Fresh scents, toxic secrets

[Fresh scents, toxic secrets - this should come as no surprise, but, again, it's good to have the scientific validation. Whatever could have made us think that covering up the odors of normal living with artificial chemicals was a good thing? Umm, I guess that would be millions of dollars in advertising by the chemical industry, laying a guilt trip on housekeepers: "better living through chemistry"... for the industry, that is. Note: for the original research, published by kind permission of the author, please go to our Chemical Research page. ]

Fresh scent may hide toxic secret

Innocuous-sounding ‘perfume’ in detergents, air fresheners made with dangerous chemicals

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER

The scented fabric sheet makes your shirts and socks smell flowery fresh and clean. That plug-in air freshener fills your home with inviting fragrances of apple and cinnamon or a country garden.

But those common household items are potentially exposing your family and friends to dangerous chemicals, a University of Washington study has found.

Trouble is, you have no way of knowing it. Manufacturers of detergents, laundry sheets and air fresheners aren’t required to list all of their ingredients on their labels — or anywhere else. Laws protecting people from indoor air pollution from consumer products are limited.

When UW engineering professor Anne Steinemann analyzed of some of these popular items, she found 100 different volatile organic compounds measuring 300 parts per billion or more — some of which can be cancerous or cause harm to respiratory, reproductive, neurological and other organ systems.

Some of the chemicals are categorized as hazardous or toxic by federal regulatory agencies. But the labels tell a different story, naming only innocuous-sounding “perfume” or “biodegradable” contents.

“Consumers are breathing these chemicals,” she said. “No one is doing anything about it.”

Industry representatives say that isn’t so.

“Dr. Steinemann’s statement is misleading and disingenuous,” said Chris Cathcart, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Consumer Specialty Products Association, in a statement.

“Air fresheners, laundry products and other consumer specialty products are regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and subsequently have strict labeling requirements,” he said. “Companies producing products that are regulated under FHSA must name on the product label each component that contributes to the hazard.”

Millions are spent annually to ensure that fragrances in the products are safe, according to a joint statement from the Fragrance Materials Association, which represents fragrance manufacturers, and the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, which works closely with the association.

Ingredients are routinely tested, and chemicals that are considered dangerous are present at levels much too low to cause harm, according to the groups.

But there are numerous reports of people — particularly those with asthma, chemical sensitivities and allergies — having strong adverse reactions, researchers said.

That’s a problem when public restrooms in restaurants or airplanes use air fresheners, or when hotels wash towels and sheets in scented laundry supplies. And even when the concentrations are low in individual products, people are exposed to multiple sources on a daily basis.

Aileen Gagney, Asthma and Environmental Health Program manager with the American Lung Association in Seattle, herself an asthma sufferer, has a rule of thumb to help avoid exposure: “If it smells bad, it’s bad; if it smells good, it’s bad.”

But even that won’t always work.

According to Steinemann, even products labeled “unscented” sometimes contain a fragrance and a “masking” fragrance to make them odor-free.

People, Puget Sound at risk?

For Steinemann’s research, published Wednesday in Environmental Impact Assessment Review, she selected a top-selling item from six categories of products: dryer sheets, fabric softeners, detergents, and solid, spray and plug-in air fresheners.

Then she contracted with a lab to test the air around the items to identify the chemicals people could be breathing.

Ten of the 100 volatile organic compounds identified qualified under federal rules as toxic or hazardous, and three of those — 1,4-dioxane, acetaldehyde and chloromethane — are “hazardous air pollutants” considered unsafe to breathe at any concentration, according to the study.

The labels gave no indication that the irritating and potentially dangerous chemicals were present, so Steinemann checked the product’s Material Safety Data Sheets. These technical documents provide ingredient information for the safety of workers and emergency responders. They, too, disclosed little detail, mostly citing ingredients such as “essential oils” and “organic perfume.”

“It’s a reasonable expectation to think that laundry products and air fresheners would be free of chemicals that can cause cancer,” said Erika Schreder, a staff scientist with the Washington Toxics Coalition.

“But as this UW study shows, it’s disturbingly easy to find toxic chemicals in everyday products like these because companies don’t have to say what’s in their products.”

Cathcart, of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, said the information’s not on the package because the “chemicals are not present in the products at levels deemed hazardous under the law. Given the limited space on product labels, it is important to include the relevant information consumers need to make intelligent use, storage and disposal decisions.”

