This year's report is a sea change on the "War on Cancer" not only because of the strong and wide-reaching recommendations that it makes, but it marks the first time the Panel has focused on the role of environmental chemical exposures in cancer in their nearly 40 year history. The report makes many critical statements about the current federal cancer research agenda which "has been limited by low priority and inadequate funding" in studying the role of chemicals in causing cancer, especially when those exposures occur during development. The report also chastises federal government agencies for "not fulfilling their responsibilities to protect public health" by performing the necessary regulatory functions to limit exposure to known or suspected carcinogens, such as asbestos, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene. The report also highlighted the need for reform of federal chemical policy and stronger regulation of chemicals by shifting the burden of proof from the government to the manufacturers with a focus on precaution and prevention. Sound familiar?
Many of the policy recommendations issued by the President’s Cancer Panel align with principles of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, of which NRDC is a founding member.
Some of the Panels recommendations include:
Last month, both the U.S. House and Senate unveiled legislation to overhaul the nation’s outdated chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act. That law has been widely criticized for preventing EPA from regulating even the small group of known human carcinogens, while also failing to keep pace with more recent science. Though the bills differ, each would require chemicals to be assessed for safety as a condition of remaining on the market. My colleague, Gina Solomon has recently posted a blog abou this newly introduced legislation and NRDC has a website where you can keep updated on the progress of this legislation.
In the meantime, the Panel has also outlined actions that inviduals can take to reduce their risk of cancer from environmental exposures. I've summarized some of them here but you can read their full recommendations starting on page xix of the report.
Today I was interviewed live on CNN to talk about why we are concerned about these chemicals and where they are found.
While we wait for FDA to take action, there are things you can do to reduce your exposure to these chemicals. Don't buy things that contain triclosan (sometimes labeled "Microban") or triclocarban. My colleague Gina Solomon has outlined other things you can do to limit exposure in her recent blog post. You can also check government websites for lists of products that contain these chemicals read our fact sheet and other educational materials which explain why we are concerned abou these chemicals.
]]>
The FDA’s letter is particularly illuminating because they admit that these chemicals are no more effective at preventing illness than regular soap and water and that they are concerned about their potential harmful effects, including hormone disruption and the promotion of drug resistant bacteria.
Yet, in their public statement today on the use of triclosan FDA makes two very disappointing conclusions – one is that “data showing effects in animals don’t always predict effects in humans” and two is that “FDA does not have sufficient safety evidence to recommend changing consumer practices at this time.”
Though they have been evaluating the safety of these antimicrobial chemicals for over 30 years but have yet to finalize any regulations, FDA went on to say that they need another year to review the data.
This is just more delay from an Agency that has a hard time keeping up with current science and isn’t doing their job of protecting the public’s health. If FDA doesn’t have any evidence that anti-bacterials like triclosan and triclocarban are effective and they are concerned about potential harmful effects, why wouldn’t they issue a strong consumer warning and initiate a process for removing these chemicals from store shelves?
FDA is supposed to protect our health, not protect the bottom line of chemical companies. We shouldn’t be too surprised as they have taken a less than proactive approach with other chemicals that have ample evidence of causing harm and widespread exposure in the population.
FDA has known for at least 5 years that these products have no more “antimicrobial” effectiveness than regular soap and water and that there was concern for their potential health impacts. The American Medical Association has also expressed concern for these chemicals contributing to drug resistant bacteria and stated "Considering available data and the critical nature of the antibiotic-resistance problem, it is prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products." And a number of countries have already taken precautions and issued warnings to limit their use.
In addition to being no more effective, these “antibacterial” chemicals also pose a health risk.
Animal studies have shown both of these chemicals can interfere with hormones critical for normal development and function of the brain and reproductive system. Triclosan has been associated with lower levels of thyroid hormone and testosterone, which could result in altered behavior, learning disabilities, or infertility. Triclocarban has been shown to artificially amplify the effects of sex hormones such as estrogen and testosterone, which could promote the growth of breast and prostate cancer.
