|
 |
|
Coordinated nationally by the Institute for Children's Environmental Health |
To join the Partnership for Children's Health and the Environment (PCHE) and receive this bulletin, please complete the form at http://www.partnersforchildren.org/members.html#member.
March 31 - April 2, 2006
New Brunswick, New Jersey
The Science and Environmental Health Network and Environmental Research Foundation have created The Precaution Academy to offer an intensive weekend of training to prepare participants to apply precautionary thinking to a wide range of issues in their communities and workplaces. The Academy is intended to serve the needs of citizen activists, government officials, public health specialists, small business owners, journalists, educators, and the engaged public. Presenters and discussion leaders include Carolyn Raffensperger, Nancy Myers, Ted Schettler, Katie Silberman and Peter Montague. The cost of the Precaution Academy in New Brunswick, N.J. is $350, which includes hotel for 2 nights, plus six meals, and all instructional materials. Participation is limited to 15 people. You may want to check with to learn whether space is available. Send your check to Science and Environmental Health Network, P.O. Box 50733, Eugene, OR 97405
Contact: Sherri Seidmon, sherri@sehn.org
April 1 - 2, 2006
New Haven, Connecticut
at Yale University's Linsly Chittenden Hall, 63 High Street
This conference will convene more than 600 people from throughout the world who are interested in international service, global health, public health and medicine. This conference brings together student leaders and activists, doctors, public health professionals, nurses, Peace Corp volunteers and others. The conference's goal is to inform the public about health divides and empower them to develop solutions to improve access to care for the medically underserved. The keynote address will be "Environment, Behavior and Health: Societies Matter" by Al Sommer, MD, MHS.
Website: http://www.uniteforsight.org/2006_annual_conference.php
April 19 - 20, 2006
10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
New York, New York
at the United Nations Headquarters, Conference Room 2
The theme is "Living with Radiation in the Modern World Commemorating Chornobyl -- Remembering Hiroshima/Nagasaki."
Website: http://www.worldinfo.org/
Contact: WIT at 212-686-1996 or wit1986@aol.com
April 19 - 20, 2006
Seattle, Washington
CleanMed is a national conference for environmental leaders in health care. The agenda for 2006 includes preconference workshop on green building, design and operation of green buildings, environmentally preferable products for health care, reducing waste and toxicity, and healthy food in health care. The keynote speakers for CleanMed 2006 are leaders in defining emerging environmental problems and promoting safer alternatives. Tyrone B. Hayes, PhD, and Paul Hawken will be presenting.
Website: http://www.cleanmed.org/
submitted to this bulletin by Ralph Scott, Alliance for Healthy Homes
The deadline for comments on the EPA's proposed lead-safe remodeling and renovation rule is next week. During the past two months, work groups composed of researchers, advocates, and others have worked on comments on four major topics of concern in EPA's proposed renovation and remodeling regulation: capacity building, clearance/cleaning verification, dangerous work practices, and enforcement. We have now posted the reports on the Alliance for Healthy Homes website at http://www.afhh.org/aa/aa_hh_policy_national_policy_eparandr.htm. The advocacy community owes our thanks to all who participated in these workgroups. Any updates or additional guidance materials will be posted next week at the same URL.
As advocates and others work on comments, all are welcome to use material from these documents. Comments are due April 10, 2006. To submit a comment online go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/documentSearchResult.jsp?__dmfRequestId=__client10~~3&__dmfRender=true&Reload=1143578254829# and look for docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-0049.
by Pete Myers, American Prospect
Issue Date: April 8, 2006
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=Pete+Myers
Scarcely a week goes by without coverage of a new discovery by scientists revealing that yet another disease is linked to one or another gene. The range of health conditions now known to be gene related is astonishing. Some are just what you would have expected 50 years ago: many cancers, birth defects, obscure metabolic disorders, and diabetes. Others are less obvious, for example, brain disorders like schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease.
Most people react to this news -- disease linked to genes -- as yet another confirmation of life's capriciousness. Genes are what we got from our parents. If we're lucky, we get the good genes, and that means at least one health condition that won't burden us in life, compound the toll of growing old, or hurry us toward the grave. If we aren't lucky, well then, who ever said life is fair?
In the medical community and pharmaceutical industry, findings like these are fueling a rush in search of cures using "gene therapy." If the experts can figure out what's wrong with a gene, well, perhaps a designer drug can fix it.
But one corner of science reacts quite differently, flipping the old "nature vs. nurture," or "genes vs. environment" dichotomy on its head. In this corner, when a disease is linked to a gene, the research question shifts to a completely different perspective: What contaminants in the environment could be altering the behavior of that gene?
In other words, diseases linked to genes aren't simply the fatalistic results of inheritance. Diseases can also be the result of good genes gone bad because of interference from something in the environment. Rather than inviting exotic medical interventions, diseases caused by environmental interference with gene behavior may be preventable if the contaminant can be identified and the exposure eliminated. And please note that this isn't about mutation. The DNA sequence doesn't change. It isn't originally a "bad" gene, but rather one that's been hijacked.
This perspective does more than simply shift the boundaries of what is known as "environmentally caused disease." It reframes the issue entirely. Classically, we have perceived diseases and disabilities as having distinctly genetic or environmental causes, or perhaps having a contribution from both due to mutation or some interaction between heredity and environment (as in some mental illnesses), and we have labored hard to sort out blame. This new perspective says something very different: Yes, we do inherit our genes from our parents, but the environment -- including diet, experience and contamination -- can alter how a specific gene behaves throughout life.
That new understanding holds immense promise for public health. It means that revelations by genetic research of "diseases linked to genes" aren't a litany of fatalism. Instead they are a compilation of diseases that may have environmental etiologies and can thus be candidates for prevention through exposure reduction. Not all diseases with a genetic basis will work this way, but the list will very likely be large and will include some profoundly important illnesses.
* * *
To make sense of this new framing -- what it means for a disease to be linked to a gene -- requires three pieces of information: two that form the core of modern molecular genetics, and a third that has emerged from new scientific discovery over the past two decades.
First, just as Gregor Mendel discovered in the late 1800s, you inherit genetic material from your parents. Decades of research during the 20th century then led to the discovery that genes are pieces of DNA in your chromosomes.
Second, genes aren't just passive strands of DNA but, instead, are part of nature's nanotechnology. They are tiny chemical manufacturing plants controlled by an intricate and dynamic set of chemical messengers that travel within and between cells to turn specific genes on, or off, at the proper time. When geneticists talk about gene behavior, they are referring to how a gene is turned on to set the steps in motion that lead to protein synthesis or other key changes in cell function. There are many variations of this process. In one scenario, involving hormones like testosterone and estrogen, the hormone molecule arrives from outside the cell, goes into the nucleus, and binds with another molecule called a receptor. This bound complex then controls the activity of the gene.
This process begins before conception in the formation of eggs and sperm and it continues through death. It is the molecular symphony of life, with 20,000-plus genes in each human cell, turning on and off as molecular signals reach the switch on a gene that controls its action. Different genes respond to different signals, yet the same gene in different tissues can also be programmed quite differently. That's why even though all the cells in a person's body have the same genes and we each have many different types of tissues, one body part takes on the characteristics of an eye and another a finger or a liver or a brain. And while changes in gene expression take place at the molecular level, they have a huge impact on a person's life. When working properly, those changes give you male or female sex organs, a functional brain, and an immune system that defends against disease. They regulate weight and protect you from cancers. In short, the right changes in gene expression as the fetus is growing are essential to a person's health and quality of life.
Third, some environmental contaminants can interfere with gene expression, preventing genes from turning on when you need them, or turning them on when they should be silent. Take arsenic. At high levels, arsenic kills outright. At intermediate doses, arsenic is associated with a wide array of illnesses. At truly low doses -- 10 parts per billion, the new standard for drinking water in the United States -- experiments with cells indicate that arsenic can prevent some genes from being turned on by glucocorticoid hormones. These hormones control genes important for disease resistance, glucose metabolism, and a number of other vital processes. Some of these genes make proteins that are important for tumor suppression, for example. These effects were discovered as a result of experiments conducted using cells in a laboratory setting. Still, the results suggest that if the same processes are at work in people -- which is likely -- then people exposed to arsenic at that low dose may be ill-prepared to fight tumors. Arsenic in this case isn't causing illness directly, but it is instead setting the stage for illness to win over health. The arsenic's contribution undermines disease resistance by preventing protective genes from being turned on.