The threat isn’t limited to people. Steinemann and others worry that the chemicals in consumer products flow from homes to the outdoors.

“These chemicals get into our water systems and into Puget Sound,” she said. They are “extraordinarily hard to get out of the environment.”

Steinemann’s research was paid for using discretionary money awarded to her as a UW professor; she wanted to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. She has also submitted for publication a study that goes further to examine ingredients in cleaning and personal-care products.

Regulatory gaps

With fears growing over chemicals in consumer products — lead in toys, bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles, phthalates in shower curtains and cosmetics — environmentalists and health advocates are calling for stricter regulations of chemicals in everyday goods. They also want shoppers to have more readily accessible information.

Manufacturers and trade groups representing consumer products routinely counter that there’s plenty of testing and oversight from within the industries and from government regulations to ensure safety.

In the fragranced-products arena, they point to industry Web sites with information on product ingredients and suggest contacting companies with specific questions.

Critics maintain that’s not enough.

“There’s obviously a loophole,” said Michael Robinson-Dorn, a UW law professor who aided Steinemann’s research. “We regulate many of these chemicals in other circumstances, yet when they’re in products that we’re in contact with daily, in some cases, we don’t wind up finding out about them.”

He said the items can slip between regulatory cracks by falling into the jurisdiction of multiple government agencies, none taking ownership.

“Any time you have a product that is regulated by many different agencies, it’s easy for them not to react,” he said.

In the absence of strong laws, the marketplace is starting to regulate itself.

After the Natural Resources Defense Council last fall found troubling levels of phthalates — plasticizing chemicals that can potentially harm developing babies — in air fresheners, Walgreens pulled the products from its shelves.

Last month, NRDC and other environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency to force manufacturers to test air freshener safety and label products with a full ingredient list.

Steinemann’s study could push the process along.

“Consumer demand for less-toxic products will encourage companies to reformulate their products,” she said. “This is a case where a little information could have a great public benefit.”

---

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/371779_toxicfragrance23.html

P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com. Read her blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

“Does mold make you sick?”

[You might think "well, duh" after reading the title, but keep in mind that this is the popular press. And at least a genetic connection has been made. Quote from a doctor:  "This is almost certainly a genetic issue."]

Does mold make you sick? Doctors seek answers

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE49R7A720081028

Tue Oct 28, 2:40 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Fungus expert Joan Bennett did not believe in so-called toxic mold — the cause of “sick building syndrome” and many lawsuits — until her New Orleans home was flooded during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

When she got a whiff of the foul air that the black goo had created in her home, she decided to change her research focus and try to find out how and if the fungi that took over most of the flooded homes on the Gulf Coast might make people ill.

“The overwhelming obnoxiousness of the odor and of the enveloping air made me start to believe in something that I had never believed in before — sick building syndrome,” Bennett, of Rutgers University in New Jersey, told a news conference.

But it has been more difficult than she thought.

Bennett believes that molds could potentially cause illness in certain susceptible people via volatile organic compounds — gassy versions of chemicals produced as the organisms metabolize food.

She has been unable to show this in the lab so far. But she told a joint meeting of the American Society for Microbiology and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

She has tested various molds on the laboratory roundworm C. elegans. “Sometimes the worm swims away and sometimes the worm does nothing and sometimes the worm eats the fungus,” Bennett said.

“I am actually looking for something that has never been discovered by methods that have never been worked out.”

Yet hundreds of lawsuits have been filed — and some won — by people claiming mold in their homes or workplaces has made them ill.

Dr. David Denning of the University of Manchester in Britain said it is plausible that molds and fungi would emit volatile organic compounds.

GENETIC SENSITIVITY

If these can be found, they could form the basis of diagnosing fungal illness as well — perhaps using a breath test. People with fungal infections of the lungs, such as aspergillosis, would release these chemicals when they breathed.

“A certain group of severe asthmatics — about a million people — are sensitive to a number of different fungi,” Denning told the news conference. These include Aspergillis and Candida.

“This is almost certainly a genetic issue,” he added. “If you have (a) predisposition (to asthma), you probably have an additional predisposition to fungal sensitization.”