Though these experiments were done in laboratory animals, the results are highly relevant to humans and animal studies are routinely used in making regulatory decisions. Animals and humans share similar hormone systems and it is well established that interference with thyroid hormone can cause harm to the developing brain in humans. We can’t ethically do experiments on humans to see if they develop the same health outcomes as a laboratory rat. Yet, we do know we are being widely exposed to these and other hormone-disrupting chemicals which are likely to be affecting our health.
Surveys of the U.S. population from ages 6 to over 65 have found residues of triclosan in over three-quarters of people. Though triclosan has been measured in house dust, most people are likely to be exposed by applying products that contain triclosan to their skin. One study of nursing mothers found higher levels of triclosan in blood and breast milk of women who used personal care products containing triclosan.
The good news is that because these chemicals are often found on a consumer product label, you can start avoiding further exposure now by reading the active ingredient labels. My colleague Gina Solomon has outlined some of the things you can do to limit exposure in her recent blog post. You can also check government websites for lists of products that contain these chemicals. Share our fact sheet and other educational materials with your friends.
]]>
Though the odds of survival have dramatically improved over the past several decades, prevention of breast cancer has not been a focus of many research efforts. That is, in part, because the causes of breast cancer are not very well understood. Inherited genes account for less than a quarter of breast cancer cases. And though a number of risk factors, such as delaying childbirth until later in life - have been identified, there is good evidence to suggest that exposure to chemical pollutants, is also a significant part of this disease.
In laboratory animals, over 200 chemicals have been linked to the development of mammary (breast) cancer but few are regulated based on this outcome. For example, we know that Bisphenol A (BPA) predisposes laboratory rodents to developing breast cancer, turns on genes associated with aggressive breast cancer in human tissue, and interferes with chemotherapies used in breast cancer treatment. Of the tens of thousands of other chemicals in commerce, most have never been tested in a way that would allow for the detection of their links to breast cancer.
NRDC has been participating in a project, the Breast Cancer and Chemicals Policy project, over the past year to improve the way that chemicals are tested for their links to breast cancer. Chemicals linked to breast cancer should be better regulated and testing to find the most likely culprits is where we have to begin. The project also has identified a way to prioritize testing of the tens of thousands of chemicals for testing.
Today we are presenting the findings of this project at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
California’s Breast Cancer Research Program, the largest state funded breast cancer research effort in the nation, recognized the potential significant impact of environmental chemicals on the development of breast cancer and has launched a Special Research Initiative to promote further research in this area. The first project launched under this initiative was the Breast Cancer and Chemicals Policy research project which was awarded to the UC-Berkeley Center for Occupational and Environmental Health. NRDC was also a partner in this project and I serve as co-director along with my colleague, Gina Solomon who has been a core contributor throughout the project. The project was funded, in part, to develop a report for the State of California during their development and implementation of the Green Chemistry Initiative, a statewide policy initiative to reduce the impacts of toxic chemicals on public health and the environment.
The project had 3 major goals:
Over the past year, our panel of over 20 experts has studied the biology of breast cancer development – including known risk factors and other biological events that precede development of a tumor. We have also identified available laboratory tests that could be used to identify environmental chemicals that trigger these events. For example, chemicals which mimic the female sex hormone estrogen. And finally we have developed criteria for prioritizing the selection of chemicals for toxicity testing. By identifying environmental chemical hazards, the approach developed by the Panel could contribute significantly to breast cancer prevention and could also promote the use of safer alternatives.
Our report is still in draft form and is expected to be finalized by April 2010.
]]>This is an important victory for NRDC because we filed a petition in July 2009 asking the agency to take this action. The petition to list BPA under Prop 65 was based on a 2008 U.S. National Toxicology Program report which concluded that there is widespread exposure to BPA and that is possible that BPA exposure affects human development or reproduction. NTP found "clear evidence of adverse effects" in laboratory animals including fetal death, reduced growth, and delayed puberty from BPA. The report also expressed “some concern” about the impacts of BPA on the development of the brain and prostate gland. Because the NTP is recognized by the State as an “authoritative body”, these conclusions should trigger a Prop 65 listing.
