At noon on a sunny day with a light wind from the southeast, I only found traces of volatile organic compounds in the air and noticed only a hint of a petroleum smell. But I could imagine how it had been the night before.
Captain Carey is making a little money taking reporters and environmentalists out to look for oil along the Louisiana coastline near Venice. Many of his friends have taken a different job. They are out there cleaning up the oil.
I talked with some of them this weekend, the night before they headed out to start dragging boom. They described the safety training they got from BP, and showed off the containment boom, absorbant boom, and large absorbant pads they were supposed to drag behind their boats.
"It'll be like sweeping the State of Texas with a broom" one said.
"It's just to make people feel better and to make it look like BP is doing something," another added.
"But at least they're paying us well."
Then they showed me the protective equipment they had received: hard hats, safety glasses, coveralls, and gloves. "These are just for the guys who are pulling in the boom. Not for the boat captains" one captain explained.
"Where are the respirators?" I asked.
"Respirators? They didn't give us any"
"Did they explain why not?"
"They said all the chemicals in the air dissipate within a few hours, and we'll be in areas where the oil has been there for a while, so all the vapors will have gone away. Nothing to worry about."
I checked the BP website, Coast Guard website, NOAA website, and EPA website. No data on air levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) offshore. I guess we're supposed to take it on faith that it's safe out there.
That's why I'm out here today with an air monitor.
I don't expect to find anything; I hope I won't find anything. But it's always best to check.
The problem is that we can't get all the way out to the areas where the fishermen are working -- a lot of those areas are closed off, plus we're in a small boat and the sea is rough in the Gulf today. In addition, I realize that we're still far from the spill, and in the heat of mid-day, the vapors are probably going straight up, not hugging the ocean like they might do in the cool of the evening.
But I still found VOC vapors out there.
Maybe I'll need to go back soon.
]]>After the Exxon Valdez disaster, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported an increase in respiratory symptoms, headaches, throat and eye irritation, rashes and other skin problems among the clean-up workers. More recently, a study of beach clean-up workers and volunteers in Spain after a 2002 oil spill found an increase in DNA damage. The long-term significance of this finding is not yet known. In Alaska, a mental health study of residents one year after the spill found that exposed individuals were more likely to suffer from anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.
Here's a summary of some of the scientific studies of the health effects to workers, volunteers, and local residents associated with five previous oil spills:
Exxon Valdez (1989)
The Braer oil spill (1993)
The Sea Empress oil spill (1996)
The Erika oil spill (1999)
The Prestige oil spill (2002)
These studies show that workers and local residents can suffer from health effects after oil spills. The main symptoms are acute headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, irritation of the eyes and throat, and breathing problems. Genetic abnormalities (which are potentially repairable) were also found in some studies but not others. One study reported mental health effects in local residents. These are the health issues we should be watching out for - and protecting against - in the Gulf Coast during the current oil disaster.
The review in this blog comes primarily from a study by Rodriguez-Trigo, et al. Arch Bronconeumology 2007; Vol 43(11): Pages 628-35.
]]>The Louisiana Bucket Brigade had a small army of volunteers meeting outside their offices this morning. They have created a nifty website that allows people to email, text, or tweet their observations about the oil spill and these are instantly posted on a map of the area. They are interested in collaborating on air monitoring efforts.
The Louisiana Environmental Action Network has been down in Venice distributing personal protective equipment to fishermen involved in clean-up activities. They have been gathering information from communities along the coastline and tracking the EPA air monitoring.
The Gulf Restoration Network has been out in their boats documenting the extent and effects of the spill. They are interested in doing independent water monitoring for oil, to check on the EPA sampling program.
The Mary Queen of Vietnam Community Development Corporation gathered nearly 200 fishermen from Texas to Mississippi in New Orleans today for a meeting with elected officials, the Coast Guard, EPA and others. They are trying to help out-of-work fisherman receive appropriate compensation, and information.
The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice organized a meeting today for environmental justice leaders with EPA to obtain more information from the EPA about environmental hazards. They are also trying to get worker training in emergency response and clean-up so that fishermen and disadvantaged Gulf Coast residents can find employment.