Dr. David Goldman, a pediatrician in the Bronx, New York, said asthma rates in his borough are disproportionately high, and he blames in part Cryptococcus neoformins, a microbe found in pigeon droppings that causes disease in immune-compromised people.

“We believe this fungus contributes to asthma by modulating the immune response,” Goldman told the news conference.

Both Goldman and Denning said treating patients with antifungal drugs such as itraconozole and fluconazole helped relieve the symptoms of patients with severe asthma. This supports evidence that fungi are contributing to symptoms.

All three experts agreed it would likely take a combination of factors — including a person genetically susceptible to molds and unusual fungal activity — to cause any disease.

“It is probably a relatively temporary disease, not a life-threatening disease,” Denning said.

“As we sit here we are probably breathing in hundreds of spores,” Bennett added. “Usually we only get sick if our immune systems are compromised or if we have this genetic susceptibility to allergy.”

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Julie Steenhuysen and Philip Barbara)

Toxic Chemical Regulatory Reform: U.S.

LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM

To the Obama transition government

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your victory in the election for president of the
United States. We look forward to the positive changes you plan on
making, and send you this letter to offer our support in that
endeavor, especially for the urgently needed reform of our chemical
regulatory policy.

Recent reports about industry influence and possible interference with
our chemical regulatory policy on chemicals at the FDA, EPA and other
agencies threaten the confidence of all consumers about American
products, and about our government’s role in protecting health. As we
are sure you know, storms of controversy over chemicals in everything
from shower curtains and lipstick, to baby bottles, infant formula,
canned food, cars, toys and even pet food have increasingly unnerved
parents and anyone concerned about public health.

Though its effects may not be as obvious, the deregulation of the
chemical industry has hurt the United States just as much as the
deregulation of Wall Street, with effects likely to last generations.
Scientists, physicians, health advocates, worker organizations, parent
groups, health-affected groups and many others view fundamental reform
to current chemical laws as urgent and necessary to protect children,
workers, communities, and the environment now and in the future.

The economic costs of current levels of chemical contamination are
often hidden, though they contribute significantly to reduced worker
productivity, increased hospital costs, more expensive health
insurance, and greater burdens on businesses for hazardous waste
storage, disposal, and clean-up fees. Uncounted in the conventional
cost-benefit analysis of our chemical regulatory policies is the price
we pay for children with developmental disabilities or the toll on
families with chemical exposure-linked illness, not to mention eco-
system impacts, made worse by global warming.

Mounting scientific studies link chemical exposure to human illness
and unnecessary disabilities and chronic conditions. The most
vulnerable include children, women, and communities of color and those
already stressed by depressed economic conditions and diminished
access to health care and information. Spikes in rates of illness
linked to chemical exposure include: obesity, diabetes, thyroid
disease, childhood cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart
disease, asthma, neurodevelopmental problems, learning disabilities in
children that persist throughout life and other effects. Although
chemical exposure knows no boundaries, communities of color located
around chemical manufacturing areas and whose geographic location
receives chemical drift from applications elsewhere are at particular
risk.

Tragically, these preventable illnesses and health effects linked to
chemical exposure are on the rise, and the effects of some chemical
exposure effects can last for generations. Scientists, physicians,
health advocates, worker organizations, parent groups, health-affected
groups and many others view fundamental reform to current chemical
laws as urgent and necessary to protect children, workers,
communities, and the environment now and in the future.

People all over the United States, including Mossville, Louisiana,
Glynn County, Georgia, Dixon, Tennessee, Port Arthur and Corpus
Christie, Texas, agricultural communities in California, North
Carolina, Washington, and Florida and elsewhere are suffering from
chemical contamination. Arctic Indigenous communities are among the
most highly exposed populations in the world. The Arctic has become a
hemispheric sink for long-lasting chemical contaminants that travel
long distances on oceanic and atmospheric currents. These chemicals
accumulate up the food chain in fish, wildlife and peoples of the
north.

Harm from chemical exposure from U.S. based and other chemical
corporations is not limited to the U.S. Despite efforts by the
international community to identify the most dangerous chemicals and
phase them out, the U.S. government has obstructed this movement and
has lost credibility with an international community suffering from
the health effects of insidious chemical exposure caused,
significantly, by U.S. corporations and their foreign allies. Ongoing
efforts of the U.S. government to impede and obstruct major
international policy advances such as the Stockholm Treaty and REACH
have had serious economic and political consequences.