BPA is used in a number of consumer products but I am most concerned about the uses in our food supply. Canned food, infant formula, canned beverages and plastic beverage containers including bottles and sippy cups have been made with BPA. The widespread use of BPA in our food packaging has resulted in contamination of not only our food but also our bodies. Studies done by the US Centers for Disease Control and Protection have found BPA in the body fluids of over 90% of Americans.
A chemical with so many red flags for causing harm does not belong in our food nor in our bodies. We applaud California EPA for taking this important step. The process could take several months before BPA is actually on the Prop 65 list, but manufacturers should take heed now.
In the meantime, NRDC recommends that everyone, especially pregnant women and young children, reduce their exposure to BPA as much as possible.
We have more BPA information and recommendations for avoiding exposure on our website. These include:
Today FDA announced that they now share the same concern as the National Toxicology Program for the impact of BPA on human development and will continue to work with that agency to better clarify these effects by conducting more research. They state this research will take place over the next 18-24 months. In the interim they support the removal of BPA from baby bottles and cups and support those companies that have already removed BPA from their formula packaging. However, they did not go so far as to tell the public that they should be avoiding BPA or that they should switch to BPA-free baby bottles or infant formula.
While this announcement is an improvement from their previous conclusion that FDA was safe in our food supply – it is too little, too late. They have finally caught up to another federal agency’s scientific report that was finalized over a year ago. Since then, even more scientific evidence has been published reinforcing that exposure to BPA during vulnerable periods of development is harmful. FDA should have advised parents to stop using BPA baby bottles and switch to BPA free formula NOW while they determine their regulatory authority to implement a formal ban.
More research is always a good idea but there comes a time when we know enough to act and that time has come for BPA.
Also, they have not acknowledged the impacts of BPA on adults. Biomonitoring data shows that babies are being born with BPA already in their blood, which means that they are being exposed through their mothers before they are born. FDA's announcement will not do anything to prevent pre-birth exposures.
Furthermore, BPA exposure in adults has been associated with miscarriage, erectile dysfunction, heart disease and diabetes.
Today’s announcement is also in conflict with statements made last month by the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Dr. Linda Birnbaum, told a reporter that consumers “absolutely” should be concerned about BPA exposures and that there is enough uncertainty about its safety to caution people to avoid it in food contact items. At a Senate hearing several months ago on the need for chemical policy reform, she compared BPA to other notoriously toxic chemicals like PCBs, lead and mercury.
FDA’s announcement today has only created more confusion and has not given parents the clear advice they seek on how to reduce BPA exposure in their families.
NRDC recommends that everyone, especially pregnant women and young children, reduce their exposure to BPA as much as possible.
We have more information BPA and recommendations for avoiding exposure on our website. These include:
]]>
First, they said we would hear something by the end of the summer. Then they said we would hear something by the end of November. But in the past 2 weeks we haven’t heard anything from FDA about where they are in their process or when we might hear their decision.
In the meantime, the scientific community continues to be troubled by the mounting evidence of this chemical’s toxicity. In just the past few months there have been several new scientific studies which have further raised concern about the human health effects of BPA.
In October, a study was published which showed that girls whose mothers were exposed to higher levels of BPA during pregnancy were more aggressive and hyperactive at age 2 than other girls who were exposed to lower levels of BPA. In November, a study of Chinese factory workers found men working in factories with high levels of BPA in the air were more likely to report problems with sexual function, including trouble with erections, than other factory workers who were not exposed to BPA.
Then, just a few days ago, the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Dr. Linda Birnbaum, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that consumers “absolutely” should be concerned about BPA exposures and that there is enough uncertainty about its safety to caution people to avoid it in food contact items.
Dr. Birnbaum’s statements are important because they mark the first time a U.S. federal health agency, in this case the Director, has said the public should be concerned about BPA. And it marks the first time anyone of authority in the U.S. government has recommended avoiding exposure. Since NIEHS is a research agency and not a regulatory agency, we need FDA to take the next step and heed the advice of not only Dr. Birnbaum but the dozens of other scientists who have expressed concern and recommend avoiding BPA exposure. In the past, the FDA has relied on the use of studies funded by the chemical industry who have also been strategizing on ways to convince the public that BPA is ok.