These are but a few of the amazing and heroic efforts going on down here. I'm inspired and tired after spending the day with all these amazing groups, and I hope people will check out what these groups are doing, and support them so they can do this work without constraints.
]]>I spent a lot of time in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and the Army Corps of Engineers flooded the city. In October and November of 2005, I led three teams of NRDC scientists and staff to New Orleans to sample air quality for mold, endotoxin, and particulate matter. Our results helped inform returning residents and spurred campaigns to provide appropriate protective equipment for workers and residents. Over the ensuing two years, I returned repeatedly to sample drinking water, sediment, and soil. I got to know all the neighborhoods in the city - not by conventional landmarks such as restaurants - but by sampling locations. I also came to love the place, and I understood why the people of New Orleans passionately and determinedly rebuilt their flood-prone city. I also came to know and love many people who live here, and many of the powerful community-based organizations.
But over the past couple of years I have not been back to New Orleans. My travel schedule has centered on Washington DC instead of the Gulf Coast. Sometimes I missed it.
I wanted to come back to NOLA (as the locals call it), but I didn't want to come back for this.
The Gulf Coast has been hit too hard, and too often. The economy of the region has suffered terribly, as has the physical and mental health of the people. Now the spreading oil offshore isn't visible and can't be smelled from here, but everyone knows it's out there.
Tomorrow I will meet with local leaders and find out what we can do to help. The next day I will go down to view the oil spill with my own eyes. I'll bring as much protective equipment as I can. There's no place to buy respirators and impermeable gloves down in Venice near the spill, and from the reports I'm hearing, people need it.
At dinner tonight I ordered the Gulf shrimp on my salad. After all, it might be my last chance to have Gulf shrimp for a long while....
]]>
You can find answers to basic background questions in my first Q&A post here, and to questions about who’s at risk in my second Q&A post here.
And if you still have health questions I haven’t addressed, please leave them in a comment and I’ll see if I can answer them.
If I want to help with the clean-up, what kind of protective equipment do I need?
A half-face vapor cartridge respirator, rubber boots, and butyl rubber gloves are the absolute minimum equipment needed if you will be in the oil-contaminated zone, or a zone where the dispersants are being used. Skin protection could also include Tyvek arm protectors, or a full Tyvek suit if there's a risk of skin contact. For proper protection, you should be fit-tested for the respirator, to make sure it is adequately protecting you. We are looking for information about places where people can go to be fit-tested. I'll add that information when I can find it. A paper respirator mask and thin latex gloves will not protect you from the oil or from the dispersants that are being used.
What are your recommendations for how local residents should protect themselves?
Avoid areas where oil can be seen or smelled. If you see or smell oil, leave the area right away.
Anyone who experiences difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, or other serious symptoms should seek immediate medical attention.
People are renting out rooms in their homes to the responders. Could this be a risk of possible exposure?
Yes. To limit exposure, people should not wear work shoes or boots into the house, and should have facilities where they can shower and change their clothes before going into homes. If showering and changing is not possible, then all contaminated clothing should be removed before entering the house. Oil-soaked clothing should be discarded in sealed plastic bags. Slightly soiled clothing should be laundered separately from clean clothes.
]]>In my next post, I’ll address health tips for people working on the clean-up. And you can find answers to basic background questions in my first post here.
How do you think the health of local communities around the gulf will be impacted from the oil?
The petroleum vapors and mists can cause a variety of immediate health effects. There are also long-term health concerns because some of the contaminants from the oil (such as heavy metals and PAHs) will remain for a long time in the sediments and accumulate in the food chain. Contamination in fish and shellfish – for many years into the future – may pose a significant risk of cancer and other health effects.
Have you had any reports that the oil is making people sick?
We have been hearing some reports from people along the coast that are noticing the smell of oil. Some people have been complaining of headaches, nausea, cough, and throat irritation. We are collecting reports of health problems.
The Louisiana Department of Health is setting up shelters for those impacted by the air emissions. What do you know about the quality of the air and how it would possibly affect people?
