For three decades Mary has dedicated herself to promoting the public health and improving the lives of people sick or disabled by environmental exposures. She has served on dozens of federal and state advisory committees including the recently concluded CDC National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures. She is a member of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Public Interest Partners and HUD’s Disability Task Force.

Mary was nominated for the Freedom Medal by Diane Reibel, Assistant Professor of Physiology at Thomas Jefferson Medical School in Philadelphia. In nominating Mary, Dr. Reibel noted that “I met Mary twenty-five years ago when I became ill from chemicals in my research laboratory. Mary’s knowledge, support, and advocacy were a life saver for me. What Mary did for me, she has done for thousands of people across New Jersey and tens of thousands nationwide.”

Mary was recently honored with the 2011 New Jersey Governor’s Jefferson Award for Public Service, PSEG Environmental Stewardship Award, and a 2010 US EPA Region 2 Environmental Quality Award, the highest civilian award given by the EPA.

The Camden County Freedom Medal award was created in 2001 to honor the ideals indicative of the slain civil rights leader. According to Camden County Freeholder Director Louis Cappelli Jr., “This is Camden County’s way of honoring Dr. King.”

Medals will be presented during an evening ceremony at the Camden County Boathouse at Cooper River on January 20.

Author: National Center for Environmental Health Strategies, Press Release, January 2012

Congratulation Mary, this is so, so well deserved!

More attention needed to the disease factor in indoor pollutants

The awareness of the importance of uncontaminated food and pollution-free products in everyday life is growing worldwide. People are striving for a healthy and unpolluted living environment. Especially noteworthy are efforts that have been observed recently in Norway. In this Scandinavian country, efforts are prioritized to protect children, particularly against pollutants and allergens. One of the most active pioneers is Kjell Aas, a retired professor who supports the Norwegian Asthma and Allergy Association, with his profound knowledge. This scientist is anxious to clear ignorance about environmental and pollution-related diseases. He clarifies the facts to the authorities and population in ways which are understandable.

Environmental diseases are not mysteries, but scientifically explainable

For many people it is still difficult to understand that polluted air can also cause health problems or symptoms beyond just the respiratory tract. Research has delivered to us today only fragmentary explanations, but there are some entirely understandable explanations and solid scientific evidence of things not delivered to us, which Kjell Aas tries to make as general knowledge for the public.

The scientist Kjell Aas said, “Medical science has not yet managed to explore all the biochemical mechanisms behind the disease. The same goes for the so-called environmental diseases, such as hyperactivity, migraines, and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). To think that these environmental illnesses are something mysterious or inexplicable, or even that they are psychologically conditioned is just incorrect. This can be explained by one or more biochemical reactions. Both the physical and mental functions and activities are regulated by more or less complex chemical processes. The reactions are dependent on the dose and individual tolerance levels.”

Individual biochemistry sets the pace

“From a scientific aspect,” says Kjell Aas, “one must internalize that our internal biochemistry relies on the smooth functioning of a variety of cells with specific receptors and signal systems operating, and upon thousands of enzymes and co-enzymes. These biochemical processes can lead inhibitory and stimulatory mechanisms and integrated “amplifier systems” to gain significant effects.”

Kjell Aas says that the following is important for the public to realize, “Every person is an individual with his/her own individual biochemistry. A few milligrams of cocaine can change the personality and emotional life of an individual,” says the scientist, and continues, “or imagine alcohol having the same affect on the population, but as everyone knows, the tolerance threshold is different for each unique individual.”

The air we breathe daily

The scientist points out in his illustrative design, that adults consume 12 to 15 kg of air per day, and those gaseous chemicals are in the air we breathe, in a more or less high concentrations. Some of these gases combine with others, making them more harmful. These include ozone and other gases that lead to oxidation processes.

In addition, we take in particles in the air we breathe each day without ceasing. We breathe millions of fine particulate matter every hour of every day. These include chemical substances that are associated with the particulate matter which are in a position to pass as easily as breathing gases, and to move fully into blood, lymph and tissue fluid, the researcher points out.

Children are not little adults

Kjell Aas thinks special attention should focus on improving the current situation for children. He justifies this by saying that children can tolerate very little and will get sick easily from chemicals. “We have a variety of cells in our body,” the scientist explained, “all based on chemicals. The chemicals must agree to allow the cells to function properly and then the body will not get sick. ”

The Norwegian elaborated his statement and says, “If an unwanted chemical substances are inhaled, then the chemical balance is upset and so are the cells, and thus we get sick. The cells are blocked by these unwanted chemicals and cannot send out important chemical messengers responsible for our health.”

“Who exactly needs to understand these statements?” Kjell Aas wonders. It is important for all of us to realize the significant consequences for children, in particular, whose bodies are still under construction and development. This enlightenment is exactly what Kjell Aas hopes to awaken in all of us in hopes that we all begin to act accordingly. The Norwegians therefore ask in conclusion that we should internalize the following important fact:

“The air in a room which is acceptable for children, it is also acceptable for adults, but indoor air which is not acceptable for adults, can already make children ill.”