NRDC agrees with the majority of the scientific community and does not think BPA exposure is safe. We recommend that everyone, especially pregnant women and young children, reduce their exposure to BPA as much as possible.
We have more information BPA and recommendations for avoiding exposure on our website. These include:
Because this was a small study, this study is just a snapshot of what people eating canned food might be exposed to, but we can assume that, in general, most canned food contains some level of BPA. The bad news is that you can't know for sure which canned foods are most contaminated.
The good news is that it is possible to eat your vegetables and have them be BPA-free. Tests of frozen food or food packaged in box or pouch contained much lower or non-detectable levels of BPA. Curiously, Hunt's canned tomato sauce contained low BPA levels - similar to those found in frozen food - which suggests it is possible to can food with little to no BPA contamination.
Why am I concerned about BPA? BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical that acts like the female sex hormone, estrogen, and can interfere with normal development and function of the body. In animal studies, developmental BPA exposure has been linked to prostate cancer, breast cancer, pre-diabetes (insulin resistance), changes in fat metabolism, and changes in the way the brain develops resulting in behavioral abnormalities. Emerging human research has found similar evidence of harm. And all of us are exposed; over 90% of Americans tested by the CDC were found to have residues of BPA in their bodies.
The Consumer Reports study rightly points out that BPA exposure from eating canned food represents a risk to human health. Their study has been disputed by the chemical industry who cling to the results of flawed studies they funded.
The FDA relied on these same industry studies when concluding that current levels of BPA exposure are safe. However, the FDA is currently re-evaluating the safety of BPA after their own scientific advisors sharply criticized them for doing an "inadequate" analysis. FDA is expected to announce an updated of this process at the end of this month and in December the EPA is expected to announce their "action plan" for evaluating the toxicity of BPA.
While it is great that many companies and retailers are voluntarily replacing their use of BPA in consumer products like baby bottles, sippy cups and maybe even some food packaging, we should not assume that just because a product is "BPA-free" means that it is safe.
Often we have little to no information about the replacement chemicals being used and the current law intended to protect us from toxic chemicals is so weak and broken, there is no functional system in place to protect us from toxic chemicals! Fortunately, there is a momentum building to reform this broken law and put in place a new law that will prevent us from having to worry about whether the replacements are really safer.
In the meantime, NRDC recommends that everyone, especially pregnant women and young children, reduce their exposure to BPA as much as possible.
We have more information BPA and recommendations for avoiding exposure on our website. These include:
Though we are encouraged that the new FDA administration is responding to the harsh criticisms of their last evaluation of BPA in food containers, we remain concerned that the Agency staff conducting the reevaluation have a history of close contact with the industry and relied on industry studies to conclude BPA is safe. I've blogged previously about all the health concerns that have been linked to BPA exposure.
We could have guessed that with all the renewed scrutiny at the FDA and several states considering BPA bans, including California, that the industry is going to go into full defense mode to protect the blockbuster sales of this chemical, estimated at over $6 billion dollars per year. Just last month, they pulled all the plays out of their exposed playbook, including claims that canned food would disappear from store shelves if BPA were regulated.
Over the weekend, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote another story about industry ploys to keep BPA in the marketplace. This latest article details new tactics being used by the plastics industry to downplay the risks of this chemical and to discredit any health claims made against. They not only used some of the same tactics as the tobacco industry, they used the same lobbyists! We all know how successful the tobacco industry was for so long in keeping their product from being regulated. Now that they have been publicly shamed, the BPA industry is hoping we won't remember and be fooled again. The tactics being used to keep BPA from being regulated and banned include not only influencing the BPA assessment at the FDA but also putting up information on the internet sites such as YouTube, MySpace and Twitter disguised as independent information with no links to the sources. The newspaper story reports the plastics group has also launched a $10 million campaign targeting young adults.
