My chemical romance

[Guest guest]

My chemical romance

_http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-031108-chemical-main,0,2244086.story_

(http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-031108-chemical-main,0,2244086.story)

Are dangerous toxins lurking in your everyday products?

By _Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz_ (aelejalderuiz)

RedEye

 

March 11 2008

 

The health-conscious among us take care to avoid notorious risks such as

mercury-laden fish, lead paint and cigarette smoke—all of which contain

chemicals proven to do a body bad.

 

But do you ever think twice about the lotion you smear on your face, the can

of soda you gulp down or the furniture you nap on? Countless products we use

every day are chock full of chemicals, and research suggests they might hurt

us more than we realize.

 

Americans are virtual petri dishes of industrial chemicals, which make their

way from products into our bodies. The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, which tests more than 2,000 people in an ongoing study, has found

148

synthetic substances flowing through our bodies, many of which didn't exist

half a century ago. Last year, a coalition of environmental groups measured

chemicals in the blood and urine of 35 Americans from across the country and

found that all participants contained flame retardants and 95 percent contained

chemicals commonly found in plastics.

 

It isn't certain that these chemicals are causing people harm.

 

A growing body of research links certain household chemicals to cancer and

reproductive abnormalities. Government regulatory agencies have in some cases

pressured companies to stop producing chemicals that have raised red flags.

Yet the government has stopped short of saying the products containing those

chemicals pose a safety risk.

 

The chemicals industry, meanwhile, can cite studies showing the levels in

consumer products aren't harmful to humans.

 

We often don't know we're exposed to these chemicals—found in everyday

products such as cosmetics, stain-resistant upholstery and food packaging.

After

all, companies aren't required to list the chemicals used to manufacture an

aluminum can or a candy wrapper.

 

While the mere presence of chemicals is no cause for alarm, it may surprise

people that most chemicals aren't tested for safety before entering the

market. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 grandfathered in about 60,000

of

the 82,000 chemicals used today. Only when companies alert the Environmental

Protection Agency to potential safety concerns does the agency re-examine the

health effects. To Charlotte Brody, executive director of Commonweal, an

environmental health research center in California, assuming chemicals are

innocent until proven guilty is shortsighted. Europe, by contrast, requires

companies to prove chemicals are safe before they hit the market.

 

" The rules [in the U.S.] treat chemicals like a person charged with a crime,

and you have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this chemical caused

this disease, " Brody said. " But it's rarely true that a single chemical can

cause a single disease. "

 

There has been little research into the cumulative health effects of all the

industrial chemicals to which we're exposed, but environmentalists and

scientists note that the rise in the use of chemicals has coincided with the

rise

of certain diseases.

 

" The real clue is what's happening across the population in terms of

diseases that are on the rise, from children's cancer to asthma to diabetes to

breast cancer, " said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research for the

Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research organization. " These

increases

can't be explained by rapid changes in genetics. "

 

Here's a snapshot of some of the chemicals that may lurk in your everyday

products.

 

 

__

 

 

Non-stick cookware, fast food wrappers, stain-resistant fabric …

 

The chemicals used to keep grease off of food packaging and stains off of

furniture have a habit of clinging to our bodies—and could be harmful to our

health.

 

The culprit is a chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a processing

aid most famously used in the manufacture of Teflon, the slippery stuff that

keeps gunk off your non-stick cookware and stains off fabric. Other products

that aren't manufactured with PFOA still contain it as a byproduct of other

chemicals, including food packaging such as fast food containers, butter

boxes, candy wrappers and microwave popcorn bags.

 

PFOA has been found in 98 percent of people, according to the CDC, and it

remains in the body for a long time. Exactly how we are exposed to PFOA isn't

known, but it is believed we can breathe it in, absorb it through our skin or

ingest it when it leaches from packaging into food—a process exacerbated

under high heat, like when microwaving popcorn, Houlihan said.

 

High exposure to PFOA has been linked to cancer, liver damage and birth

defects. A study released last year by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of

Public Health found that babies with the highest exposures to PFOA in utero had

lower birth weights and smaller head circumferences.

 

In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Panel

named PFOA a " likely human carcinogen. " Shortly after, eight companies that use

PFOA—including DuPont, maker of Teflon--entered into a voluntary agreement

with the EPA to eliminate emissions and product content of PFOA by 2015. The

EPA announced last month that the companies are on track to meet the goal of 95

percent reduction in PFOA by 2010.

 

Still, DuPont—which paid a heavy fine to the EPA for failing to report

internal studies on the health risks of PFOA and settled a lawsuit that alleged

PFOA-contaminated drinking water near a DuPont plant—insists that PFOA does

not

pose a health risk to the general public. The EPA also says there's no cause

for concern about the routine use of household products, but it did pressure

PFOA manufacturers to stop producing it.