Authors:

Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, Alena Jula, Just Nature, July 1, 2011

Translation: Christi Howarth

Related CSN Articles:

• Oil Spill: Kids in the Gulf
• A new pediatrics to heal sick children and keep well children healthy
• My mother made me fat
• Our planet, our children – How are our children doing?

Were pesticides to blame for the death of Knut, the polar bear?

Many thousands of people mourn the sudden death of Knut, the polar bear. He was the darling at a German zoo. Why did Knut die? Initial autopsy results showed that Knut, the polar bear, suffered from a brain disease. A former animal keeper at a zoo reported the death of gorilla babies dying from pesticide use. The keeper herself fell ill and nearly died. Were pesticides the cause of death of the polar bear, Knut? Recent scientific research has shown that pesticides cause different brain diseases. What caused Knut’s brain disease will require further investigation. It is possible, because pesticides are used regularly in zoos to keep the zoo animals free of vermin.

All mourn the loss of Knut, the polar bear

In the media, on Twitter and Facebook, the death of Knut, the polar bear , remains the main topic for days now. The sweet polar bear was raised by a nurse with a bottle in the German zoo after his mother abandoned him. The little polar bear in no time, won the hearts of all the visitors. Now the sadness is great, and the cause of Knut’s brain disease is still under investigation. Zoo visitors witnessed the polar bear turning itself around several times and falling into the pond. Over 500 people observed the death of this polar bear and reported that he had an epileptic-like seizure before he sank into the water in his polar bear enclosure. Knut’s keeper also died suddenly at the age of 44 from a heart attack in 2008.

Dream job, but health went downhill

The young woman worked in one of the biggest zoos in Germany. She loved her job as a veterinary nurse above everything. She was responsible for the gorillas. With the bottle, she helped gorilla babies grow when needed. Most of all, she never wanted to go home after work because she loved her job so much. During her training, her health was deteriorating. The reason for her health decline was first discovered years later. Several radiological studies including SPECT, CT, and MRT scans of her brain showed severe brain damage and atrophy. Pesticides were the reason the keeper’s health went downhill.

Gorilla babies dead due to the use of pesticides

During training, the young keeper had to deal with pesticides during the spraying of the gorilla’s sleeping quarters. The pesticide nerve agents, pyrethroids and organophosphates were used. The young woman had to spray the sleeping caves. As she kneeled in front of the caves, she couldn’t avoid breathing in the poison. “The gorilla babies died, and now I know it was because they were exposed to the pesticides,” she told me several years ago when we met at a special clinic. Her immune and nervous system were severely damaged, and she had problems with her muscles and her heart was weakening. Her hair was falling out and she had the typical nerve agent seizures. She stated, “I initiated a workers’ compensation lawsuit and won.” There was no question that the health of the animal keeper was destroyed by pesticides.

Knut died from pesticide exposure?

We do not know exactly which brain disease Knut, the public’s favorite animal in the Berlin Zoo, suffered from, but further studies will hopefully determine the nature and cause of his brain disease. Pesticides may well be on the short list, because they are regularly used in zoos to keep the zoo animals free of fleas and other parasites. Certain herbicides, which are often used on pavements and along roadsides in zoos in order to be kept free of weeds, are quite capable of causing life-threatening seizures.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, March 21, 2011

Translation: Thanks to Christi Howarth.

Related articles:

• Groups seeking Ban on Organophosphate Pesticide got to Federal Court
• Wide range of currently used and globally marketed pesticides contained Dioxin impurities
• Pesticide Exposure linked to sucidial Thoughts
• Common Household Pesticides linked to Childhood Cancer Cases in Washington Area

Every year in the United States, there are more than 1.2 million poison exposures among children younger than 6 years. In recent decades, household cleaning products have consistently been one of the leading sources of pediatric poisoning. A new study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital found that from 1990-2006, an estimated 267,269 children younger than 6 years were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments for injuries attributable to household cleaning products. During the 17-year study period, researchers noted a 46 percent decrease in the number of injuries.

Data from the study, being released online August 2 and appearing in the September issue of Pediatrics, show that most of the household cleaner-related injuries were poisonings, with children ages 1-3 years accounting for the majority (72 percent) of the injuries. Bleach was the cleaning product most commonly associated with injury (37.1 percent). While approximately one-third of the injuries occurred through contact with the cleaning product, the more frequent means was ingestion (62.7 percent), and spray bottles were the most common storage container (40.1 percent).

“Interestingly, spray bottles were the only major storage source that increased over the study period,” said study lead author Lara McKenzie, PhD, principal investigator at the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital. “Although rates of household cleaner-related injuries from regular bottles and original containers decreased during the study period, spray bottle injury rates remained constant. This area is worthy of further research.”

