Phthalates and Babies: Study

“Study finds moms share phthalates with their babies”

Quote: “In the first study of its kind, researchers in Taiwan find that phthalates can pass from pregnant women to their unborn babies and affect reproductive development in their daughters.”

Synopsis, by Jennifer Adibi:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/phthalates-in-moms-and-babies/

In the first study of its kind, researchers in Taiwan find that phthalates can pass from pregnant women to their unborn babies and affect reproductive development in their daughters.

The paper reports an association between two types of the ubiquitous chemicals and permanent changes to the newborns’ genitals that point to hormonal interference.  Overall, the results provide more evidence that human exposure to these endocrine-disrupting chemicals before birth can alter how reproductive systems form.

Phthalates are a class of endocrine disrupting chemicals used extensively in PVC plastics, cosmetics, food packaging and medical devices. The chemicals pollute the environment and are found in the urine of 95 percent of US residents.

In many lab studies with rodents, phthalates block the actions of two important hormones — testosterone and estrogen — to produce feminized male offspring and infertile females. However, few studies examine their impact on humans. The ones that do have found evidence of feminizing effects on boys exposed before birth.

Amniotic fluid and urine samples from 65 pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis were analyzed for five kinds of phthalates. At birth, the researchers measured the distance from the anus to the genitals in both male and female babies. This measure is called the anogenital distance (AGD) and indicates abnormal sexual development (specifically, differentiation) in the womb.

The metabolite monobutyl phthalate (MBP) in the amniotic fluid and urine was correlated in all newborns. This means the pollutant was able to pass from the mother, through the placenta and into the fetal circulation system.

In females only, phthalates in the amniotic fluid were correlated with shorter AGD. The association was stronger with MBP than with monoethylhexyl phthalate (MEHP). This finding is consistent with a prior study from 2005 showing a similar relationship in boys.

Even though these results support past findings, the sample size was small. Small samples make it difficult to draw statistically definite conclusions from one study alone. However, the results agree with past studies, and the findings add to the growing weight of scientific evidence that suggest prebirth exposure to some phthalates can alter reproductive development in people.

The authors conclude that “although the endocrinological and physiological influence of prenatal MBP exposure on the fetus is still a puzzle, our findings clearly showed the anti-androgenic effects of MBP on the fetus during early pregnancy.”

The original study: “Association between prenatal exposure to phthalates and the health of newborns”

Quote: “…our data clearly show that in utero exposure to phthalates in general has anti-androgenic effects on the fetus.“

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7X-4T1SFM6-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d1af14ee9a35791ccc935faecfd35b05

“Lawmakers Agree to Ban Toxins” (US)

Lawmakers Agree to Ban Toxins in Children’s Items

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2008; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072802586_pf.html

Congressional negotiators agreed yesterday to a ban on a family of toxins found in children’s products, handing a major victory to parents and health experts who have been clamoring for the government to remove harmful chemicals from toys.

The ban, which would take effect in six months, would have significant implications for U.S. consumers, whose homes are filled with hundreds of plastic products designed for children that may be causing dangerous health effects.

The rare action by Congress reflects a growing body of scientific research showing that children ingest the toxins by acts as simple as chewing on a rubber duck. Used for decades in plastic production, the chemicals are now thought to act as hormones and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys.

It also signals an important crack in the chemical industry’s ability to fend off federal regulation and suggests that the landscape may be shifting to favor consumers. The movement to ban the toxins accelerated last year when California prohibited their use in children’s products.

Earlier this year, the country’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart; the biggest toy seller, Toys R Us; and Babies R Us told their suppliers that they will no longer carry products containing the chemicals, known as phthalates, as of Jan. 1, 2009. Toys containing these chemicals, however, will still be on many retail shelves during the holiday season.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes the ban but that it is too early to say whether he will veto the measure, which is part of popular legislation to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Among other things, the legislation would ban lead in children’s products and would give consumers access to a new database of complaints or accident reports for goods. The measure also allows stiffer fines for violations and enhanced enforcement of consumer safety laws.

Under language finalized yesterday, House and Senate lawmakers agreed to permanently ban three types of phthalates from children’s toys and to outlaw three other phthalates from products pending an extensive study of their health effects in children and pregnant women.