People with underlying respiratory disease, such as emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or even asthma, are at especially high risk of exacerbation from the vapors and aerosols. Petroleum is very irritating to the airways. At high doses (such as might be experienced by workers), it can cause a chemical pneumonia known as “hydrocarbon pneumonia”.
Are there risks to the fishermen and volunteers who are working to clean up the oil and rescue wildlife?
These are the people I’m most worried about. They are getting the highest exposures and they need adequate protection. BP should provide these workers with adequate equipment – but we’ve heard from people on the ground that they might not be getting this protection. In the meantime, volunteers at the Louisiana Environmental Action Network are providing respirators, impermeable gloves, and arm protectors for workers. We’re still dealing with illnesses in the first responders and cleanup workers at the World Trade Center. It is a big mistake to put our first responders and clean up workers at risk again.
Are there risks to pregnant women?
Some of the volatile chemicals in oil have been linked to miscarriage, low birth weight, and preterm birth, so it is a good idea for pregnant women to avoid the areas where there are high levels of VOCs in the air. That means areas where there is a noticeable smell of oil, and also any areas where the EPA monitoring system detects elevated levels. The EPA results are being updated regularly at www.epa.gov/bpspill.
What about risks to children?
Young children should not be allowed near the beach where they could come into direct contact with the oil. Other than this, recommendations for children are the same as for adults.
What about risks to pets?
Pets should not be allowed on the beach in any areas where they could come into direct contact with the oil.
]]>To help answer these questions, I’ve put together a three-part Q&A on what this means for human health. I’ll post the 3 parts of this Q&A over the course of the week, and in this first post I’ll answer some of the basic background health questions I’m hearing about the spill below. In later posts I’ll look at who’s at risk, and health tips for people working on the clean-up – stay tuned.
What’s actually in oil that could be hazardous to health?
Oil contains a mixture of chemicals. The main ingredients are various hydrocarbons, some of which can cause cancer (eg. the PAHs or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons); other hydrocarbons can cause skin and airway irritation. There are also certain volatile hydrocarbons called VOCs (volatile organic compounds) which can cause cancer and neurologic and reproductive harm. Oil also contains traces of heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic, and lead.
How can these chemicals get into our bodies?
VOCs and some of the other hydrocarbons can be inhaled, causing lung problems and other health effects. Skin contact causes irritation and rashes. The oil will contaminate fish and shellfish, causing health risks from eating these foods that could persist for years.
What are the acute health effects from exposure to the oil?
Inhalation of oil vapors or aerosolized particles (from wind-blown waves), can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, irritation of the eyes and throat, and difficulty breathing.
People with asthma or other lung diseases could have serious exacerbations. High-dose inhalation (if people are very close to the vapors) may cause a chemical pneumonia known as “hydrocarbon pneumonia”, which can require hospital care. Direct skin contact can cause various kinds of rashes, including generalized skin irritation, or something known as “folliculitis” from oil-clogged skin pores.
What about if they’re burning the oil offshore?
Burning will release particulate matter, which is harmful to the lungs. To check on particulate matter levels in your area, check out the EPA AirNow website at: http://www.airnow.gov/. If the air is noticeably smoky, or if the levels of particulate matter are high on the EPA website, avoid any strenuous activities outdoors. For people with heart or lung disease, children, or the elderly: consider staying indoors in an air-conditioned room, and change the air-conditioner filter to make sure it is maximally effective.
How does this situation affect the shrimping/fishing industry in terms of the quality of our food?
Apart from the economic disaster to the industry, this spill poses a long-term health concern for the safety of the fish and shellfish. Contaminants in oil can persist for years and accumulate in the food chain, causing elevated cancer risks or neurological risks from exposure to heavy metals such as mercury.
Are there any health concerns associated with dispersants?
Dispersants are somewhat volatile and some will enter the air. Therefore it is really critical for clean-up workers and volunteers to wear personal protection equipment at all times when either applying the dispersant or working near where it has been applied. By the time the dispersants reach shore, they will probably be highly diluted and won’t pose a threat for communities, but this is something we’ll keep an eye on if they start using dispersants close to populations.