The good news is that the number of injuries decreased almost by half during the study period, but the bad news is that there were still nearly 12,000 children younger than 6 years who suffered injuries from household cleaning products in 2006.

“Young children are curious about their surroundings and tend to explore their environment by putting things in their mouths,” said Dr. McKenzie, also a faculty member of The Ohio State University College of Medicine. “This general sense of inquisitiveness, combined with increased mobility, the ubiquitous nature of household cleaning products and the ease of accessibility, place young children at high risk of injury.”

Parents and caregivers must do their part to prevent childhood poisonings. According to Heath Jolliff, DO, associate medical director of the Central Ohio Poison Center at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, parents should store poisonous substances in locked cabinets, out of sight and reach of children.

“It’s important to only purchase cleaners with child-resistant packaging, keep all products in their original containers and properly dispose of leftover or unused products,” Dr. Jolliff, also a faculty member at OSU College of Medicine, said.

Parents should also know what to do if they suspect their child has come in contact with a poison. Dr. Jolliff advises to immediately contact the Poison Center at 1-800-222-1222 (this national number will direct callers to their local Poison Center), unless the child is unconscious, not breathing, or having seizures, in which case parents should call 9-1-1.

This is the first published study using nationally representative data to examine poisonings from household cleaning products among children younger than 6 years for an extended time period. Data for this study were collected from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which is operated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The NEISS dataset provides information on consumer product-related and sports and recreation-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments across the country.

Reference:

Nationwide Children’s Hospital, New National Study Finds Decrease in Pediatric Injuries Associated with Household Cleaners Children younger than 6 years still at high risk of poisoning, Columbus, OH – 8/2/2010.

-

Further Articles about Children’s Health:

• Oil Spill: Kids in the Gulf
• Pesticides in kids linked to ADHD- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, study finds
• Our Planet – Our Children – How are your Children doing?
• EPA releases Guide to help Scientists understand Children Exposure to Pollutants
• Common Plastics Chemicals linked to ADHD Symptoms

Following the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse on September 11, 2001, more than 40,000 people were exposed to a complex mixture of inhalable nanoparticles and toxic chemicals. While many developed chronic respiratory symptoms, to what degree olfaction was compromised is unclear. A previous WTC Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program study found that olfactory and nasal trigeminal thresholds were altered by the toxic exposure, but not scores on a 20-odor smell identification test.

To employ a well-validated 40-item smell identification test to definitively establish whether the ability to identify odors is compromised in a cohort of WTC-exposed individuals and, if so, whether the degree of compromise is associated with self-reported severity of rhinitic symptoms.

The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was administered to 99 WTC-exposed persons and 99 matched normal controls. The Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-20) was administered to the 99 WTC-exposed persons and compared to the UPSIT scores.

The mean (SD) UPSIT scores were lower in the WTC-exposed group than in age-, sex-, and smoking history-matched controls [respective scores: 30.05 (5.08) vs 35.94 (3.76); p = 0.003], an effect present in a subgroup of 19 subjects additionally matched on occupation (p < 0.001). Fifteen percent of the exposed subjects had severe microsmia, but only 3% anosmia. SNOT-20 scores were unrelated to UPSIT scores (r = 0.20; p = 0.11).

Exposure to WTC air pollution was associated with a decrement in the ability to identify odors, implying that such exposure had a greater influence on smell function than previously realized.

Literature:

Altman KW, Desai SC, Moline J, de la Hoz RE, Herbert R, Gannon PJ, Doty RL.,Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Odor identification ability and self-reported upper respiratory symptoms in workers at the post-9/11 World Trade Center site, Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jun 30.

Scientists and NGOs concerned about the health impacts of bisphenol A

PRESS RELEASE, 23rd JUNE 2010

An unprecedented 60 scientists and international environment, health and women’s organisations from around the globe have jointly written to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stating that

“action is necessary to reduce the levels of Bisphenol-A (BPA) exposure, particularly in groups at highest risk, namely young infants and pregnant mothers.”

[Quotes from some of the participating scientists and NGOs can be found towards the end of this release.]

In total, 41 NGOs and 19 scientists from 15 countries from across the globe (including 9 from the UK) have signed the letter. The letter comes on the eve of a new scientific opinion to be released by the EFSA on the safety of Bisphenol A in food contact materials expected in early July 2010. EFSA was requested by the European Commission to assess the latest science on Bisphenol A, and if necessary, to update the existing Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) (a specific amount in food or drinking water that can be ingested (orally) over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk).

Bisphenol A is a mass produced chemical used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics that are clear and nearly shatter-proof. It can be found in plastics used for food and beverages, such as baby bottles, sports water bottles, as an epoxy resin in canned food and drinks, plastic food storage containers, tableware and in other products, including dental sealants, and has been found to leach into food and drink.