Phthalates make plastics softer and more durable and also are added to perfumes, lotions, shampoos and other items. They are so ubiquitous that in one 1999 study, the Food and Drug Administration found traces in all of its 1,000 subjects.

The measure had wide support in the Senate, but it bogged down in the House, where the chemical industry waged a costly battle to defeat it. The campaign was led by Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, the phthalate most frequently found in children’s toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent any ban.

Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law, said industry viewed the ban as a benchmark that might signal a shift in Congress’s willingness to toughen restrictions on toxins.

“The great fear is that if a big, established chemical like this can be driven from the market, what’s next?” he said.

Said Andy Igrejas of the Pew Charitable Trusts: “The debate over this one set of chemicals is a referendum on a broken system. Congress saw just how screwed up the system is in protecting people from chemicals, especially children.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the measure, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market.

“Chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign,” she said.

U.S. companies manufacture $1.4 billion worth of phthalates annually, and less than 5 percent of that is used in children’s products, according to the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical makers.

Sharon Kneiss, a vice president at the trade group, said Congress acted prematurely. “There is no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children’s products. With over 50 years of research, phthalates are among the most thoroughly studied products in the world, and have been reviewed by multiple regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe,” she said.

Exxon Mobil contended that banning phthalates may inadvertently expose children to greater risks, because manufacturers will be forced to use substitute chemicals that may be even more hazardous.

“What’s at stake is, in fact, children’s safety,” said Elissa Sterry, a vice president at Exxon Mobil Chemicals. “If DINP is replaced by alternative products, that’s a potential risk to children.”

The industry’s position was repeated by Keith Hennessey, director of Bush’s Economic Policy Council, who wrote to the Senate saying that a ban could hurt children.

“Banning a product before a conclusive, scientific determination is reached is short-sighted and may result in the introduction of unregulated substitute chemicals that harm children’s health,” he wrote.

Most research on phthalates has been performed on rodents, and chemical makers say there is no evidence that humans are similarly affected. They also contend that children are exposed to phthalate levels far below the doses administered to laboratory rats.

But the first study involving human babies in 2005 raised questions about those arguments. Federally funded research by the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester Medical School found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited changes related to low sperm count, undescended testicles and other reproductive problems. In that study, the infants were exposed to phthalate levels way below the doses administered in rat experiments. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer.

Health experts argue that dangers may be more significant from cumulative exposure, because phthalates surround babies not only in toys and products but also in breast milk if the mother has been exposed to the chemicals.

The European Union banned six phthalates from children’s products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same.

California’s ban has been followed by legislation in Washington state and Vermont.

Staff writer Annys Shin contributed to this report.

4Ps: Plastics, Phthaltes, Puny Penises

Plastics ingredient linked to smaller penises

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

October 7, 2008 at 9:05 AM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081007.wlplastic07/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

Exposure of expectant mothers to phthalates, a common ingredient in many plastics, has been linked to smaller penis size and incomplete descent of testicles in their baby boys, according to a new research paper that found the chemical also appears to make the overall genital tracts of boys slightly more feminine.

The findings are sure to add more controversy to phthalates, a chemical that is added to polyvinyl chloride plastic to make it less brittle, and to many types of personal care products including fragrances, hair sprays and nail polish.

The research was conducted on children from three different areas of the United States, and found a strong statistical correlation between expectant mothers who had above-average levels of the chemical in their urine while pregnant and the feminizing effect on their sons.

Phthalates are “probably reproductive toxins and should be eliminated from products gradually because we don’t need them,” said Shanna Swan, director of the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester’s school of medicine, who led the team of scientists who examined the boys.

The paper is published in the current issue of the journal Environmental Research.

The Virginia-based American Chemistry Council, which represents the makers of the chemical (Exxon Mobil, BASF, Ferro Corp., and Eastman Chemical), issued a statement saying it “cautioned against over-interpreting any individual study.”

Scientists have been investigating the possible effects on boys of phthalates because rodent studies have shown the chemical has the peculiar ability to shorten the space between the anus and the genitalia in male mice exposed during fetal development. This space, known as anogenital distance or AGD, is normally about twice as long in young male mice than in females. For mice, AGD is considered a measure of masculinity and a way to determine the sex of the pups. Scientists are so confident of the effect that they’ve given the impact of the chemical on male rodents a name – phthalate syndrome.