]]>The town has been suffering for more than ten years from surprisingly high rates of cancer. A local doctor sounded the alarm, and eventually the government did an investigation. The government's press release at the time the cancer study was released made it sound like there was no problem: "A study of the cancer incidence in Fort Chipewyan finds levels of the rare cancer cholangiocarcinoma are not higher than expected."
The results of the cancer study were never presented to the community, and the government claimed there was no problem. That's where I came in. One of my colleagues asked me to peer review the Alberta Health Services cancer investigation. To my surprise, the actual report did not align with the headlines:
I'm not sure who wrote the press release for the government, but it sure weren't the scientists who actually did the investigation.
It wasn't just the elevated cancer rates that got my attention, however. It was also the types of cancers seen. Leukemias and lymphomas have been linked in the scientific literature to petroleum products, including VOCs (volatile components of petroleum), dioxin-like chemicals, and other hydrocarbons. Biliary cancers have been linked to petroleum and to PAHs (chemicals in tar and soot). Soft tissue sarcomas are very rare and lethal cancers that have also been linked to dioxin-like chemicals and hydrocarbons. It's an interesting pattern -- almost all of the cancer types that were elevated have been linked scientifically to chemicals in oil or tar.
It's especially interesting because little Ft. Chip is located downstream from the largest tar sands mining and oil production operation in the world. Other scientists who also presented their findings to the community today revealed significant increases in toxic metals, PAHs, and related chemicals in the water and sediments of the river downstream from the tar sands.
About 200 community members filled the hall where the scientists and physicians presented their findings. Then the community members spoke. Elders from the Mikisew Cree Nation and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation decried the lack of action by the government and industry. Other community members talked about their own cancer diagnoses, or about the problems they were seeing in the fish, ducks, and wildlife they hunt for food. One man brought a deformed fish to the researchers, asking that it be tested for contaminants. The meeting was long, intense, and important. These people are concerned about their livelihood, and their lives. They are also concerned about the state of their rivers, the lake, and the wildlife.
Afterward, as I flew back to Edmonton on the tiny plane, I looked down on miles of pristine boreal forest dotted with lakes and entwined by rivers. Then the tar sands operations came into view - vast scars on the land, massive sulfur piles, smokestacks creating huge plumes into the sky, and enormous tailings ponds next to the river glimmering with an oily sheen; tailings ponds that are almost certainly leaching contaminants into the Athabasca River, which carries them down toward Ft. Chip.
As I prepare to head down to the Gulf Coast, I wonder what will happen here in Canada. Will the newfound distaste for offshore oil drilling be a boon to the tar sands, thereby worsening the ecological and health situation up here? Or will the public realize that petroleum comes with a price that is too high to pay, and move toward a safer energy future?
]]>
It started with a colleague asking me to investigate the high rates of cancer in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta -- a Canadian First Nations community living downstream from the largest tar sands mining operation in the world. Later today I'll be flying up to Fort Chipewyan for a meeting of the community and scientists to discuss the high rates of cancer and the potential links to the tar sands. More on that soon.
But then the oil bubbling up under the Gulf of Mexico moved toward shore, and people started complaining of health problems. My plans changed fast. Now I'll be traveling from Canada to the Gulf Coast to see the two faces of petroleum's toxicity in one week.
As I pack my suitcase today with fleece and long underwear for the cold of Canada, and lightweight shirts for the heat and humidity of the Gulf, I marvel about the long reach of petroleum into people's lives. It's not usually something we think about at the gas pump.
The tar sands mining has been causing a slow-motion ecological disaster in Canada for years, with discharges of petroleum pollution into the rivers, and evidence of contamination in the fish and waterfowl that people in the North depend upon for their livelihood. Long-term exposure to various petroleum hydrocarbons has been linked to cancer. The community of Fort Chipewyan is suffering from high rates of cancer.
The oil spill is causing a rapidly-unfolding ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, with massive releases of petroleum pollution into the estuaries and contamination of the oysters, shrimp, and fish that people on the Gulf Coast depend on for their livelihood. As I wrote yesterday, acute exposure to various petroleum hydrocarbons can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, cough, and difficulty breathing. People in Louisiana's Gulf Coast are complaining of all these symptoms.