* * *
A key finding is that gene hijacking can take place at extremely low -- almost undetectable -- levels of exposure to some environmental chemicals. Exposure to high doses of many substances can be outright toxic -- poisonous in the classic sense. Historically, toxicologists have bowed to the mantra "the dose makes the poison." But with low-dose exposures, the mechanism of action is different. It isn't a simple case of outright toxicity in which the more of a poison you take, the greater the toxic effect. Gene hijacking during fetal development can be like shifting the course of an ocean liner two degrees at the beginning of a voyage. Over a thousand-mile trip (or a 70-year life span), you wind up in a very different port. Or you may crash onto rocky shores. For example, in a fetus or infant, a subtle change in the path of development can lead to an immune system that can't resist common bacteria or that responds hyperactively, as in the case of asthma. A female fetus exposed in the womb can wind up with a uterus that isn't shaped properly; a male fetus may mature with a permanently low sperm count.
Our genes are vulnerable to hijacking throughout life. But fetal development and the period from childhood through puberty are the most vulnerable stages of life. This has taken on additional significance as work on gene hijacking has converged with another new field in the health sciences, "developmental origins of adult disease." This work, which has roots in both animal and human studies, is revealing that many chronic illnesses and health conditions experienced by adults can have their origins in early development gone awry.
One early signal of the important role fetal events play in the onset of adult disease was revealed due to the discovery, in 1971, that young women who had been exposed in the womb to a drug called diethylstilbestrol, or des, developed a rare cancer in their late teens. Another came from research showing that adults whose mothers were starved in the third trimester of pregnancy are prone to obesity and other chronic problems, including heart disease, in adulthood. A third has emerged over the last decade as it has become clear that most cases of testicular cancer arise from failure of tissues within the fetal testes to differentiate properly. These undifferentiated tissues lie dormant for two to three decades and then turn into tumors. Research published in 2005 has even shown that a gene implicated in Alzheimer's, a disease of old age, may be vulnerable to hijacking around the time of birth. This work, done with rodents exposed to low levels of lead, shows that the gene behaves normally through adulthood, but in old age it's activated to an abnormally high level. The same study also showed that exposing an adult to the same low amount of lead doesn't have this effect.
The poster-child molecule for this reframing of links between environment and health is one that almost no one has heard of, but that almost everyone has in their tissues and fluids. That molecule is bisphenol A, invented in 1891 by the Russian chemist A.P. Dianin and discovered in 1936 to cause responses similar to those of the natural hormone estrogen. That discovery took place during the rush of pharmaceutical research to find synthetic estrogens, and bisphenol A, or BPA, lost out to its more powerful cousin, DES. While DES went on to be used by millions of women to control difficult pregnancies before it was outed as a cancer-causing agent, bisphenol A was put on the shelf until a polymer chemist discovered around 1950 that it could be combined in chains to make polycarbonate plastic and certain epoxy resins. Use since that discovery has skyrocketed, to the point that over six billion pounds are synthesized each year and the molecule is now included in countless consumer products.
Ironically, one of the most conspicuous of these uses is the transparent plastic water bottles, often tinted bright colors, which are wild favorites on campuses, strapped to countless backpacks of health-conscious Generation X members who've been told the material is safe because it is rigid and doesn't smell like plastic or leach dioxin. True, these bottles don't leach dioxin. That was never the concern. But they do leach bisphenol A because the chemical bonds that create the polymer easily degrade in water -- and they do so even faster if the plastic gets hot or is exposed to alcohol, soaps, or acids. BPA exposure comes from many other sources, for example, in a resin used to line metal food cans, from which it also leaches.
* * *
Today almost all people sampled in the developed world have bisphenol A in their body at trace levels (in the low parts per billion), including in amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, and placental tissue. A Centers for Disease Control study in 2005 detected low amounts of BPA in the urine of 95 percent of Americans sampled. Twenty years ago scientists would have looked at those levels and scoffed: too low to make a difference. Indeed, back then these levels were too low to even measure. But since 1997, well over 200 articles have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that BPA has a biological impact on cells and animals at levels beneath the current federal standards, which were based on data gathered in the early 1980s. In cells, BPA has been shown to alter vital genetic signaling pathways at under one part per trillion. In animals, effects have been reported at less than one part per billion.
Significantly, all of the reports of major effects come from government or academic studies, while none of the 12 studies funded by industry has reported harm. And independent analyses of those 12 reveal not only fatal flaws in experimental design, but outright misrepresentation of data. As recently as January 2006, industry scientists used these very studies and misrepresentations to argue during a hearing convened by the California legislature that BPA is safe. One "product-defense" firm testifying in those hearings, the D.C.-based Weinberg Group, was revealed by an investigative report published in February 2006 to have its roots in defending tobacco and aggressively soliciting business from companies whose materials are under attack because of health and safety concerns. One of the firm's most recent clients is a company that manufactures a Teflon chemical judged by an EPA science advisory board in early 2006 to be a likely human carcinogen.
The list of diseases and adverse health conditions now plausibly linked to bisphenol A by animal and cell research is large and reflects disease trends in the human population. It runs from reduced sperm count to spontaneous miscarriages; from prostate and breast cancers to degenerative brain diseases; from attention deficit disorders to obesity and insulin resistance, which links it to Type 2 diabetes. "Plausibly" is a long way from "certainly." Even if it accounts for only some percentage, say 10 percent or 20 percent, of cases, these "plausibly linked" conditions have been caused by exposure to BPA. And those are cases that could have been prevented and health-care costs that could have been avoided.
How does one molecule contribute to so much suffering? Research shows that BPA alters the behavior of over 200 genes, more than one percent of all human genes. The genes affected aren't controlling minor traits like eye color. They are genes involved centrally in how cells multiply, how stem cells become more specialized, how metabolism is regulated, and how the brain gets wired as a fetus grows. It is not at all surprising, therefore, to see so many potential links to health problems.
Because of the extremely low levels at which BPA has demonstrable effects, this molecule is at the center of the debate over low-level contamination, gene expression, and human health, but it is by no means alone. It is but one of hundreds of synthetic chemicals that have been found to alter gene behavior. Some are compounds that have been of concern for decades, like dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and certain pesticides. Others, like phthalates, Teflon-related chemicals, and brominated flame retardants, have been attracting attention more recently, especially because they are present in consumer products in every home in America; hence, exposure is ubiquitous. The United States has made good -- but incomplete -- progress on the former, but for too many, particularly in the latter group, the work has barely begun.
What do these results mean for human health? Scientists aren't certain because despite 50 years of growing use of BPA in commerce, there have been almost no human studies. The chemical industry takes the "absence of proof of harm in humans" as evidence of safety rather than simply a result of the fact that almost no one has investigated the matter, even though there is extensive evidence of harm in other animals. The preceding list of plausible links includes conditions that have become epidemics over the past several decades, the same time frame during which exposure to BPA became virtually unavoidable. Those trends are what you would predict from the animal studies, but a lot of other things in our world have also changed, so the congruence of trends proves nothing by itself. Definitive human studies can take decades to complete, especially if the focus is on something as complex as adult diseases caused by developmental exposure. Only one study has attempted to test predictions based on the recent animal research involving BPA, and it confirmed the prediction, but the study was small and needs to be repeated.
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has spent tens of millions of dollars over the past five years planning a study that would track 100,000 subjects from conception to age 21. Patterned after a famous and highly productive study of cardiovascular health called the Framingham Heart Study, the National Children's Study would examine many different factors affecting development, including environmental chemicals and diet. This sweeping scale of research is required scientifically to reach firm conclusions about which products are safe and which are not. Unfortunately, President Bush's proposed budget for 2007 has eliminated funding.
