A new analysis of lead in lipstick conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reveals that the problem of lead in lipstick is worse and more widespread than previously reported. The new study found lead in 400 lipsticks tested by the agency, at widely varying levels of up to 7.19 parts per million (ppm) — more than twice the levels reported in a previous FDA study.

February 6th 2012, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sent FDA a letter asking them to correct misleading statements on their website about the supposed safety of lead in lipstick. The agency has studied only the levels of lead in lipstick, and has conducted no health studies or safety assessments.

In January, an advisory committee to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a new report asserting that there is no safe level of lead for children, and stressing the importance of preventing lead exposure for children and pregnant women.

“Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels,” said Mark Mitchell, M.D., MPH, policy advisor of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice and co-chair of the Environmental Health Task Force for the National Medical Association.

“Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, because lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development,” said Sean Palfrey, M.D., a professor of pediatrics and public health at Boston University and the medical director of Boston’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.

The FDA study of 400 lipsticks was quietly posted on the agency’s website in December. The most contaminated brand in the study, Maybelline Color Sensation by L’Oreal USA, contained more than 275 times the amount of lead found in the least contaminated, and least expensive, brand, Wet & Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm — demonstrating that price is not an indicator of good manufacturing practices.

“How many millions of women have applied and reapplied lead-containing lipsticks since we first raised concerns about this problem five years ago? How many kids have played with their mom’s lipstick?” said Janet Nudelman, interim director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund. “It’s time for L’Oreal to get the lead out of its products, and for FDA to set a safety standard for lead in lipstick.”

The FDA said it is currently evaluating whether to recommend an upper limit for lead in lipstick. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is urging FDA to set a maximum limit for lead in lipstick based on the lowest lead levels cosmetic manufacturers can feasibly achieve. U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein have also urged FDA to take action to reduce lead in lipstick.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is also calling on L’Oreal to make a public commitment to reformulate its lipsticks to ensure the lowest possible levels of lead. L’Oreal makes five of the 10 most lead-contaminated brands in the FDA study.

Author:

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Hundreds of lipsticks contaminated with lead, reports new FDA study, February 7th, 2012

Related Articles:

• Toxic Beauty – What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You . . . In Fact, It Already Is
• Since when do Fish use Perfume?
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Aromatherapy Can Produce Harmful Indoor Air Pollutants

More than two years after leading health and parents’ groups asked Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) to reformulate its flagship baby shampoo to remove a chemical that releases formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, the company is still using the formaldehyde-releasing ingredient in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo in the United States, Canada and China, while making formaldehyde-free versions of the shampoo in several other countries, according to a new analysis conducted by the Campaign for Safe Cos- metics.

“Clearly there is no need for Johnson & Johnson to expose babies to a known carcinogen when the company is already making safer alternatives. All babies deserve safer products,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund.

Yesterday, after Johnson & Johnson received word of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report, the company released a statement saying it is no longer introducing new products with formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and has reduced its use of the chemical by 60 percent in the U.S. market and 33 percent globally over the past few years.

“We know that some consumers are concerned about formaldehyde, which is why we offer many products without formaldehyde releasing preservatives, and are phasing out these types of preservatives in our baby products worldwide,” said the statement.

Archer commented, “We’re glad to see that the Johnson & Johnson is taking this seriously. This commitment is a big step in the right direction. We look forward to the day when we can tell consumers the company’s entire product line is free of carcinogens and other chemicals of concern.”

For the new analysis, entitled Baby’s Tub Is Still Toxic, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics purchased and reviewed labels of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in 13 countries to see if the products contained quaternium-15, a chemical preservative that kills bacteria by releasing formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde was recently added to the U.S. government list of known human carcinogens by the National Toxicology Program, under the Department of Health and Human Services. Formaldehyde and quaternium-15 are also potent allergens that can trigger rashes and other skin inflammation problems. According to a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of the Dermatology Nurses’ Association, quaternium-15 is “the most sensitizing formaldehyde-releasing preservative and has been repeatedly shown to be a strong allergen that can cause contact dermatitis.”

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics analysis reveals that Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in the United States, Australia, Canada, China and Indonesia contains quaternium-15, while Johnson’s Baby Shampoo formulas sold in Denmark, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the U.K. contain non-formaldehyde preservatives.

“The American Nurses Association has adopted a precautionary approach based on the Precautionary Principle. In this application, even in the face of scientific uncertainty, if a chemical is strongly suspected of potential harm, it should be exchanged for a safer substitute,” said Amy Garcia M.S.N., R.N., C.A.E., Chief Programs Officer, Executive Office, American Nurses Association.

“Preventing toxic chemical exposures before they happen is the keystone of corporate responsibility. We call on Johnson & Johnson to remove carcinogenic formaldehyde from its products. It’s time to protect all children, regardless of their nationality,” said Peter Wilk, M.D., executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

In May 2009, ANA and PSR joined the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and many other health and environmental groups in formally asking Johnson & Johnson to reformulate its baby products after lab tests revealed that Johnson’s Baby Shampoo contained two carcinogens—formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane—that were not listed on labels.

In September 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics wrote again to Johnson & Johnson, asking the company to immediately remove the formaldehyde-releasing chemical quaternium-15 from its baby products in light of new research linking the chemical to increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and ANA have since met several times with Johnson & Johnson executives to discuss these concerns.

In response to consumer demand, the company launched a new “natural” version of baby shampoo that does not contain chemicals associated with formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane. However, the original Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, which is priced at about one-half the cost of the new “natural” shampoo, has not been reformulated in the U.S. market.

