|
You are what you eat ... breathe ... scrub
... lather ... spray
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The Ottawa Citizen
You are what you eat ... breathe ... scrub ... lather ... spray
Scientists testing humans for 'pollution' have discovered long lists
of manmade toxins including DDT and PCBs
by Susan Allan
Davis Baltz is a toxic waste site, according to a 2003 investigation
that unearthed 15 dioxins and furans, 41 PCBs, four organochlorine
pesticides, 33 volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, lead,
mercury and phthalates. Problem is Davis Baltz is not a place, he is
a person.
"As alarming as those figures were to me, the reality is that
everyone in the world, no matter where they live, is going to have
somewhat similar profiles," says Mr. Baltz, an environmental
researcher in Bolinas, California. "Everyone on Earth is exposed.
There's no place to hide."
Mr. Baltz was one of nine participants in an Environmental Working
Group study led by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
Thirteen vials of blood were drawn from each volunteer, who also
provided urine samples throughout a 24-hour period. Doctors and
researchers screened the samples and discovered in each, on average,
91 industrial compounds, pollutants and other contaminants, including
PCBs, which have been banned in the United States since the 1970s.
They also found phthalates, a plasticizer chemical used in many
everyday products, including perfumes and nail polish. "Scientists
have been studying pollutants in air, water and on land for decades,"
the Washington-based research group explained.
"Now, they're studying pollution in people."
The EWG and other advocacy groups believe the findings from this and
similar studies highlight the failure of current chemical regulations
and reveal disturbing truths about the way our bodies metabolize
manmade toxins. They argue that low-dose exposures to hundreds of
chemicals -- including those found in shampoos, lotions and perfumes
-- can have wide-ranging and serious health effects. The chemical
industry argues that proof of exposure is not proof of harm.
In a speech to investors in October 2003, the president of the
American Chemistry Council predicted that "professional health
activists" and "other traditional detractors" would become
increasingly vocal in their demands "to bring about compound
substitution, product de-selection and additional and costly
regulatory burdens."
The trade group represents 135 leading manufacturers in the chemical
industry, a $450-billion enterprise in the United States. Greg
Lebedev, then president of the ACC, told a New York audience that
phrases like "chemical trespass" were coined by activists with "very
little, if any, knowledge" in order to inspire negative response.
"These antagonists, of course, ignore the differences between
acceptable risk and legitimate hazard, and turn away from common
sense that tells us, for example, the chemical properties in
penicillin can save your life, but if taken in excess can harm you
... as most things done in excess."
The chemical industry is a powerful opponent, Mr. Baltz observes.
"Sometimes, on my optimistic days, I think we're actually doing quite
a lot considering how outgunned we are. Our strength is in our
argument: We're saying that chemicals that are potentially harmful
don't belong in people."
Across the Atlantic, Karl Wagner leads DetoX, a World Wildlife Fund
campaign demanding European leaders take swift action to ban certain
industrial chemicals. Last June, the environmental group enlisted
politicians to their cause, drawing the blood of 14 government
ministers from 13 countries of the European Union. Tests revealed 55
chemicals in the ministers' blood -- "a ubiquitous contamination by a
cocktail of hazardous chemicals." The chemical found in the highest
concentration and the highest median concentration was diethylhexyl
phthalate, a synthetic chemical that is used in a wide range of
consumer products, including cosmetics and perfume.
The WWF, like Mr. Baltz, argues that it is possible to infer that
everyone in the world is similarly contaminated and offers the
investigation as proof that chemicals the industry insists are safe
are, in fact, accumulating in human bodies. "The findings call into
question the claims that chemicals are under 'adequate control,' a
claim made despite the fact that the vast majority of chemicals have
no publicly available safety data."
Chemical manufacturers dismiss the "alarmist tone" of the campaign,
and the producers of bromine flame retardants, in particular, condemn
the WWF for "creating public anxiety."
Mr. Wagner himself was tested and expressed shock when the Bad Blood
report was released last October. "In my blood, there are at least 43
artificial, manmade chemicals. Chemicals used to make fire-resistant
sofas, non-stick pans, grease-proof pizza boxes, baby bottles, the
lining of tin cans and even pesticides banned decades ago," he said.
"I did not have a choice, I was not informed, there was no way I
could have prevented this contamination."
It's a dirty secret that toxins are building up in people and in
wildlife, says Mr. Wagner, or at least it was before the start of his
campaign. "If scientists cannot tell me the effects of individual
chemicals, what about the cocktail of chemicals streaming around my
body?"