* * *
The United States has already demonstrated an ability to reduce harmful exposures dramatically through stronger public-health standards. Exposure to lead, PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, and other contaminants is now at much lower levels than it was 40 years ago. The newer contaminants, like BPA (in principle), are no less amenable to policy intervention, but corporations and their "product defense" consultants are now far more sophisticated about battling government efforts to strengthen public-health standards, making it ever harder for agencies to keep the standards up-to-date with current science. For example, BPA's current standard is based upon data gathered in the mid-1980s.
Two new sources of opportunities to reduce harmful exposure are "green chemistry" and the marketplace for safer products. By paying attention to the molecular detail of how contaminants cause harm, chemists can invent new materials that are harmless by molecular design. BPA causes harm because of coincidence: Its shape fits into the estrogen receptor. Minor changes in that structure should yield a molecule that can be used to make similar plastics, but that won't alter gene expression. Entrepreneurial companies, seeing potential profits in inherently safe products, are actively involved in bringing such products to market.
Until the early 20th century, the United States was wracked with waves of epidemics, mostly of infectious diseases. Most of those were finally controlled through public-health interventions, especially better water treatment, not through antibiotics or even vaccines. Huge public investments were made, even though the science wasn't definite. Those investments changed the face of public health in this country. We have clean drinking water, and sewage systems that work (most of the time). And today very few people die from waterborne diseases in the United States.
Today's epidemics are very different. They involve cancers, cardiovascular problems, and metabolic syndrome (obesity and Type 2 diabetes), and in the young they include some serious behavioral problems like attention disorders and autism. These epidemics have obvious human costs, and they burden the economy. The medical conditions that would have been studied by the National Children's Study cost the United States $640 billion annually.
If today's epidemics continue along the trend lines that have emerged over the past 30 years, it is likely that this generation of children will be the first in modern history to have less healthy adult lives than those of their parents. Changes in gene expression play a significant role in virtually all of them. It is highly likely that some percentage is caused by exposure to contaminants. Those epidemics, in principle, can be prevented. As this science advances, and as people, government, and companies act upon these developments, it is possible to envision a transformation in public health just as radical, and positive, as that achieved when society cleaned its water of infectious-disease agents.
by Anna L. Mallory, Charleston (WV) Gazette
March 25, 2006
http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2006032434
Nutrition and food directors in West Virginia's schools have been informed about possible benzene levels in soft drinks, but they don't plan to start pulling soda machines out of school hallways just yet. Rick Goff, director of the state Education Department's Office of Child Nutrition, said he received a letter Thursday expressing concerns about benzene in soft drinks.
The Food and Drug Administration confirmed last month that scientists have found higher levels of benzene than what is legal for water in some soft drinks. The government agency said the levels are sporadic and nothing to cause public concern, but one nonprofit group believes that is reason enough to stop the sale to students. "It is irresponsible to provide to schoolchildren products that are unhealthy and may contain a carcinogen," wrote Oregon-based Commercial Alert. "Please, halt the sale and marketing of soft drinks that contain ascorbic acid and sodium or potassium benzoate, until you can look parents in the eye and assure them that their children will suffer no harm."Combining the chemicals, which are commonly found in sodas, can create the benzene levels.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers benzene a carcinogen linked to cases of leukemia. The nonprofit organization's request was sent to state school superintendents across the nation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture forwarded it to Goff, he said. "Rather than push the panic button, we need to look into this," he said shortly after reading the memorandum. "Clearly, if there's a health risk to children involved, we need to determine it." Goff later forwarded the message to county food service directors. "We are not disseminating this information to alarm anyone but to inform you of this situation," his e-mail said. "Our office will continue to provide updates on this subject as we receive them."
Kanawha's child nutrition coordinator, Stella Young, said it's too early to do anything about the issue raised, but she said she has notified the superintendent.
This isn't the first time higher benzene levels have been found. Fifteen years ago, the FDA found lower levels, but did not alert the public. Companies that produce the soft drinks said they would remedy the problem. The findings last month found that up to four times the legal limit -- 5 parts per billion -- of the chemical can be found in some drinks. This isn't the first time soft drinks in schools have come under fire, either. They've been blamed for obesity, diabetes and attention disorders in the past.
Last year, Gov. Joe Manchin introduced a bill to rid schools of all soda sales. As it stands, state policy limits the sale of soda in high schools and prohibits it during the day in middle and elementary schools. Schools have worked to control what students consume. The dducation department disagrees with the sale of soda in schools, Goff said. Still, some schools receive funding from the companies that supply the drinks and legislators have yet to agree with a complete ban. In 2004, the West Virginia Board of Education began requiring schools that sell sodas to provide other options, such as milk and juice. "Our biggest concern is the safety and health of the children," Goff said.
by Laurie J. Flynn, New York Times
March 25, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/business/25recycle.html
Gov. Christine O. Gregoire of Washington yesterday signed into law a bill mandating that electronics and computer companies pay for the recycling of old equipment, enacting the nation's most far-reaching electronic waste law to date. The law places financial responsibility for the recycling on the companies that sell equipment in the state, rather than on consumers, as many manufacturers had hoped. "This is truly landmark legislation for Washington," said Mo McBride, a representative of the Washington Environmental Council. The law calls for a statewide electronics recycling program to be in operation by June 2009.
Washington becomes the fourth state to enact legislation requiring the establishment of a statewide program for recycling electronic waste. California's law requires that customers pay a recycling fee when they buy a computer or television. Maine and Maryland's laws are similar to Washington's in placing responsibility on electronics providers, but neither go as far in establishing a system of collecting, transporting and processing electronic waste. Another 19 states are considering some form of legislation on electronic waste.
Such waste is quickly becoming one of the nation's fastest-growing environmental problems. Last year, businesses and individuals in the United States replaced 65 million personal computers and discarded 130 million cellphones. Some 20 million to 24 million televisions and computers are stored in homes and offices because their owners do not know how to dispose of them properly, according to the Computer Takeback Campaign, an environmental group pressuring lawmakers to pass electronic-waste regulations.
Proponents of the Washington law say they hope its passage will help other states move forward despite substantial opposition from television manufacturers. "Legislators want to have somebody else go first," said Barbara Kyle of the Computer Takeback Campaign. Sega Jackson, principal planner with the Snohomish County Solid Waste Division in Washington, said that placing the financial burden on manufacturers gives them an incentive to reduce the hazardous materials that they use. Discarded TV's and PC's can contain as much as eight pounds of lead, as well as mercury, cadmium and other substances that are harmless when part of a piece of equipment but a health risk when they reach a landfill.
According to the new law, no manufacturer can sell an electronic product in the state unless the manufacturer is participating in an approved electronic waste recycling plan. The Washington law received support from several large electronics providers, including Hewlett-Packard and Amazon.com.
by Dee DePass, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
March 25, 2006
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/329759.html
After the recall of Reebok lead bracelets that fatally poisoned a 4-year-old Minneapolis boy, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is recalling two other toy-jewelry products that also contain high levels of lead. More recalls are expected.
On Thursday the commission recalled 580,000 mood rings and necklaces sold at Dollar Tree stores around the nation, and about 25,000 photo charm bracelets sold online by Oriental Trading Co. Inc. of Omaha. The trinkets contain high levels of lead, but unlike the Reebok bracelet, they have not caused any deaths or injuries, officials said. About 300,000 of the Reebok charm bracelets were recalled. They had been packaged as gifts inside boxes of shoes sold since May 2004.
Parents were warned to immediately throw away the bracelets. Retailers were asked to return to Reebok any of the items they had left. The recall scramble occurred after Jarnell Brown died Feb. 22 after swallowing part of a bracelet that was made in China with high levels of lead. Lead levels in the boy's body were three times higher than what health officials deem to be dangerous. Upon learning of the boy's death, Reebok contacted the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and requested a "fast-track" recall. The company also sent out advisories to retailers that carried the shoes, Reebok spokeswoman Denise Kaigler said.
As Reebok's investigation continues, safety commission spokeswoman Patty Davis said more recalls are expected because more retailers will voluntarily begin testing the children's jewelry they carry for lead, in accordance with CPSC guidelines. "We are going to have more [recalls] because companies are paying attention and are more aware of our policies. Hopefully that means we are going to get this kid jewelry with high levels of lead off the market," Davis said. The commission was busy Thursday and Friday taking calls from parents and consumers worried about the lead hazard.