Yesterday, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics—along with the American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility and more than 20 other parents’ and health groups representing more than 3 million people—sent another letter to Johnson & Johnson, asking the company to remove formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from all its children’s products in all markets worldwide and replace them with safer alternatives. The letter asked for the company to make a commitment by November 15.

“While it is encouraging to see that Johnson & Johnson has made progress in formulating a safer ‘natural’ version of its iconic baby shampoo, now is the time for the company to rise to the occasion and make the safer products the world market is demanding for all its customers.” said Archer.

Author:

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Toxic Baby Shampoo: Johnson & Johnson Agrees to Global Reformulation Under Pressure from Health Groups, November 1st, 2011

-

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a coalition of more than 150 nonprofit organizations working to protect the health of consumers and workers by eliminating dangerous chemicals from cosmetics. Core members include: Clean Water Action, the Breast Cancer Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition and Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Related Articles:

• Since when do fish use perfume?
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• Baby Bathwater contains Fragrance Allergens and Chemicals
• Household detergents, Shampoos may harmful substance in wastewater
• Toxic Beauty – What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You . . . In Fact, It Already Is

Top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens

The same University of Washington researcher who used chemical sleuthing to deduce what’s in fragranced consumer products now has turned her attention to the scented air wafting from household laundry vents.

Findings, published online this week in the journal Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, show that air vented from machines using the top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens.

“This is an interesting source of pollution because emissions from dryer vents are essentially unregulated and unmonitored,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “If they’re coming out of a smokestack or tail pipe, they’re regulated, but if they’re coming out of a dryer vent, they’re not.”

The research builds on earlier work that looked at what chemicals are released by laundry products, air fresheners, cleaners, lotions and other fragranced consumer products. Manufacturers are not required to disclose the ingredients used in fragrances, or in laundry products.

For the new study, which focuses on chemicals emitted through laundry vents, researchers first purchased and pre-rinsed new, organic cotton towels. They asked two homeowners to volunteer their washers and dryers, cleaned the inside of the machines with vinegar, and ran full cycles using only water to eliminate as much residue as possible.

At the first home, they ran a regular laundry cycle and analyzed the vent fumes for three cases: once with no products, once with the leading brand of scented liquid laundry detergent, and finally with both the detergent and a leading brand of scented dryer sheets. A canister placed inside the dryer vent opening captured the exhaust 15 minutes into each drying cycle. Researchers then repeated the procedure with a different washer and dryer at a second home.

Analysis of the captured gases found more than 25 volatile organic compounds, including seven hazardous air pollutants, coming out of the vents. Of those, two chemicals – acetaldehyde and benzene – are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, for which the agency has established no safe exposure level.

“These products can affect not only personal health, but also public and environmental health. The chemicals can go into the air, down the drain and into water bodies,” Steinemann said.

The researchers estimate that in the Seattle area, where the study was conducted, acetaldehyde emissions from this brand of laundry detergent would be equivalent to 3 percent of the total acetaldehyde emissions coming from automobiles. Emissions from the top five brands, they estimate, would constitute about 6 percent of automobiles’ acetaldehyde emissions.

“We focus a lot of attention on how to reduce emissions of pollutants from automobiles,” Steinemann said. “And here’s one source of pollutants that could be reduced.”

The project’s website also includes letters from the public reporting health effects from scented consumer products. Steinemann says that people’s reports of adverse reactions to fragranced air coming from laundry vents motivated her to conduct this study.

Steinemann recommends using laundry products without any fragrance or scent.

Co-authors are Lisa Gallagher and Amy Davis at the UW, and Ian MacGregor at Battelle Memorial Institute.

Literature:

Ann Steinemann, Lisa Gallagher, Amy Davis, Ian MacGregor, University of Washington, Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents, Aug. 24, 2011

Professor Ann C. Steinemann: Reduce Exposures Resource Assessment

Related Environmental Medicine Matters Articles:

• Since when do fish use perfume?
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Secret Chemicals Revaled in Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays

New substances added to HHS Report on Carcinogens

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today added eight substances to its Report on Carcinogens, a science-based document that identifies chemicals and biological agents that may put people at increased risk for cancer.

The industrial chemical formaldehyde and a botanical known as aristolochic acids are listed as known human carcinogens. Six other substances — captafol, cobalt-tungsten carbide (in powder or hard metal form), certain inhalable glass wool fibers, o-nitrotoluene, riddelliine, and styrene — are added as substances that are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. With these additions, the 12th Report on Carcinogens now includes 240 listings. It is available at 12th Report on Carcinogens.

“Reducing exposure to cancer-causing agents is something we all want, and the Report on Carcinogens provides important information on substances that pose a cancer risk,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP). “The NTP is pleased to be able to compile this report.”

John Bucher, Ph.D., associate director of the NTP added, “This report underscores the critical connection between our nation’s health and what’s in our environment.”

The Report on Carcinogens is a congressionally mandated document that is prepared for the HHS Secretary by the NTP. The report identifies agents, substances, mixtures, or exposures in two categories: known to be a human carcinogen and reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. A listing in the Report on Carcinogens does not by itself mean that a substance will cause cancer. Many factors, including the amount and duration of exposure, and an individual’s susceptibility to a substance, affect whether a person will develop cancer.