There have been long standing concerns about the health impacts of bisphenol A, due to scientific studies that have shown it has hormone disrupting effects at extremely low levels of exposure. Human bio-monitoring studies have shown that the vast majority of people in developed countries are exposed to Bisphenol-A.

EFSA’s previous opinions in 2007 and 2008 predominantly relied upon a handful of industry backed scientific papers that have expressed no concerns about our levels of BPA exposure. The letter from scientists and NGOs highlights scientific criticism in academic journals regarding these papers as compared to the “several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers have been published that have highlighted potential adverse health effects associated with BPA exposures”

The letter also draws attention to some of the new studies which have raised risks of exposure relating to a potential increased likelihood of developing ‘diabetes’, ‘developmental programming’ and ‘breast cancer’. Bisphenol A exposure at environmentally relevant levels commonly found in the environment in developed countries has also been repeatedly linked by independent university – based scientists to a number of other serious chronic health conditions.

Despite EFSA’s pivotal position in setting chemical food safety levels across the EU, Sweden and Germany have become the third and fourth most recent EU member states, alongside France and Denmark, to take action ahead of the EFSA review.

Andreas Carlgren, Sweden’s Environment Minister stated, on 11th May 2010, that

“If the EU will not quickly forbid the hormone disrupting substance bisphenol in baby-bottles Sweden will precede with a national prohibition.”

The President of the German Federal Environment Agency on the 9th June also broke from EFSA policy by issuing new guidance calling on

“manufacturers, importers and users of bisphenol A to use alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment in all areas of use that significantly contribute to exposure”.

Regulators in Canada and the USA have already taken action to limit BPA exposure, for example in its use in baby bottles. As yet there has been no similar action at the European Union level.

A number of EU member states continue to back a common approach across the EU on bisphenol A. Tim Smith, the head of the UK Food Standards Agency, declared in an internal FSA report on the 12th May, 2010 that he ‘considers it important to have an agreed position across the EU’ and that the FSA will only ‘revise our position in line with it the EFSA Review if it is considered necessary’, despite the action that is being taken elsewhere across the EU.

The EFSA have already delayed publication of its review, as explained on its website:

To give the European Commission an up-to-date overview of the safety of BPA, EFSA will now deliver a scientific opinion in early July rather than end of May. This is due to the need for the Panel to consider hundreds of studies in its review and analysis of the most recent scientific literature.

The letter from scientists and organisations opens by ‘welcoming this announcement’ issued at the 11th hour that EFSA has finally agreed to examine hundreds of non-industry backed scientific papers.

The letter was drafted by Breast Cancer UK and Prof. Fredrick vom Saal, Curators Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia who has been awarded by his peers for his work on Bisphenol-A and is a recognised leader in this field. The effort was also coordinated by the Brussels based Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).

Prof. vom Saal stated in response to the publication of the letter that:

“At the heart of the debate over BPA lies an outdated set of guidelines used by regulatory agencies that are based on approaches to evaluating the safety of chemicals established over 50 years ago. Thus, 21st century research approaches have provided overwhelming scientific evidence of harm in hundreds of published reports, but these findings are being rejected for consideration because they do not conform to the outdated testing guidelines.

“This has left regulatory agencies to rely entirely on industry-funded research that used ‘approved’ testing methods that are crude and insensitive, and it is not surprising that 100% of these industry-funded studies conclude that BPA causes no harm.

“The only rational path for European regulators is to take decisive action to reduce human exposure to BPA. The overwhelming nature of the total scientific evidence mandates this as a priority.”

Clare Dimmer, Chair of Trustees Breast Cancer UK and former breast cancer patient stated:

“Breast cancer is the most common cancer across Europe and has been increasing rapidly regardless of the costly and expensive efforts made by Governments to improve screening, treatment, and increase research. It must now be time that regulators act on the science and begin to take a precautionary approach to hazardous chemicals like bisphenol-A found in our everyday products.”

Lisette van Vliet, Ph.D. the Toxics Policy Advisor at HEAL said:

“It is high time that EFSA caught up to the overwhelming science showing genuine reasons for concern about our daily exposure to BPA.”

Participating scientists and organisations were given the opportunity to provide a quote for this press release; those that responded have been included below. This does not preclude participating organisations providing their own releases, supporting statements and additional comments.

Prof. Andrew Watterson, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, University of Stirling, said:

“It’s worrying, considering the weight of the scientific evidence, that strong action to reduce human exposure is yet to be taken. Hundreds of academic studies have explicitly raised the risks of developmental harm to foetuses and young children from exposure to BPA and this should dictate a strong precautionary policy response from European regulators. If this is not forthcoming, the UK Government must intervene as other European countries are already doing so.”

Daniela Hoffmann, Chemicals Expert, GLOBAL 2000/Friends of the Earth Austria:

“EFSA has to finally acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence concerning the risk BPA poses to human health.”