In addition to this industry spin, we learned last week that the manufacturer of a popular water bottle, Sigg, is now admitting that their bottles used to contain BPA.There is bound to be backlash against this company for not being upfront about what chemicals were used in the lining of their bottle and for marketing their product as "BPA-free". Consumers should be wary of buying any aluminum water bottle as many are still made with an epoxy resin lining that contains BPA and can leach significant levels depending on the quality of the product.
So what is an unsuspecting consumer to do? The same advice that we have given previously still applies. Check out our fact sheet on BPA and other plastics for things you can do to reduce your exposure.
In the meantime, NRDC will continue to press FDA to make decisions based on the today's overall weight of evidence, which strongly suggests that BPA is dangerous for developing fetuses and young children. We also will continue to support state efforts to ban BPA in products. If you are in the Sacramento area, please come join us at a rally at the Capitol this Wed. to support a BPA ban in baby bottles, sippy cups and infant formula.
]]>To a scientist like me, this type of legal-speak is baffling, yet we were hearing a lot of it from the industry lawyers in California today. It clearly tripped up a Governor-appointed panel when they considered whether to list BPA as "known to cause birth defects or reproductive harm" under California's Proposition 65 - a landmark consumer right-to-know law. The panelists were confused and struggling with one of the most widespread and scientifically complex toxic chemicals in use today, and they finally threw up their hands in defeat. The committee's vote not to list this chemical was influenced by a 90 minute industry presentation that came straight from their formerly secret "playbook", which relies on casting doubt on the extensive scientific evidence of harm. I feel pure outrage when political and legal tactics put the health of babies and children at risk.
Fortunately, today's vote was far from the last word on this issue. We have the science on our side... and we also have a few lawyers of our own. Today we filed a legal petition with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) asking them to take another - more careful - look at this issue. Specifically, the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there is widespread exposure to BPA and that is possible that BPA exposure affects human development or reproduction and found "clear evidence of adverse effects" in laboratory animals including fetal death, reduced growth, and delayed puberty from BPA. The committee ignored this important information, and we believe it needs to be considered and the public must be warned.
Other efforts to protect the public are moving ahead, notwithstanding today's vote. State legislation pending in California and already passed in Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago and Suffolk County, NY to ban BPA in baby products is now even more important. Federal chemical policy reform is also desperately needed to reform the way industrial chemicals are tested and used in this country. Chemical manufacturers should be required to prove their products are safe before they are put in products and released into our bodies and the environment. And the public has a right to know about the health and environmental risks posed by new and existing chemicals, and where those chemicals are being used. My colleague, Daniel Rosenberg, has previously blogged about BPA as a perfect example of how our current chemical policies fail to protect us.
It's clear that we need as many tools as possible to properly protect children's health from corporate interests, and that the California Assembly needs to take a stand and protect babies from this hazardous chemical. We are also looking to the FDA to complete a thorough and un-biased assessment of BPA and to take action to protect consumers.
The panel's conclusion that BPA is not "known to cause" reproductive harm flies in the face of the National Toxicology Program report finding "clear evidence" of harm. For many parents - myself included - that is plenty of evidence, and the actions by various state and local legislative bodies show that there is more than enough evidence to justify regulation.
]]>
This chemical has been in the spotlight quite a bit over the past several years and will be again this week in California when the State considers listing BPA on the "Prop 65" list of chemicals known to be developmental and reproductive toxicants. A listing could prompt warning labels on certain products.
Most new parents are already convinced of the danger and have been avoiding BPA like the plague. It is used in baby bottles, sippy cups, reusable water bottles, and even food packaging. BPA-free labels have cropped up everywhere in baby stores, sporting goods stores and other places that sell plastic beverage containers (remember polycarbonate Nalgene water bottles? They don't make them anymore!). All the publicity and public concern has resulted in Congressional investigations but there is not yet a federal law which regulates this chemical nor are products that contain BPA required to be labeled.
In the absence of federal law, several states - including my home state of California - are considering BPA bans in infant products, such as baby bottles, sippy cups and infant formula. Similar bans have already passed in Chicago, Minnesota and Connecticut. Currently the California bill is working its way through the legislature and will face a critical floor vote in the Assembly in the next month.