Does it have to be this way?
Maybe these twin disasters are a signal to all of us that it's time to break our addiction to oil and move to clean energy choices. After all, energy conservation, wind, and solar won't kill you.
For more on why tar sands are a terrible idea, check out my colleague Liz Barratt-Brown's blog. Also read here about how the European Union is rejecting tar sands.
]]>Oil is semi-volatile, which means that it can evaporate into the air and create a heavy vapor that stays near the ground - in the human breathing zone. When winds whip up oily sea water, the spray contains tiny droplets - basically a fume - of oil, which are small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs. We know that's happening in the Gulf Coast, because people are reporting a heavy oily smell in the air. Already my colleagues in Louisiana are reporting that people in the coastal community of Venice, Louisiana are suffering from nausea, vomiting, headaches, and difficulty breathing. Knowing the health effects of oil, I'm not surprised.
Oil contains petroleum hydrocarbons, which are toxic and irritating to the skin and airways. It also contains volatile chemicals, called VOCs, which can cause acute health effects such as headaches, dizziness and nausea. Over the long term, many of these chemicals have been linked to cancer, so there are lots of reasons to worry about inhaling them.
Some people are at especially high risk:
Pregnant women - VOCs have been associated with miscarriage, so I would advise pregnant women to leave the area near the spill if they can.
People with respiratory disease cannot afford the additional lung damage from these chemicals, and should evacuate the area if possible.
The EPA is doing air monitoring and posting it on their website, and I will be carefully following the levels of contaminants in the air. I'm disappointed not to see hourly air quality updates, since the winds are dying down and shifting, so rapid hourly reporting would help health workers and local residents respond to the changing conditions.
I'm also worried about the clean-up workers. BP has hired local fishermen to help with the clean-up effort. It's great to provide employment and to involve them in the effort to save the Gulf Coast, but I'm worried. The fisherman have not been fully trained on how to work safely with hazardous materials. Worse still, reports from our Gulf Coast partners indicate that they may not be getting adequate protective equipment. The clean up workers need respirators with vapor cartridges (and need to be checked for adequate fit). They need heavy impermeable gloves, and protection on their arms. Remember, these chemicals can damage the skin and even be absorbed through the skin. This clean-up needs to be done quickly, but it also needs to be done safely. Eleven workers are already dead from the explosion; let's make sure worker and community health is protected from now on.
]]>
But the legacy of Earth Day 1970 also left us with a legacy problem: Toxic chemicals.
Maybe it was because the momentum from the first Earth Day began to fade in 1976, but the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which passed in that year, was a signature flop. As my colleague, Daniel Rosenberg explains in his excellent summary of the flaws in this law:
Poor TSCA. It was intended to stem the rising tide of toxic chemicals to which the public was regularly exposed, in their homes, the workplace and the marketplace. Unfortunately, it started off on the wrong foot , grandfathering the 62,000 chemicals then in use out of new testing and review for safety. In addition, the law was written in a way that has made it extremely difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to establish which chemicals may be harmful and impose regulatory controls on even those that are widely known to be unsafe – carcinogens like asbestos for example – to which people continue to be widely exposed. The list of TSCA’s problems and failures is long, and the cumulative result of those failures is that, 40 years after Earth Day, we continue to be in the dark about the health and environmental effects of thousands of chemicals in use in all kinds of products, and we don’t really have a functioning system for addressing those chemicals that are unsafe or for protecting the public.
How right he is. Thanks to this worthless 34-year-old law, I have spent my entire professional career treating patients exposed to toxic chemicals in their workplaces, communities, and homes, and researching the health effects of chemicals because so little information is available about what chemicals are in our bodies and what they are doing to our health.
Now, as we approach the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, things may be about to change.