The opportunity to eliminate toxic chemical exposure and build a new
green economy that supports clean production of safe consumer goods is
now at hand. By designing new, safer chemicals, products, and green
production systems, American businesses will protect people’s health
and create healthy, sustainable jobs, and enhance our ability to
compete in the international marketplace. Some leading companies are
already on this path and the workers and neighboring communities
benefit. They are creating safe products and new, green jobs by using
clean, innovative technologies that benefit public health, the
environment and the bottom line. But transforming entire markets will
require policy change.

Please consider these five steps to improve the health and well being
of Americans, to protect future generations, promote industry
innovation and technological superiority in designing safer chemicals,
products and manufacturing processes, reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, and reward businesses that protect workers and lead the way to a
new, green energy economy that will benefit all Americans.

1. Hire and Gather the Best and the Brightest for your Toxics
Regulatory Team

* Deploy thoughtful leaders on: chemical exposure and environmental
health, scientific and common sense solutions to the toxic chemical
contamination problem, innovations in business and industry with Green
Chemistry development, and other innovative thinkers to advise the
administration on toxic chemical exposure as a variable in all
domestic and foreign policy as well as on new appointments to agencies
and departments relevant to environmental health. One example would be
forming a task force on chemical regulatory reform or some other
multi-stakeholder process to help expedite immediate action. These
innovative thinkers should advise the administration on toxic chemical
exposure as a variable in all domestic and foreign policy as well as
on new appointments to agencies and departments relevant to
environmental health and have no financial conflicts of interest. It
will be important for this group to see the interconnectivity of
issues inherent to a healthy and prosperous future.

* Set a public interest research agenda that coordinates green
chemistry with green energy and green engineering technologies being
developed and supported.

* The administration should adopt the position that the right to a
clean and healthy environment is an inalienable right that will be
protected by the courts.

2. U.S. Chemicals Policy Must Adhere to Principles and Guidelines for Ethical Chemical Regulatory Reform

* U.S. residents and all peoples have a fundamental right to
protection from exposure to toxic substances, including from chemicals
and nuclear radiation, in our environment and our bodies. The purpose
of the U.S. chemicals regulatory policy must be to protect us from
these exposures, while preventing the export of toxic substances that
could harm other countries.

* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must understand and implement the
Precautionary Principle so that we may finally join the modern
chemical policies of other countries around the world. The
Precautionary Principle forms the foundation of the European Union’s
REACH law on chemicals and international treaties such as the
Stockholm Convention. This foundation for U.S. chemical policy
mandates adequate scientific evidence that will help to insure that a
substance is safe before it is allowed to be introduced in the
marketplace.

* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must provide remedies for the
injustice of unequal environmental protection based on race that has
exposed communities of color to significant levels of toxic pollution.
Such remedies must include a legal standard that requires a safe
distance between a residential population and a chemical facility and
a private right of action against a federal, state, or local
regulatory agency whose decision or action results in a racially
disproportionate pollution burden.

* In addition to aligning with REACH, U.S. chemical regulatory policy
must regain U.S. leadership by respecting the intentions of
international agreements, including Strategic Approach to
International Chemicals Management (SAICM), the Stockholm Convention,
Rotterdam Convention, Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and a
new global free standing legally binding agreement on mercury and
other similar substances of concern.

3. Revamp the Chemical Evaluation Process

* A gross lack of knowledge currently exists in the U.S. about the
data on chemical substances produced, imported, exported, and used in
the U.S. This serious data deficiency demands immediate adoption of a
comprehensive process of identifying and assessing critical
information for all substances before they can be produced, marketed
or allowed for continued use. Of utmost priority art chemicals that
are suspected of being mutagens, carcinogens, reproductive or
neurodevelopmental toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and persistent
bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. Examples include: phthalates,
bisphenol A, perflourinated chemicals, endosulfan, lindane,
perchlorate, methyl bromide, methyl iodide, organophosphates, dioxins,
furans, and brominated and chlorinated flame-retardants, and non-
persistent chemicals, such as benzene, which may be difficult to
detect.

* Evaluation of the chemicals must be on the basis of their inherent
hazards and toxicity, including threats of harm to workers who make
them, the communities where they are made, the communities where the
chemicals and chemical-induced products are used, disposed or
destroyed, and where there is danger for impacting the health of the
general public, now and in the future, as in the case of neurotoxins
and many carcinogens, which can take years to trigger or manifest
effects.

