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

“Cardiovascular effects of air pollution”

Quote: “PM air pollution imparts a tremendous burden to the global public health, ranking it as the 13th leading cause of morality (approx. 800,000 annual deaths).”

Cardiovascular effects of air pollution

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18691154?dopt=AbstractPlus

Brook RD.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-0739, USA. robdbrok@umich.edu
Clin Sci (Lond). 2008 Sep;115(6):175-87.

Air pollution is a heterogeneous mixture of gases, liquids and PM (particulate matter). In the modern urban world, PM is principally derived from fossil fuel combustion with individual constituents varying in size from a few nanometres to 10 microm in diameter.

In addition to the ambient concentration, the pollution source and chemical composition may play roles in determining the biological toxicity and subsequent health effects. Nevertheless, studies from across the world have consistently shown that both short- and long-term exposures to PM are associated with a host of cardiovascular diseases, including myocardial ischaemia and infarctions, heart failure, arrhythmias, strokes and increased cardiovascular mortality.

Evidence from cellular/toxicological experiments, controlled animal and human exposures and human panel studies have demonstrated several mechanisms by which particle exposure may both trigger acute events as well as prompt the chronic development of cardiovascular diseases.

PM inhaled into the pulmonary tree may instigate remote cardiovascular health effects via three general pathways: instigation of systemic inflammation and/or oxidative stress, alterations in autonomic balance, and potentially by direct actions upon the vasculature of particle constituents capable of reaching the systemic circulation.

In turn, these responses have been shown to trigger acute arterial vasoconstriction, endothelial dysfunction, arrhythmias and pro-coagulant/thrombotic actions.

Finally, long-term exposure has been shown to enhance the chronic genesis of atherosclerosis. Although the risk to one individual at any single time point is small, given the prodigious number of people continuously exposed, PM air pollution imparts a tremendous burden to the global public health, ranking it as the 13th leading cause of morality (approx. 800,000 annual deaths).

PMID: 18691154 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

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

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

Diabetes, Obesity, POPs

“Persistent pollutant may promote obesity: Compound shown to affect gene activity at extremely low concentrations”
The chemical, Tributyltin, is used in anti-fouling paints for boats, as a wood and textile preservative, as a pesticide on high-value food crops, and for many other applications.
Quote: “The rise in obesity in humans over the past 40 years parallels the increased use of industrial chemicals over the same period. Iguchi and Katsu maintain that it is “plausible and provocative” to associate the obesity epidemic to chemical triggers present in the modern environment. Several other ubiquitous pollutants with strong biological effects, including environmental estrogens such as bisphenol A and nonylphenol, have been shown to stimulate the growth of fat storage cells in mice. The role that tributyltin and similar persistent pollutants may play in the obesity epidemic is now under scrutiny.”
Another of the ubiquitous effects of POPs, in other words…
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/081201_persistent_pollutant_may_promote_obesity.htm

“POP Goes the National Diabetes Rate”
Quote: “The conventional wisdom says too many Americans simply have a lousy diet oversaturated with fats and sugars that combine in the body to promote the obesity that causes the insulin resistance that triggers type 2 diabetes. But some new research says maybe the cause is chemicals in the environment.”
And the chemicals in questions are, of course, POPs.
http://www.seventhgeneration.com/learn/blog/pop-goes-national-diabetes-rate

“Pollution can make you fat, study claims”
This study, published in September of 2008, was the first to link chemical contamination in the womb with obesity. Quote: “Children exposed to pesticide in womb twice as  likely to be overweight, refuting idea of sole personal responsibility.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/pollution-can-make-you-fat-study-claims-921696.html

“Research links common chemicals to obesity”
Quote: “Exposure in the womb to common chemicals used to make everything from plastic bottles to pizza box liners may program a person to become obese later in life, U.S. researchers said.”
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=2b026a0c-f6e2-4aa8-899c-ee3ed918121f

“Study associated BPA to diseases in adults”
Quote: “Adults exposed to higher amounts of the plastic compound bisphenol A are more likely to be afflicted by cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, and have liver enzyme abnormalities, according to a new study issued Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.wbisphenol0916/BNStory/Science/home

Dying From Air Pollution

Canadian Medical Association (CMA) report: 21,000 will die from pollution in 2008

CTV.ca News Staff

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080813/smog_report_080813/20080813/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Up to 21,000 Canadians will die this year due to air pollution, with 3,000 of those deaths due to short-term exposure to smog.

