get involved.

I’ll be posting updates here as well.

In addition, I'd like to add to this story that the problem of one toxic flame retardant being phased out only to be replaced by another has happened because of the weak federal law regulating the use of most chemicals in consumer products.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), first passed in 1976, was intended to prevent this problem from happening. Because the law has never been updated and because there are a lot of weaknesses in the law, it has been ineffective for over 35 years. NRDC has been leading efforts to revise TSCA and ensure that chemicals in our everyday products are known to be safe BEFORE they are introduced into commerce.

Fortunately, there have been calls from all sides to update this law, and just yesterday legislation was introduced by Senator Lautenberg to reform TSCA. We are in strong support of this bill and will be updating our website with new information.

White Lake, Michigan: A Town Searching for an Answer to a Potential Disease Cluster

2011-04-14T18:42:00Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Two weeks ago, NRDC co-released a paper on disease clusters in 13 states with the National Disease Clusters Alliance. The report was discussed in a U.S. Senate hearing and has generated a lively discussion on my colleague, Dr. Gina Solomon’s blog.

Clearly this issue has captured wide attention – for good reason – and it has also raised questions from communities across the country. Many people have contacted us to report locally high rates of disease and to ask that their community be investigated or included in our report. Interestingly, some people from White Lake in Muskegon County, Michigan, are asking the opposite question this week -- whether their community should have been included in our paper, since their cluster has not yet officially been confirmed.

White Lake has an on-going inquiry into possibly elevated cancer rates.

In a creative effort to get to the bottom of what’s going on locally, community members have themselves been gathering information on cancer cases throughout Muskegon County. Local health officials have been meeting with the community and have agreed to review the data from this investigation.

White Lake has a history of toxic contamination associated with several hazardous waste sites which have contaminated the lake with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds. The area has undergone extensive clean-up, and the community is rightfully proud of the accomplishments they have made. But that effort has not erased questions over whether past contamination could have contributed to elevated rates of cancer, which can develop decades after an exposure has taken place.

We do not yet know whether a cancer cluster will be confirmed in White Lake, but community leaders are asking the right questions.

Our report included communities in 13 states that have disease clusters confirmed in investigations by health departments, the federal government, or academic researchers. We also included within our criteria communities where investigations are ongoing, including White Lake, Michigan, and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In Camp Lejeune, over 60 men who have lived on that base have been diagnosed with male breast cancer – a very rare disease, and the investigation is also looking into possibly elevated rates of birth defects and other cancers as well.

The updated version of our report and maps now more clearly indicate that these two communities are still under investigation as home to possible disease clusters.

The situation in White Lake is illustrative of how disease cluster investigations often begin. Concerned community members ask hard questions, gather information and bring it to the attention of a government official.

Unfortunately, communities themselves rarely have adequate resources to conduct formal cluster investigations, which can be lengthy and expensive, and require access to data and statistical resources. That’s why health departments and federal agencies need to take an active role in these investigations. Even with adequate resources, cluster investigations may be inconclusive, due to limitations in the data collection, small numbers of cases, people moving in and out of the area, and other confounding factors. Confirmed disease clusters, therefore, may represent the tip of the iceberg.

The community of White Lake, Michigan is struggling to complete an investigation of cancers in their community with only local health department assistance, and without any federal government resources. It’s a tough road for a community to follow. That’s why legislation (S. 76, “Trevor’s Law”), introduced recently by Senators Boxer and Crapo, is so needed. This law is being championed by communities all across the country that have tried to get help investigating local disease clusters, and have encountered barriers and reluctance from federal agencies. Whatever the ultimate result of the investigation in White Lake, that community is not alone. Dozens of communities across the country are struggling for answers, and they need help.

New study finds changes in diet affect BPA and phthalate exposure.

2011-03-30T19:18:06Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

A new study published today in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that dietary changes can reduce exposure to the endocrine disrupting chemicals, bisphenol A (BPA) and the phthalate, DEHP.