Surveys of children have also found that there is a marked sexual difference for this trait in humans, too, with the length in boys about 50 per cent more than in girls.

Dr. Swan’s research, conducted on 106 boys from Los Angeles, Columbus, Missouri and Minnesota, is among the first to raise the possibility that phthalate syndrome may also be at work in humans, because it found pregnant women with the highest amount of phthalates were markedly more likely to give birth to boys who had shorter anogenital distances.

When the boys were compared, none of the 29 with a shorter AGD were born to women who had low amounts of phthalates, while among the boys with a long space, only one was born to a mother with a high amount of the chemical.

The difference in the genital distance between the high-exposure and low-exposure boys was slight – around 3 to 4 per cent.

The paper also showed that incomplete descent of the testicles was “significantly” associated with mothers having more of the type of phthalate used in polyvinyl chloride plastic.

This phthalate, known as DEHP, has been listed as a toxic substance in Canada, and Health Canada has proposed but not implemented a prohibition limiting the chemical to no more than 0.1 per cent of the weight of toys used by young children.

Phthalates may have adverse effects because they are able to reduce testosterone synthesis by interfering with an enzyme needed to produce the male hormone. This raises worries that they may alter any process dependent on the hormone that choreographs male development. Phthalates can easily leach out of products, enabling humans to absorb them through diet, skin and inhalation.

Dr. Swan cautioned that the research was conducted on a relatively small number of boys, and the findings need to be independently verified by other investigators. It also isn’t known what effect, if any, the chemical might have on the fertility of the boys, later in life, because the group would need to be followed into adulthood.

Nonetheless, Dr. Swan said she believes labelling laws need to be strengthened to allow consumers to choose whether to buy products or packaging that contain phthalates.

Cosmetics often contain phthalates, but the chemical isn’t specifically mentioned because it is included in other listed items, such as fragrances.

Dr. Swan says she tries to buy phthalate-free cosmetics and doesn’t store or microwave food in plastic containers, among other steps, to minimize her own exposure.

The Hazards of Scents

Essential vs Fragrance Oils: The Hazards of Scents

by Klaus Ferlow
http://www.hans.org/enews/issue/90

What is a fragrance oil? Fragrance oils are combinations of synthetically manufactured chemicals designed to “mimic” the aroma of natural materials. Far from “natural”, 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 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. Even unscented and fragrance-free products can contain masking scents to mask the smell of other ingredients.

Despite the widespread and constant exposure to fragrance chemicals in thousands of products, there is minimal government regulation and monitoring on their safety. With 1,000 new synthetic chemicals added yearly to the already 80,000 to 100,000 in use today, most of which have not be tested individually or in combination for their effects on human health, it’s not surprising that one in five people experience health problems when exposed. Fragrance chemicals do not have to be listed on the product label. Trade secret laws keep toxicity testing and ingredient identification from being accurately disclosed, in an industry which is largely self-regulating!

Hormone-disrupting effects

A study by Greenpeace in 2005, discovered that 36 well-known perfume brands contained two toxic, man-made chemicals, phthalate esters and synthetic musk, as in the “old” days the perfumes were derived 100% from botanical plants.  Phthalates are known estrogen and testosterone hormone disrupters and effect DNA, male sperm and restricts lung function in men, while synthetic musk can attack living tissues. Phthalates have been associated with thyroid disorders, premature breast development in baby girls, and abnormal sexual development in male fetus and infants. They are also found in the blood of pregnant women, in breast milk, and can cross the placenta. Diethyl phthalate, commonly used in fragrances and other personal care products, damages the DNA of sperm which can lead to infertility in adult men. Phthalates can change peoples mood and behaviour, and as they can disguise unpleasant odours, are often found in cleaning products, in hospitals (seems today one of the most dangerous place on earth) and nursing homes.