The question preoccupies Davis Baltz. At the Commonweal nonprofit
health and research institute on the coast of the Pacific, Mr. Baltz
is helping to establish a biomonitoring resource centre.
"The chemical industry will say biomonitoring is a useful tool but
that it doesn't prove anything -- it doesn't tell you how you've been
exposed, that there's no evidence of harm," he said in an interview.
"But what they will never tell you is that these chemicals don't
belong in our bodies and they're getting there without our
permission."
Commonweal argues that "body burden" measurements -- testing for
chemical compounds in blood and urine or breast milk, for starters --
demonstrate that North Americans must change how we manage risk.
"We assume chemicals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt," says Mr. Baltz. "The chemical industry puts the
onus on the public to prove harm."
All of this is changing in the European Union where complex
regulations have been proposed that would overhaul the chemical
industry and force manufacturers to prove their products are safe.
Companies that produce more than a tonne of a substance annually will
have to register the chemical and disclose its properties, uses and
hazards. Ultimately, chemicals found to be carcinogenic will be
phased out over a 10-year period.
"If you don't set certain objectives, you will never trigger the
research or the political initiatives to make it work," explains
Robert Donkers, co-author of the EU draft legislation.
Beauty-care substances would be covered indirectly by REACH
proposals, which apply to their chemical ingredients. Personal-care
products have been regulated since 1976 by the European Cosmetics
Directive, which is intended to safeguard the safety of makeup
products sold in European markets.
It is no coincidence that the WWF DetoX campaign is in high gear as
politicians in Europe debate REACH -- Registration, Evaluation and
Authorization of Chemicals. "We are making politicians very much
aware that chemicals are a serious health problem and that they need
to act," Karl Wagner said in an interview from his home near Vienna.
While the debate in Brussels is being watched closely by the U.S.
chemical industry, Mr. Donkers observes that those who wish to remain
competitive have no choice but to adopt a precautionary approach to
chemical safety. "I hope industry will be more proactive," he said
from his office in Washington, D.C. "If they want to do business in
Europe, they have to adapt because we are now 450 million customers
-- that's not Mickey Mouse."
The U.S. State Department is openly lobbying against REACH, arguing
that it is costly and unworkable. However, Mr. Donkers says there are
a few states studying the proposal. "Washington state, the New
England states and also California have a different view," he notes.
"They are pushing for an overhaul at the federal level. If that's not
possible, they'd certainly like to do it at the state level. But that
is not for tomorrow, I'm afraid."
In California, state senator Deborah Ortiz recently introduced Bill
SB1168 in the legislature. The proposed law would create a statewide
biomonitoring program to test Californians for chemical exposure. New
Hampshire and Washington have also introduced similar bills on
bioaccumulative toxins, pollutants that persist in the food chain. In
cases such as mercury, the substances occur naturally. In others,
like DDT and PCBs, the chemicals are manmade. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency links Persistant Bioaccumulative and Toxic
pollutants (PBTs) to a wide range of health problems, including
cancer.
"Most of these chemicals are not tested to determine whether or not
they cause diseases in humans," Senator Ortiz said in a statement
about the 85,000 synthetic chemicals registered in the United States.
"This bill will enable us to know just which toxic pollutants are in
our bodies and move accordingly to improve everyone's health and
safety."
It is the second time the Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Program
has been introduced. In June 2004, the bill failed by one vote and
was criticized in part for fuelling panic about exposure to low doses
of chemicals. The American Chemistry Council opposes the bill as does
the California Chamber of Commerce. Steve Milloy, a vocal critic
associated with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank in
Washington, D.C., has argued in the media and on his website
JunkScience.com that there is no basis for assuming chemicals play a
role in the onset of chronic disease. "We know trace levels of many
chemicals and other substances can be detected in the body," he
writes. "But so what? While all substances may be toxic, they're only
toxic when exposures to them are sufficiently high."
Ms. Ortiz likens the debate to past discussions about lead. For most
of the 20th century, scientists and public-health officials
downplayed the health hazards of the heavy metal. But as science
improved, the dangers became obvious and today no level of exposure
is considered safe. Industry objected to a ban on leaded gasoline,
but after it was outlawed, levels of the contaminant in blood went
down.