Once a substance is nominated by the public or private sector and selected for consideration, it undergoes an extensive evaluation with numerous opportunities for scientific and public input. There were at least six opportunities for public input on each substance. The NTP used established criteria to evaluate the scientific evidence on each candidate substance under review. The NTP drew upon the scientific expertise of several federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

“The strength of this report lies in the rigorous scientific review process,” said Ruth Lunn, Dr.P.H., director of the NTP Office of the Report on Carcinogens. “We could not have completed this report without the significant input we received from the public, industry, academia, and other government agencies.”

A detailed description of each substance listed in the Report on Carcinogens is included in the new report.

Two known human carcinogens:

Aristolochic acids have been shown to cause high rates of bladder or upper urinary tract cancer among individuals with kidney or renal disease who consumed botanical products containing aristolochic acids. Aristolochic acids are a family of acids that occur naturally in some plant species. Despite a warning issued in 2001 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that advised consumers to discontinue use of any botanical products containing aristolochic acids, they can still be purchased on the Internet and abroad, and may be found as a contaminant in herbal products used to treat a variety of symptoms and diseases, such as arthritis, gout, and inflammation.

Formaldehyde was first listed in the 2nd Report on Carcinogens as a substance that was reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, after laboratory studies showed it caused nasal cancer in rats. There is now sufficient evidence from studies in humans to show that individuals with higher measures of exposure to formaldehyde are at increased risk for certain types of rare cancers, including nasopharyngeal (the nasopharnyx is the upper part of the throat behind the nose), sinonasal, as well as a specific cancer of the white blood cells known as myeloid leukemia. Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is widely used to make resins for household items, such as composite wood products, paper product coatings, plastics, synthetic fibers, and textile finishes. Formaldehyde is also commonly used as a preservative in medical laboratories, mortuaries, and some consumer products, including some hair straightening products.

Six substances reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens:

Captafol was found to induce cancer in experimental animal studies, which demonstrated that dietary exposure to captafol caused tumors at several different tissue sites in rats and mice. Captafol is a fungicide that had been used to control fungal diseases in fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, and grasses, and as a seed treatment. It has been banned in the United States since 1999, but past exposures may still have an effect on health.

Cobalt-tungsten carbide (in powder and hard metal form) showed limited evidence of lung cancer in workers involved in cobalt-tungsten carbide hard metal manufacturing. Cobalt-tungsten carbide is used to make cutting and grinding tools, dies, and wear-resistant products for a broad spectrum of industries, including oil and gas drilling, as well as mining. In the United States, cobalt-tungsten hard metals are commonly referred to as cemented or sintered carbides.

Certain inhalable glass wool fibers made the list based on experimental animal studies. Not all glass wool or man-made fibers were found to be carcinogenic. The specific glass wool fibers referred to in this report have been redefined from previous reports on carcinogens to include only those fibers that can enter the respiratory tract, are highly durable, and are biopersistent, meaning they remain in the lungs for long periods of time. Glass wool fibers generally fall into two categories for consumers: low-cost, general purpose fibers, and premium, special purpose fibers. The largest use of general purpose glass wool is for home and building insulation, which appears to be less durable and less biopersistent, and thus less likely to cause cancer in humans.

o-Nitrotoluene is listed because experimental animal studies showed tumor formation at many different tissue sites in rats and mice. o-Nitrotoluene is used as an intermediate in the preparation of azo dyes and other dyes, including magenta and various sulfur dyes for cotton, wool, silk, leather, and paper. It is also used in preparing agricultural chemicals, rubber chemicals, pesticides, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and explosives. Workers in the United States are likely exposed to o-nitrotoluene through the skin or from breathing it during production and use. o-Nitrotoluene has also been detected in air and water near facilities that produce munitions, and near military training facilities.

Riddelliine has been found to cause cancer of the blood vessels in rats and mice, leukemia and liver cancer in rats, and lung tumors in mice. This botanical should not be confused with the drug Ritalin, prescribed for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Riddelliine is found in certain plants of the genus Senecio, a member of the daisy family, grown in sandy areas in the western United States and other parts of the world. Some common names for Senecio plants are ragwort and groundsel. Riddelliine-containing plants are not used for food in the United States, and have no known commercial uses. However, at least 13 Senecio species have been identified that are used in herbal medicines or possibly as food in other parts of the world. Exposure in humans could result from eating or drinking herbal medicine or teas, honey, or foods contaminated by parts of Senecio plants or after consuming products from animals that have fed on the plants.

Styrene is on the list based on human cancer studies, laboratory animal studies, and mechanistic scientific information. The limited evidence of cancer from studies in humans shows lymphohematopoietic cancer and genetic damage in the white blood cells, or lymphocytes, of workers exposed to styrene. Styrene is a synthetic chemical used worldwide in the manufacture of products such as rubber, plastic, insulation, fiberglass, pipes, automobile parts, food containers, and carpet backing. People may be exposed to styrene by breathing indoor air that has styrene vapors from building materials, tobacco smoke, and other products. The greatest exposure to styrene in the general population is through cigarette smoking. Workers in certain occupations may potentially be exposed to much higher levels of styrene than the general population.

The Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition, is prepared by the National Toxicology Program, an interagency program headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health.

- -

The NTP was established in 1978. The program was created as a cooperative effort to coordinate toxicology testing programs within the federal government, strengthen the science base in toxicology, develop and validate improved testing methods, and provide information about potentially toxic chemicals to health, regulatory, and research agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public. The NTP is headquartered at the NIEHS. For more information about the NTP, visit http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov.

NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit  http://www.niehs.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases.

