We're in contact with uncontrolled
chemicals
By SANDY BAUERS | The Philadelphia Inquirer
PHILADELPHIA — In testimony before a Senate
subcommittee, Ken Cook spoke passionately about 10 Americans who were found to
have more than 200 synthetic chemicals in their blood.
The list included flame retardants, lead, stain
removers, and pesticides the federal government had banned three decades ago.
"Their chemical exposures did not come from the
air they breathed, the water they drank, or the food they ate," said Cook,
president of the Environmental Working Group, a national advocacy group.
How did he know?
The 10 Americans were newborns. "Babies are
coming into this world pre-polluted with toxic chemicals," he said.
More than 80,000 chemicals are in use today, and most
have not been independently tested for safety, regulatory officials say.
Yet we come in contact with many every day - most
notably, the bisphenol A in can linings and hard plastics, the flame retardants
in couches, the nonstick coatings on cookware, the phthalates in personal care
products, and the nonylphenols in detergents, shampoos, and paints.
These five groups of chemicals were selected by Sonya
Lunder, senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, as ones that
people should be aware of and try to avoid.
They were among the first picked in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's recent effort to assess health risks for 83
of the most worrisome industrial chemicals.
Lunder's basis was that they are chemicals Americans
come in contact with daily. You don't have to live near a leaking Superfund
site to be exposed. They are in many consumer products, albeit often unlabeled.
Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and others have shown that they are detectable in the blood or urine
of many of us.
Plus, much data exist showing their harm. "We
have an incredible body of evidence for all these chemicals," she said.
"In all cases, we have studies linking human exposure to human health
effects."
Lunder and others see these five as symbolic of the
government's failure to protect us from potential - or actual - toxins.
"A lot of people presume that because you're
buying something on the store shelf ... someone has vetted that product to make
sure it is safe," said Sarah Janssen, senior scientist with the Natural
Resources Defense Council, another advocacy group. "Unfortunately, that's
not true."
Some chemicals are regulated through laws governing,
say, pesticides or air quality.
But most are regulated through the Toxic Substances
Control Act, or TSCA. It has been identified as the only major environmental
statute that has not been reauthorized, or revised, since its adoption in the
1970s.
Since 2005, U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., has
worked to change that. In 2010, he introduced the first version of the Safe
Chemicals Act, which would require companies "to prove their products are
safe before they end up in our home and our children's bodies," he said
recently by email.
A later version, with 27 co-sponsors, passed out of
committee in July. He has vowed to keep fighting for a vote in the full Senate.
The American Chemical Council, a trade association
representing large chemical manufacturers, declined comment, although it too
has called for reform.
"Public confidence in TSCA has diminished,
contributing to misperceptions about the safety of chemicals," council
president Cal Dooley said in 2011 testimony. But he said the proposed law would
cripple innovation in fields from energy to medicine. It would "create an
enormous burden on EPA and on manufacturers with little benefit by requiring a
minimum data set for all chemicals."
EPA officials declined comment, but in a series of
appearances before the Senate subcommittee on the environment, staffers
repeatedly said the current law is not protecting Americans.
In July, Jim Jones, acting administrator of EPA's
office of chemical safety, said that "with each passing year, the need for
TSCA reform grows," noting that it had "fallen behind the rapidly
advancing industry it is intended to regulate."
When TSCA was passed, it grandfathered in,
"without any evaluation," the 62,000 chemicals in commerce that
existed before 1976, Jones said.
He noted that in the 34 years since TSCA was passed,
the list of chemicals has grown to 84,000, and EPA has been able to require
testing on only about 200 of them.
Also, the agency has regulated or banned only five.
An oft-mentioned case of regulatory failure is that of
cancer-causing asbestos. In 1989, "after years of study and nearly
unanimous scientific opinion," Jones said, the EPA banned it.
Two years later, a federal court overturned most of
the action because the EPA had not chosen the least burdensome control on
industry, as required.
The court ruled that old asbestos uses could not be
revived. New uses were prohibited. But current uses could remain.
Adam Finkel, executive director of the University of
Pennsylvania Program on Regulation, said that Europe leads the U.S. in chemical
testing and regulation. There, officials put the onus on the makers to prove a
chemical is safe.
Meanwhile, the science keeps outpacing the rules.
"The real issue of TSCA reform is that science is
not what it was 30 or 40 years ago," said Linda Birnbaum, head of the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
In the past, she said, "we were looking almost
exclusively at visible birth defects. We were concerned with cancer."
Researchers are now looking at chemicals' effects -
some extremely subtle - on numerous other conditions, including reproductive
development and disorders, diabetes, heart problems, asthma, autism, even obesity
and learning disorders.
Paradigms have evolved so that researchers can study
concurrent exposure to more than one chemical, as happens in real life.
Toxicology has grown from a descriptive science of what has occurred to a
predictive one.
Of the five chemicals identified by Lunder, flame
retardants have figured prominently in recent research studies.
In late November, researchers led by Duke University
chemist Heather Stapleton showed that a flame retardant removed from children's
sleepwear as a suspected carcinogen was still in lots of couches.
More than 40 percent of the 102 couches bought between
1985 and 2010 had the chemical, called tris, according to the study in the
journal Environmental Science & Technology.