Sarah Häuser, Chemicals Expert BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany:

“The existing Tolerable Daily Intake for BPA does not protect human health. In animal experiments and biomonitoring studies, BPA doses much smaller than those estimated as being safe by EFSA were linked to chronic conditions health damages like diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. It’s time to take action now.”

For further information please contact:

Hratche Koundarjian, Campaign Manager, Breast Cancer UK, Charity No: 1088047, T: 07905 911 039, E: hratche@breastcanceruk.org.uk, W: www.breastcanceruk.org.uk / www.nomorebpa.org.uk

–

Letter and Signatories:

Prof. Klaus-Dieter Jany, Chair of the CEF Panel

European Food Safety Authority

Largo N. Palli 5/A, 43121 Parma, Italy

23rd June 2010

Dear Prof. Jany,

We are writing to welcome the announcement on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) website that the CEF panel will be considering ‘hundreds of studies in its review and analysis of the most recent scientific literature’ in its review of the TDI of bisphenol-A in food contact products.

Over the last decade and a half, a substantive body amounting to several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers, have been published that have highlighted potential adverse health effects associated with BPA exposures, at internal doses relevant to levels of biologically active BPA found in humans.

As a March 2010 Review (Vandenberg et al) of 80 bio-monitoring studies of BPA in Environmental Health Perspectives makes clear;

‘The two toxicokinetic studies performed to date, which suggest that human exposure is negligible, have significant flaws and are therefore not reliable for risk assessment purposes.’

However, in its prior risk assessments of BPA, EFSA only relied on a small number of studies rather than the much larger number that the United States Food and Drug Administration recently recognised as valid and of high utility in its risk assessment of BPA, and which led the FDA to express concern about the health hazards posed by BPA.

Only a tiny minority of studies have articulated that BPA exposure is completely safe, and many of these research papers have been criticised in academic commentaries and responses as having serious flaws, but it is these few flawed studies that EFSA previously relied on to declare BPA safe.

For example, a letter co-authored by 24 scientists published in the February 2010 edition of Toxicological Sciences states;

‘Publishing studies that conclude no harm in response to low doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals, when the studies did not include a positive control (Tyl et al., 2002), included inappropriate doses of positive controls (Ryan et al., 2009; Tyl et al., 2008), or included positive controls that showed no effect (Cagen et al., 1999), is inappropriate in peer-reviewed journals (Myers et al., 2009a,b; vom Saal and Welshons, 2006). Such studies violate basic principles of study design.’

Many scientific studies are now calling into question the safety of BPA. For example, a recent study has highlighted that BPA may contribute to metabolic disorders relevant to glucose homeostasis, and suggests that BPA may be a risk factor for diabetes (Alonso-Magdalena et al., 2010). Moreover, experiments at Yale university report that BPA may induce altered developmental programming (Bromer et al.,2010), and Doherty et al (2010) of Yale university have published a study which raises the concern about epigenetic effects of BPA on the regulation of the mammary gland, with potential implications for breast cancer risk. Endometriosis is also a concern as work by Signorile et al (2010) highlights that pre-natal exposure of mice to bisphenol-A causes an endometriosis-like response in female offspring.

It is therefore our opinion that any objective and comprehensive review of the scientific literature will lead to the conclusion that action is necessary to reduce the levels of BPA exposure, particularly in groups at highest risk, namely young infants and pregnant mothers.

There are an increasing number of countries that are either already committed to this course of action, or have signalled that they will soon be undertaking similar measures.

We share the concerns of these Governments and regulators and believe that reducing BPA exposure to these groups is both scientifically sound and in the best interest of public health.

As such, we call on you as the Chair of the CEF panel and the CEF Committee Members in their ongoing review to include all relevant studies, including bio-monitoring studies, and based on that evidence we conclude that there is a strong scientific mandate for action.

Yours sincerely,

1. Benson Akingbemi, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
2. Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Chahoud, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Dept. of Toxicology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
3. André Cicolella, Dipl Eng chemist-toxicologist.
4. Prof. Patricia Hunt, Meyer Distinguished Professor, School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University
5. Prof. Maricel V. Maffini. Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor. Department of Anatomy and Cellular Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine
6. Jane Muncke, Ph.D, Environmental Toxicologist, Emhart Glass SA, Switzerland.
7. John Peterson Myers, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville VA.
8. Angel Nadal, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Instituto de Bioingeniería and CIBERDEM, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Spain.
9. Dr John Newby, Medical Information Scientist for the Cancer Prevention Society and Former Member of the Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group, Department of Human Anatomy & Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool.
10. Prof. Jörg Oehlmann, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity.
11. Prof. Gail S. Prins, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago.
12. Prof. Fredrick vom Saal, Curators Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia.
13. Prof. Pietro Giulio Signorile, President of the Italian Endometriosis Foundation.
14. Prof. Ana M Soto, MD, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Tufts University, School of Medicine.
15. Prof. Hugh S. Taylor, M.D., Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University.
16. Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, Tufts University.
17. Prof. Cheryl S. Watson, PhD, Professor, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Dept. University of Texas, Medical Branch, Galveston.
18. Prof. Andrew Watterson, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, University of Stirling.
19. Prof. R. Thomas Zoeller, Biology Department, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts.