Related Articles:

• Norway proposes to prohibit four hazardous substances in consumer products
• Submissions sought on Review of Organophosphate Insecticide Dichlorvos
• United Nations urged to ban Mercury Fillings

Significant reduction in asthma-related admissions as well as a reduction in admissions related to acute coronary syndrome

Workplace smoking bans are gaining ground globally, and one study has shown that they may have significant health effects. The study, conducted by researchers in Dublin, found that emergency room admissions due to respiratory illness dropped significantly in Ireland after the implementation of a workplace smoking ban, compared to admissions that took place before the ban went into effect.

The study will be presented at the ATS 2011 International Conference in Denver.

The nationwide workplace smoking ban was introduced in Ireland in March 2004. Although previous studies have shown workplace smoking bans lead to reduced systemic inflammation and improved respiratory health, as well as reduced emergency admissions due to acute coronary syndromes, Imran Sulaiman, MD, pulmonology resident at Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland, who led the study, said there was little data concerning the effect of such bans on respiratory illness in an adult, working-age population.

“Comparing admissions prior to and after the smoking ban in Ireland we saw a significant reduction in emergency admissions due to cardiopulmonary disease with a trend towards reduced respiratory illness admissions,” said Dr. Sulaiman.

“The most pronounced reduction in admissions was in the 20- to 29-year-old age group,” added Dr. Sulaiman, who completed the study while a resident at Adelaide and Meath Hospital in Dublin.

The researchers also noted a significant reduction in asthma-related admissions as well as a reduction in admissions related to acute coronary syndrome.

To conduct their study, the researchers evaluated data from the Hospital Inpatient Enquiry (HIPE), a computer-based database system designed to collect demographic, clinical and administrative data on discharges and deaths from hospitals nationwide. Admissions data relating to emergency pulmonary, cardiac and cerebrovascular hospital admissions for the two years preceding, and the two years succeeding the implementation of the smoking ban were collected, and population, weather, pollution and influenza data for the same time periods were obtained from the official sources.

The researchers used the data to evaluate any change in emergency admissions due to all pulmonary disease and combined cardio-pulmonary illness between the two periods. In addition, they examined admissions due to specific pulmonary diagnoses, acute coronary syndrome and acute cerebrovascular syndrome. The analysis was divided into age and gender groups, and restricted to the working-age population (age 20-70 years).

There was a significant reduction in emergency hospital admissions due to cardio-pulmonary disease in the two years following the smoking ban, and a trend towards reduced pulmonary admissions. The most pronounced decrease in pulmonary admissions was observed in the 20- to 29-year-old age group. A significant decrease also was seen in emergency asthma admissions, and there was a trend towards fewer admissions with acute coronary syndrome, especially among men aged 50 to 59 years and 0 to 69 years. No difference was observed in cerebrovascular disease.

“The reductions in these admissions may result from reduced exposure of vulnerable individuals to environmental tobacco smoke,” Dr. Sulaiman said. “These results further emphasize the benefit of reducing secondhand smoke exposure.

“We already know the disastrous effects smoking has on our health,” he continued.”This study further proves that the implementation of a workplace smoking ban improves general health and also reduces hospital burden by respiratory illness, one of the most common illnesses to present to the emergency services.”

Further research should be done to confirm this study’s findings, and to compile data from other countries that have implemented workplace smoking bans, he said.

Literature: American Thoracic Society, Smoking ban reduces emergency room admissions, Denver, May 17, 2011

• “The Impact Of A Workplace Smoking Ban On Nationwide Admissions Due To Acute Pulmonary Disease” (Session C15, Tuesday, May 17, 8:15-10:45 a.m.., Centennial Ballroom E (Third Level), Hyatt Regency Denver; Abstract 20962)

Related Articles:

• Exposure to secondhand smoke in the womb has lifelong impact
• Secondhand smoke exposure and depressive symptoms
• Secondhand smoking results in liver diseases, UCLA study finds

Drinking water polluted with toxic industrial chemical

The DuPont Company has agreed to pay $8.3 million to install water filters in nearly 5,000 southern New Jersey homes whose tap water is polluted with the toxic industrial chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company settled a class action lawsuit brought by residents of Penns Grove, N.J., who charged that their drinking water had been polluted by perfluorochemicals, including C8, emitted from the company’s Chambers Works facility.

The chemical C8 is a member of a family of synthetic industrial substances called perfluorochemicals, which do not break down in the environment and which pollute drinking water and source water in at least 11 states, according to limited investigations by state water agencies, academic scientists, businesses and journalists.

A byproduct of the manufacture of fluorotelomers, used for stain-repellent textile coatings, non-stick cookware and water and grease-resistant coatings, C8 has been widely found in people and the environment, due to unregulated industrial discharges and leaching from consumer goods and landfills.

Environmental Working Group has campaigned for eight years to restrict perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a likely human carcinogen, endocrine-disrupting chemical and reproductive toxin that for 50 years.

“For years, thousands of people who live in southern New Jersey have been drinking water polluted with the toxic industrial chemical C8,” EWG senior scientist Olga Naidenko, Ph.D. said. “DuPont has disregarded public health by waiting for a federal court order before providing the community with filtered water. “

On February 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a nationwide plan to require water utilities to test drinking water for 28 contaminants currently unregulated by federal law, including C8 and five other perfluorinated chemicals.

“EPA’s decision to test for C8 in water supplies nationwide is a step in the right direction,” Naidenko said. “We cannot afford to delay protecting Americans from this dangerous chemical any longer.”