"It may take years to get this bill through, but we decided let's
keep pushing," says Sharyle Patton, who along with Davis Baltz worked
behind the scenes on the bill at Commonweal. "We are used to the
chemical industry saying, 'We all have chemicals in our body and
we're all living longer.' The problem, of course, is that there is an
increase in brain tumours in children and an increasing risk of
testicular cancer, there's no doubt. Other diseases, it's not so
clear -- but how clear does it have to be?"
Testing air, water and soil is well and good, says Ms. Patton, "but
when you test a human being, it's ultimate proof of exposure."
Ms. Patton learned this lesson first-hand when her own results
arrived from the EWG body burden study. "I just thought I'd have a
few chemicals. I don't live next door to a refinery. I don't live
next door to a highway. I don't live in a big city. I grew up in the
Rocky Mountains." In fact, the environmentalist's blood and urine
revealed 105 contaminants, including 46 different compounds of PCBs
and six furans. The tests also revealed phthalates.
"It speaks to the fact we're facing global contamination," Ms. Patton
said from her office in California. "We're all walking around with
DDT, we're all walking around with PCBs."
And yet, she says, there is reason for optimism if governments can be
convinced to ban or restrict certain toxins. "There's a rich arena
for productive action. Even though we have these chemicals in our
bodies now, it's really possible that within a generation we won't.
There's reason for hope."
Much as the WWF recruited politicians for bloodwork, Commonweal is
collecting a cohort of California "luminaries" whose blood and urine
will be screened for such chemicals as phthalates,
polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) and flame retardants. "We are
hopeful the tests will create a swell of interest at the same time
this bill is going through the legislature," Davis Baltz explains.
If and when governments start to generate exposure data, it seems a
given that policy changes will follow. Sweden, for example, has been
monitoring the breast milk of first-time mothers for more than three
decades. Milk samples have been gathered annually from cohorts
ranging in size from 20 to 116. Six years ago, studies found that
milk was highly contaminated with fire retardants -- PBDEs -- and
that levels were doubling every two to five years. The response was a
ban on the bioaccumulative compound that is found in hundreds of
everyday products. While PBDEs are being phased out in Europe, they
are still used in Canada and the United States.
Since the ban in Sweden, Mr. Baltz notes, the corresponding curve of
concentration in breast milk has gone down. "There is a clear
relationship between banning a chemical and seeing the body burden go
down."
Breast-milk monitoring is not without controversy. Some women's
groups suggest that informing mothers that they are passing
polybrominated flame retardants, dioxin and even DDT to their babies
might discourage breastfeeding. Commonweal's Sharyle Patton, who was
worked extensively on the issue, insists that human milk is still the
best choice for a baby. The information is obviously alarming, but
she argues it is always better to know. Lactation proponents may
object to the second point, Ms. Patton observes, but they share the
same goal -- "we want to protect babies" -- and agree the answer is
to stop pollution, not nursing mothers.
Although no one knows if environmental toxins are harming our
children, in time biomonitoring may offer clues. Researchers in the
United States are in the organizing stages of an ambitious project
that will follow 100,000 children from birth to age 21. The National
Children's Study will examine many issues, including how low-dose
exposures to synthetic chemicals affect the health of developing
babies, growing children and maturing adolescents. Canadian
researchers lobbied the federal government unsuccessfully to create a
piggyback study that would follow some 10,000 children.
Also in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention runs
a national biomonitoring program that every two years assesses the
exposure of the general American population to environmental
chemicals. The studies are dedicated to answering three questions:
1. Are exposure levels increasing or decreasing over time?
2. Are public-health efforts to reduce exposure working?
3. Do certain groups have higher levels of exposure than others?
In the most recent report, released in January 2003, the CDC warned
that just because an environmental toxin is found in someone's blood
or urine does not mean the chemical causes harm.
Dr. Daniel Krewski of the University of Ottawa agrees.
"It is important to know what chemicals are there, but it is even
more important to know at what concentration," says the head of the
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk. "You can detect a
number of trace chemicals in body tissue, but that's just an
observation that there's something there, it doesn't really address
the level of risk -- if those contaminant levels are really low, the
risk is going to be really low as well."
Dr. Krewski leads a committee at the U.S. National Research Council
that is studying how scientists can best use emerging science to
assess the toxicity of environmental contaminants. Biomonitoring is
one tool that will be explored by the scientists, who will produce
two reports during the next three years.
At Statistics Canada, scientists are preparing the framework for a
national survey of the general population that will collect lifestyle
information and measure environmental exposures in approximately
5,000 randomly selected Canadians. Unlike the National Children's
Study or the CDC Reports, this will be a one-time survey to establish
a national baseline of health measurements.