* Chemical evaluation processes also must be based on complete
transparency and mandated data collection from the corporations that
make the chemicals, removing “business security” shields from
manufacturers of suspected dangerous substances. Health and safety
information should not be considered confidential business information
and a “No Data, No Market” rule should be implemented and enforced.

* Suspected materials must be phased out more rapidly where safer
substitutes are already available.

* No U.S. government agency should be allowed to shield chemical
corporations from being mandated to provide information under the
guise of “national security,” in regard to chemical production
facilities or transportation of these chemicals.

* Evaluation of chemicals must be conducted by U.S. government
scientists and academic colleagues in a manner that that upholds the
integrity of the evaluation, with public financial support as well as
political support for independent research and protection for speaking
freely about their findings. Scientists must be expected to report
unbiased results, free from political and industry-driven influences,
with all findings subject to fully transparent, independent peer
review. Scientists must have support and protections to be able to
conduct independent scientific study and speak freely about their
findings — the “gag order” on U.S. federal scientists must be removed
immediately.

* Immediate action to pursue permanent Chemical Security legislation
that would require thousands of facilities, including all water
treatment plants to require the use of safer chemical alternatives and
processes. Millions of people inside the U.S. are at risk if an
unintentional or intentional (terrorist attacks) industrial chemical
accident were to occur. The framework required includes improving
standards for review of safer and more secure alternatives, worker
involvement, and crucial government accountability. One immediate
concern is the need for a structured review of federal facilities that
pose the danger of an off-site chemical emergency release. The
standards for these reviews must be focused on “alternatives
assessment” rather than “risk assessment.”

4. Reform “Stakeholder” Influence in Decision-Making

* U.S. chemical policy regulators, including non-scientist appointees
and staff members, must be completely free of ties to the chemical
industry or other entities that would attempt to influence their
decisions or impact the integrity of chemical evaluations. Regulators
may consult with the chemical industry, but we need a change from what
has become a conventional U.S. process in which the chemical industry
dictates chemical regulatory policy and writes relevant legislation.
The preferred “stakeholders” in this process must be the people of the
United States, not the chemical corporations.

* The people of the United States need to have access and the ability
to participate in the chemical evaluation process, which requires
resources for capacity building and access to expertise to represent
their interests.

* The Toxic Release Inventory rule and other tools for industry
transparency?must be strengthened, and the public’s right to know
chemical data should be guaranteed. There must be Executive and
legislative support for mandating complete transparency for all data
regarding chemical exposure in communities, including pesticide use
data.

* Toxic chemical exposure must also be considered an Environmental
Justice issue, and previously ignored and disenfranchised communities
of color and of modest economic standing must be brought into the
process of identifying vulnerable populations and implementing
culturally respectful policies for empowerment to become safe from
chemical exposure. This can only be accomplished through dedicated
resources for capacity building at the community level.

* Resources must be immediately directed toward environmental
monitoring of air, water, and soil where chemical exposure is
suspected in order to prevent, not just manage, exposure to workers
and communities.

* When toxic chemical exposure is identified, immediate action and
resources must be available to halt the exposure and protect
communities, especially children, honoring the cultural integrities of
each community.

* Assessment of toxic chemical exposures must be an immediate mandated
component of all relief efforts for communities in times of disaster,
with protection mitigations in place to prevent additional and new
exposures (as in the example of the FEMA trailers) compounding
existing tragedy.

5. Create Economic Strength and Strategy Via Toxic Chemical Exposure Protections

* A program of incentives must be developed to support the efforts of
chemical corporations, the auto and oil industries, and other relevant
industries to develop less harmful substitutions for their products.
No new products should be allowed into the marketplace without
adequate scientific study on health effects. The responsibility must
be on the producer to demonstrate no harm. Regulatory and financial
barriers for companies seeking to develop and use less toxic products,
move away from reliance on petrochemicals, and reduce resource
depletion in production, including use of water, should be addressed,
and incentives provided for those corporations that demonstrate
significant progress insuring that their workers, communities, and
customers are protected.

* “Polluter pays,” reverse onus, and other precautionary policies, in
addition to the Rio Principles should be adopted as a foundation for
U.S. environmental protections and for restoring confidence in U.S.
corporations, their standing in the community, and the products they
make. Re-establish support and enforcement of Superfund policies.

