Berkeley — Children who were exposed to organophosphate pesticides while still in their mother’s womb were more likely to develop attention disorders (ADHD) years later, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

The new findings, to be published Aug. 19 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), are the first to examine the influence of prenatal organophosphate exposure on the later development of attention problems. The researchers found that prenatal levels of organophosphate metabolites were significantly linked to attention problems at age 5, with the effects apparently stronger among boys.

Earlier this year, a different study by researchers at Harvard University associated greater exposure to organophosphate pesticides in school-aged children with higher rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms.

“These studies provide a growing body of evidence that organophosphate pesticide exposure can impact human neurodevelopment, particularly among children,” said the study’s principal investigator, Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health. “We were especially interested in prenatal exposure because that is the period when a baby’s nervous system is developing the most.”

The study follows more than 300 children participating in the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), a longitudinal study led by Eskenazi that examines environmental exposures and reproductive health. Because the mothers and children in the study are Mexican-Americans living in an agricultural community, their exposure to pesticides is likely higher and more chronic, on average, than that of the general U.S. population.

Yet, the researchers pointed out that the pesticides they examined are widely used, and that the results from this study are a red flag that warrants precautionary measures.

“It’s known that food is a significant source of pesticide exposure among the general population,” said Eskenazi. “I would recommend thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables before eating them, especially if you’re pregnant.”

Organophosphate pesticides act by disrupting neurotransmitters, particularly acetylcholine, which plays an important role in sustaining attention and short-term memory.

“Given that these compounds are designed to attack the nervous system of organisms, there is reason to be cautious, especially in situations where exposure may coincide with critical periods of fetal and child development,” said study lead author Amy Marks, who was an analyst at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health at the time of the study.

Many of these same UC Berkeley researchers are also finding that children with certain genetic traits may be at greater risk, a finding that is being published the same day in a separate EHP paper. That study found that 2-year-olds with lower levels of paraoxonase 1 (PON1), an enzyme that breaks down the toxic metabolites of organophosphate pesticides, had more neurodevelopmental delays than those with higher levels of the enzyme. The authors suggest that people with certain PON1 genotypes could be particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure.

In the study on attention problems, researchers tested for six metabolites of organophosphate pesticides in mothers twice during pregnancy and in the children several times after birth. Together, the metabolites represent the breakdown products of about 80 percent of all the organophosphate pesticides used in the Salinas Valley.

The researchers then evaluated the children at age 3.5 and 5 years for symptoms of attention disorders and ADHD using maternal reports of child behavior, performance on standardized computer tests, and behavior ratings from examiners. They controlled for potentially confounding factors such as birthweight, lead exposure and breastfeeding.

Each tenfold increase in prenatal pesticide metabolites was linked to having five times the odds of scoring high on the computerized tests at age 5, suggesting a greater likelihood of a child having clinical ADHD. The effect appeared to be stronger for boys than for girls.

While a positive link between prenatal pesticide exposure and attention problems was seen for 3.5-year-olds, it was not statistically significant, a finding that did not surprise the researchers.

“Symptoms of attention disorders are harder to recognize in toddlers, since kids at that age are not expected to sit down for significant lengths of time,” said Marks. “Diagnoses of ADHD often occur after a child enters school.”

The UC Berkeley researchers are continuing to follow the children in the CHAMACOS study as they get older, and expect to present more results in the years to come.

The findings add to the list of chemical assaults that have been linked to ADHD in recent years. In addition to pesticides, studies have found associations with exposure to lead and to phthalates, which are commonly used in toys and plastics.

“High levels of the symptoms of ADHD by age 5 are a major contributor to learning and achievement problems in school, accidental injuries at home and in the neighborhood, and a host of problems in peer relationships and other essential competencies,” said UC Berkeley psychology professor Stephen Hinshaw, one of the country’s leading experts on ADHD, who was not part of this study. “Finding preventable risk factors is therefore a major public health concern.”

Literature: University of California – Berkeley, Prenatal exposure to pesticides linked to attention problems, 19-Aug-2010.

Related Articles:

• Pesticides in kids linked to ADHD- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, study finds
• Western Diet linked to ADHD
• Groups Seeking Ban on Organophosphate Pesticide Go to Federal Court
• Common household pesticides linked to childhood cancer cases in Washington area
• Anxiety in adult female mice following perinatal exposure to Chlorpyrifos

As of yesterday, July 26, 2010, Professor Servando Perez, President of Mercuriados Spain (people affected by chronic mercury intoxication), has began a hunger strike. Prof Perez was diagnosed two years ago as having Chronic Mercury Intoxication and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS). His case went to the highest court in Spain and a judge ruled that Prof. Perez had chronic mercury intoxicaton due to dental fillings and that the Spanish public health care system (Social Security) should treat his condition with chelation or refer him to a private clinic to do so and pay the costs. This was an incredible legal precendent.