Dr. Mark Tremblay, who leads the Canadian Health Measures Survey,
says ideally this would only be the beginning -- especially since
much of the cost of such research is incurred at the front end.
Results of the survey are expected in 2008.
On the California coast, Commonweal is working to change the way
people think. Chemical contamination is not just about smokestacks or
toxic spills, they say, "it's about exposures to complex mixtures of
chemicals, even at low levels of exposure."
Commonweal director Charlotte Brody has spent much of her career
trying to change minds. In 1996, the former nurse created Health Care
Without Harm, now an international coalition that encourages
hospitals to consider the environment in all areas of health-care
decisions.
Ms. Brody also works on the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which has
successfully lobbied U.S. cosmetic firms to remove dibutyl-phthalate
from their products.
It's all related, she says.
"We want to work for the government that most of us think should
already be there. It's not asking for Nirvana to think that
government should be working with us to protect the rights of babies
to be born toxin-free," says Ms. Brody. "Corporations can make money
-- godspeed -- but when they mess with my breast milk, they've gone
too far."
Like others at Commonweal, Ms. Brody participated in body-burden
testing.
Because she was an expert on the issues, she anticipated the results
-- 85 contaminants, including 45 carcinogens. Yet despite everything
she knew, she says, "it suddenly moved from the academic to the
personal in a fundamental way."
As outrageous as it sounds, Ms. Brody says, the bioaccumulation
studies are an inspiration.
"There are no personal solutions," she observes. "This is about a
society protecting the health of the next generation, which is what
community and government should really be about.
"It's not out of reach to start moving in the right direction."
- - -
Davis Baltz
Tested for 210 chemicals, 106 found. Among the contaminants in his
blood: 15 dioxins and furans, 41 PCBs, four organochlorine
pesticides, 33 volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, lead,
mercury, five phthalates.
'As alarming as those figures were to me, the reality is everyone in
the world, no matter where they live, is going to have somewhat
similar profiles.'
Karl Wagner
Tested for 103 chemicals, 43 found: Tests found high values for DHEP
(a phthalate, 1.5 times the average) and a high concentration of Deca
PBDE (flame retardant, 45 times the average).
'In my blood there are at least 43 artificial, manmade chemicals.
Chemicals used to make fire-resistant sofas, non-stick pans,
grease-proof pizza boxes, baby bottles, the lining of tin cans and
even pesticides banned decades ago.'
Sharyle Patton
Tested for 210 chemicals, 105 found. Among the contaminants in her
blood: 13 dioxins and furans, 46 PCBs, five organochlorine
pesticides, 33 volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, lead,
mercury and four phthalates.
'I don't live next door to a refinery. I don't live in a city. It
speaks to the fact we're facing global contamination. We're all
walking around with DDT, we're all walking around with PCBs.'
Charlotte Brody
Tested for 210 chemicals, 85 found. Among the contaminants in her
blood: 14 dioxins and furans, 28 PCBs, two organocholorine
pesticides, 32 semi-volatile organic compounds, lead, mercury, three
phthalates.
'Corporations can make money -- godspeed -- but when they mess with
my breast milk, they've gone too far.'
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=1a0ccc38-194a-4f28-8e96-3e62a625b13eYou
are what you eat ... breathe ... scrub ... lather ... spray
From: Mike Christie <mikechristie@rogers.com>
To:
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The Ottawa Citizen
You are what you eat ... breathe ... scrub ... lather ... spray
Scientists testing humans for 'pollution' have discovered long lists
of manmade toxins including DDT and PCBs
by Susan Allan
Davis Baltz is a toxic waste site, according to a 2003 investigation
that unearthed 15 dioxins and furans, 41 PCBs, four organochlorine
pesticides, 33 volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, lead,
mercury and phthalates. Problem is Davis Baltz is not a place, he is
a person.
"As alarming as those figures were to me, the reality is that
everyone in the world, no matter where they live, is going to have
somewhat similar profiles," says Mr. Baltz, an environmental
researcher in Bolinas, California. "Everyone on Earth is exposed.
There's no place to hide."
Mr. Baltz was one of nine participants in an Environmental Working
Group study led by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
Thirteen vials of blood were drawn from each volunteer, who also
provided urine samples throughout a 24-hour period. Doctors and
researchers screened the samples and discovered in each, on average,
91 industrial compounds, pollutants and other contaminants, including
PCBs, which have been banned in the United States since the 1970s.