The heart-stopping figures are some of the key findings in the first large-scale report on the impact of air pollution across Canada. It finds that by 2031, almost 90,000 Canadians will have died from the acute short-term effects of pollution and more than 700,000 will be dead from long term exposure.

The economic impact of those deaths will cost Canada $8 billion in 2008 and over $250 billion by 2031.

The study “No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution” was completed by the Canadian Medical Association and released on Wednesday.

“Much has been made about the poor air quality in China and the effect it is having on our athletes,” CMA President Dr. Brian Day told a news teleconference on Wednesday. “But we have a serious home-grown pollution problem right here and Canadians, ranging from the very young to the very old, are paying the price.”

The study found that while most of the pollution-related deaths in Canada were due to long-term exposure, a growing number can be attributed to short-term, acute exposure to heavy smog.

Even in brief doses, heavy pollution can affect the ability of blood to coagulate, making clotting more likely and giving rise to heart attacks and strokes, said Ted Boadway, CMA’s technical advisor on health and the environment.

“Both of which rise during pollution episodes and in the few days afterwards and explain in significant part the number of acute deaths due to air pollution,” Boadway told reporters.

In the long-term, he said, the harmful ingredients contained in air pollution can weaken the muscle cells in artery walls, particularly in the heart, causing a number of cardiovascular problems and potentially death.

Day described the report as a road map detailing where the country stands now in terms of pollution, and how much more severe the situation will become if policy makers don’t act now to improve air quality.

The CMA used a model developed by the Ontario Medical Association to come up with its results. The organization took the model and expanded it to a national level, using the “highly predictive” pollutants particulate matter and ozone as measuring sticks to judge air quality It revealed that Ontario and Quebec receive a heavier dose of smog than the rest of the country, and as a result residents of those provinces are suffering.

In fact, 70 per cent of the premature deaths occur in Central Canada, even though Ontario and Quebec comprise only 62 per cent of Canada’s population.

And most of that smog doesn’t even originate in either of the provinces.

“Canada gets a fair bit of pollution from the American midwest which drifts north, comes across through Ontario and continues right on through to Quebec,” Boadway said, adding people who live outside of cities also get blasted with smog. “Sometimes people in rural areas think they’re escaping very nicely because they don’t live in downtown wherever. The fact is these masses of air pollution move across the countryside and some of our worst air pollution occurs in rural areas because it just happens to be downwind.”

The study looked at four areas: lost productivity costs, healthcare costs, economic damage to quality of life and the economic damage to the country due to loss of life.

In Ontario alone, lost productivity will cost Canada $349,400 this year. By 2031 that will total over $9 million in damage.

Healthcare costs in the province will be $221,800 this year, up to almost $6.5 million total by 2031.

Economic damage to quality of life will hit $194,100 in Ontario in 2008, up to $265,000 in 2031 and totalling almost $5.5 million by that time.

Economic damage due to loss of life will cost $3,644,100 in 2008, rising to $6,367,200 in 2031, and totalling $115,674,500 by 2031.

Other key findings of the report include the following:

In 2008, 80 per cent of those who die due to air pollution will be over 65.

25 Canadians under 19 will die from short-term acute pollution exposure this year.

In 2008 there will more than 9,000 hospital visits and 30,000 emergency room visits, and 620,000 doctor’s office visits, stemming from air pollution.

“This report shows for the first time the tragic effects of the toxic air that we breathe, whether it is in my hometown of Vancouver, or across the country in St. John’s,” Dr. Day said.

Health Canada and Environment Canada contributed to the report.

Polluting Printers

[Many of you are likely to have seen this research - it was published late last year - but this particular version of the report was just sent to us, and it's a good reminder. Printers in offices are becoming the new "second-hand smoke" issue. No one in your cube farm would dream of smoking indoors, right? The very idea boggles the mind. (Well, in most parts of the world.) Laser printers can be just as bad. But of course your office vents the printers to the outside, just like it says in the user manuals, right? Right? Ummm... did anyone read the user manual? Best advice: check the make of the printers in your airspace and see how they stack up - and let management know how much this could cost them and their insurers in the long run once the lung-cancer lawsuits start coming in...]