Today, Senator Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010. At the same time, Representatives Rush and Waxman introduced the draft Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 [pdf alert]. Both of these bills represent major advances over the status quo. They will give the public much more information about chemicals in the environment and in products, they will require companies to prove that chemicals are safe, and they will authorize EPA to take strong action to address threats to human health and the environment.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sitting down to give both of these bills a very close read. After all, they need to get the science right if this law is really going to work. There are already some issues that need to be fixed if we really want to be sure children will be protected from toxic chemicals. For example, the current legislation could:
There's still a long road ahead until this important job is done. We will need plenty of help to remind legislators that although the chemical companies may have lots of paid lobbyists, their constituents really care about safe chemicals and safe families. More information about the law and about hazardous chemicals is available from NRDC here. Join or get updates from the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition.
]]>So it might seem odd for me to be warning people about the dangers of "antimicrobial" soaps. I should like them, shouldn't I?
The fact is that many of the liquid "antimicrobial" or "antibacterial" soaps on the market contain a chemical called Triclosan. Solid soaps that are sold as "deodorizing" can contain a related chemical called Triclocarban. Both of these chemicals are harmful, and worse still, they are ineffective.
Scientific studies have shown that soaps with Triclosan or Triclocarban are not any more effective at preventing disease than regular soap. These chemicals can penetrate the skin and enter our bodies -- according to the CDC, about 3/4 of Americans have residues of Triclosan in their bodies. Studies have shown that both chemicals are endocrine disruptors, interfering with hormones in our bodies. In male rats, Triclosan causes decreased sperm count, damage to the reproductive system, and disrupted production of androgens. The reason I care about male rats is that male humans have identical hormones and hormone-responses.
When these chemicals go down the drain, they are not effectively filtered out in the wastewater, so they contaminate rivers and streams. In addition to harming aquatic organisms, there is some evidence that they may help to promote the growth of drug resistent bacteria.
Yet it's hard to find a liquid soap these days without Triclosan. I find the stuff in the homes of my most eco-aware friends. I even found it by the sink in one of NRDC's offices! (Yes, I talked to the office manager and they switched brands). People spend over a billion dollars per year on these products because they are marketed as if they're better than regular soap. What a rip-off!
Here's my advice:
Check out NRDC's facts on so-called "antibacterial" soaps here. My colleague, Dr. Sarah Janssen, answers questions about these products here.
The FDA has been working since 1978 on a regulation that would remove Triclosan and Triclocarban from products, but it has never finalized the rule - which is why these chemicals are still sold legally. NRDC has been pressing FDA for action, and we are hoping FDA will make an announcement soon, so stay tuned!
]]>
California has done two important things that U.S. EPA has not:
1) California incorporates a safety factor to protect for prenatal exposure to carcinogens, thereby assuring an extra margin of safety for mothers and children. EPA does not.
2) California considers children to be more sensitive to all carcinogens, unless shown otherwise, whereas EPA’s “Supplemental Guidance on Assessing Cancer Risk from Early Life Exposures” limits the child-protective factors to chemicals with a “mutagenic mode of action”. In order to decide which chemicals might have a "mutagenic mode of action", EPA published a “Framework for Determining a Mutagenic Mode of Action for Carcinogenicity” which requires the Agency to prove that the chemical acts through this specific mechanism based on data which are basically unobtainable for the vast majority of carcinogens. Thus, the two EPA documents together effectively limit any child-protective factors to only a tiny subset of carcinogens.
That last issue – about mutagenic carcinogens – barely passes the laugh test with scientists. EPA’s draft Framework has been criticized by not just one, but two, of EPA’s scientific advisory committees. Specifically, EPA’s scientific advisors have pointed out that requiring clear evidence that a carcinogen is also a mutagen creates a powerful disincentive to test chemicals for mutagenicity. In addition, the Framework shifts the burden of proof, such that no child-protective margin is incorporated to protect kids from carcinogens, unless there is clear proof of mutagenicity. Finally, the definition of mutagen in the Framework document is so narrow as to exclude many cancer-causing chemicals that are likely to disproportionately affect children.