 

 

__

 

 

Cosmetics, soft plastics

 

Every time you wash your hair, paint your nails or shower beside a vinyl

shower curtain, you could be exposing yourself to phthalates, common chemicals

used to prolong fragrance, soften plastics and keep nail polish from cracking,

among other uses.

 

The Food and Drug Administration says the health effects of phthalates

aren't clear, but several studies have linked phthalates to problems in the

male

reproductive system. Two years ago, Harvard researchers correlated higher

levels of phthalates in adult men with lower sperm counts—and said those

higher

phthalate levels were typical of levels found in the general population. Other

studies have linked fetal exposure to phthalates (they can cross the

placenta in pregnant women) with genital feminization of baby boys.

 

Phthalates are in many products, though we often don't know it. While

federal law requires ingredients to be listed on cosmetics products, it doesn't

require that the labeling detail what is in " fragrance " —and fragrance is

often

where phthalates reside. A September report by Natural Resources Defense

Council found that 12 out of 14 common household air fresheners tested contain

phthalates. A Harvard study found that men had greater phthalate levels in

their

urine within 48 hours of applying cologne or aftershave, indicating that

such personal care products are a source of exposure.

 

The FDA says it currently " does not have any compelling evidence that

phthalates, as used in cosmetics, pose a safety risk. " But some communities

want to

keep phthalates away from their kids--when, along with fetal exposure,

people are thought to be most vulnerable.

 

In October, California became the first state to ban certain phthalates in

toys and other products for children. The European Union has had a permanent

ban on six types of phthalates in children's toys since 2005 (though in 2006

it determined that phthalates were safe to use in clothing, cosmetics and

medical supplies).

 

__

 

 

Canned food and drinks, hard plastic bottles

 

One of the most controversial chemicals on the market is bisphenol A, which

is found in the lining of aluminum cans and in polycarbonate plastics used in

baby bottles, water coolers and the reusable plastic bottles people often

tote for hiking or to the gym (denoted by the No. 7 recycling code).

 

Bisphenol A—which can leach into a product's contents, especially when the

contents are hot—has been found in the urine of about 92.6 percent of the

opulation, with higher concentrations of it in children than adults, according

to

the CDC. Some scientists believe bisphenol A, which mimics the estrogen

hormone, may contribute to a host of health problems including breast cancer,

diabetes, infertility and obesity.

 

Frederick Vom Saal, professor of reproductive biology at the University of

Missouri, is adamant that even low level exposure to bisphenol A can be

dangerous to infants and to babies exposed in utero. Rodent studies have shown

that

very low doses of bisphenol A can produce enlarged prostates and low sperm

counts in males, abnormal eggs in females, and brain and behavior changes, he

said. Last year, a group of leading bisphenol A researchers found that the

levels of bisphenol A found in the general population are higher than the

levels found to cause harm to lab animals.

 

Other studies have reached the opposite conclusion: That levels found in

humans are well below harmful doses. In 2004, a panel convened by the Harvard

Center for Risk Analysis—and funded by the American Plastics Council—said

" the

weight of the evidence for low-dose effects [of bisphenol A] is very weak. "

 

The EPA's studies on bisphenol A have not demonstrated adverse effects at

low doses, an EPA spokesman said.

 

Still, some would rather be safe than sorry.

 

In January, two Michigan congressmen called for an investigation of the use

of bisphenol A in cans of infant formula. Whole Foods stopped carrying baby

bottles made from polycarbonates in 2006, a year after Patagonia pulled

polycarbonate water bottles from its stores.

 

__

 

 

Furniture, electronics, appliances

 

Flame retardants are in foam furniture, the plastic casings on appliances

and electronics, wire insulation and other products for good reason: to stop or

slow the spread of fire.

 

But the safety benefits come with a health risk, some say. Some chemicals in

brominated flame retardants—called polybrominated diphenylethers, or PBDEs—

have been shown to accumulate in the environment and in the blood and breast

milk of humans. North Americans have levels of flame retardants in their

bodies that are approximately 10 times higher than those of Europeans or

Japanese, and they are doubling every two to five years, according to the EPA.

 

PBDEs may be toxic to the liver, thyroid and brain development, the EPA

says. A small EPA study last year linked high PBDE levels to hyperthyroidism in

cats. It's not known exactly how people are exposed to PBDEs, but a chief

suspect is household dust.

 

Two types of PBDEs have been phased out in the U.S. due to health concerns,

but one remains in use. Manufacturers say it has been proven safe at levels

used in consumer products and argue that there aren't good alternatives for

fire safety. Environmentalists claim otherwise. The EPA, which is investigating

the presence of PBDEs in children, said it does not believe that there is a

need for consumers to remove or replace products that may contain any of the

types of flame retardants.