The study was done by my colleagues at the Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute and followed five Bay area families for a week, monitoring their urine for the breakdown products of BPA and phthalates. The families ate their regular diet at the beginning and then were provided meals midway through the study which consisted of freshly prepared food with no plastic packaging. After just 3 days of eating this diet, there was an average reduction of over 60% in their body levels of BPA and a 50% reduction in DEHP. At the end of the study, the families returned to their normal diets which included canned food and sodas, take-out or restaurant food, and other foods, such as microwavable meals, packaged in plastic. After resuming their regular diet their BPA levels went back up.

The study is novel in that no one has ever done an experiment like this in Americans. Federal agencies such as the FDA and National Toxicology Program have stated that food is a major source of exposure to BPA and phthalates but this is the first time a dietary intervention has demonstrated actual changes in exposure.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is used as an epoxy resin to line food and beverage containers. It is there to prolong the shelf life of the product by keeping the can from corroding due to contact with acidic foods and also prevents a metallic taste in the food. However, the resin is not inert and BPA is known to leach from the lining into the food. Today’s study identified the types of canned foods that are most often contaminated with BPA but it is also worth mentioning that liquid infant formula is also packaged in BPA-containers. BPA is also used as the building block of polycarbonate plastic which can still be found as reusable beverage containers and in some microwavable containers. Both of these uses of BPA are approved by the FDA as “food additives”.

NRDC has previously sued the FDA over their failure to regulate BPA in food packaging. We are concerned about the widespread exposure to this chemical and the detrimental health effects which have been associated with exposure including a predisposition to breast and prostate cancer, altered development of the brain resulting in behavioral changes, and chromosomal abnormalities. Other studies have associated BPA with changes in metabolism resulting in a pre-diabetes condition (insulin resistance) and changes in fat distribution in the body.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals which are used as plasticizers to soften hard plastics, create pliability, and several dozen different phthalates have been approved as food additives in food packaging and processing. They likely leach into the food during processing and packaging. This study only looked at a handful of those phthalates and found significant changes just in one, DEHP. DEHP has been banned from children’s toys in the U.S. since 2009 but has not been banned from any other use in the U.S. DEHP has been banned in toys in Europe since 1999 and are also banned from cosmetic use in Europe.

Phthalates are of concern because they interfere with the synthesis of the male sex hormone, testosterone, and exposure early in development has been associated with birth defects of male genitals and later in life, poor sperm quality and infertility.

Though this was a small study of just 5 families and 20 participants, it is compelling because it demonstrates significant decreases in exposure with dietary changes.

This is something each of us can do and the benefits will go beyond reducing exposure to BPA and DEHP.

Eating freshly prepared food that is less processed and where available, organic, will reduce exposure to many other food additives, pesticides and is overall much healthier. The study authors have compiled other suggestions on how to reduce exposure which include eating in instead of at restaurants, not microwaving in plastic and using glass containers for food storage. All of these measures will reduce exposure but it isn’t enough. We need to government to ensure all food is safe.

What we really need is for the FDA to do their job of protecting public health by revoking approval of the use of harmful chemicals as food additives. Current levels of exposure, though small, are not safe and have been associated with a wide range of health effects in animal studies. Since there has not been any comprehensive testing of food in the U.S. for these chemicals, we can’t be sure which foods are the most highly contaminated. Eliminating their use would take the guesswork out of a trip down the grocery store aisle and would have significant public health impacts.

While NRDC continues to press the FDA to act, here are a few things you can do to reduce your exposure:

Limit your consumption of canned or processed food by eating fresh or frozen produce and buying processed food in "brick" cartons, pouches or glass.
Limit your consumption of canned soda and beer - where possible choose glass as an alternative.
If you have a newborn, avoid baby bottles or sippy cups made of polycarbonate (hard, clear, shatterproof) plastic. They are marked with the recycling symbol #7, and sometimes labeled "PC." (Not all #7 plastics are polycarbonates-the only way to know for sure is to call the manufacturer.)
Use a BPA-free reusable water bottle, such as an unlined stainless steel bottle.
Don't allow your children to have dental sealants made from BPA (or BADGE) applied to their teeth, and don't have these sealants applied to your teeth while you are pregnant. Ask your dentist to provide BPA-free treatments.