Parents were told to toss the bracelets and Dollar Tree mood rings and necklaces in the trash or to return them to the stores where they were purchased, Davis said. The Dollar Tree mood rings are silver in color, adjustable and have a toy "gem" in the center. The necklaces have a black string with silver-colored clasps and a silver charm with a "gem" in the center. They are sold for $1 under the names "Mood Necklace,"Mood Ring,"Glow in the Dark Necklace,"Glow in the Dark Ring,"UV Necklace" or "UV Ring." The recalled Oriental Trading bracelets generally sell online for 50 cents and have a silver-colored metal-heart frame attached to the chain.
Nationwide, consumers have been alerted to various lead hazards involving products marketed to or for children. Consumer Reports Product Safety Director Don Mays said there have been recent scares and recalls involving children's vinyl lunch boxes and even imported cribs that contained high levels of lead. But most concerns have focused on lead-based jewelry. "The consumer product safety commission has announced many recalls recently of kids' jewelry laden with lead. But [the Reebok case] is the first case that I am aware of that has caused a fatality from acute lead poisoning," Mays said. "That is highly unusual. "But the lead hazard in general has been all too common in recent times. Consumer Reports has found the most problems are in the inexpensive dollar stores, where there are not those programs in place to catch hazardous or non-compliant products."
California has proposed a bill to ban the sale or import of jewelry with high lead levels beginning next year. The outcome could have repercussions for the entire nation, as other states opt for tougher laws to protect children. On a national scale, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a new enforcement policy last year aimed at reducing the potential health risks of lead found in children's metal jewelry. The policy gives manufacturers, importers and retailers guidance about what steps to take to minimize the risk for children, and specified which lab tests it will use to analyze lead content.
Consumer product consultant Britt Beemer at America's Research Group said lead-based products are discouraged in the United States but are commonplace in China, where the recently recalled items were made. Beemer said it's not unheard of for U.S. firms ordering products from China to request one type of metal in its specs but to get a different metal because of the low price. "And I suspect that the item is never tested in China" for lead levels and not tested once it reaches the U.S., because the importer doesn't know the metal has changed, Beemer said.
Officials at Marshall Field's, Best Buy Co. Inc. and Target Corp. said Friday that they expect the manufacturers that make most of the products sold in their stores to comply with U.S. consumer safety laws. They added that they have quality and safety assurance policies in place only for those products that carry their own brands. None of the firms could immediately identify just what those policies were, or what specific products are affected or what tests were conducted. Target spokeswoman Lena Michaud emphasized that the company did not sell the line of Reebok sneakers that included the free bracelet.
Davis said retailers, manufacturers and distributors can voluntarily test products for lead content with the help of one or two tests that are typically conducted by labs. The first test measures the overall lead content level in a product. If the level exceeds 600 parts per million, the item is then tested by the lab to see how much of that lead is "accessible," meaning it is capable of entering the human body. Levels above 175 micrograms demand that a product be recalled, Davis said.
by Jeff Alexander, Muskegon (MI) Chronicle
March 24, 2006
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1143217043319020.xml&coll=8
Muskegon County homeowners who demand lush green lawns may soon be required to use different fertilizers to nurture their grass. A coalition of local officials and environmental advocates unveiled a proposal Thursday to ban the sale and use of phosphorous-based fertilizers countywide. Farmers would be exempt from the ban -- which would be the first countywide phosphorous ban in Michigan -- because their use of the compound is regulated by the state.
Experts said phosphorous concentrations in soils in many parts of the county are "off the charts." The result: phosphorous is draining off residential lawns, farms and golf courses when it rains and entering waterways, fueling rampant weed growth and the proliferation of toxic algae that can harm humans, fish and wildlife. "There are days when I'm afraid to canoe on Mona Lake because the algae blooms are so thick I'm afraid they might make me sick," said John McGarry, who lives along Mona Lake and is on the board of the Mona Lake Watershed Council.
The Mona Lake Watershed Council came up with the idea of banning phosphorous-based fertilizers after years of battling thick aquatic weeds. Scientists recently found toxic algae in Mona, Muskegon and Bear lakes, a problem caused in part by excess phosphorous in the water. Excessive phosphorous concentrations are causing the premature aging of many Michigan lakes, including Muskegon, Mona, Bear and Spring lakes, said Alan Steinman, director of Grand Valley State University's Water Resources Institute in Muskegon. Nitrogen and potassium are two other common fertilizers, but those compounds do not pose as great a threat to surface water quality, experts said. Phosphorous provides the energy that makes plants grow, Alan Steinman said.
The proposed phosphorous fertilizer ban is modeled after a similar ordinance in Dane County, Wis. Fertilizer producers challenged the Dane County ordinance in federal court, but the county prevailed and the ban is in place today. Minnesota banned the sale and use of phosphorous fertilizers statewide in 2004.
To read the complete article, please visit http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1143217043319020.xml&coll=8.
by Patrick Springer, The Forum (Fargo - Grand Forks, ND)
March 24, 2006
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=121375§ion=News
North Dakota farm children exposed to pesticides performed significantly lower than their peers in IQ tests, according to preliminary results of a study released Thursday. Researchers at the University of North Dakota studied two groups of children in the northern Red River Valley, one group living on or near an active farm or field, another living at least a mile away from those locations.
Children living on or near farms tested an average of five points lower on standard IQ tests, said Patricia Moulton, an experimental psychologist at UND. "That's a significant difference," she said. The average intelligence score for the farm children was 98, still within the range considered normal, 85 to 115. But it was well below the average IQ score of 103 for the group with lower chronic exposures to pesticides, Moulton said. Each group was comprised of 64 children, a number determined to be statistically sound, ages 7 to 12.
Children living on farms also had lower scores in verbal comprehension, visual perceptual reasoning, memory and mental processing speed, the study found. The study, funded by a branch of the National Institutes of Health, will go on to determine whether there is a correlation between the level of exposure to pesticides and performance on memory, intelligence and other mental functions. "That's just the raw IQ," Moulton said of findings presented to the Dakota Conference on Rural and Public Health. "We're going to look at a dose-response relationship. We're going to be able to associate the test scores with (pesticide) concentrations in the blood and urine." Two earlier studies also found that children living in areas with active pesticide use had lower scores in mental performance tests, but those studies did not take into account level of exposure.
Moulton and her research partner, Thomas Petros, also an experimental psychologist at UND, hope to expand their study on pesticide and mental performance by testing farm children throughout North Dakota, with testing year-round. "We had a huge response to the study," she said. "The farm families were massively interested in the study."
The study is an offshoot of a large epidemiological study that UND researchers are conducting on chronic pesticide exposure and degenerative brain diseases including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis. "I'm not advocating that we get rid of pesticides, because they're very important to farming," Moulton said. Instead, she advocates a "happy medium," by using non-toxic pesticides whenever possible and taking more steps to decrease exposure.
by Jorge Fita-Gibbon, (New York) Journal News
March 24, 2006
The latest delay in the long-debated cleanup of PCBs from the Hudson River has unleashed a wave of criticism -- again. Hudson River environmentalists criticized General Electric Co. for what they called the corporate giant's latest foot-dragging move since being ordered in 2002 to clean the chemicals its plants dumped into the upper Hudson.
While GE contends that the unprecedented size of the project requires more time, one environmentalist called the third delay in the project "obscene," while state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said it was "deeply troubling." "Essentially what we're talking about here is moving mud," said Marc Violette, a Spitzer spokesman. "We want them to do a good job and do it carefully and do it safely. But we're not talking about building a research station on the moon or building a floating platform in the middle of the ocean or building a nuclear power plant." "We're talking about moving mud from a river, straining toxins from it and either putting that mud back into the river or disposing of it properly," Violette said. "In the grand scheme of things, we're talking about relatively low-level technology."