Needless to say, Professor Perez has not been treated yet and the Social Security has been doing everything possible to make sure that he, as with other MCS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephylitis and Fibromyalgia patients in Spain, do not receive proper medical services from the public health care system.

Because of this, Mercuriados Spain and many other associations, have been carrying out campaigns, popular initiatives, lobbying, legal suits, and many other strategies to change this situation, but with no positive results.

Professor Perez’s health has deteriorated and a month ago he went to emergency at the Santiago de Compostela University Hospital. They refused to attend him and he said he would not leave the hospital until the judge’s order for a chelation was carried out.

In the past month, at the hospital, Prof Perez has endured all kinds of harassment and pressures to leave. He has even been “diagnosed” as having a psychiatric illness despite the fact that his illness is organic.

We, the Spanish MCS, CFS/ME and FMS associations have mounted a campaign to support Prof Perez with emails, phone calls to the hospital, press, etc.

And now, the latest harassing strategy by the hospital is to refuse to give him food without additives. Faced with all of this, Servando Perez has started a hunger strike. Yes, he could try to get a bank loan and pay for a private chelation, but this would not help the rest of us ill people in Spain waiting to get treatment in the public health care system. The hospital says that they refuse to refer him to a private clinic (and pick up the tab) because it would set a precedent, and soon all the people with chronic heavy metal intoxication in Spain would have to be treated. And they don’t want to do that with tax money.

Servando Perez has opted for the brave and hard road to try to change the desperate situation we live with in Spain, those of us with these illnesses, and we are proud of Servando’s action.

We write you to inform you and to ask you for your support.

Please write or phone the Vice director of the Hospital Santiago de Compostela, Dr Jose-Ramón Gómez at jose.ramon.gomez.fernandez@sergas.es

or phone him at (34) 98.1950970.

We all are Servando Perez!

Thank you,

Clara Valverde

President

Liga SFC (CFS/ME League, Spain)

www.ligasfc.org

-

• Article on Spanish
• Article on German
• Article on Japanese

Chlorpyrifos – Outlawed in homes and gardens, pesticide is still sprayed on food crops

Community groups joined environmental advocates in filing a lawsuit at July 22th to force the Environmental Protection Agency to decide once and for all whether or not it will ban the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos.

Chlorpyrifos — sprayed on corn, oranges, almonds and other crops — is acutely poisonous and is among a class of pesticides initially developed for World War II-era chemical warfare. Short term effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos include chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death. Prenatal and early childhood exposure has been linked to low birth weights, developmental delays and other health effects.

In recognition of the particular risks the chemical presents for children, EPA banned residential uses of chlorpyrifos in 2001. But the pesticide is still widely used in fields and orchards across the country. This continued use puts nearby rural communities in harm’s way, and chlorpyrifos ends up in our nation’s food and water supplies, leading to even more widespread exposure (click here for a list of foods with documented chlorpyrifos residue.)

Luis Medellin has experienced the dangers of this pesticide firsthand. Medellin lives with his parents and three little sisters in the agricultural town of Lindsay, California, where chlorpyrifos is sprayed routinely on the orange groves surrounding his home. During the growing season, the family is awakened several times a week by the sickly smell of nighttime pesticide spraying. What follows is worse: searing headaches, nausea, vomiting. After undergoing testing for pesticides in his body, the 24-year-old Medellin discovered concentrations of chlorpyrifos breakdown compounds nearly five times the national average for adults, as calculated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“When I found out I had this chemical in my body, it scared me. But what really worries me is how my little sisters might be affected.” said Medellin, a community organizer with the Lindsay-based El Quinto Sol. “I wish the growers would stop using such dangerous chemicals so my family and I can be safe.”

In September 2007, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) filed a petition with EPA asking the agency to ban chlorpyrifos. In the nearly three years since, the agency has not responded. Today’s lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice on behalf of NRDC and PANNA, would force EPA to make a decision on the pesticide’s ban.

“This dangerous pesticide has no place in our fields, near our children, or on our food,” said Earthjustice attorney Kevin Regan. “We’re asking a court to rule so that EPA will finish the job and ban this poison.”