-

Literature:

EWG, DuPont to pay $8.3 Million, March 21, 2011

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment and can be found at www.ewg.org

Have you noticed that many pacifiers contain nanoparticles of silver these days, and is that good? The manufacturers tell us this process makes the pacifier anti-bacterial, but why not just rinse it with soap and water?

What, come to think of it, are nanoparticles?

Manmade nanoparticles are groups of atoms manufactured from atoms in other materials, mainly carbon and metals, arranged into a new product, and characterized by their fantastically small size. They are between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers in size (in at least one dimension), that is, between one and 100 billionths of a meter. To give you an idea of how small that is, it would take eight hundred 100 nanometer-size particles side by side to match the width of a human hair. (The definition is still in flux. Particles up to 300nm in one dimension can also be called nanomaterials and can also have toxic properties.) Nanomaterials can be seen only with powerful microscopes.

The really essential point is, that they have unique chemical properties that differ from the properties of their larger scaled components.

Let’s get to the bottom line right here and now: products with nano ingredients are increasingly used in electronics, medicine, personal care products (even ones labeled as ‘organic’) and many other applications. The food and agricultural industries are using nanotechnologies to manufacture foods, food packaging, more potent pesticides, and more. A European report says these uses are “bringing in a fortune” to their manufacturers.(1) But none of the uses have been proved safe. I wouldn’t stick a silverized pacificer in my grandchild’s mouth nor clothe him in nano-impregnated clothing. At least, not now.

No one knows just what these particles can do to humans, especially to children, nor to plants or wildlife, but what we do know so far is not reassuring. As consumers and parents, we are at a disadvantage because manufacturers do not have to disclose the use of nanoparticles on product labels (see below for help with that). Furthermore, there’s no one in the world regulating the manufacture or use of nanomaterials; nor is any public agency tracking them, so it’s virtually impossible to find out how many “nano” consumer products are on the market and which merchandise could be called “nano.”

Hundreds of nano products (as far as anyone can tell) are made from silver, which has anti-bacterial properties. Nanosilver has been incorporated into socks, tee shirts, underpants and other clothing, manufactured mainly in China, South Korea and other Asian countries – then marketed as germ-killing and odor-free. It’s also been added to toothpastes, shampoos, cosmetics, deodorants and sunscreen (allowing the chemicals to penetrate the skin more easily). And coated onto computer keyboards and mousse; added to toothbrushes, food storage containers, lightswitches. No one knows how much nanosilver is now in use.

In fact, because of its antibacterial properties, nanosilver should already be a regulated product. Silver itself, more toxic to aquatic plants and animals than any metal except mercury, is classified as an environmental hazard by EPA, and, silver nanomaterials (because of their higher surface area) release their toxic silver ions more readily than the larger forms (2) A drop of nanosilver has the polluting strength of a ton of silver. Fabrics laced with silver nanoparticles release those particles when the fabric is exposed to artificial human sweat, one study showed.(3). EPA has not yet figured out what to do though the agency is proposing to grant conditional approval to a pesticide containing nanosilver.

Research has shown that nanoparticles can penetrate into places larger particles cannot go, such as through our “blood-brain barrier” which would otherwise stop toxic molecules passing from the blood into the brain. The particles also find their way into vital organs including the kidneys and liver, but precisely what they do to them has yet to be fully investigated. Researchers in the United Kingdom have found some nanoparticles in common household items can damage DNA without even penetrating the cells (the nanoparticles transmit signals through a protective barrier of human tissue and indirectly damage DNA inside cells).(4) Worms fed gold nanoparticles have up 90 percent fewer offspring.(5)

Once released from the product they were in, silver (and gold) nanoparticles, like all waste, first end up in your city’s sewage. There they inhibit the break-down of other waste products. And this throws into doubt the ability of cities, like San Francisco, to make “organic” compost out of sewage sludge. The silver nano particles are non-biodegradable, so they cannot be removed but continue to circulate and accumulate over time in organisms, including humans. When the nanoparticles reach waterways, they are highly toxic to fish and the aquatic ecosystem. Gold nanomaterials are similar killers.(6).

The nanoparticles used in sunscreen, as well as in food coloring, paint, and other consumer products, are derived from titanium dioxide, the most common nanomaterial used in consumer products today. The few studies done so far indicate that fetal exposure, through the mother, alters the way genes involved in brain development express themselves (that is, how those genes turn on or off, to do what they’re supposed to or not). (7) Manufacturers are now nanosizing lead and cadmium, two metals notoriously toxic and, when nanaosized, incredibly more dangerous. But the manufacturers will not disclose what products they aim to use these materials for.

What about the future, then? Most likely, some nano applications will be helpful, perhaps even miraculous, especially in the field of medicine. For example, the most harmful side effects of today’s treatments such as chemotherapy are a result of drug delivery methods that don’t pinpoint their intended target cells accurately. Researchers at Harvard and MIT are experimenting with using nanoparticles to deliver cancer treatments that target only the tumor without damaging normal tissue.

Perhaps the future will bring a “green nano technology.” For example, a Maryland-based company is trying to make the world’s smallest organic solar cells that could be sprayed onto glass where they’d generate electricity.(8) Kansas State University has developed a non-toxic material, which may absorb toxic air-borne particles even better, scaled down to a nanocrystalline powder (9) Companies claim these technologies will be safe but no regulation yet exists to substantiate such claims. Not to mention that nanomaterials take huge amounts of energy to produce and throw off toxins during their production. (10)

If and when the law that’s supposed to protect us from all manmade chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act, ever comes up for the improvement it desperately needs, new rules for nanomaterials will have to be included. The industry is of course gearing up to resist regulation as “increasingly difficult and far more costly.”(11)

For now, here’s a story with a moral: Samsung manufactures a line of silver nano-coated washing machines called “Silver Care,” capable of removing 99.9 percent of the bacteria in a load of laundry. These machines release 400 billion nano-sized silver ions in each load. When a different manufacturer looked into the usefulness of nanosilver in washing machines compared to regular washing machine technology, they found that washing clothes at 20C (68F) with detergent removed 99.79 percent of bacteria.(12) Thus, they determined, using nanosilver was not worth the environmental cost.