Some fragrance chemicals can alter the skin’s surface tension, facilitating the absorption of other chemicals into the skin. Fragrances can lead to allergies, eczema, psoriasis, contact dermatitis and other skin conditions. It is estimated that 1 to 2% of the North America population may have a skin allergy to fragrances as these can easily volatilize. And, as manufacturers use long lasting fragrance chemicals and invent new powerful potent ones, they can linger in the air, settling and sticking to skin, hair, clothes, furnishings, everything!

Fragranced laundry products provide constant exposure, infants’ skin being especially susceptible to absorbing chemicals directly from diapers. Fragrance chemicals can also accumulate in fabrics and are very difficult to remove. Laundry will even absorb fragrances if other people have used fragrance detergents in their wash.

Neurological effects

Fragrance chemicals affect brain and the central nervous system, with some effects being immediate and transistory, while others are chronic and long lasting. Fragrances can modify brain blood flow, alter blood pressure, pulse and mood, and trigger migraine headaches. When inhaled, some have potent sedative effects and some like AETT and musk ambrette are neurotoxic. Specially formulated fragrances are used to control public behaviour.

Respiratory effects

Fragrance chemicals can induce or worsen respiratory problems, and lower airway irritation occurs in 15% of people. These respiratory irritants, which cause inflammation and increase mucus production, make the airways more susceptible to injury and allergens, as well as trigger and exacerbate such conditions as asthma, allergies, sinus problems and other respiratory disorders. In school aged children, fragrances can trigger asthma, a chronic illness afflicting nine million American children. Among adults, asthma rates have doubled since 1980, with one in fourteen suffers from asthma, and with 72% of asthmatics citing fragrance as a trigger.

Environmental effects

Fragrances are volatile compounds. The widespread use (and they are banned already in some clinics, hospitals and other public buildings) and vast numbers of fragranced products used cause extensive indoor and outdoor pollution. Many people find it difficult to enter public buildings, attend public events, stand near people or walk outdoors due to fragrances released in the air. A Norwegian study even found synthetic musk compounds in outdoor air in a remote area.

Fragrances are dispensed through ventilation systems in many buildings. They are designed to add a “pleasant” scent to the air (for example, using food smells in shopping malls and floral scents in stores to increase sales). Scents can cover up poor air quality due to odours from cigarette smoke, exhaust fumes, pesticides, mould and chemical off-gassing from furniture, carpet, glues, cleaning products, etc. They can also cover up insufficient fresh air ventilation present in many offices, restaurants, hotels, airports etc.

An estimated 292 million Americans regularly wash and dry their clothes using fragranced laundry products!

Waste water treatment facilities do not remove fragrance chemicals, many of which are persistent and accumulate in the environment. The documented presence of fragrance chemicals in even drinking water, in streams and in lakes could adversely affect the health of people, animal and plant life. For more information on the hazards of synthetic scents, refer to: www.ourlittleplace.com/perfume.html, www.herc.org/news/perfume/risks.htm

A variety of fragrance-free natural products are available in the marketplace, just make the effort and carefully read all the labels. If you can’t pronounce the ingredients, don’t buy it!

Klaus Ferlow, traditional herbalist, innovator, lecturer, writer, founder, President and co-owner of FERLOW BOTANICALS, Div. of Ferlow Brothers Ltd, Vancouver, BC. Manufacturing/distributing organic toxin-free herbal medicinal and personal care products to professional health & wellness practitioners and selected stores with holistic practitioners on staff in Canada and parts of USA since 1993.  www.ferlowbotanicals.com

Toxic chemicals in cleaning products

[If we inform ourselves we can protect ourselves - but who is protecting the cleaning workers?]

TOXIC CHEMICALS EMITTED BY DRYER SHEETS AND SCENTED LAUNDRY PRODUCTS AND HEALTH HAZARDS

Principal Investigator: Professor Anne C. Steinemann, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Public Affairs, University of Washington.

Health effects obtained from the National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET®). Note that fragranced consumer products are not required to disclose all chemicals, not even ones classified as toxic or hazardous under federal laws. None of these chemicals were listed on the product label or material safety data sheet.

FORMALDEHYDE (50-00-0)

“May cause convulsions, gastrointestinal disturbances, coughing, chest pains, difficulty in breathing.” “Toxic if absorbed through skin. Readily absorbed through skin.” “May cause allergic skin reaction” “Eye contact: causes burns.” “Toxic if inhaled.” “is extremely destructive to the tissue of the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract.” “Toxic if swallowed.” “spasm, inflammation and edema of the larynx and bronchi, chemical pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema. Symptoms of exposure may include burning sensation, nausea, and vomiting.”