Polluting printers contaminate office air
UPdate Fall 2007

Office air five times more polluted than the nearby freeway? That’s what researchers in Australia discovered recently. [Late 2007. Ed.] The pollution was not coming from outdoors, as might be expected. The major culprit turned out to be laser printers.

” We were studying the efficiency of ventilation systems to protect office settings from outdoor air pollutants,’ explained Lidia Morawska, Ph.D in environmental physics. “We soon realized that we were seeing air pollution originating indoors, from laser printers.” The researchers tested 62 printers, all major brands. They found 17 of them were “high emitters.” High emitters increased the level of small particle emissions ten times above the expected background level. Standing next to the worst emitting printer was comparable to standing next to a cigarette smoker.

The particles given off by printers are ultra-fine. This makes them a greater health risk than larger particles because they are more easily inhaled deep into the lungs, where they can have serious effects. Although the researchers did not analyze the composition of the particles, they suspect that toner, an ultra-fine powder used in laser printers instead of ink, is the source of the emissions. The health risks can range from respiratory irritation to cardiovascular problems or cancer, said Morawska. “Even very small concentrations can be related to health hazards,” she explained. “Where the concentrations are significantly elevated means there is potentially a considerable threat.”

Not all the laser printers tested were particle polluters. Over half of the printers released no particles at all, including one printer which was the identical model as the printer which measured as the worst offender. Researchers found that emission levels varied, depending on whether the toner was new or old, and that particle levels increased when graphics were printed. Printing graphics uses greater amounts of toner.

User manuals provided with laser printers instruct that the machines should always be ventilated outdoors. These instructions are more often ignored than followed, both in the work environment and at home. Ventilating laser printers outside decreases particle levels indoors.

“This is an important indoor source of pollution, Morawska said. “There should be regulations.” The impact of printers on indoor air has been the subject on only a handful of studies, and there are no government standards for printer emissions. A few studies have looked at the emissions of volatile organic compounds, ozone and toner particles from office printers and copiers. But there are broad gaps in the scientific understanding of particle emissions, the report states.

Unlike laser printers, ink-jet printers do not require toner. They are also generally lower in emissions of volatile organic compounds, especially those with solvent-free ink.

CREDIT:

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF NOVA SCOTIA (EHANS)

http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/

Air Pollution and Dain Bramage, and, yes, your heart

[Air pollution breaks down the blood-brain barrier. Quote from the lead researcher on the first study: ""This is extremely important, because once you break down the barriers, you have an entrance for pollutants directly to your brain."" In this study, dealing with dogs in Mexico City,  the pollution lead to symptoms similar to Alzheimer's in humans. In other words, air pollution opened the door to permanent brain damage, including DNA changes in brain cells. In the second study, in Toronto, air pollution's contribution to heart problems is documented... ]

Air Pollution May Damage Brain, Heart

WEDNESDAY, April 16 (HealthScoutNews) — Air pollution may cause brain damage similar to Alzheimer’s disease, as well as heart problems, two new studies suggest. Dogs exposed to air pollution were found to develop damaged brain cell genes in as little as four weeks, according to research presented April 15 at the Experimental Biology 2003 conference in San Diego.

The animals were exposed to the highly polluted air in different parts of Mexico City, and compared against a control group of dogs kept in less-polluted rural parts of Mexico. Mexico City is considered one of the worst cities in the world for air pollution.

More than 200 dogs were involved in the study, which lasted for more than a year. The dogs in the highly polluted environment suffered lung and upper respiratory damage, which let particles enter the central nervous system, leading to gene and DNA damage in their brain cells. Even dogs less than 1 year old were found to have brain lesions similar to those of human Alzheimer’s patients, the researchers say.

Lead researcher Dr. Lilian Calderon-Garciduenas, of the University of North Carolina, says exposure to air pollution causes inflammation in the respiratory tract, which lets tiny airborne particles and metals enter the central nervous system and brain. This, in turn, causes oxidative damage and DNA changes in brain cells.

Air pollution breaks down the vital blood-brain barrier that usually keeps toxic substances away from the brain, she says.

“This is extremely important,” says Calderon-Garciduenas, “because once you break down the barriers, you have an entrance for pollutants directly to your brain.”