So if the benefit is, for now, minimal, and the health risks are substantial, the conclusion of one of the nation’s lead environmental health scientists, Dr. Jen Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council, makes sense: “Things that are in the nanoscale that are intentionally designed to be put into consumer products should be instantly required to be tested, and until proper risk assessments are done, they shouldn’t be allowed to be sold.”(13 /personal conversation with the author)

Author: Alice Shabecoff for CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, January 2011

German Translation of the Article: Nano – Winzige Gefahrstoffe

Resources for Parents

To identify products with nanomaterials:

www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer

While not comprehensive, this inventory gives the public the best available look at the 1,000+ manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. You can browse products by name, category, company, or country. (This is a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson Intl Center for Scholars.)

If you have questions about a product not on that inventory, try to phone the manufacturer.

For a guide to sunscreens without nano ingredients:

Safe Sunscreens

To follow citizen-based research and actions:

Nanotechnology Citizen Engagement Organization

Friends of the Earth Australia

For information on the effect of nanoparticles on women’s reproductive health:

ask for a copy of the study from the University of California at San Francisco: harlessj@obgyn.ucsf.edu

Alice Shabecoff is the co-author of Poisoned for Profit: How Toxins Are Making Our Children Chronically Ill. The book includes guidance for parents on how to reduce risks for the children and how to change the system that allows these toxins in our children’s daily lives.

References:

1. http://www.bund.net/nc/bundnet/presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/zurueck/pressemitteilungen/artikel/bund-veroeffentlicht-datenbank-mit-ueber-200-nano-produkten/
2. http://www.nanoceo.net/nanorisks/silver-particles#Toxicity
3. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/fabrics-release-silver-nanoparticles-into-artificial-sweat
4. http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v4/n12/abs/nnano.2009.313.html
5. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es101885w
6. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/silver-is-potent-neurotoxicant/
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726979/
8. http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/07/spray-on-solar-glass-a-coming-reality/
9. http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=17426.php
10. http://www.foe.org/nanotechnologys-true-climate-cost-exposed
11. http://www.nanoregnews.com/about.php
12. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10652949
13. Communication with author

More Articles from Alice Shabecoff:

• Our planet, our children – How are your children doing?
• My Mother made me fat
• New Pediatrics to Heal sick Children and keep well Children healthy

Urgent action needed on dioxins, says toxicologist

The environmental scientist whose work on dioxins last year prompted governments around the world to suspend the use of some pesticides says there is more to the problem and authorities need to act urgently.

Although dioxins have been banned from the ingredients of pesticides in Australia for more than a decade, many dioxins emerged in the manufacturing process and there was no end-stage monitoring to protect consumers and the public, said University of Queensland scientist Dr Caroline Gaus.

Numerous environmental and health issues were associated with undeclared dioxin impurities, said Dr Gaus, an environmental toxicologist with the National Research Institute for Environmental Toxicology (ENTOX).

Little information was available about the impurities because they were created during the production process so were not original ingredients.

“We estimate that the amount of these impurities is relatively high compared to other current dioxin sources, but this cannot be adequately quantified due to the commercial protection of data on pesticides use in Australia and internationally,” Dr Gaus said.

She said pesticides with impurities used in high volumes represented a previously neglected but significant and concerning source of dioxins in the environment. They also posed a risk to the health of people handling pesticides, and to consumers.

“Some of these pesticides contained high concentrations of dioxins, comparable to those known from pesticides which are banned or restricted for use in most countries since the 1980s and 90s,” she said.

Dioxins are linked to a range of cancers and are considered one of the most toxic man-made chemicals. They can cause adverse health effects in humans and wildlife including cancer, and act on development, reproduction and the endocrine system.

Research by Dr Gaus and PhD student Eva Holt last year showed that a wide range of currently used and globally marketed pesticides contained dioxin impurities, despite the widespread belief that modern pesticides were no longer a significant dioxin source.

As a result of their work, a new wave of suspensions, recalls, restrictions and government reviews on pesticide formulations is under way worldwide, including in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

The study analysed 23 different pesticide formulations, containing 15 different active ingredients currently used in Australia (plus four formulations that are no longer registered for use in Australia), including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. Dioxins were detected in all samples, including some commonly used products. Researchers estimate approximately 200 pesticides have the potential to contain dioxins.

The pesticides are used on crops including cotton, potatoes, lettuce, tomatoes, beans and peanuts, as well as in parks and recreation areas, at turf farms and plant nurseries.

“In view of the global manufacturing, distribution and use of pesticides, international regulation and monitoring strategies should be developed and implemented to identify, evaluate, and target pesticide dioxin sources at the manufacturing stage,” Dr Gaus said.