Recognized Carcinogen

Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Immunotoxicant, Neurotoxicant, Reproductive Toxicant, Respiratory Toxicant, Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

Regulated as toxic/hazardous chemical under the following law(s):

Air Contaminants (OSHA), Extremely Hazardous Substances (CERCLA), Hazardous Air Pollutants (CAA), Hazardous Constituents (RCRA), Hazardous Substances (CERCLA), Regulated Toxic, Explosive, or Flammable Substances (CAA), Registered Pesticides (FIFRA), Toxic Release Inventory Chemicals (EPCRA), Air Contaminants (CA OSHA), Toxic Air Contaminant (CA TAC)

ACETALDEHYDE (75-07-0)

“Inhalation is associated with irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract” “Irritates nose and mucous membranes of the upper respiratory system.” “considered a potential developmental toxin and a probable human carcinogen.” “May cause cancer based on animal studies. May cause lung damage. May cause central nervous system (CNS) depression. May cause liver and kidney damage. Marine pollutant.”

Recognized Carcinogen

Developmental Toxicant, Immunotoxicant, Kidney Toxicant, Neurotoxicant, Respiratory Toxicant, Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

Regulated as toxic/hazardous chemical under the following law(s):

Air Contaminants (OSHA), Hazardous Air Pollutants (CAA), Hazardous Substances (CERCLA), Regulated Toxic, Explosive, or Flammable Substances (CAA), Toxic Release Inventory Chemicals (EPCRA), Air Contaminants (CA OSHA), Toxic Air Contaminant (CA TAC)

ACETONE (67-64-1)

“Inhalation: dizziness, breathing difficulties, headaches, loss of coordination, anesthesia and respiratory tract irritation.” “Eyes: irritation, redness, tearing and blurred vision” “slurred speech, drowsiness, and, in severe exposures, coma.” “Acetone vapor can cause central nervous system (CNS) depression.”

Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Kidney Toxicant, Neurotoxicant, Respiratory Toxicant, Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

Governing legislation: Air Contaminants (OSHA), Hazardous Substances (CERCLA), Registered Pesticides (FIFRA), Air Contaminants (CA OSHA)

BENZYL ACETATE (140-11-4)

“toxicity high via inhalation route; capable of causing death or permanent injury” “incapacitating and poisonous” “Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.” “toxic to central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.” “Target organ(s): Kidneys. Nerves.” “Mutagenic.” “May affect behavior, brain and central nervous system (general anesthetic), respiration, urinary system.” “From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages.” “Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects.” “Do not flush to sewer.”

Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Kidney Toxicant, Neurotoxicant, Respiratory Toxicant

Regulated as toxic/hazardous chemical under the following law(s):

Air Contaminants (CA OSHA)

3-CARENE (13466-78-9)

(“BICYCLO(4.1.0)HEPT-3-ENE, 3,7,7-TRIMETHYL-”)

“May cause eye irritation.” “Causes skin irritation. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin. May cause sensitization by skin contact.” “May cause irritation of the digestive tract. May be harmful if swallowed.”"May cause respiratory tract irritation. May be harmful if inhaled.”

1,8-CINEOLE (470-82-6)

“has caused a transient coma.” “epigastric burning with nausea and usually vomiting, vertigo, ataxia, muscle weakness, stupor, pallor and sometimes cyanosis, respiratory stridor (edema) and miosis.” “May cause skin irritation. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin.” “May cause eye irritation.” “Material may be irritating to mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract. May be harmful if inhaled.”

DECANAL (112-31-2)

“Harmful by ingestion, inhalation or skin absorption.” “Severe irritant.” “Eyes: may cause severe burns and loss of vision. May cause permanent damage.” “Skin: contact with liquid can cause severe irritation or burns. Readily absorbed through skin.” “extremely irritating or destructive to tissue of the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract. Symptoms of exposure may include burning sensation, coughing, laryngitis, dyspnea, headache, nausea, and vomiting.”