* Support programs for farmers to transition to safer, less toxic
means of food production must be instituted.

* Integrate Toxic Chemical Exposure Issues Throughout U.S. Government
Agencies and Policies

* EPA must partner with the Centers for Disease Control and immediate
resources need to be made available for biomonitoring and public
health surveys of communities where chemical exposure impact is
suspected. Monitoring should also include biota and human tissue
contamination with the intention of tracing the sources of
contamination. These agencies must develop and use a protocol for the
evaluation of chemical exposure impact that is based on the
Precautionary Principle

* Intentional dosing of human beings, especially children, with
pesticides and other known toxic chemicals in experiments is unethical
and must be prohibited.

* Chemical contamination knows no political boundaries. Testing of
imported foods and other products for chemical contamination must be
reinstated.

* The U.S. government must make it illegal for U.S. corporations to
dump toxic waste or sell banned or restricted products outside of the
country. U.S. corporations must be accountable and responsible for
harm that befalls communities at home and overseas from chemical
exposure caused by these corporations chemical manufacture, use
(including in consumer products), and disposal. The U.S. must become a
party to the Basel Treaty and uphold its principles.

* The U.S. government must define toxic substance hazard as a variable
in all international trade, human rights, and other agreements and
encourage and support other nations to reduce and eliminate toxic
substance exposure.

* Toxic chemical exposure must be taken into account for all U.S.
policies, including stimulus for the economy,?job creation, the
transition away from petrochemical fuels, education, and other urgent
changes in U.S. economic and social enterprises.

* A timeline must be set for putting a modern chemical regulatory
process and policy in place; time is of the essence with the health of
hundreds of millions of people at stake.

Thank you.

The undersigned groups are eager to assist with designing and building
support for transformational change to the U.S. chemical regulatory
system and offer our recommendations as enthusiastic partners of the
President-Elect’s new administration to achieve necessary and timely
change.

Sincerely,

Laura Abulafia, MHS, Director, Environmental Health Initiative,
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
(Formerly AAMR)

Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social
Responsibility

Ruth Berlin, LCSW-C, Executive Director, Maryland Pesticide Network

Joan Blades, President and Co-founder, MomsRising.org

Arlene Blum, Executive Director, Green Science Policy Institute

Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network

Elizabeth Crowe, Director, Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Kathleen Curtis, Policy Director, Clean New York

Carol Dansereau, Executive Director, Farm Worker Pesticide Project,
Washington

Joe DiGangi, International Pops Elimination Network

Tracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director, Michigan Ecology
Center

Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides

Christopher Gavigan, CEO, Healthy Child, Healthy World

Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment and
Justice

Dori Gilels, Executive Director, Women’s Voices for the Earth

Kathryn Gilje, Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network North
America

Monique Harden, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental
Human Rights

Amanda Hawes, attorney

Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace

Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280 (EPA HQ
Professionals Union), and Chemist in Residence, American University

John Kepner, Project Director, Beyond Pesticides

Bettie D. Kettell, RN Durham, Maine

Elise Miller, MEd, Executive Director, Institute for Children’s
Environmental Health

Pam Miller, Biologist and Director of Alaska Community Action on
Toxics

Mark A. Mitchell, MD, MPH, President, Connecticut Coalition for
Environmental Justice

Peter Montague, PhD, Environmental Research Foundation

Suzanne Murphy, Executive Director, Worksafe

Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy Breast Cancer Fund

Judith Robinson, Director of Programs, Environmental Health Fund

Mike Schade, PVC Campaign Coordinator, The Center for Health,
Environment and Justice (CHEJ)

Ted Shettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water
Action

Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director, Washington Toxics Coalition

Nathalie Walker, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental
Human Rights

Kristen Welker-Hood, ScD MSN RN, Director, Environment and Health
Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Charlotte Wells, Galveston BAYKEEPER, Texas

Resources

Contaminated without Consent www.contaminatedwithoutconsent.org

Is It In Us? isitinus.org/

The Louisville Charter www.louisvillecharter.org

Principles of Environmental Justice

ej4all.org/environmental.principles.php

http://www.ejnet.org/ej/principles.html

Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with
Neurodevelopmental Disorders Developed by the Collaborative on Health
and the Environment’s Learning and Developmental Disabilities
Initiative February 20, 2008 (revised July 1, 2008)
www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIPolicyStatement.pdf

Climate Change & Pollution

Climate Change May Boost Contact With Pollutants

Published: Saturday, December 27, 2008

Canadian Press NewsItem/NewsComponent/NewsLines/ByLine

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/HealthScout/081227/6122702AU.html

(HealthDay News) – Global climate change may lead to a rise in health problems due to increased exposure to harmful air pollutants, suggest researchers who reviewed studies projecting the impact of climate change on air quality.