Why all the fuss about this chemical? BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical that can interfere with normal development and function of the body. In animal studies, BPA exposure has been linked to prostate cancer, breast cancer, pre-diabetes (insulin resistance), abnormal fat metabolism, early puberty, and changes in the way the brain develops resulting in behavioral abnormalities. There is scientific consensus that similar harm could be occurring in humans. Finally, all of us are exposed; over 90% of Americans tested by the CDC were found to have residues of BPA in their bodies.
The California bill has progressed despite the best efforts of the BPA manufacturers and users who have been using all of the tactics that were outlined in a leaked memo after a high level meeting. I and others at NRDC have written about the industry memo which received a lot of media attention and spurred further Congressional enquiry. In particular the memo mentioned California would be one of the places they would be "...focusing on more legislative battles and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process." In addition the industry has used "fear tactics" outlined in the memo such as saying formula would be pulled off the shelves and breast milk would be banned with this bill.
Fortunately, the California legislators aren't falling for these spin tactics and we hope they will continue to stay focused on the health of infants when voting on this bill.
Reminiscent of how industry tried to confuse the state of the science on the harmful effects of tobacco or global warming, there are a handful of industry funded studies which have found no evidence of harm from BPA exposure which are held up as evidence of safety. In contrast, there are over 200 studies by independently funded academic scientists published in peer-reviewed scientific journals which have repeatedly found a wide variety of harmful effects. These effects are seen at levels of exposure dangerously close to what our children are exposed to on a daily basis.
While the industry has characterized the campaign to eliminate BPA as "lies", they have resorted to the failed tactics of the tobacco industry by putting profits before protecting the public's health. NRDC will continue to be actively involved in promoting legislation that bans BPA and in advocating for the BPA to be listed on California's Prop 65 list. The hearing is Wed and I'll let you know how it turns out!
]]>
In just one day, several important events have taken place that are worth noting.
1. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak have sent a letter to the new administration at the FDA asking them the expeditiously re-evaluate the safety of BPA. They also expressed concern that the previous FDA administration relied too much on the BPA industry when forming their opinion that BPA was safe and have asked for a review of their process. The letter reads, "News of an industry meeting last week to discuss ways to block restrictions on BPA suggest industry has little interest in scientific facts or the public health. The FDA's reliance on industry studies in determining BPA's safety must be re-evaluated in light of clear signs industry is willing to mislead the American people on this public health issue."
2. Representatives Waxman and Stupak also sent a letter to the North American Packaging Alliance, the industry group that promotes the use of BPA in food can linings and asked for all the documents and participants in meetings to discuss BPA strategy for the past 2 months. This strategy was reported to include "befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process." And "a public relations strategy they hoped would include the "holy grail" of "showcasing a pregnant woman to talk about the chemical's benefits." Mr Waxman and Mr. Stupak have asked for a response by June 16th.
3. An AP newswire story this afternoon about these latest developments included a quote from the FDA saying that they would be taking a "fresh look" at BPA and that their review will be completed quickly, in "weeks not months."
4. Finally, a victory in California!! The bill to ban BPA in children's products passed by a slim margin out of the state Senate. The bill will now go to the Assembly for consideration.
]]>The Washington Post reported that just last week a high level meeting took place to devise a strategy for keeping BPA in our food supply. Companies attending the meeting included the Coca-Cola Co. and Del Monte, along with trade groups and other organizations which lobby for the chemical manufacturers such as the North American Metal Packaging Alliance Inc., the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the American Chemistry Council. These companies are on the defensive because moms like me have demanded alternatives. In response, six of the major baby bottle manufacturers have announced they will stop using BPA, major retailers have stopped selling them, and BPA has now been banned from baby bottles and sippy cups in Suffolk County, NY; Chicago and the entire state of Minnesota. The BPA industry wants to prevent any further bans and held this intensive meeting to discuss a strategy for protecting their market share.