-

1. Action for Breast Cancer, Malta
2. Alliance for Cancer Prevention, UK
3. Arnika, Czech Republic
4. Association for Environmental and Chronic Toxic Injury, Italy
5. Austrian section of ISDE (International Society of Doctors for the Environment), Austria
6. Breast Cancer Fund, USA
7. Breast Cancer UK, UK
8. BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany
9. Cancer Prevention and Education Society, UK
10. ChemSec –International Chemical Secretariat, International
11. CHEM Trust, UK
12. Chemical Sensitivity Network, Germany
13. Clean Air Action Group, Hungary
14. Comité pour le Développement Durable en Santé, France
15. Danish Consumer Council, Denmark
16. The Danish Ecological Council, Denmark
17. Eco-Accord Program on Chemical Safety, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
18. EcoAid, Germany
19. Ecologistas en Acción, Spain
20. Environmental Health Fund, USA
21. Environment Illinois, USA
22. European Environmental Bureau, EU
23. Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Finland
24. Friends of the Earth Spain, Spain
25. Global 2000 / Friends of the Earth Austria, Austria
26. Health and Environmental Network, Europe
27. Health Care Without Harm, International
28. Indiana Toxics Action, USA
29. Instituto Sindical de Trabajo Ambiente y Salud, Spain
30. The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association, Ireland
31. Italian Endometriosis Foundation, Italy
32. Plastic Planet, Austria
33. Rachel’s Friends Breast Cancer Coalition, USA
34. Réseau Environnement Santé, France
35. Society for Sustainable Living, Czech Republic
36. Unison, UK
37. VHUE e.V., Germany
38. Women in Europe for a Common Future, Europe
39. Women’s Environmental Network, Scotland
40. Women’s Voices for the Earth, USA
41. WWF European Policy Office, Europe

-

References

• Vandenberg LN, Chauhoud I, Heindel JJ, Padmanabhan V, Paumgartten FJ, Schoenfelder G 2010. Urinary, Circulating and Tissue Biomonitoring Studies Indicate Widespread Exposure to Bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901716
• vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Belcher SM, Crain DA, Crews D, Guidice LC, Hunt PA, Leranth C, Myers JP, Nadal A, Olea N, Padmanabhana V, Rosenfeld CS, Schneyer A, Schoenfelder G, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM, Stahlhut RW, Swan SH, Vandenberg LN, Wang H, Watson CS, Welshons WV and Zoeller RT. 2010. Flawed Experimental Design Reveals the Need for Guidelines Requiring Appropriate Positive Controls in Endocrine Disruption Research. Toxicological Sciences 2010 115(2):612-613; doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfq048
• Alonso-Magdalena P, Vieira E, Soriano S, Menes L, Burks D, Quesada I, et al. 2010. Bisphenol-A Exposure during Pregnancy Disrupts Glucose Homeostasis in Mothers and Adult Male Offspring. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.1001993
• Bromer JG, Zhou Y, Taylor MB, Doherty L, Taylor HS. Bisphenol-A exposure in utero leads to epigenetic alterations in the developmental programming of uterine estrogen response. FASEB J. 2010 Feb 24. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 20181937.
• Doherty L, Bromer JG, Zhou Y, Aldad TS and Taylor HS. In Utero Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol (DES) or Bisphenol-A (BPA) Increases EZH2 Expression in the Mammary Gland: An Epigenetic Mechanism Linking Endocrine Disruptors to Breast Cancer. Hormones and Cancer. DOI: 10.1007/s12672-010-0015-9.
• Signorile PG, Spugnini EP, Mita L, Mellone P, D’Avino A, Bianco M, Diano N, Caputo L, Rea F, Viceconte R, Portaccio M, Viggiano E, Citro G, Pierantoni R, Sica V, Vincenzi B, Damiano G. Mita DG, Baldi F and Baldi A. Pre-natal exposure of mice to bisphenol A elicits an endometriosis-like phenotype in female offspring. General and Comparative Endocrinology. doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2010.03.030.

—

German Translation by CSN:

60 Wissenschaftler und NGOs appellieren an EFSA

President’s Cancer Panel report highlights threat from hormone-disrupting chemicals – many found in new fragrance study

San Francisco – A new analysis reveals that top-selling fragrance products – from Britney Spears Curious and Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity to Calvin Klein Eternity and Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce – contain a dozen or more secret chemicals not listed on labels, multiple chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions or disrupt hormones, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety by the cosmetics industry’s self-policing review panels.