They also found phthalates, a plasticizer chemical used in many
everyday products, including perfumes and nail polish. "Scientists
have been studying pollutants in air, water and on land for decades,"
the Washington-based research group explained.
"Now, they're studying pollution in people."
The EWG and other advocacy groups believe the findings from this and
similar studies highlight the failure of current chemical regulations
and reveal disturbing truths about the way our bodies metabolize
manmade toxins. They argue that low-dose exposures to hundreds of
chemicals -- including those found in shampoos, lotions and perfumes
-- can have wide-ranging and serious health effects. The chemical
industry argues that proof of exposure is not proof of harm.
In a speech to investors in October 2003, the president of the
American Chemistry Council predicted that "professional health
activists" and "other traditional detractors" would become
increasingly vocal in their demands "to bring about compound
substitution, product de-selection and additional and costly
regulatory burdens."
The trade group represents 135 leading manufacturers in the chemical
industry, a $450-billion enterprise in the United States. Greg
Lebedev, then president of the ACC, told a New York audience that
phrases like "chemical trespass" were coined by activists with "very
little, if any, knowledge" in order to inspire negative response.
"These antagonists, of course, ignore the differences between
acceptable risk and legitimate hazard, and turn away from common
sense that tells us, for example, the chemical properties in
penicillin can save your life, but if taken in excess can harm you
... as most things done in excess."
The chemical industry is a powerful opponent, Mr. Baltz observes.
"Sometimes, on my optimistic days, I think we're actually doing quite
a lot considering how outgunned we are. Our strength is in our
argument: We're saying that chemicals that are potentially harmful
don't belong in people."
Across the Atlantic, Karl Wagner leads DetoX, a World Wildlife Fund
campaign demanding European leaders take swift action to ban certain
industrial chemicals. Last June, the environmental group enlisted
politicians to their cause, drawing the blood of 14 government
ministers from 13 countries of the European Union. Tests revealed 55
chemicals in the ministers' blood -- "a ubiquitous contamination by a
cocktail of hazardous chemicals." The chemical found in the highest
concentration and the highest median concentration was diethylhexyl
phthalate, a synthetic chemical that is used in a wide range of
consumer products, including cosmetics and perfume.
The WWF, like Mr. Baltz, argues that it is possible to infer that
everyone in the world is similarly contaminated and offers the
investigation as proof that chemicals the industry insists are safe
are, in fact, accumulating in human bodies. "The findings call into
question the claims that chemicals are under 'adequate control,' a
claim made despite the fact that the vast majority of chemicals have
no publicly available safety data."
Chemical manufacturers dismiss the "alarmist tone" of the campaign,
and the producers of bromine flame retardants, in particular, condemn
the WWF for "creating public anxiety."
Mr. Wagner himself was tested and expressed shock when the Bad Blood
report was released last October. "In my blood, there are at least 43
artificial, manmade chemicals. Chemicals used to make fire-resistant
sofas, non-stick pans, grease-proof pizza boxes, baby bottles, the
lining of tin cans and even pesticides banned decades ago," he said.
"I did not have a choice, I was not informed, there was no way I
could have prevented this contamination."
It's a dirty secret that toxins are building up in people and in
wildlife, says Mr. Wagner, or at least it was before the start of his
campaign. "If scientists cannot tell me the effects of individual
chemicals, what about the cocktail of chemicals streaming around my
body?"
The question preoccupies Davis Baltz. At the Commonweal nonprofit
health and research institute on the coast of the Pacific, Mr. Baltz
is helping to establish a biomonitoring resource centre.
"The chemical industry will say biomonitoring is a useful tool but
that it doesn't prove anything -- it doesn't tell you how you've been
exposed, that there's no evidence of harm," he said in an interview.
"But what they will never tell you is that these chemicals don't
belong in our bodies and they're getting there without our
permission."
Commonweal argues that "body burden" measurements -- testing for
chemical compounds in blood and urine or breast milk, for starters --
demonstrate that North Americans must change how we manage risk.
"We assume chemicals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt," says Mr. Baltz. "The chemical industry puts the
onus on the public to prove harm."
All of this is changing in the European Union where complex
regulations have been proposed that would overhaul the chemical
industry and force manufacturers to prove their products are safe.
Companies that produce more than a tonne of a substance annually will
have to register the chemical and disclose its properties, uses and
hazards. Ultimately, chemicals found to be carcinogenic will be
phased out over a 10-year period.