PCBs, which are classified as probable carcinogens, were used in the manufacture of transformers at GE plants at Fort Edward and Hudson Falls until the government banned the chemicals in 1977. By then, an estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, had seeped into the Hudson River. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered GE to dredge the PCBs from hot spots of contaminated sediment. In October, the EPA and GE agreed on the first phase of the dredging, which called for 10 percent of the PCB-contaminated sediment to be removed and processed near Fort Edward. That was supposed to start next year, with plans for the second phase to be worked out by August 2008. But GE now wants to push back the start date from 2007 to 2008.
GE spokesman Mark Behan said the company was simply trying to do the project right. "The logistics of this project are unprecedented," Behan said. "It's transforming a vacant piece of property into a major industrial environmental facility in a matter of months." Behan said it would take from 12 to 15 months to build a dewatering plant to process dredged sediment; a marine port on the Champlain canal to unload it; a project marina to keep barges and other craft; and nearly six miles of railroad tracks with a depot that can accommodate 400 gondola rail cars. "To clarify, we have not asked for a delay," Behan said. "We have simply advised EPA as to our best thinking at this point about the construction schedule. It will be up to EPA."
EPA spokesman Leo Rosales said the delay was a concern, but making sure it was done properly was a priority. "The primary concern is to make sure that this project is designed safely," he said. "The schedule is, of course, a concern as well. But we have to focus on making sure that they design a safe project and not speed up the project at the expense of safety."
But Robert Goodstein, senior attorney for the environmental group Riverkeeper, said delays also raised serious health and safety issues. "Every delay means more PCBs come down that river," he said. "If they had gone along with the cleanup that they're going to have to do anyway, it would've been started long ago." Judith Enck, policy adviser to Spitzer, said GE had the resources to move faster. "GE is a very capable, global company that can get things done when they want to," Enck said. "The infrastructure needed for this project is not a surprise. They could've started working on it long ago rather than spending precious time trying to get environmental laws thrown out in court or trying to tie agencies in knots. Their time would've been better spent preparing for this project."
WWAY NewsChannel, Wilmington NC
March 22, 2006
http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4667893&nav=menu70_8
Environmental toxins that harm a child's brain development and other aspects of health are much more likely to affect poor or minority kids than youngsters from white or more affluent families, a U.S. study shows. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, also believe that local, state and federal policies aren't doing enough to correct these inequities. The findings appear in the March/April issue of Child Development.
All children are at risk of harm from exposure to toxic pollutants. But children living in poverty, especially black children and the children of migrant farm workers, are at significantly greater risk, the Wisconsin team said. For example, even though overall rates of childhood exposure to lead continue to fall in the United States, black children living in poverty continue to be at much greater risk of high lead exposure than white children. Childhood lead exposure is associated with lower IQ scores, higher levels of restlessness, inattention and aggression -- all factors that can affect cognitive ability and school performance. "Lead exposure gives these children an unfair start in life in addition to placing additional burdens on schools serving disadvantaged populations," study author Janean E. Dilworth-Bart, an assistant professor of human development and family studies, said in a prepared statement.
Despite the threat, enforcement of lead-abatement policies varies widely by state. The study also noted that children of migrant farm workers who live close to farm fields have much higher rates of exposure to pesticides than other children. "Many pesticides have the potential to disrupt brain development because they are neurotoxins," Dilworth-Bart said. "The federal Worker Protection Standards (WPS) are intended to reduce the exposure of farm workers to pesticides while at work and, indirectly, reduce the pesticides they track home to their children," she said. "However, research shows poor compliance with the WPS -- work settings sometimes lack fundamentals such as soap, water and towels for proper hand washing."
Dilworth-Bart and her colleagues noted that social inequities also exist for exposure to other pollutants, such as industrial waste and PCBs, methylmercury from fish, and noise and air pollution.
by Jane Kay, San Francisco Chronicle
March 22, 2006
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/22/BAGP6HS4IF1.DTL&type=science
Food industry and health groups nationwide are closely watching a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court that will reach a milestone Friday when a judge hears state attorneys claim that big canners are breaking the law by failing to tell consumers about mercury in tuna fish. Not so, say lawyers for defendants StarKist, Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee. Their popular product makes a delicious and healthful sandwich, and doesn't fall under the purview of Proposition 65, the initiative passed by voters 20 years ago to rid toxic substances in consumer products, food and water, they say.
The state sued in 2004 under Prop. 65 to force the tuna canners to warn of the risks of mercury, a potent neurotoxin. The companies already face penalties of $2,500 a day per violation dating back to June 2000, and the amount is growing every day as they refuse to warn, state attorneys say. On Friday, lawyers for the warring sides go back to the San Francisco court after 24 days of trial last year to present their final arguments before Judge Robert L. Dondero. The judge could rule in the coming weeks.
Industry and health groups are closely watching for Dondero's decision. Although his findings would affect only this case, they could bear on California's ability to enforce cases involving chemicals in food under Prop. 65, which could influence what others states do. State food-labeling laws already are under attack in the U.S. Congress. Prop. 65 has been used to rid bottled water of arsenic, and calcium supplements, dishes and caps atop wine bottles of lead. Other suits charge manufacturers with failing to warn about lead in some balsamic vinegars and Mexican candy, and about acrylamides produced by high heat in french fries and potato chips.
Mercury is particularly damaging to the developing brain and nervous system, scientists say. In children, mercury can impair intelligence and, in high levels, cause permanent brain damage. In adults, it can harm the nervous, cardiovascular and reproductive systems. "This is the classic Prop. 65 case. It's exactly how Prop. 65 is intended to operate,'' said Sue Fiering, a deputy attorney general who is arguing in court. "If women are given this information, it enables them to make choices to protect their children."
The nonprofit Public Media Center in San Francisco filed the original suit in 2001 against the parent companies, Tri-Union Seafoods, Bumble Bee Seafoods and Del Monte Corp. Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office joined in 2004. The suit alleges that the companies failed to warn potential buyers about the risks of canned tuna. The state wants informational signs in the aisles or other advisories. "We have a healthful product that everyone should eat, including pregnant women and women of child-bearing age. Studies show that if they don't eat fish, including tuna, their children will suffer," said Forrest A. Hainline, an attorney with Pillsbury, Winthrop in San Francisco, which represents the canners.
"Prop. 65 warnings would frighten people away," said Hainline. The companies argue that Prop. 65 warnings would conflict with the FDA's advisories on mercury in seafood; thus, federal law pre-empts state law. The FDA issues advice on its Web site and in mailings to health officers.
Last year, a year after lawyers for the tuna canners requested it, then-FDA commissioner, Lester M. Crawford, wrote a letter to Lockyer saying California's move to secure warnings conflicted with the federal role. Two weeks ago, the House passed a bill that manufacturers, retailers and other allied businesses had wanted for the past three years. The bill, which now goes to the Senate, would prohibit states from requiring disclosures on food. An amendment would allow states to issue warnings about the health effects of mercury in fish.
Lockyer, who opposed the bill along with other state attorneys, is arguing in the tuna trial that the FDA's warning system isn't protective enough for the people of California. Some women don't have computers and would miss federal advisories. And just because the FDA can require labels revealing additives in food doesn't mean that states can't require similar warnings, yet aimed at a wider audience. "We can require anything unless it's actually prohibited by FDA," said Ed Weil, a deputy attorney general who coordinates Prop. 65 cases.
The trial has relied heavily on testimony from experts with differing conclusions about safe levels of canned tuna consumption. One of the prime arguments of the companies is that consumers eating canned tuna wouldn't be exposed to mercury above the state's guideline. A San Jose toxicologist, Jay Murray, who also does work for the trade group, the U.S. Tuna Foundation, came up with a level from a study that produced observable health effects in rats. He then averaged that level over 60 days, citing a study showing that people generally eat canned tuna every two months -- and concluded that the exposure would be below the level that could hurt the rats.
The state brought in Deborah Rice, who was one of three EPA scientists who prepared the agency's safety guidelines on mercury. Now a health official in Maine, Rice testified that it's not necessary to rely on a small rat study when the EPA and other agencies look at studies of human populations. She also testified that with some toxic chemicals, it's inappropriate to average an exposure over time. A single high dose of mercury could have an effect on a fetus, she said.