China bans BPA, leaving US behind yet again.

2011-03-07T10:15:36Z

Sarah Janssen, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Over the weekend, Chinese media reported that bisphenol A (BPA) would be banned from children’s products. Reportedly, the Chinese Ministry of Health has decided that BPA leaching from baby bottles presents too great a risk to an infant’s health. Though this is just a draft regulation for now, the writing is on the wall that yet another country with a huge market impact is poised to eliminate this chemical from children’s products.

Last week, a European ban on BPA went into effect when the EU joined other countries such as Canada and the United Arab Emirates in banning the substance in children’s products.

So where is the USA, you might ask? Why haven’t we banned BPA?

Well, as usual when it comes to regulating chemicals which have been linked to harm, we are lagging behind.

While other countries have banned use because there is no strong evidence that this chemical is safe and plenty of reason to think it is harmful, the U.S. stubbornly refuses to regulate BPA.

Instead of protecting vulnerable populations, corporate interests have continued to trump public health and common sense in the U.S. BPA is a chemical known to mimic estrogen and which has been linked to increased risk of cancer, altered brain development, early puberty and other metabolic changes. It really shouldn’t be in our food supply.

The FDA, the federal agency tasked with regulating chemicals such as BPA when used as food additives, has delayed decision-making for over 3 years. Meanwhile, EPA’s proposal to list BPA and other toxic chemicals as “chemicals of concern” has been held up by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for nearly a year.

In the meantime, nine states have passed laws regulating the use of BPA and dozens more have introduced legislation. But federal debate was blocked during the recent vote to update our food safety laws when Senator Feinstein attempted to introduce a federal ban. Recently, Representative Markey has re-introduced legislation to ban BPA and revamp the system for how food additives are assessed for safety by the FDA. However, there has been no debate on the proposed legislation to date.

And though around the globe the market has responded to the demand for BPA-free alternatives and BPA-free baby bottles are widely available, the U.S. states that have not enacted bans are now at risk for becoming the dumping grounds for all the banned BPA products from elsewhere. It is still legal to sell a BPA baby bottle or sippy cup in most states in the US and I imagine they are pretty cheap these days.

It’s a theme we can expect to be repeated over and over again as other countries continue to ban chemicals like BPA, phthalates, and flame retardants, all of which have continued to be legal for use in the U.S. Our lax chemical regulatory laws and the lack of political to fix them will means that we run the risk of becoming the toxic dumping ground for all the products which have been banned in other countries.

This is why we need comprehensive chemical policy reform and why we are working so hard to engage this Congress in the debate. It is also why we continue to call for the FDA to remove harmful food additives such as BPA from our food supply. Please join us in calling for reform and educate your family and friends.

We have more information BPA and recommendations for avoiding exposure on our website. These include:

Limit your consumption of canned food by eating fresh or frozen produce and buying processed food in "brick" cartons, pouches or glass.
Limit your consumption of canned soda and beer - where possible choose glass as an alternative.
If you have a newborn, avoid baby bottles or sippy cups made of polycarbonate (hard, clear, shatterproof) plastic. They are marked with the recycling symbol #7, and sometimes labeled "PC." (Not all #7 plastics are polycarbonates-the only way to know for sure is to call the manufacturer.)
Use a BPA-free reusable water bottle, such as an unlined stainless steel bottle.
Don't allow your children to have dental sealants made from BPA (or BADGE) applied to their teeth, and don't have these sealants applied to your teeth while you are pregnant. Ask your dentist to provide BPA-free treatments.