The review authors also concluded that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could help reduce the harmful effects of climate change.

The review looked at how climate change will affect ground-level ozone, a known pulmonary irritant that affects the respiratory mucous membranes, other lung tissues, and respiratory function. Exposure to elevated levels of ozone is associated with increased hospital admissions for asthma, allergic rhinitis, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other respiratory diseases.

“Projections suggest that climate change will increase concentrations of tropospheric ozone, at least in high-income countries, when precursor emissions are held constant, which would increase morbidity and mortality,” wrote review authors Kristie L. Ebi and Glenn McGregor. “The potential impact of climate change on ozone concentrations have not been projected for low-income countries, many of which currently have significantly higher ozone exposures.”

The authors said further research is needed to better project the health impacts caused by changing concentrations of ozone caused by climate change. They said areas of uncertainty include the projected degree of future climate change, the impact of future emissions and their pathways, potential changing weather patterns, severity of episodes of poor air quality, and changes in population vulnerability.

The review findings were published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. According to journal editor-in-chief Hugh A. Tilson: “As we reduce vehicle-based emissions of pollutants, urban concentrations of ozone will also be reduced, thereby positively protecting the health of humans for generations to come.”

In 2000, urban air pollution caused 800,000 deaths and resulted in 7.9 million disability-adjusted life-years lost due to respiratory problems, lung disease and cancer, according to the World Health Organization.

More information:

The World Health Organization has more about climate change and health at:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

SOURCE: Environmental Health Perspectives, news release, December 2008

Toxins and the young: new standards needed

Researcher: New toxicant safety standards are needed to protect the young

http://www.physorg.com/news151688225.html

January 20th, 2009 By Susan Lang

(PhysOrg.com) — In an invited, peer-reviewed journal article on how prenatal exposure to toxic substances are linked to a host of diseases in later life — from atherosclerosis to cancer — a Cornell toxicologist calls for changing how safety testing is done to better protect infants and children.

Safety testing for environmental chemicals and drugs is routinely conducted on adults, said Rodney R. Dietert, professor of immunotoxicology at the College of Veterinary Medicine, which is hardly relevant for young children or children in utero.

“The developing immune system is more sensitive to toxicants than that of the adult and in ways that cannot be readily predicted by adult safety testing,” said Dietert, whose perspective piece on developmental immunotoxicology (DIT) is the cover story of the January issue (22:1) of the American Chemical Society’s Chemical Research in Toxicology.

“Yet, many chronic diseases that have been increasing in incidence — including childhood asthma and allergies, autism, childhood leukemia, type 1 diabetes, celiac disease, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus — are associated with early life environmental exposures, and they all also have immune dysfunction in common.”

Dietert, who has been studying for more than a decade how toxic substances affect the developing immune system, stresses the need to focus more attention on identifying environmental factors that can damage the immune system during prenatal, infant and juvenile development. Protecting the immature immune systems could not only extend quality of life during adulthood, but also reduce future health care needs.

“The maturing immune system is a vulnerable target for toxicants as it progresses through a series of novel prenatal and perinatal events that are critical for later-life host defense against a wide array of diseases,” said Dietert. “When it is disrupted by exposure to chemicals, all too often the outcome takes the form of persistent immune dysfunction or misregulation. For this reason, the health risks of exposure to toxicants are significantly greater in early life.”

Because DIT is linked to a majority of the most significant childhood chronic diseases, he added, “safety testing for DIT is a pivotal issue in the protection of children’s health.”

Provided by Cornell University

Your Daily Dose

Several references on chemicals in our daily lives, whether we want them or not – cosmetics, detergents, plastics, scented products – many with neurotoxins, affecting human and environmental health in a variety of ways, including reproductive health.