The study of hidden toxic chemicals in perfumes comes on the heels of last week’s report by the President’s Cancer Panel, which sounded the alarm over the understudied and largely unregulated toxic chemicals used by millions of Americans in their daily lives. The President’s Cancer Panel report recommends that pregnant women and couples planning to become pregnant avoid exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals due to cancer concerns. Several fragrances analyzed for this study contained multiple chemicals with the potential to disrupt hormones.

“This monumental study reveals the hidden hazards of fragrances,” said Anne C. Steinemann, Ph.D., Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professor of Public Affairs, University of Washington. “Secondhand scents are also a big concern. One person using a fragranced product can cause health problems for many others.”

For this study, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a national coalition of health and environmental groups, commissioned tests of 17 fragranced products at an independent laboratory. Campaign partner Environmental Working Group assessed data from the tests and the product labels. The analysis reveals that the 17 products contained, on average:

Fourteen secret chemicals not listed on labels due to a loophole in federal law that allows companies to claim fragrances as trade secrets. American Eagle Seventy Seven contained 24 hidden chemicals, the highest number of any product in the study.

Ten sensitizing chemicals associated with allergic reactions such as asthma, wheezing, headaches and contact dermatitis. Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio contained 19 different sensitizing chemicals, more than any other product in the study.

Four hormone-disrupting chemicals linked to a range of health effects including sperm damage, thyroid disruption and cancer. Halle by Halle Berry, Quicksilver and Glow by JLO each contained seven different chemicals with the potential to disrupt the hormone system.

The majority of chemicals found in the testing have never been assessed for safety by any publically accountable agency, or by the cosmetics industry’s self-policing review panels. Of the 91 ingredients identified in this study, only 19 have been reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), and 27 have been assessed by the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) and the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), which develop voluntary standards for chemicals used in fragrance.

“Something doesn’t smell right—clearly the system is broken,” said Lisa Archer, national coordinator of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund. “We urgently need updated laws that require full disclosure of cosmetics ingredients so consumers can make informed choices about what they are being exposed to.”

“Fragrance chemicals are inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and many of them end up inside people’s bodies, including pregnant women and newborn babies,” said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at Environmental Working Group.

A recent EWG study found synthetic musk chemicals Galaxolide and Tonalide in the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants. The musk chemicals were found in nearly every fragrance analyzed for this study. Twelve of the 17 products also contained diethyl phthalate (DEP), a chemical linked to sperm damage and behavioral problems that has been found in the bodies of nearly all Americans tested.

Members of Congress who are working to develop safe cosmetics legislation reacted to the report:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.: “There’s no reason that people should be exposed to potentially harmful chemicals because they use perfume, cologne or body spray. But this report suggests that is exactly what’s happening. The chemicals detected in popular fragrances, which are often endorsed by celebrities, could have a range of adverse health effects and Americans are being exposed unknowingly. I think this is a clear sign of how woefully out of date our cosmetics laws are and how urgently the cosmetics safety legislation we’re developing is needed. The ingredients used in these products need to be tested for safety and the FDA must be empowered to fully protect the health of Americans by blocking chemicals deemed unsafe. Americans need to know that the fragrance products they buy don’t contain chemicals that could harm them.”

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.: “A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but in some cases sweet smelling fragrances may in fact be dangerous. I am happy to be joining with my colleagues to soon introduce legislation that will make disclosure of ingredients used in cosmetics and fragrances mandatory and ensure that toxic chemicals are kept out of colognes and perfumes. Consumers have a right to know just what is in the products they spray and rub on their body every day.”

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.: “It’s alarming that cosmetics products we use every day contain hidden toxic chemicals. That’s why I’m working with colleagues in Congress on legislation that will overhaul our outdated cosmetics oversight and regulation. We all deserve to know our products are as safe as possible.”

# # #

Download the report: www.safecosmetics.org/notsosexy

Autor: Campain for Safe Cosmetics, Release: May 12th, 2010.

Yale scientists show how bisphenol A induces epigenetic changes in pregnant mice that cause hormonal imbalance in the later life of female progeny

Here’s more evidence that “safe” plastics are not as safe as once presumed: New research published online in The FASEB Journal suggests that exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) during pregnancy leads to epigenetic changes that may cause permanent reproduction problems for female offspring. BPA, a common component of plastics used to contain food, is a type of estrogen that is ubiquitous in the environment.

“Exposure to BPA may be harmful during pregnancy; this exposure may permanently affect the fetus,” said Hugh S. Taylor, Ph.D., co-author of the study from Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “We need to better identify the effects of environmental contaminants on not just crude measures such as birth defects, but also their effect in causing more subtle developmental errors.”

Taylor and colleagues made this discovery by exposing fetal mice to BPA during pregnancy and examining gene expression and DNA in the uteruses of female fetuses. Results showed that BPA exposure permanently affected the uterus by decreasing regulation of gene expression. These epigenetic changes caused the mice to over-respond to estrogen throughout adulthood, long after the BPA exposure. This suggests that early exposure to BPA genetically “programmed” the uterus to be hyper-responsive to estrogen. Extreme estrogen sensitivity can lead to fertility problems, advanced puberty, altered mammary development and reproductive function, as well as a variety of hormone-related cancers. BPA has been widely used in plastics and other materials. Examples include use in water bottles, baby bottles, epoxy resins used to coat food cans, and dental sealants.