The companies also argue that mercury occurs naturally in the ocean, meaning the businesses can't control what happens in nature, putting outside the purview of Prop. 65. Only up to 5 percent of the mercury in the ocean comes from industrial sources, Princeton University geophysicist Francois Morel testified at the trial. But testifying for the state, William Fitzgerald, a nationally known mercury-cycling expert from the University of Connecticut, said that about 50 percent of the mercury deposited in the ocean could come from industry.
In 2003, the state sued California supermarket chains, and they agreed to post interim warnings at the fresh and frozen fish counters. The parties are trying to resolve the issue of past penalties. Andronico's was the only market to settle the case, and it voluntarily posts warnings in the canned tuna aisle. In 2005, after the state sued, 20 restaurant chains began to warn about mercury in fish, putting placards near the entrance.
by Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times
March 22, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cancer22mar22,0,7938985.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines
Despite two decades of cleaning up carcinogenic fumes from cars and factories, Californians are breathing some of the most toxic air in the nation, with residents of Los Angeles and Orange counties exposed to a cancer risk about twice the national average. A nationwide, county-by-county snapshot of the cancer threat posed by air pollution provides a troubling portrait of California, revealing that many potent chemicals still pose an excessive risk.
New York tops the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list, followed closely by California, while rural residents of Wyoming, South Dakota and Montana have the least chance of contracting cancer from breathing the air. One in every 15,000 Californians -- or 66 per million -- is at risk of contracting cancer from breathing the air over his or her lifetime, according to the EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, which was released in February and based on emissions of 177 chemicals in 1999, the most recent data available.
In the Los Angeles area, the cancer threat is much higher, 93 per million in Los Angeles County -- or one person in every 10,700 -- and 79 per million in Orange County. The national average is 41.5 per million: one in every 24,000 Americans. Riverside and San Bernardino counties are near the U.S. average.
Although a tiny fraction of all cancers in the United States are caused by chemicals, an array of air pollutants has been shown to cause lung cancer or leukemia in both human and animal studies. Some have been classified as known human carcinogens for 20 years or longer. The biggest contributors, by far, are cars, trucks and other mobile sources that burn gasoline or diesel fuel. "One of the most significant environmental exposures" to cancer-causing chemicals for Californians comes from breathing them, said Melanie Marty, chief of air toxicology and epidemiology at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. "People should understand that mobile sources have very large impacts on health. It's not just asthma and heart disease. It's cancer too."
A Times review of the national assessment as well as other, more up-to-date federal and state databases shows that the levels of most carcinogenic chemicals have declined substantially in California in recent years. Nevertheless, for at least 10 chemicals, Californians are still exposed to higher cancer risks than the levels considered acceptable under government guidelines. "The key thing here is recognizing that we still have a huge problem," said Janice Nolen, the American Lung Assn.'s national policy director. "While we are headed in the right direction, we have to figure out what more we can do. Clearly, having so much benzene [and other chemicals] in L.A. that you have a 93-in-a-million risk factor for cancer is not acceptable."
California officials say the danger is far worse. They have calculated a cancer risk that is about 15 times higher for the Los Angeles region because they included diesel exhaust, which was excluded from the EPA's numbers, and ranked other chemicals as more potent than the EPA did. When exhaust from diesel engines -- which scientists consider the biggest cancer threat -- is included, one in every 714 residents of the Los Angeles Basin (1,400 per million) could contract cancer from air pollution, the South Coast Air Quality Management District says.
Two ingredients of gasoline -- benzene and butadiene -- topped the EPA's list of the most dangerous airborne carcinogens. Emitted mostly from car tailpipes, they are responsible for 35% of the cancer risk posed by air pollutants, the EPA data show. Both have been linked to leukemia in human and animal studies. Others with high risks include naphthalene and acetaldehyde, also mostly from vehicles, and chromium, from industries.
The goal of the national assessment is to help identify which sources and areas of the country still need to be targeted by air pollution controls. "These numbers are definitely estimates. They are not etched in stone. But they are the best way, and the only way, to look at risk and inform the agencies about which chemicals are important and should be reduced," Marty said. In the EPA assessment, only New Yorkers faced a bit more danger than Californians, with a risk of 68 cancers per million. Oregon ranked third, largely because of motor vehicle exhaust and smoke from forest fires and fireplaces. Washington, D.C., was fourth, with New Jersey fifth.
Joseph Landolph, a USC expert on chemical carcinogenesis who serves on state and EPA scientific advisory panels, said he was surprised that California remained so high on the list despite decades of regulation. In 1983, the Legislature enacted a landmark law regulating toxic air contaminants, and since then, state and local air quality officials have set the nation's most stringent controls on vehicles, fuels and industries.
To view the entire article, please visit http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cancer22mar22,0,7938985.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines.
by Scott Canon, Kansas City Star
March 21, 2006
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14147131.htm
Nonstick technology is, demonstrably, everywhere. It's in the process that makes frying pans slippery. It's in the way carpeting and clothing shed stains. It produces rain gear that keeps us dry even as it lets out the moisture our bodies generate. It lines your carryout box so the grease from your moo goo gai pan won't seep onto your car's upholstery, which might be protected by the same stuff. It's even -- quite commonly and quite unnaturally -- in your blood.Indeed, while the toxic byproducts of Teflon and its industrial cousins may be more common inside our homes than outside, they also are found in Midwestern rain, in arctic snow, in waters of the South Pacific.
Scientists consulted by the government suggest these man-made molecules have the potential to cause cancer or birth defects. And regulators are leaning on chemical makers to ease them out of the factory and, soon after, the marketplace. "We're not arguing so much anymore if this is a harmful chemical," said Tim Kropp, a toxicologist for the Environmental Working Group. "Now the questions are, what are we going to do about this?"
Some in the chemical industry argue that point. They contend the case for danger is yet unproven. Still, the Environmental Protection Agency just proposed stricter rules for the category of chemicals known as perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOA and PFOS, respectively. The regulators called for tighter control of manufacturers because the substances, they say, "may be hazardous to human health and the environment." The EPA cited an international group's bolder finding that the chemicals are, in fact, "toxic to human health."
Last month, a panel of scientists gathered by the EPA concluded that the chemicals -- particularly troublesome because they build up in the body and never break down in the environment -- could cause cancer. Science advisers recruited by the agency to look at studies concluded the chemicals have "shown liver, developmental, and reproductive toxicity at very low dose levels in exposed laboratory animals." Even the industry doesn't challenge the damage to lab rats, only whether those findings translate to humans.
PFOA is a processing aid used in making fluoropolymers. It can also be a byproduct in the manufacturing of fluorotelomers that coat surfaces in stain-fighting fabrics and in food wrapping that resists water, oil and grease. DuPont Co. is the largest maker of PFOA. PFOS was made by 3M Co. and used in similar applications. But 3M announced in 2000 that because the chemical was turning up so widely in people and the environment, the Minnesota company was abandoning the technology for alternative chemistry. It continues to churn out Scotchgard and similar products, but made with new methods. The company still disputes that scientific studies prove the chemicals pose a health hazard to humans.
Meantime, DuPont and seven other companies -- Arkema; Asahi; Ciba; Clariant; Daikin; 3M subsidiary Dyneon; and Solvay Solexis -- have signed a voluntary agreement to cut their plant emissions and product content of the substance by 95 percent by 2010 and to eliminate them by 2015. DuPont was the first to sign on to the voluntary agreement. Yet the company described it as a goal and said the company's ability to eventually abandon PFOA hinges on its success in coming up with something to replace it. "We've looked for over 30 years and we've not been able to find an adequate replacement," said David Boothe, global business manager for Dupont Fluoroproducts.Similarly, Asahi Glass Co. wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson this month that "achieving this goal is dependent on the development, demonstration and availability to AGC of new technology as well as market acceptance of products utilizing this new technology."
The chemicals don't just play a part in easy-clean pans or pants. They are also critical to the manufacture of some computer chips and cables, to engine gaskets and aircraft hydraulics. Businesses and consumers are reluctant to give them up. Partly because products and processes made with shorter molecule chains generally don't repel water and oils as well, and partly because change costs money. When 3M phased out its use of PFOS, for instance, it reported that profits were down $168 million in 2000. Even now, the company relies on PFOA to make fluoropolymers at a German manufacturing plant.