Some Recent Restrictions

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) suspended all formulations containing quintozene (pentachloronitrobenzene) from use in April this year due to risk to workers applying the pesticide, which was commonly used on golf courses. The fungicide is under review in New Zealand where it is used on bulbs and turf. The manufacturer recently initiated a voluntary recall of product containing quintozene. The APVMA has recently suspended the pesticide PCNB from sale and a stop sale order has been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

About Dioxins

• Dioxins are toxic compounds which have adverse health effects in humans and wildlife. They can elicit adverse health effects at low levels (cancer, immunotoxicity, reproduction, endocrine function, development).
• These toxicants are managed under the international Stockholm Convention treaty which aims to protect human health and the environment by reducing and eliminating dioxin release to the environment. More than 150 countries, including Australia, have ratified the Stockholm Convention treaty since 2004.
• Most chlorinated pesticides have the potential to contain dioxins if manufactured under certain conditions and processes (e.g. > 150 ºC, alkaline conditions, process including chlorine) – the US EPA lists 161 chemicals (but it is not complete – PCNB for example is not listed). Thus, pesticides were considered historical sources of dioxins and contemporary monitoring data in most current-use pesticides are lacking.
• Dioxin impurities can vary between manufacturing facility, batch, year and country due to variations in production processes and conditions.

About the Research

• 23 different formulations containing 15 different active ingredients currently used in Australia (plus 4 formulations that are no longer registered for use in Australia), including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, were analysed. Dioxins were detected in all samples. These include commonly used pesticides, such as PCNB, MCPA, 2,4-D, chlorothalonil and triclopyr/picloram. Others are Fluroxypyr, Mecoprop, Flumetsulam, Imazamox, Prochloraz, Fenamisphos, Chlorpyrifos, Lindane; 2,4-D; 2,4-DB; Chlorthal amd Quintozene.
• Some of these pesticide formulations contained high concentrations of dioxins, comparable to those known from pesticides which are banned or restricted for use in most countries since the 1980/90s.
• Highest dioxin (1,100-2,000 mg/tonne AI) and TEQ (2,400-5,700 µg/tonne AI) concentrations were found in the fungicide quintozene (also known as pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)).
• Dioxin concentrations in PCNB are comparable to those known from the banned pesticides 2,4,5-T (trichlorophenoxyacetic acid; the key ingredient of Agent Orange). Note: TEQ concentrations in PCNB are at the lower end for those known for 2,4,5-T (approaching the 7,000 µg/tonne used under the Stockholm Convention to estimate historical dioxin releases via past use of 2,4,5-T).
• There are about 6000 pesticide products on the market in Australia (containing ~2000 different active ingredients) – the UQ/ENTOX scientists analysed only a small proportion (0.4 per cent) of these.
• Dioxin concentrations in other pesticides analysed ranged from 61-190 ug TEQ/tonne AI. Impurity concentrations may vary considerably depending on the conditions employed during pesticide production and should therefore be monitored regularly.
• As many pesticides are used in high volumes, they can represent previously neglected but important sources of dioxins to the environment and pose a risk to the health of people handling pesticides.
• Based on these findings, the APVMA have recently suspended the pesticide PCNB, due to dioxin contamination and the associated risks to pesticide applicators. Similarly, the US EPA have issued a stop sale order for PCNB.
• The estimated release of dioxins from the use of PCNB is 27 g TEQ/year (10-90th percentile range: 14-110 g TEQ/year). The dioxin release from this pesticide alone ranks among the top 5 dioxin sources to land in Australia (range 28-110 g TEQ/year).
• The greatest source of uncertainty with these estimates is the lack of information on pesticide use volumes in Australia, which is commercial in confidence and thus not publicly available. This is why the dioxin release associated with many of the pesticides analysed by the UQ/ENTOX scientists could not be estimated to date (has to be modelled)
• The cumulative dioxin release associated with high volume-use of different pesticides may be an important source of dioxins, even if pesticides contain lower dioxin levels than PCNB, e.g. if all pesticide products were contaminated at levels ranging from 100-10,000 µg TEQ/tonne AI and used at a total of 200,000 tonnes per year, then the annual dioxin release would be between 20 and 2000 g TEQ/year.

Note: data on the amount of pesticides used in Australia is not publicly available (commercial in confidence), total pesticide use may be considerably higher than 200,000 tonnes (approximately 2.25 million tonnes of pesticides a year are used in the USA, including 1.18 million tonnes per year of chlorine and hypochlorite pesticides).

The study was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant and undertaken by the National Research Institute for Environmental Toxicology, University of Queensland (Eva Holt, Caroline Gaus) in collaboration with the National Measurement Institute in Sydney (Gavin Stevenson) and collaborators from Germany (Roland Weber).

The United Nations Environmental Protection Agency has used the data from the study to develop a burden of toxicology measure for use worldwide. It helps identify and prioritise dioxin sources.

Reference:

University of Queensland, Urgent action needed on dioxins, says toxicologist, December 6, 2010

Related Articles:

• Submissions sought on review of Organophosphate Insecticide Dichlorvos
• Chemical Threat: Groups call for Pesticide Ban
• Anxiety in adult female mice following perinatal exposure to Chlorpyrifos
• EFSA publishes European overview of Dioxin Levels in Food and Feed

BERKELEY — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health are getting $16.5 million to support three research centers as part of a federal initiative to examine the environmental factors influencing children’s health.

UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health is receiving $16.5 million to support research on environmental health factors and children’s health.

The grants to UC Berkeley are among $54 million recently awarded to 12 university- based centers across the country by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). UC Berkeley is the only institution to have received awards for multiple centers.

The new grants are part of a program that began in 1998 with eight centers funded by the NIEHS and the EPA. The newest funding incorporates the latest biomonitoring tools and advances in epigenetics, or the study of inheritable genetic changes linked to exposure to chemical and environmental agents.