An estimated 8 to 10 million pounds of chlorpyrifos are applied to U.S. crops each year (click here for a map showing where this pesticide is used.)

“The overwhelming evidence shows that chlorpyrifos is dangerous, especially to children and fieldworkers,” said Aaron Colangelo, a senior attorney with NRDC. “There’s no good reason for EPA to take three years to decide what to do about it.”

Exposure to chlorpyrifos in agricultural communities is widespread. California Air Resources Board monitoring in the state’s San Joaquin Valley detected chlorpyrifos in one-third of all ambient air samples, sometimes at levels that pose serious health risks to young children. Monitoring by PANNA and community groups in Washington state and Luis Medellin’s hometown of Lindsay, California has shown that daily exposure to chlorpyrifos can be substantial, regularly exceeding the “acceptable” 24-hour acute dose for a one-year-old child established by the EPA.

In one 2000 incident, dozens of students and staff at an elementary school in Ventura, CA fell ill after chlorpyrifos applied to a nearby lemon orchard drifted onto school grounds.

“Chlorpyrifos is among a class of pesticides that targets developing nervous systems — in insects and humans alike. These pesticides are linked to a host of devastating diseases ranging from ADHD to childhood brain cancer,” said PANNA senior scientist Dr. Margaret Reeves. “Their human health costs are just too high and farmers are farming successfully without them. There’s no defensible reason for continuing to use chlorpyrifos.”

Reference: EarthJustice, Release: Groups Seeking Ban on Toxic Pesticide Go to Federal Court, New York, July 22, 2010.

BACKGROUND

• A copy of the lawsuit
• A fact sheet on chlorpyrifos
• A map documenting where chlorpyrifos is used
• A list of foods with documented chlorpyrifos residue
• A study linking chlorpyrifos to low birth weights
• A study linking chlorpyrifos to developmental delays

Parkinson’s disease (PD), one of the most common neurodegenerative disorders, is characterised by the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc) to the striatum (ST), and involves oxidative stress. Mulberry fruit from Morus alba L. (Moraceae) is commonly eaten, and has long been used in traditional oriental medicine. It contains well-known antioxidant agents such as anthocyanins.

The present study examined the protective effects of 70 % ethanol extract of mulberry fruit (ME) against neurotoxicity in in vitro and in vivo PD models. In SH-SY5Y cells stressed with 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA), ME significantly protected the cells from neurotoxicity in a dose-dependent manner.

Other assays demonstrated that the protective effect of ME was mediated by its antioxidant and anti-apoptotic effects, regulating reactive oxygen species and NO generation, Bcl-2 and Bax proteins, mitochondrial membrane depolarisation and caspase-3 activation.

In mesencephalic primary cells stressed with 6-OHDA or 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium (MPP+), pre-treatment with ME also protected dopamine neurons, showing a wide range of effective concentrations in MPP+-induced toxicity.

In the sub-acute mouse PD model induced by 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), ME showed a preventative effect against PD-like symptoms (bradykinesia) in the behavioural test and prevented MPTP-induced dopaminergic neuronal damage in an immunocytochemical analysis of the SNpc and ST.

These results indicate that ME has neuroprotective effects in in vitro and in vivo PD models, and that it may be useful in preventing or treating PD.

Literature:

Kim HG, Ju MS, Shim JS, Kim MC, Lee SH, Huh Y, Kim SY, Oh MS., Mulberry fruit protects dopaminergic neurons in toxin-induced Parkinson’s disease models, Department of Oriental Pharmaceutical Science and Kyung Hee East-West Pharmaceutical Research Institute, College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, South Korea, Br J Nutr. 2010 Jul;104(1):8-16.

People must be protected from exposure to fragrance ingredients that may cause cancer or fetal, hormonal or reproductive toxicity, the Cancer Prevention Coalition warned today. But federal agencies are not regulating these ingredients, leaving the public at risk due to the “recklessly irresponsible” behavior of the fragrance industry, says CPC Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Protection of the public would be implemented by passage of Senator Frank Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, Dr. Epstein advises. This bill requires manufacturers to provide information on “chemicals of concern” in consumer products.

The bill would provide the public with information on the dangers of these products, especially, says Dr. Epstein, “as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recklessly failed to do so since passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

Perfumes and fragrances are the single largest category of cosmetic and personal care products, especially products used on the hair, face, and eyes. These products represent nearly 50 percent of all prestige beauty dollars now spent in the United States. Fragrances are also extensively used in a wide range of everyday household cleaning products.

Exposure to toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products is predominantly through the skin. In contrast, exposure to toxic ingredients in household cleaning products is predominantly through inhalation.