For companies such as DuPont and 3M, the abandoning of chemicals they have played such a prominent role in producing creates an awkward situation. (Last year, DuPont agreed to pay $16.5 million to settle EPA claims that it withheld records on potential health risks associated with the chemical after its discovery in groundwater near a West Virginia plant.) Both companies concede that their man-made chemicals are now spread wide in the environment and regularly found in Americans' bloodstreams -- in 96 percent of people in some studies. They acknowledge, as well, that it is bioaccumulative -- meaning that a person's level of contamination only increases over time.
Still, the firms insist the molecules are not proven to hurt people. Specifically, they cite studies of their own workers that have shown elevated levels of the long carbon-fluorine chains that make up the PFOS and PFOA -- without any corresponding levels of health effects. "We have decades of monitoring 3M employees and seen it in their blood and not seen any health effects," said Bill Nelson, 3M spokesman. Experts are torn by the conflicting evidence. What damages cells in a petri dish may not hurt animals. What causes cancers and other illnesses in laboratory animals may not translate to a danger in humans.
Joseph DeSimone, director of the National Science Foundation's Science & Technology Center for Environmentally Responsible Solvents and Processes, called it "compelling that the people who work for DuPont and 3M appear unharmed." He also said that may only be a part of the relevant picture. Studies on workers don't look directly on the effects of pregnant women, fetuses in the womb, children or the elderly. Besides, he said, the direction set by the EPA means "the writing is on the wall" -- companies will have to move away from the technology.
Pressure is rising. The United Steelworkers, with membership in many of the chemical plants, recently joined environmental groups in calling for PFOA products to carry hazard warnings under a California law. Union spokeswoman April Dreeke said that mounting studies of both humans and laboratory animals suggest the danger is real. "We can no longer conclude (the chemicals) will not present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment."
Lawsuits could be on the horizon. New York environmental law firm Weitz & Luxenberg posted a Web site article stating it "is preparing to help thousands of individuals who may have been harmed." Retooling factories and redesigning manufacturing operations takes time and cash. But Paul Anastas, the director of the American Chemical Society's Green Chemistry Institute, said it can be done. "We know how to design these molecules," he said. "You have to be determined to innovate."
The details
Where are PFOS and PFOA, the man-made chemicals, found?
Industry and environmentalists disagree over the danger to humans, but those worried about the effects of the chemicals suggest:
by Polly Curtis, The Guardian (UK)
March 21, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1735687,00.html?gusrc=rss
Parents were yesterday warned by researchers that levels of pesticides previously thought to be harmless could cause cancers in babies and young children. Liverpool University scientists argue that low levels of chemicals from pesticides and plastics could affect the development of babies before they are born and increase their likelihood of developing cancer later in life. The organochlorines also accumulate in breast milk, raising the possibility that babies are vulnerable while breastfeeding, Professor Vyvyan Howard and John Newby say.
The research will prove controversial as the link between low levels of pollutants and cancers has been disputed in the past. Cancer Research UK urged people to be cautious about the paper, which involved a systematic review of all the evidence to date, and called for further thorough investigation. But the researchers claim the evidence suggested the link was "feasible" and enough for parents to consider switching to organic diets to avoid contamination. The authorities should revisit regulations on acceptable levels of chemicals, they argue.
Writing in the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, they say that research indicates that the dangers of pesticides for children have been underestimated. "We're talking about chemicals which could potentially cause cancer in children at parts per billion and parts per trillion levels, rather than parts per million and thousands," Professor Howard, who is on the government's advisory committee on pesticides, told the Guardian. "Preventative measures for these types of cancer have focused on educating the public about the danger of tobacco smoke, improving diet and promoting physical activity. We should now, however, be focusing on trying to reduce exposure to problematic chemicals."
He stressed that the benefits of breastfeeding still far outweigh any risk and parents should not be put off breastfeeding as a result of their analysis. The paper examines the evidence that some pesticides and plastics, which people are exposed to through food, air and water, can affect hormone production, leading to hormone-dependent malignancies, such as breast, testicular and prostate cancers. It concludes that while population studies had not conclusively proved a link between lower levels of the potentially carcinogenic chemicals and people of any age, some animal studies have indicated the link.
There was further evidence that some people might be genetically predisposed to being vulnerable to the chemicals."It seems to be the most vulnerable members of society: the developing foetus, the developing child and adolescent and the genetically predisposed, who are at risk of developing cancer following involuntary exposure to environmental contaminants," the study says. "This may be an appropriate time for governments to adopt the precautionary principle until substances to which members of society are involuntarily exposed are proved safe from long-term, low-level effects on human health."
Professor John Toy, Cancer Research UK medical director, said: "People should not be alarmed by this study -- it is a review of previously reported research and does not present new findings. The authors suggest that it is feasible that certain chemicals could be a factor in causing cancer but do not find compelling scientific evidence to prove a link."
Jamie Page, chairman of the Cancer Prevention and Education Society, which supported the research, said: "This research is very important and suggests that there are links between chemicals and cancer. It is our opinion that if progress is to be made in the fight against cancer, far more attention and effort must be made to reduce human exposure to harmful chemicals." Peter Melchett, of the Soil Association, said the study echoed research conducted around the world. "Other research shows that children with organic diets have a big reduction in pesticide levels. If you want to avoid pesticides, eat organic."
FAQ Health concerns
What are organochlorines? An umbrella term for a group of chemicals contained in pesticides and some plastics which are present in the environment and can accumulate in the body when contaminated food is eaten. They are believed to affect hormone production, which has raised concerns about links to hormone-related cancers, such as breast, prostate and testicular cancers.
How can you avoid them? By eating organic food, according to the Soil Association. Although today's research says they can accumulate in breast milk, potentially putting babies at risk, the scientists stress that the benefits of breastfeeding still far outweigh any dangers. Washing fruit and vegetables thoroughly, and peeling them when you can might cut down on ingestion. However, Cancer Research UK, an authority on cancer research, stressed that people should not be alarmed by the research, which is based on existing research rather than new findings.
How are they regulated? A government committee sets limits for the levels of pesticides which can be present in food. The researchers behind today's research are arguing that these need to be revisited because of evidence of a "feasible" link between lower levels and cancers in children.
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4828256.stm
Experts have said people should not be alarmed by research claiming a link between pesticides in food and cancer. A team from Liverpool University reviewed studies carried out in the lab and on animals. The Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine study said it was feasible babies and young adults were at risk from the chemicals. But Professor John Toy of Cancer Research UK said the work did not offer "compelling" evidence of a link.
The review looked at over 300 studies published on the effects of organochlorines, contained in pesticides and some plastics, which may be passed to humans by drinking water, eating meat and dairy products or being breathed in. They are believed to affect hormone production, raising concerns about links to hormone-related cancers such as breast, prostate and testicular.
The researchers say their examinations suggest that, even if healthy adults are not at risk from the low-level concentrations of the chemicals, babies in the womb and those who are being breastfed might be. They suggest the chemicals can be transferred from a mother to baby via breast milk. It is also feasible the risks for children and young adults have been underestimated, they say.
'Reduce exposure'
Professor Vyvyan Howard, one of the authors of the research who is on the government's pesticides advisory committee, said: "For humans the main source of organochlorine exposure is from diet, primarily through meat and dairy products. "Children are exposed to dioxin, a by-product of organochlorines, through food. "Breastfed infants can be exposed to organochlorines that have accumulated in breast milk." He added: "Preventative measures for these types of cancer have focused on educating the public about the danger of tobacco smoke, improving diet and promoting physical activity. "We should now, however, be focusing on trying to reduce exposure to problematic chemicals."
Jamie Page, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention and Education Society, which campaigns to reduce exposure to potentially cancer-causing chemicals, said: "This research is very important and suggests that there are links between chemicals and cancer." But Professor John Toy, Cancer Research UK medical director, said: "People should not be alarmed by this study. "It is a review of previously reported research and does not present new findings. "The authors suggest that it is feasible that certain chemicals could be a factor in causing cancer but do not find compelling scientific evidence to prove a link."