“The BPA baby bottle scare may be only the tip of the iceberg.” said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “Remember how diethylstilbestrol (DES) caused birth defects and cancers in young women whose mothers were given such hormones during pregnancy. We’d better watch out for BPA, which seems to carry similar epigenetic risks across the generations. ”

Author: FASEB* – Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Why BPA leached from ‘safe’ plastics may damage health of female offspring, 25-Feb-2010.

-

* FASEB comprises 23 societies with more than 90,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States

A new study led by Mount Sinai researchers in collaboration with scientists from Cornell University and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has found higher prenatal exposure to phthalates—manmade chemicals that interfere with hormonal messaging—to be connected with disruptive and problem behaviors in children between the ages of 4 and 9 years. The study, which is the first to examine the effects of prenatal phthalate exposure on child neurobehavioral development, will be published January 28, on the Environmental Health Perspectives website.

“There is increasing evidence that phthalate exposure is harmful to children at all stages of development,” said Stephanie Engel, PhD, lead study author and Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. “We found a striking pattern of associations between low molecular weight phthalates – which are commonly found in personal care products – and disruptive childhood behaviors, such as aggressiveness and other conduct issues, and problems with attention. These same behavioral problems are commonly found in children diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or Conduct Disorder.”

Phthalates are part of a group of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors, that interfere with the body’s endocrine, or hormone system. They are a family of compounds found in a wide range of consumer products such as nail polishes, to increase their durability and reduce chips, and in cosmetics, perfumes, lotions and shampoos, to carry fragrance. Other phthalates are used to increase the flexibility and durability of plastics such as PVC, or included as coatings on medications or nutritional supplements to make them timed-release.

“Recently, the government instituted regulations limiting certain phthalates in things like child care articles or toys that a young child might put in their mouth,” continued Dr. Engel. “But it’s their mother’s contact with phthalate-containing products that causes prenatal exposure. The phthalates that we found most strongly related to neurodevelopment were those commonly found in cosmetics, perfumes, lotions and shampoos. Current US regulations do not address these kinds of phthalates.”

For the study, phthalate metabolite levels were analyzed in prenatal urine samples of a multiethnic group of 404 women who were pregnant for the first time. The women were invited to participate in follow-up interviews when their children were between the ages of 4 and 9. The mothers were not informed of their phthalate metabolite levels and the researchers were unaware of their exposures when testing the children.

Follow-up visits were completed by 188 of the women and their children. At each follow-up visit, the mothers completed validated questionnaires designed to assess their behavior and executive functions. The researchers found that mothers with higher concentrations of low molecular weight phthalates consistently reported poorer behavioral profiles in their children. The strongest trends were in the categories of conduct and externalizing problems, characteristics typically associated with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder and ADHD.

“These are high level, chronic exposures that start before the child is even born, but continue throughout their life. More research is needed to examine the effects of cumulative exposure to phthalates on child development. But what this study suggests is that it’s not enough to regulate childhood exposure to these chemicals. The regulations need to include products that moms use,” said Dr. Engel.

Reference: The Mount Sinai Hospital / Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Mount Sinai finds prenatal exposure to certain chemicals affects childhood neurodevelopment, Jan. 28, 2010

New York State (NYS) employees who responded to the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster on or after 11 September 2001 potentially experienced exposures that might have caused persistent respiratory effects. NYS responders represent a more moderately exposed population than typical first responders. 

To assess whether NYS employees who were WTC responders were more likely than controls to report lower respiratory symptoms (LRS) or a diagnosis of asthma 5 years post-9/11, persistence and severity of symptoms were also evaluated. 

Participants were initially mailed self-administered questionnaires (initial, Year 1, Year 2) and then completed a telephone interview in Year 3. Data were analysed using Poisson’s regression models. 

WTC exposure was associated with LRS, including cough symptoms suggestive of chronic bronchitis, 5 years post-9/11. When exposure was characterized using an exposure assessment method, the magnitude of effect was greater in those with exposure scores above the mean. WTC exposure was associated with persistence of LRS over the 3 year study period. Results also suggest that participants with the highest exposures were more likely to experience increased severity of their asthma condition and/or LRS. 

The findings suggest that even in a moderately exposed responder population, lower respiratory effects were a persistent problem 5 years post-9/11, indicating that some WTC responders require ongoing monitoring.  

Literature: Mauer MP, Cummings KR, Hoen R., Long-term respiratory symptoms in World Trade Center responders, Bureau of Occupational Health, Center for Environmental Health, New York State Department of Health, Occup Med (Lond). 2009 Dec 24.