“These awards give testimony to the school’s leadership in the field of environmental epidemiology,” said Stephen Shortell, dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. “This research will address the environmental health risks of some of the state’s most vulnerable populations, and the knowledge gained will lead to new polices and practices that will help mitigate these risks.”

Of the 12 new centers, six will each receive an average of $7.5 million over five years. An additional six, charged with studying less-established environmental determinants of children’s health, will each receive an average of $1.5 million over three years.

The three UC Berkeley centers to be funded are:

• The Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health, led by Brenda Eskenazi, professor of maternal and child health and of epidemiology. It will receive $7.5 million. The foundation of this interdisciplinary research program, one of the original eight centers funded in 1998, is a longitudinal study of primarily low-income, Mexican immigrant women and their children living in the agricultural community of California’s Salinas Valley. The researchers are studying the health impact of exposures to such chemicals as agricultural pesticides, flame retardants and DDT.
• The Center for Integrative Research on Childhood Leukemia and the Environment, led by Patricia Buffler, professor of epidemiology. It also will receive $7.5 million. The research program in this center is designed to examine the effects of in utero and early life exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals present in homes — including pesticides, flame retardants and secondhand smoke — and these chemicals’ interplay with genetic and epigenetic factors in the development of childhood leukemia.
• The Center for Environmental Public Health, a new formative center led by Dr. Ira Tager, professor and chair of epidemiology. This center will receive $1.5 million. The overall goal of this center, formed in partnership with researchers from Stanford University, is to study the effects of in utero and childhood exposure to ambient air pollutants and bioaerosols on birth outcomes, regulatory T-cell function and the occurrence of asthma in the lower half of California’s Central Valley. The region studied has some of the highest levels of air pollution in the country.

In addition to the centers at UC Berkeley, the NIEHS and the EPA have awarded $1.5 million to UC San Francisco to fund the Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Contaminants Children’s Environmental Health Formative Center, led by Tracey Woodruff, UCSF associate professor of reproductive health and the environment. Researchers at that center seek to study and prevent harmful exposures to environmental contaminants during pregnancy.

Reference:

UC Berkeley, UC Berkeley gets $16.5 million for three children’s environmental health centers, 16 November 2010

Related articles:

• Prenatal exposure to pesticide linked to ADHD
• New blood test for newborns to detect allergy risk
• A new pediatrics to heal sick children and keep well kids healthy
• Our planet, our children – How are your children doing?

New Study Indicates Higher than Predicted Human Exposure to the Toxic Chemical Bisphenol A or BPA

COLUMBIA, Mo. – Researchers have discovered that women, female monkeys and female mice have major similarities when it comes to how bisphenol A (BPA) is metabolized, and they have renewed their call for governmental regulation when it comes to the estrogen-like chemical found in many everyday products.

A study published online in the Sept. 20 NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives ties rodent data on the health effects of BPA to predictions of human health effects from BPA with the use of everyday household products. The study was authored by researchers at the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences, Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab (VMDL) and the department of Biomedical Sciences, in collaboration with scientists at the University of California-Davis and Washington State University.

“This study provides convincing evidence that BPA is dangerous to our health at current levels of human exposure,” said Frederick vom Saal, Curators’ professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri. “The new results clearly demonstrate that rodent data on the health effects of BPA are relevant to predictions regarding the health effects of human exposure to BPA. Further evidence of human harm should not be required for regulatory action to reduce human exposure to BPA.”

BPA is one of the world’s highest production-volume chemicals, with more than 8 billion pounds made per year. It can be found in a wide variety of consumer products, including hard plastic items such as baby bottles and food-storage containers, the plastic lining of food and beverage cans, thermal paper used for receipts, and dental sealants. The findings in the current study suggest that human exposure to BPA is much higher than some prior estimates and is likely to be from many still-unknown sources, indicating the need for governmental agencies to require the chemical industry to identify all products that contain BPA.

Several states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, New York and Oregon, have passed bills to reduce exposure to BPA, and similar legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress.

“For years, BPA manufacturers have argued that BPA is safe and have denied the validity of more than 200 studies that showed adverse health effects in animals due to exposure to very low doses of BPA,” said Julia Taylor, lead author and associate research professor at the University of Missouri. “We know that BPA leaches out of products that contain it, and that it acts like estrogen in the body.”

“We’ve assumed we’re getting BPA from the ingestion of contaminated food and beverages,” said co-author Pat Hunt, a professor in the Washington State University School of Molecular Biosciences. “This indicates there must be a lot of other ways in which we’re exposed to this chemical and we’re probably exposed to much higher levels than we have assumed.”

The research team at the University of Missouri includes Taylor, vom Saal and student researcher Bertram Drury in Biological Sciences, as well as Wade Welshons in Biomedical Sciences and George Rottinghaus in the VMDL at MU.

Reference:

University of Missouri, New Study Indicates Higher than Predicted Human Exposure to the Toxic Chemical Bisphenol A or BPA, September 20th, 2010.

Related articles:

• Impact of chemical BPA in dental sealants used in children
• Lawsuit seeks to ban BPA from food packaging
• 60 Scientists and NGOs Sound Joint Warning on Plastics Chemical
• Everyday Exposure to Dangerous Levels of Toxic Chemical BPA Unavoidable
• Yale: Why BPA leached from ’safe’ plastics may damage health of female offspring
• Study shows: Plastics chemical retards growth, function of adult reproductive cells