The researchers also found signs of lung damage in children as young as 4 years old who were raised in Mexico City.

“The same breakdown in the respiratory system we’re seeing in dogs is happening in children and adults in Mexico City,” Calderon-Garciduenas contends, “and it probably also happens in cities like Los Angeles.”

A separate study presented at the same symposium found a link between air pollution and heart problems in humans.

Exposure to air pollution raised levels of certain peptides in the bloodstream that can constrict blood vessels and decrease blood flow to the heart muscle, the researchers found.

The study was conducted at the Gage Institute of the University of Toronto, where healthy volunteers were exposed to air pollution in a laboratory setting. The volunteers were subjected to air pollution about two to three times the level normally found in Toronto, which is considered one of North America’s less-polluted major cities.

The study focused on endothelin, a naturally occurring peptide that plays an important role in blood vessel health.

“If we expose healthy humans to airborne particulates, we can document a doubling of endothelin in the blood,” says Renaud Vincent, one of the researchers and head of Health Canada’s Inhalation Toxicology and Aerobiology Section.

“We now have at least one mechanism that could plausibly explain how someone with a heart condition exposed to a low level of air pollution could die or come down with severe symptoms, such as congestive heart failure,” Vincent says.

Recent epidemiological studies have found higher rates of death and hospitalization in cities with high levels of air pollution. Vincent says the culprit appears to be airborne particulates.

When test subjects breathed polluted air for as little as two hours, the level of vasoconstrictive peptides in their blood rose sharply and stayed at abnormally high levels for as long as 24 hours, even without further exposure. The changes in peptide levels were proportionate to the concentration of particles to which the subjects were exposed.

“The picture is starting to come together of why we see these spikes in mortality associated with air pollution levels,” says Fred Miller, a researcher with CIIT Centers for Health Research, an independent, non-profit research organization based in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park.

“The mortality may be coming about because you have this exposure, and how well can your system handle this added stressor?” he says.

Elevated levels of endothelin can reduce blood flow by as much as 50 percent, particularly in people with atherosclerosis, high blood pressure and diabetes, Vincent says.

Further study needs to be done on which specific particulates and their components produce the rise in vasoconstrictive peptide levels, he says.

More information

To learn more about the health risks posed by air pollution, visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Resources Institute.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/hatt/512732.html;COXnetJSessionID=1FoM8iLaWmakFLZ1tokndEgCmdMyG2NxmwRs4c81TE1N9aDDFboX!664728683?urac=n&urvf=10657075327460.718386112449

Black mold

In a New Scientist article, in response to a question regarding “dreaded black mold”, we read the following from Brian Flannigan, Department of Biological Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK. Previous responses addressed Aspergillus Niger, considered “a major source of allergenic disease in that it produces carcinogenic aerosols”.

“The most common dark molds in growths on bathroom and other damp walls are likely to be species of Cladosporium, with Aureobasidium, Phoma, and Ulocladium thrown in for good measure. Even green species of Aspergillus and Penicillium can look black when soaked.

The situation is much the same in mainland Europe, so it is likely that it will not be very different in Northumberland or Surrey, unless the bathrooms there come closer than most British bathrooms to providing the subtropical and tropical climates that favor A. Niger.

A really black fungus is about 15 percent of houses in Scotland with mold problems is Stachybotrys aira. Wallpaper, jute carpet backing, and the cardboard wrapper of gypsum board all provide ideal cellulosic substrates on which it may thrive in damp conditions. This type of mold may present the greatest hazard of any to the health of occupants of moldy buildings. Its airborne spores are allergenic and powerfully toxigenic. Its toxins inhibit protein synthesis, and are immunosuppressive, an irritant, and hemorrhagic.

It is well known that fodder contaminated by Stachybotrys can kill horses, and it is also harmful to the stable hands. Currently, this mold is of particular concern in North America, where it has been implicated in episodes of building-related illness ranging from chronic fatigue syndrome in adults to fatal pulmonary hemosiderosis in infants. Consequently it has been the subject of lawsuits (one for the sum of $40 million) against builders and employers.”

Recommendation: if you see black mold, call a professional. Have it sampled, have it tested, have it dealt with – all under containment. When it comes to mold, black=bad, and it could be deadly.