Why am I concerned about BPA? BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical that acts like estrogen and can interfere with normal development and function of the body. In animal studies, BPA exposure has been linked to prostate cancer, breast cancer, pre-diabetes (insulin resistance), fat metabolism, and changes in the way the brain develops resulting in behavioral abnormalities. Emerging human research has found similar evidence of harm. And all of us are exposed; over 90% of Americans tested by the CDC were found to have residues of BPA in their bodies.
The notes from this meeting were verified in the Post article by one of the industry lobbyists as being accurate.
At the top of the industry list of ways to win back the public's trust was their "holy grail" spokesperson identified as a "pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA." Other strategies discussed at the meeting included focusing on how BPA bans would disproportionately put minorities at risk, particularly Hispanics and African-Americans whom they cited as being more inclined to be poor and dependent on canned foods.
In addition, because Connecticut and California are close to passing bans on BPA in infant formula containers, the BPA industry has identified these states as targets where industry "members are focusing on more legislative battles and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process". Manipulate the legislative process?!
Manipulating the public, manipulating the legislature and just last month, evidence that the industry has been cozy with the FDA and has manipulated the scientific justification for keeping this chemical approved in our food supply.
While the industry has characterized the campaign to eliminate BPA as "lies", they have resorted to the failed tactics of the tobacco industry by putting profits before protecting the public's health. NRDC will continue to be actively involved in promoting legislation that bans BPA and in advocating for the FDA to revoke their approval of BPA as a food additive. If you live in California, review our action alert and ask your legislator to support a BPA ban in children's products.
]]>Phthalates are chemicals used in many common consumer products, including as softeners of plastic children's toys.
The NPR story interviewed just one scientist from the federal agency charged with ensuring the safety of consumer products, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). She portrayed the ban on phthalates as not being driven by "good" science but rather public concern.
While at first I thought this must be an April Fool's joke from a media outlet which usually does not present such one-sided stories, it wasn't a joke. And it left the listener with a number of false impressions on the reasons for this federal ban and the science that supports it.
I'd like to set the record straight by reviewing the strong scientific evidence that exists to support a phthalate ban in children's toys. A more detailed description (with all the scientific references) can be found in the public comments that NRDC submitted to the CPSC on the "new" science on phthalates. We also have submitted public comments to the CPSC regarding the types of products that have been found to contain the six different phthalates banned by this law.
1. Our lawmakers' decision to ban these chemicals was based on modern science that is being ignored by the CPSC. Since CPSC last analyzed the toxicity of phthalates in toys, there have been over 500 new studies published on phthalates and their toxicity. In addition, in December 2008, a subcommittee of the Institute of Medicine issued a report acknowledging the scientific advances in our understanding of phthalate toxicity and made recommendations for updated methods of evaluating their safety. These recommendations are significantly different from the ways that phthalate safety has been evaluated in the past.
2. When the CPSC last considered the safety of phthalates, they only considered one phthalate, DiNP, and they identified liver toxicity to be the most concerning harmful outcome. The research that the CPSC is relying on to assure us of their safety was conducted by one of the manufacturers of the phthalate DiNP, ExxonMobil. Industry sponsored research often finds no evidence of harm and our federal agencies have been questioned by Congress in the past for this. In the case, the Exxon Mobil study is also outdated and not consistent with our current knowledge on phthalate toxicity.
3. Liver toxicity is not the only harm caused by phthalates, including DiNP. Phthalates are also capable of causing reproductive harm and have been associated with damage to the developing brain, worsening of allergies and asthma, breast and testicular cancer, and interference with metabolism leading to obesity.
4. Many phthalates, including DiNP, are hormone-disrupting chemicals that interfere with production of the male hormone testosterone, and have been associated with reproductive abnormalities in humans. Previous research in humans has associated early life exposure to phthalates with a feminization of male genitals, alterations in hormone levels, and in adults high phthalate levels have been associated with poor semen quality. These alarming effects have also been seen in numerous animal studies which have linked prenatal exposure to certain phthalates with decreases in the male sex hormone, testosterone, birth defects of the genitals, and reduced sperm production.