That issue also published a study by the Silent Spring
Institute, an advocacy group in Massachusetts, that traced the path of toxic
flame retardants from couches to household dust to the bodies of children, who
often crawl on floors and put fingers in their mouths.
Officials say children's small size and rapid growth
may make them more vulnerable to toxins.
The research showed that most homes had levels of at
least one flame retardant that exceeded a federal health guideline.
One of the latest health studies of PBDE flame
retardants, in November's Environmental Health Perspectives, found that fetal
or infant exposure could adversely affect a child's fine-motor coordination,
attention span, and IQ.
A Chicago Tribune investigation, published in May,
found that many flame retardants do not even provide meaningful protection from
fire.
Bisphenol A, another chemical facing scrutiny, held
promise because it could be used to make hard, clear plastic and protective
liners for canned foods and beverages.
Noting thousands of studies examining its effects, the
National Resources Defense Council petitioned the Food and Drug Administration
to limit its use as a food additive, which would also preclude its use in
packaging.
The FDA denied the petition last year, although many
manufacturers have removed it from baby bottles and sippy cups. Some, including
Campbell's Soup, say they plan to shift to alternatives.
THE EPA'S MOST WORRISOME TOXINS
Bisphenol A (BPA)
Uses: It hardens clear "polycarbonate"
plastics, which are used in compact discs, plastic dinnerware, eyeglass lenses,
toys, beverage bottles, and impact-resistant safety equipment. Also used in the
linings of food cans, in dental sealants, and on cash register receipts.
Health concerns: BPA is considered estrogenic and has
been shown to affect the reproductive systems of laboratory animals. BPA also
has been linked to many other disorders. Potential harm is considered highest
for young children, because their bodies have immature systems for detoxifying
chemicals.
How to limit exposure: Limit consumption of canned
foods and canned liquid baby formula. Avoid plastics marked with the recycling
code "7." Avoid microwaving baby food or drinks in plastic
containers.
Nonylphenols, including nonylphenol ethoxylates
Uses: Laundry detergents, shampoos, household cleaners,
latex paints.
Health concerns: NPs have been detected in human
breast milk, blood, and urine, and are associated with reproductive and
developmental effects in rodents. Fish exposed to low levels can become
feminized. EPA concerns center mostly on industrial laundry workers.
How to limit exposure: This is difficult. Experts say
to avoid using detergents, cleaning agents, and other products that contain
nonylphenols, but many times they are not labeled. They recommend calling the
manufacturer and asking. Some organizations, including the Environmental
Working Group, publish guides to safer cleaning products.
PFCs (perfluorinated chemicals)
Uses: Widely used water, grease, and stain repellents.
Contained in the coatings of nonstick cookware. Used to greaseproof paper and
cardboard food packaging. Added to carpeting and clothing for stain protection.
Health concerns: They are bioaccumulative in wildlife
and humans, and are persistent in the environment. They are toxic to laboratory
animals and wildlife. The EPA says that "to date, significant adverse
effects have not been found in the general human population. However, given the
long half-life of these chemicals in humans (years), it can reasonably be
anticipated that continued exposure could increase body burdens to levels that
would result in adverse outcomes."
How to limit exposure: Avoid nonstick cookware. Avoid
highly processed and fatty foods. Skip optional stain treatments. Use real
plates instead of paper. Cook popcorn on the stove, not in microwave bags.
Flame retardants, including PBDE
Uses: To prevent the spread of fire, many versions of
these chemicals are added to upholstered furniture and mattresses - including
many products for babies - plus textiles, plastics, electronics, wire
insulation.
Health concerns: PBDEs are not chemically bound to
plastics or other products in which they are used, making them more likely to
leach out. "Certain PBDEs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to
both humans and the environment," the EPA states. Concern is highest for
children, who might crawl on the floor, get dust containing PBDEs on their
hands, and then put their hands in their mouths.
How to limit exposure: PBDEs are being phased out, so
beware of old foam items, which are most likely to contain PBDEs. Use a vacuum
with a HEPA filter. Clean carefully after removing old carpet and padding. When
dusting, use a damp cloth or a cloth with microfibers that will trap and hold
the dust better.
Phthalates
Uses: They make plastics more malleable, and are found
in vinyl shower curtains, toys, vinyl flooring. They help lotions penetrate
skin, so they are found in a wide variety of personal care products, including
cosmetics, fragrances, and nail polish. Also found in air-fresheners and
cleaning products.
Health concerns: Known to interfere with the
production of male reproductive hormones in animals and considered likely to
have similar effects in humans. The EPA is concerned about phthalates because
of their toxicity and the evidence of pervasive human and environmental
exposure to these chemicals. Phthalates have been detected in food and also
measured in humans.
How to limit exposure: Manufacturers aren't required
to list phthalates on the label, but any item listed as "fragrance"
can be a chemical mixture containing phthalates. Buy cosmetics from companies
that have pledged not to use phthalates. Avoid items with PVC, V, or the No. 3
recycling code on the item or its packaging.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Environmental Working Group, Natural
Resources Defense Council
©2013 The Philadelphia
Inquirer
No comments:
Post a Comment