“Canada Declares Chemicals Used in Cosmetics to be Toxics”
Quote: “The Canadian government today declared two chemicals used in lipstick and other personal care products to be toxic to the environment” [January 30, 2009]
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-30-01.asp

“Home Sick”
Book reviews in The Washington Post of Poisoned Profits: The Toxic Assault on Our Children, by Philip and Alice Shabecoff, and The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being, by Nena Baker. Reviews by Seth Shulman.
Quotes: “The Shabecoffs deserve credit for forcefully urging the issue of our children’s environmental health onto the national agenda where it surely belongs.”
“Baker has written an illuminating, consumer-oriented book that sifts through some of the latest findings about the dangers of everyday chemicals.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090402404_pf.html
And reviews of the same books in the San Francisco Chronicle by a staff member of the San Francisco Medical Society:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/RVA813D4LD.DTL

“Neurotoxin In Everyday Household Items”
Quotes: “Everyday household things could be doing our kids harm and we don’t even really understand what they can do yet,” said mother Christi Williams.
“Many of these chemicals are linked not just to the petro-chemical industry but to the toxins that infuse our daily lives: solvents, detergents, cosmetics, herbicides, pesticides – plastics. As the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center concluded in its recent study of chemical contamination: ‘much of our exposure may be from products we have assumed to be safe for use.’ “
http://wcco.com/local/neurotoxin.household.items.2.811758.html

“This toxic life”
Sarnia’s “chemical valley”, Aamjiwnaang, gender-bending, carcinogens, asthma – warning us of where we’re all headed: “where the environment is concerned we all live downstream”.
Quotes: “‘Millions of tons of reproductive toxins are spewed out by these facilities year in, year out. Their effect on animal life has been well documented throughout the Great Lakes. To think these poisons would affect everything else and not the human population is bizarre.’ ”
“Critics predict that in 10 years the fallout from the petro-chemical and plastics plague will rank with tobacco and pesticides as a major global public health issue.”
http://www.newint.org/features/2008/09/01/keynote-plastic/

“The Health Hazards of ‘Fragrances’: Toxic chemicals found in common scented laundry products, air fresheners“
Quote: “A University of Washington study of top-selling laundry products and air fresheners found the products emitted dozens of different chemicals.”
Each of the products tested gave off at least one chemical Federally classified as toxic or hazardous, yet none – repeat, none – of them listed those chemicals on their labels.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/health/webmd/main4295506.shtml
And a link to more info on the major researcher, Dr. Anne Steinemann, http://water.washington.edu/Outreach/Events/SpecialEvents/oslsAS.html

“Essential vs Fragrance Oils: The Hazards of Scents”
Quote: “95% of the chemicals found in these oils are synthetic compounds derived from petroleum, and include chemicals such as benzene derivatives, aldehydes, and others capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders (CNS) and allergic reactions. Today, fragrances are marketed to an unsuspecting public who think that these scents are natural.”
Phthalate esters, hormone disruption, neurological and respiratory effects – and if that’s not enough, waste water treatment facilities do not remove fragrance chemicals, and they have been found in our drinking water… not to mention lakes, rivers and groundwater.
http://www.hans.org/enews/issue/90#a5
http://www.herc.org/news/perfume/risks.htm
http://www.ourlittleplace.com/perfume.html

“Plasticizer related to lower hormone levels in men”
Synopsis: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/phthalates-and-mens-lower-hormone-levels
Quotes: “ Adult men with average amounts of phthalates in their urine had lower levels of two important hormones — testosterone and estrogen — in their blood. The hormones are necessary for normal sperm production and function.”
“This is the first study to show a relationship between phthalate levels and hormone levels in adult men.”
The original study: “Urinary Metabolites of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Are Associated with Decreased Steroid Hormone Levels in Adult Men”
http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/jandrol.108.006403v1

“Common Chemicals May Affect Fertility”
Quote: “Exposure to a type of chemical found in everyday items such as clothing, carpets, and food packaging may be adversely affecting women’s fertility, delaying the time it takes them to become pregnant, according to a new study. In the study, the higher the concentrations of these chemicals — called perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) — in the women’s blood samples, the more likely the women were to take more than 12 months to get pregnant.”
http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20090128/common-chemicals-may-affect-fertility?print=true
For a PDF of the study, “Maternal levels of perfluorinated chemicals and subfecundity”, go here: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/den490v1