I am pleased that last fall EPA announced that it will consider broadening the definition of mutagen, but the fundamental issue remains that the health-protective intent of employing a margin of safety to protect children from carcinogens is undermined by EPA’s draft Framework.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has done an analysis of data on carcinogens that have actually been tested during different life stages for their potency in causing cancer. Their analysis of how age at exposure affects cancer showed that early life exposures were more potent for many carcinogens, not just those that have a mutagenic mode of action. Thus, California applies child-protective factors to all carcinogens unless there is evidence that they are not needed.
California also analyzed differences in how an infant can detoxify and rid themselves of toxic chemicals compared to an adult. That analysis showed that infants and young children are much less able to rid themselves of some common chemicals including butadiene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzo(a)pyrene. Thus, California requires a science-based factor of 30 instead of 10 be applied when assessing the risk from non-cancer toxicity to account for differences in the way young bodies handle chemicals (compared to adults).
U.S. EPA should take a careful look at California’s approach to protecting children from cancer-causing chemicals in their environment, and should adopt these scientifically-founded strategies in their own assessments.
]]>Congress recognized the overwhelming scientific evidence of children’s susceptibility by writing child-protective language into the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which passed both Houses of Congress unanimously in 1996. Through the FQPA, Congress required EPA to review the safety of all pesticides used on food crops, and, for the first time in any environmental law, specifically ordered EPA to assure the safety of infants and children. Specifically, pesticide tolerances (for allowable residue levels on food) must ensure to a reasonable certainty that “no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure. . .”
One of the FQPA’s most important provisions is that it requires EPA to use an additional ten-fold margin in risk assessments to protect infants and children. EPA must maintain this additional margin to “take into account potential pre– and post–natal developmental toxicity and completeness of the data with respect to exposure and toxicity to infants and children.” EPA can depart from this requirement and use a different margin “only if, on the basis of reliable data, such margin will be safe for infants and children.”
In ensuring that pesticide residues are safe for infants and children, EPA must base its decision on information about: “food consumption patterns unique to infants and children;” “special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, including neurological differences between infants and children and adults, and effects of in utero exposure;” and the “cumulative effects on infants and children of [pesticides] that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” By definition, if there are no data or significant gaps in data, there cannot be “reliable data” sufficient to overturn the presumption of an additional ten-fold margin to protect infants and children.
This approach would seem to be a model for how to assure children are protected from toxic chemicals in their food. But there are two important problems.
The first problem is that Congress left the job half-done in 1996. It was important to take steps to require that children be protected from pesticides, but there are many thousands of non-pesticide chemicals that contaminate food, water, air, and consumer products. To this day, there is no legal requirement that EPA take any additional steps to assure that children are protected from these industrial chemicals. Chemicals that are known to disproportionately affect fetuses, infants, or children, such as bisphenol A, phthalates, brominated flame retardants, TCE, and even arsenic remain in a limbo where there is no clear directive to protect children’s health. Accordingly, EPA actions to date on these chemicals have failed to adequately protect children.
The second problem is that EPA has honored the child-protective language in the FQPA in the breach. In 2006, an NAS committee, on which I served, reviewed EPA pesticide assessments. The committee reported that out of the 59 pesticides with assessments posted on EPA’s website, EPA failed to apply a child-protective factor for 48 chemicals. For five pesticides, the agency applied the full factor of 10 for at least one exposure group and exposure circumstance, such as acute dietary exposure of women of childbearing age. For six pesticides, EPA reduced the factor to 3. In the five cases where the full child factor of 10 was applied, severe developmental toxicity end points, such as multiple malformations and fetal death, were observed in laboratory animals. An updated NRDC analysis focusing on pesticide assessments completed in the past three years found that among 14 recent food-use pesticide assessments, only 2 incorporated the full child-protective factor. Thus there has been little improvement in recent years.
EPA should review the assessments on priority pesticides, especially the highly toxic organophosphate and carbamate pesticides, to make sure that children are protected. Current regulation may be leaving potentially dangerous chemical residues on food, where they could harm infants and children.
]]>After my talk, an elderly physician in the audience stood up. He explained that he had spent his entire career treating patients with thyroid disease in this community. He said: “Now we learn that something in the water may be contributing to thyroid disease. What am I supposed to do about it? More importantly, what am I supposed to tell my patients? Should I tell them not to drink the water?” He went on to say: “I’m not a big fan of Government, but in this case we need the government to get involved and deal with this problem.” I agreed with him. This isn’t something health care providers and their patients should have to struggle with. This is EPA’s job.