2,4-DIMETHYL-3-CYCLOHEXENE-1-CARBOXALDEHYDE (68039-49-6)

“Irritating to the eyes.” “Irritating to the skin.” “Harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.” “may cause irritation of the throat and nose, headache, nausea and drowsiness.”

ETHANOL (64-17-5)

“May cause irritation of eyes, and mucous membranes.” “May cause central nervous system depression” “Preexisting eye, skin, and respiratory disorders may be aggravated by exposure to this product.”

Suspected Carcinogen, Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant, Developmental Toxicant, Endocrine Toxicant, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Kidney Toxicant, Neurotoxicant, Reproductive Toxicant, Respiratory Toxicant, Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

Regulated as toxic/hazardous chemical under the following law(s):

Air Contaminants (OSHA), Registered Pesticides (FIFRA), Air Contaminants (CA OSHA)

d-LIMONENE (138-86-3)

“Extremely hazardous in case of eye contact. Very hazardous in case of skin contact.” “may lead to chronic respiratory irritation.” “Prevent its contact with skin or eyes.” “Always wash thoroughly after using this material and before eating, drinking, …applying cosmetics. Do not inhale limonene vapor.” “symptoms include…burning pain in the mouth and throat, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, transient excitement, ataxia, delirium, stupor, coughing, choking, dyspnea, cyanosis, fever and tachycardia. In addition, pulmonary edema and pneumonitis may occur with limonene aspiration or systemic absorption. Dizziness and suffocation may be observed following limonene inhalation.”

LINALOOL (“1,6-OCTADIEN-3-OL, 3,7-DIMETHYL-”) (78-70-6)

“Causes central nervous system disorders.” “Contact with the eyes may result in irritation.” “Inhalation may result in respiratory irritation.” “irritating to mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract.” “Causes skin irritation.” Irritant. Mutagenic effects.

METHYL BENZOATE (93-58-3)

“May cause skin irritation. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin.” “May cause eye irritation.” “May be harmful if inhaled.” “may be irritating to the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract.” “Harmful if swallowed.”

Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, Neurotoxicant, Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

a-PINENE (“2,6,6-TRIMETHYLBICYCLO(3.1.1)-2-HEPT-2-ENE”) (80-56-eight)

“Irritates skin, mucous membranes.” “Causes skin eruption, GI irritation, delirium, ataxia, kidney damage, coma.” “Inhalation causes palpitation, dizziness, nervous disturbances, chest pain, bronchitis, nephritis.”"Benign skin tumors” “Damaging to the immune system.”

Neurotoxicant, Respiratory Toxicant, Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

Governing legislation: Registered Pesticides (FIFRA)

ß-PINENE (“2(10)-PINENE”) (127-91-3)

“Skin, eye and respiratory irritant.” “very destructive of mucous membranes.” “Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation.” “Severe irritation.” “Shortness of breath, headache, nausea, and vomiting.”

PRENYL ACETATE (1191-16-eight)

“Skin: causes irritation.” “May be harmful by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption.” “Vapor or mist is irritating to the eyes, mucous membranes, and upper respiratory tract.”

cis-ROSE OXIDE (16409-43-1)

(“4-METHYL-2-(2-METHYL-1-PROPENYL)-TETRAHYDROPYRAN”)

“May be irritating to the skin and eyes.” “may cause irritation of the throat and nose, headache, nausea and drowsiness.”

Male fertility and water pollution

Declining Male Fertility Linked To Water Pollution

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090118200636.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 20, 2009) — New research strengthens the link between water pollution and rising male fertility problems. The study, by Brunel University, the Universities of Exeter and Reading and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, shows for the first time how a group of testosterone-blocking chemicals is finding its way into UK rivers, affecting wildlife and potentially humans.

The study identified a new group of chemicals that act as ‘anti-androgens’. This means that they inhibit the function of the male hormone, testosterone, reducing male fertility. Some of these are contained in medicines, including cancer treatments, pharmaceutical treatments, and pesticides used in agriculture. The research suggests that when they get into the water system, these chemicals may play a pivotal role in causing feminising effects in male fish.