The FDA has direct authority under the terms of the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to regulate toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. However, seven decades later, it has still failed to do so. Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also still failed to regulate these toxic ingredients in household cleaning products.

“In the disturbing absence of any federal regulations,” Dr. Epstein says, the policies and practices of the cosmetics and personal care products industries are determined by its International Fragrance Association (IFRA). This is an international trade organization of over 100 perfume and fragrance manufacturers, representing fifteen regions including the U.S., Europe, South America, Australia, and the Far East.”

The primary objective of IFRA is to protect the self-regulatory practices and policies of the industry by the development of a Code of Practices and safety guidelines, Dr. Epstein says. However, these include maintaining the “trade secret” status of perfume and fragrance ingredients, and pre-empting international legislative labeling and safety initiatives.

Of the more than 5,000 ingredients used in the fragrance industry, approximately 1,300 have so far been evaluated by the industry’s International Research Institute for Fragrance Materials. This institute is a “non-profit” organization, created by IFRA in 1966 to conduct research and testing of fragrance ingredients.

“However,” Dr. Epstein warns, “this testing is minimal and restricted to local effects on human skin, and short-term toxicity tests in rodents.”

Evaluation of ingredient safety is then made by a board of toxicologists, pharmacologists, and dermatologists, identified by the institute as “independent” without disclosure of their qualifications, let alone conflicts of interest.

Their findings are presented to IFRA’s Scientific Advisory Board, and then published in its trade journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. The information reported in this journal is the basis on which IFRA formulates its own “safety guidelines.” However, Dr. Epstein points out, due to the “trade secret” status of fragrances, manufacturers are still not required by the FDA to disclose their ingredients on product labels or in any other way.

“These ingredients include a wide range of allergens. They also include synthetic musks, particularly tonalide and galaxolide, designed to mimic natural scents derived from musk deer and ox,” Dr. Epstein explains. “They are persistent and bioaccumulate in the body, have toxic hormonal effects, and have been identified in breast milk.”

In 1973, in efforts at damage control, IFRA created a Code of Practice listing prohibited ingredients, based on its own safety analyses. This listing has been periodically updated.

In May 1999, in response to repeated complaints of respiratory, neurological, and other toxic effects following the use of Calvin Klein’s Eternity perfume, the Environmental Health Network of California hired two testing laboratories to identify the ingredients in the perfume.

Analysis of these results by the Cancer Prevention Coalition, summarized in Dr. Epstein’s 2009 book Toxic Beauty, reveal the following:

• 26 ingredients whose “Toxicological properties have not been investigated,” or “toxicology properties have not been thoroughly investigated.”
• 25 ingredients that are “Irritants.”
• 5 ingredients that are “Skin sensitizers,” or allergens.
• 3 ingredients that show “Fetal, hormonal, and reproductive toxicity.”
• 2 ingredients that “May cause cancer.”

In efforts at damage control, IFRA agreed that information on allergenic ingredients in perfumes like Eternity should be made available, but only on request from dermatologists, for diagnostic purposes. “This “Fragrance On-Call List” action denies the public its right to know,” Dr. Epstein warns.

More disturbingly, Dr. Matthias Vey, president of IFRA, failed to respond to repeated warnings from August to October 2003 from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. These urged “all fragrance products be labeled to the effect that, apart from the absence of known skin and respiratory allergens, they contain no known carcinogens, gene damaging, hormonal, or otherwise toxic ingredients.”

As reported in “What’s That Smell,” a June 2010 report by Women’s Voices of the Earth, faced with continuing criticism of unresponsiveness, IFRA initiated a “compliance program” in 2007. “However,” Dr. Epstein warns, “this is based on testing of a mere 50 fragranced products from the global market place to detect prohibited ingredients.”

A fragrance may be restricted by IFRA on a variety of grounds. These include: use in products at higher-than-recommended concentrations, sensitization, photosensitization, phototoxicity, allergenicity, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, undefined biological effects, and inadequate data.

“This restriction, though, works better in theory than in practice,” Dr. Epstein emphasizes. “There is no pre-approval process for ingredient safety other than that claimed by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.”

Literature: Cancer Prevention Coalition, Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry, CHICAGO, IL, June 28, 2010

Related Articles:

• Secret Chemicals revealed in Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays
• Household detergents, Shampoos may harmful substance in wastewater
• Phthalate Concentrations and Use of Personal Care Products among Pregnant Women
• Open Letter: Perfumed Stamps constrain People with Disabilities