Rosie Dodds, of the National Childbirth Trust said: "While there is reason for parents to be concerned about the level of chemicals their baby is exposed to, it is wrong to suggest that women who are breastfeeding, or who plan to breastfeed, should be more concerned, or indeed refrain from breastfeeding their baby, because of worry about levels of chemicals and pesticides in breastmilk."
by Dorsey Griffith, Sacramento Bee
March 21, 2006
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/medical/story/14232888p-15054919c.html
In a study sure to fuel the controversy about the role of childhood vaccines in autism, scientists at UC Davis have found that a preservative used in some vaccines can disrupt the immune system, at least in mice. Study authors caution the findings do not specifically link use of thimerosal, which contains mercury, to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. "This is not a smoking gun," said Isaac Pessah, the University of California, Davis, toxicologist who led the study for the university's MIND Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "This provides a framework, but not the answer."
Pessah's study is part of a large, federally funded research effort exploring the role of environmental toxicants in autism and other disorders. It will be published this morning in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed publication of the NIEHS. "This is important because it does add to our knowledge of the potential effects of thimerosal," said Cindy Lawler, a program administrator for the NIEHS in charge of the UC Davis research grant. "It provides a good clue for other studies that can be conducted in other animals or in biological samples from humans."
The results come seven years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics asked drug makers to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Except for trace amounts used in vaccine production, thimerosal is no longer used in childhood vaccines. The exception is the flu vaccine; although manufacturers are now producing a thimerosal-free version of the flu shot, the lion's share of vaccine supplies still contains the preservative.
Concerns about the safety of the preservative grew after the Food and Drug Administration concluded that babies up to 6 months old were getting more mercury than considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Several large-scale studies failed to established a link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism. That has not deterred parents who believe their child was developing normally until receiving the recommended childhood immunizations.
Researchers now believe that autism is a disorder -- or group of disorders -- with many possible causes. A prevailing theory is that autism is caused by several genetic abnormalities, which may be the basis for a heightened susceptibility to certain chemical exposures. The UC Davis study is not likely to settle the matter, but it does indicate that the preservative may leave the immune system vulnerable in susceptible groups.
Based on earlier and yet-to-be published studies establishing differences in the immune systems of autistic children from children without the disorder, Pessah looked for clues to those discrepancies. He focused on a type of cell called a dendritic cell, which is responsible for marshalling the body's response to invaders such as bacteria, viruses or other antigens such as vaccine ingredients. "They take up those foreign substances and process them," he said. "Once they do that, they migrate to the lymph nodes to present their information to the other immune cells, which can activate a global immune response."
For his research, Pessah used a mouse strain not particularly sensitive to mercury or other heavy metals, and introduced concentrations of thimerosal comparable to those attained in childhood vaccinations that contain the preservative. "What we found was rather unexpected," he said. "In fact, the dendritic cells seemed to be extremely sensitive to the effects of thimerosal." Specifically, the thimerosal disrupted the normal biological signals that take place in cells, Pessah said. At lower concentrations, the signal disruption caused an inflammatory response; at higher concentrations it caused cell death. "One could imagine that as concentrations of thimerosal vary in the organisms, you could get a plethora of unwanted or uncontrolled effects," Pessah said. And those effects could vary depending on the organism's genetic background, he said.
Many children diagnosed with autism experience immunological problems including gut disorders, allergies and frequent infections. "We now understand one of the ways in which thimerosal could adversely impact the immune system," Pessah said. "We have a target that provides a framework for now studying this in autistic children." Pessah, who directs the Children's Center for Environmental Health and Disease Prevention at UC Davis, hopes now to determine whether dendritic cells from children with autism are particularly sensitive to the effects of thimerosal, various forms of mercury and other environmental toxicants.
Rick Rollens, the father of an autistic boy who has been active in advocating for autism research, said he is pleased that UC Davis has taken on the issue of the potential role of thimerosal. Rollens, recently appointed by the state Legislature to a blue ribbon commission on autism, noted that after years of surges in new autism cases, the numbers of new cases reported to the state have dropped since 1999, when vaccine makers were asked to remove the chemical from their products. Still, Rollens is cautious about the implications of this and other ongoing research. "Until the good science is done, we need to withhold our judgment on what exactly is the cause," he said. "I am very encouraged by this study."
At a glance
What is thimerosal? It is a preservative that has been added to some vaccines and other products because it is effective in killing bacteria and in preventing bacterial contamination. When thimerosal is degraded or metabolized, one product is ethyl mercury.
What's the problem? Scientists at UC Davis found that thimerosal used in some vaccines can disrupt the immune system, at least in mice.
Precautionary measure: In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics asked drug makers to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Except for trace amounts used in vaccine production, thimerosal is no longer used in childhood vaccines, except for the flu vaccine.
A caution: Study authors caution the findings do not specifically link use of thimerosal, which contains mercury, to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. More research is needed.
by Robert McClure, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
March 21, 2006
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/263739_malarkey21.html
The site of an old asphalt and roofing-tar plant beside the Duwamish River contains surprisingly high concentrations of PCBs, new tests show -- up to 900 times the level that normally requires a toxic-waste cleanup. It's a site that the Environmental Protection Agency once thought was closing in on being safe. But citizens in Seattle's South Park neighborhood demanded more extensive testing. The first round turned up the long-lived industrial chemicals at up to 140 times the state's cleanup standards.
This latest round of tests found even higher levels in two spots, both within 18 inches of the surface at the old Malarkey Asphalt plant, the EPA said. However, the EPA and the Port of Seattle, the property owner, stressed that there is no immediate health threat because both spots are covered by asphalt. That makes it unlikely anyone would come in contact with the polluted soil. "Everybody was surprised" by the high levels, said David Schaefer, a port spokesman. "We may have to dig out more material. We hope to do it as much as possible on the same schedule," with cleanup work completed by this fall.
BJ Cummings, coordinator of the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, which spearheaded the call for more-extensive testing, said that with the latest round of tests, "we've got a pretty good idea where the trouble spots are." "This does not present an immediate threat to people coming in contact with the soils," Cummings said. "However, the slow migration of this material out into the river could be quite a serious problem."
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, have been found at high levels in orcas, salmon and other creatures in the Duwamish and nearby Puget Sound. The chemicals are known to harm animals' reproductive and immune systems and are thought to be at least partially responsible for the orcas' failure to rebound. And because of high PCB levels in the Duwamish, the state Health Department recommends that people avoid eating crab and most fish from the river, other than salmon.
The EPA and the port have no intention of allowing the PCBs to remain in the ground long enough to make their way to the river, said Ravi Sanga, the EPA's manager for the cleanup project. The EPA is overseeing the port's cleanup at the site, which also is known as Terminal 117. In May, the EPA and the port expect to offer a proposed cleanup plan for public comment. Work to actually remove the contaminated soils is expected to begin in late summer or early fall. It's important that the work be done during the dry season, officials say, so contaminants are not spread around once the asphalt is removed, leaving the pollution vulnerable to running off in the rain.
As part of the cleanup plan, the EPA and the port will have to say what level of PCBs will be allowed to remain in the ground, and what must be excavated and then either be treated or hauled off to a special landfill. "There's going to be an extensive soil cleanup," Sanga said. "We're going to design a cleanup where there isn't any threat to the sediments in the Duwamish River." If the port proposes to leave any contamination in the ground, it must show that the practice is safe, the EPA says. That could be accomplished in part by restricting future use of the property to industrial, which allows somewhat higher contamination levels to be present.
The river itself is part of a major Superfund site, meaning it numbers among the most-polluted spots in the nation. The port, The Boeing Co., the city and King County all are working on early cleanups at sites along the river. City taxpayers are on the hook for at least part of the cleanup because Seattle City Light provided PCB-contaminated oil to the asphalt plant during the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s after it was drained out of City Light equipment. Before their dangers were recognized, PCBs were widely used as an insulating and heatproofing material in electrical equipment.