5. When the CPSC previously considered the safety of phthalates in toys, they only evaluated one phthalate, DiNP. However, we know that mixtures of phthalates are commonly found in children's toys.
These phthalate mixtures have been shown in laboratory animals to be additive in their toxicity. In other words, exposure to a mixture of phthalates at low doses can cause the same harm as one phthalate at a high dose of exposure. In children, small exposures from toys and other childcare articles contribute to their total body burden and may be both significant and harmful.
6. When considering the same body of scientific evidence, the EU banned DiNP while the US CPSC determined it was safe.
Both the CPSC and the EU based their risk assessment of DiNP on an industry funded study with liver toxicity as an endpoint.
However, this is where the similarities between these risk assessments ends. The EU took a more comprehensive and protective approach in that they considered all routes of exposure to DiNP, including dermal and inhalation, In addition, the EU inserted a safety factor for children, which the CPSC failed to do. By considering all routes of exposure and including a safety factor for children, the EU ultimately determined a "safe" level of exposure that was much lower - and more protective -- than the level of exposure considered safe by the CPSC. When this safety level was compared to the amount of exposure from toys, the EU felt the difference between to the two numbers (the margin of safety) was too close for comfort. The end result was that the EU banned DiNP from children's toys while the US did not.
In the face of all this new science, the CPSC has not spent their time ensuring that children's toys are safe and free of phthalates as mandated by law. The law already provides the tools and guidance necessary for timely and effective implementation. Instead CPSC has spent their time, energy and resources seeking ways around implementing protective measures for our children.
NRDC filed a lawsuit against the CPSC over their attempts to misinterpret the law banning phthalates.The court's decision in February against CPSC was clear and resounding. But since then instead of fulfilling their mission, CPSC has continued to stall and puts politics over science, the very thing they have accused Congress of doing.
President Obama has not yet appointed a new head Commissioner of the CPSC. Several lawmakers have asked for the resignation of the acting Commissioner because of her repeated attempts to block implementation of the law. We call on President Obama to appoint strong leadership at the CPSC, leadership that is willing acknowledge scientific advances and is capable of immediately and rigorously implementing the law as Congress intended.
]]>In the intervening months, small manufacturers and artisans should organize and ask the CPSC to do their job--to grant permanent exemptions from the testing requirements for products that would never contain lead or phthalates. This would include products that are natural and handmade. We agree that people who make natural and handmade toys should not be burdened by a law that does not apply to them. The CPSC has the ability to grant exemptions for products that clearly could not contain these chemicals [i.e. unpainted wood, cloth, cotton, wool, paper, etc].
If you already make natural toys devoid of lead and phthalates, this law will only add value to your products. Stores will only be able to legally sell safer toys like the ones you make. You already have a leg up on the competition.
This isn't a problem with the law itself, it's a problem with the CPSC's ineffective implementation. The CPSC can and should fix this problem quickly. Contacting the CPSC directly will help make this happen.
You can contact the CPSC Office of the Secretary directly to press for exemptions by mail, or via an online form.
Address:
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Online:
You can send an exemption request to the CPSC general counsel Cheryl Falvey online, using the form at the link below:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/cfalvey.aspx
Further Information:
Lead and phthalate free products are already on the market around the world. The same six phthalates banned by the CPSIA have been banned in European toys for nearly 10 years.
Thrift stores have already received a complete exemption from the CPSC for testing requirements for lead and phthalates. To quote directly from CPSC: "Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards." That means that stores like Goodwill and your local thrift shop will still be around and in business.
Starting Febuary 10th, 2009 Congress prohibited phthalates and lead in toys. That means that no one can sell toxic toys. Thrift stores like Goodwill can't become the dumping ground for all the unsafe toys that Congress banned, and people who shop at thrift stores shouldn't be stuck with the toxic exposures that everyone else will be protected from-so these laws apply to thrift stores too.
Functionally what does that mean? It means that thrift shops do not need to test or prove their toys are non-toxic, but they do need to use their best judgment and refuse to stock children's products that are clearly risky (i.e. PVC rubber duckies)
]]>