Over five years have passed since then, and although California and other states have taken some action on this known endocrine disruptor, the EPA has failed to act.
Meanwhile, other chemicals that are known endocrine disruptors have begun turning up in water. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Toxic Substances Hydrology Program have revealed an unsavory mix of pharmaceuticals, steroid hormones, unregulated pesticides, flame retardants, rocket fuel chemicals, plasticizers, detergents, and stain repellants in both the surface water and the groundwater we rely on for drinking, and in our drinking water itself. The USGS surface water study found a median of seven and as many as 38 chemical contaminants in any given water sample. Among the chemicals most commonly detected in this national survey are known and suspected endocrine disruptors, including various pesticides, triclosan, alkylphenols and alkylphenol polyethoxylates, bisphenol A, phthalates, and steroid hormones.
Unfortunately, so far the response to these findings has tended more toward “killing the messenger” rather than acting on the message. Funding for the USGS water monitoring programs, already small, has been reduced, resulting in major cutbacks in water quality sampling and less data to inform science-based decisions.
Meanwhile, over a decade has passed since EPA last promulgated a regulatory standard for a single chemical contaminant in drinking water. Now there’s a large backlog of chemicals like perchlorate that still have no regulatory standard. Others that were regulated over a decade ago are in urgent need of revision. For example, one endocrine disruptor, a phthalate chemical known as DEHP (di 2-ethylhexyl phthalate), does have a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water, but it’s terribly outdated.
Phthalate chemicals are used in an enormous range of products, such as cosmetic and personal care products, vinyl, medical devices, inks and adhesives. They are also used as inert ingredients in pesticides and until last year were in plastic toys. National monitoring studies have reported phthalates in 10 percent of surface water sources. Phthalates cause lower testosterone levels, decreased sperm counts and lower sperm quality in animals. Exposure to phthalates during development can also cause malformations of the male reproductive tract and testicular cancer. Preliminary studies in humans also show abnormalities in male reproductive development. The MCL for DEHP was set in July 1992. It was based on potential to cause gastrointestinal disturbances, nausea, and vertigo, and is not likely to protect against endocrine disrupting effects. Other phthalates have no drinking water standards at all. Bisphenol A, another known endocrine disruptor from plastics and food cans, has been detected in 20 percent of untreated drinking water sources in the U.S. and in all the monthly samples taken at the drinking water treatment plant in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana in one study. Bisphenol A also has no MCL.
The most recent Candidate Contaminant List, the CCL3, released in October 2009, includes some important drinking water contaminants, including endocrine disruptors such as perchlorate and various steroid hormones such as estriol, estrone, ethinyl estradiol, and mestranol. These are reasonable priority chemicals that deserve scrutiny and action. EPA has an opportunity to move forward with much-needed regulatory action. I hope they do so. It’s boring to sit on the SAB’s Drinking Water Committee and not have any real work to do. Seriously, I hope EPA acts because States shouldn’t have to struggle with these issues in a patchwork, alone, and people shouldn’t be drinking water contaminated with endocrine disruptors.
EPA has the authority and obligation to ensure drinking water safety. EPA should implement testing under the endocrine disruptor screening program for priority drinking water contaminants, including all chemicals on the CCL3, as well as other chemicals in pharmaceuticals and personal care products that have been detected by the USGS in surface or groundwater.
Congress needs to require EPA to prioritize and screen chemicals in drinking water, including mixtures, for endocrine disrupting effects, restore adequate funding for the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), so more data are available on contaminants in our water supply, and reform the Toxic Substances Control Act to require chemical testing, and to require EPA action to promptly regulate the most hazardous chemicals.
I think that doctor down in Riverside must have retired by now, and I don’t even remember his name. But I’m thinking of colleagues such as him every time new data come out on drinking water contamination in communities across the country. What are they supposed to tell their patients? Don’t drink the water? This is why we need government action.
]]>