Earlier research by Brunel University and the University of Exeter has shown how female sex hormones (estrogens), and chemicals that mimic estrogens, are leading to ‘feminisation’ of male fish. Found in some industrial chemicals and the contraceptive pill, they enter rivers via sewage treatment works. This causes reproductive problems by reducing fish breeding capability and in some cases can lead to male fish changing sex.

Other studies have also suggested that there may be a link between this phenomenon and the increase in human male fertility problems caused by testicular dysgenesis syndrome. Until now, this link lacked credence because the list of suspects causing effects in fish was limited to estrogenic chemicals whilst testicular dysgenesis is known to be caused by exposure to a range of anti-androgens.

Lead author on the research paper, Dr Susan Jobling at Brunel University’s Institute for the Environment, said: “We have been working intensively in this field for over ten years. The new research findings illustrate the complexities in unravelling chemical causation of adverse health effects in wildlife populations and re-open the possibility of a human – wildlife connection in which effects seen in wild fish and in humans are caused by similar combinations of chemicals. We have identified a new group of chemicals in our study on fish, but do not know where they are coming from. A principal aim of our work is now to identify the source of these pollutants and work with regulators and relevant industry to test the effects of a mixture of these chemicals and the already known environmental estrogens and help protect environmental health.”

Senior author Professor Charles Tyler of the University of Exeter said: “Our research shows that a much wider range of chemicals than we previously thought is leading to hormone disruption in fish. This means that the pollutants causing these problems are likely to be coming from a wide variety of sources. Our findings also strengthen the argument for the cocktail of chemicals in our water leading to hormone disruption in fish, and contributing to the rise in male reproductive problems. There are likely to be many reasons behind the rise in male fertility problems in humans, but these findings could reveal one, previously unknown, factor.”

Bob Burn, Principal Statistician in the Statistical Services Centre at the University of Reading, said: “State-of- the- art statistical hierarchical modelling has allowed us to explore the complex associations between the exposure and potential effects seen in over 1000 fish sampled from 30 rivers in various parts of England.”

The research took more than three years to complete and was conducted by the University of Exeter, Brunel University, University of Reading and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Statistical modelling was supported by Beyond the Basics Ltd.

The research team is now focusing on identifying the source of anti-androgenic chemicals, as well as continuing to study their impact on reproductive health in wildlife and humans.

The research was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and is now published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

---

Adapted from materials provided by University of Exeter, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

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

Phthalates, POPs, Kids

“Study finds moms share phthalates with their babies”
Synopsis: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/phthalates-in-moms-and-babies/
Quote: “In the first study of its kind, researchers in Taiwan find that phthalates can pass from  pregnant women to their unborn babies and affect reproductive development in their daughters.”
The original study: “Association between prenatal exposure to phthalates and the health of newborns”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7X-4T1SFM6-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d1af14ee9a35791ccc935faecfd35b05

“Phthalates worsen skin allergies in newborn mice exposed through their mothers.”
The study showed that exposure to phthalates via mother’s milk caused increased allergic reactions in offspring. Phthalates, of course, are found almost everywhere in the environment, and have been linked to reproductive defects, among other problems.
Environmental Health Perspectives 116:11

“Fewer Children Outgrowing Allergies to Milk, Eggs”
Quotes: “Not only do more kids have allergies, but fewer of them outgrow their allergies, and those who do, do so later than before.”
“We may be dealing with a different disease process than we did 20 years ago. Why this is happening we just don’t know.”
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/HealthScout/090126/6012602AU.html
More information:
The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/foodAllergy/understanding/whatIsIt.htm

“Lawmakers Agree to Ban Toxins in Children’s Items” (US)
A ban on phthalates, significant in its own right but also because: “It also signals an important crack in the chemical industry’s ability to fend off federal regulation and suggests that the landscape may be shifting to favor consumers.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072802586_pf.html

“Perfumed Mother’s Milk”
Study showing that chemicals from soaps and personal care products gets passed on to children – as well as PCBs and pesticides.
Science News, Aug. 8, 2008.
http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht080814.htm

“Women warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy”
Quote: “Pregnant women have been advised to avoid using perfumes or scented body creams after research suggested the products can cause unborn boys to suffer infertility or cancer in later life.”
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/health/Women-warned–not-to.4443471.jp