"If you don't set certain objectives, you will never trigger the
research or the political initiatives to make it work," explains
Robert Donkers, co-author of the EU draft legislation.
Beauty-care substances would be covered indirectly by REACH
proposals, which apply to their chemical ingredients. Personal-care
products have been regulated since 1976 by the European Cosmetics
Directive, which is intended to safeguard the safety of makeup
products sold in European markets.
It is no coincidence that the WWF DetoX campaign is in high gear as
politicians in Europe debate REACH -- Registration, Evaluation and
Authorization of Chemicals. "We are making politicians very much
aware that chemicals are a serious health problem and that they need
to act," Karl Wagner said in an interview from his home near Vienna.
While the debate in Brussels is being watched closely by the U.S.
chemical industry, Mr. Donkers observes that those who wish to remain
competitive have no choice but to adopt a precautionary approach to
chemical safety. "I hope industry will be more proactive," he said
from his office in Washington, D.C. "If they want to do business in
Europe, they have to adapt because we are now 450 million customers
-- that's not Mickey Mouse."
The U.S. State Department is openly lobbying against REACH, arguing
that it is costly and unworkable. However, Mr. Donkers says there are
a few states studying the proposal. "Washington state, the New
England states and also California have a different view," he notes.
"They are pushing for an overhaul at the federal level. If that's not
possible, they'd certainly like to do it at the state level. But that
is not for tomorrow, I'm afraid."
In California, state senator Deborah Ortiz recently introduced Bill
SB1168 in the legislature. The proposed law would create a statewide
biomonitoring program to test Californians for chemical exposure. New
Hampshire and Washington have also introduced similar bills on
bioaccumulative toxins, pollutants that persist in the food chain. In
cases such as mercury, the substances occur naturally. In others,
like DDT and PCBs, the chemicals are manmade. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency links Persistant Bioaccumulative and Toxic
pollutants (PBTs) to a wide range of health problems, including
cancer.
"Most of these chemicals are not tested to determine whether or not
they cause diseases in humans," Senator Ortiz said in a statement
about the 85,000 synthetic chemicals registered in the United States.
"This bill will enable us to know just which toxic pollutants are in
our bodies and move accordingly to improve everyone's health and
safety."
It is the second time the Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Program
has been introduced. In June 2004, the bill failed by one vote and
was criticized in part for fuelling panic about exposure to low doses
of chemicals. The American Chemistry Council opposes the bill as does
the California Chamber of Commerce. Steve Milloy, a vocal critic
associated with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank in
Washington, D.C., has argued in the media and on his website
JunkScience.com that there is no basis for assuming chemicals play a
role in the onset of chronic disease. "We know trace levels of many
chemicals and other substances can be detected in the body," he
writes. "But so what? While all substances may be toxic, they're only
toxic when exposures to them are sufficiently high."
Ms. Ortiz likens the debate to past discussions about lead. For most
of the 20th century, scientists and public-health officials
downplayed the health hazards of the heavy metal. But as science
improved, the dangers became obvious and today no level of exposure
is considered safe. Industry objected to a ban on leaded gasoline,
but after it was outlawed, levels of the contaminant in blood went
down.
"It may take years to get this bill through, but we decided let's
keep pushing," says Sharyle Patton, who along with Davis Baltz worked
behind the scenes on the bill at Commonweal. "We are used to the
chemical industry saying, 'We all have chemicals in our body and
we're all living longer.' The problem, of course, is that there is an
increase in brain tumours in children and an increasing risk of
testicular cancer, there's no doubt. Other diseases, it's not so
clear -- but how clear does it have to be?"
Testing air, water and soil is well and good, says Ms. Patton, "but
when you test a human being, it's ultimate proof of exposure."
Ms. Patton learned this lesson first-hand when her own results
arrived from the EWG body burden study. "I just thought I'd have a
few chemicals. I don't live next door to a refinery. I don't live
next door to a highway. I don't live in a big city. I grew up in the
Rocky Mountains." In fact, the environmentalist's blood and urine
revealed 105 contaminants, including 46 different compounds of PCBs
and six furans. The tests also revealed phthalates.
"It speaks to the fact we're facing global contamination," Ms. Patton
said from her office in California. "We're all walking around with
DDT, we're all walking around with PCBs."
And yet, she says, there is reason for optimism if governments can be
convinced to ban or restrict certain toxins. "There's a rich arena
for productive action. Even though we have these chemicals in our
bodies now, it's really possible that within a generation we won't.
There's reason for hope."
Much as the WWF recruited politicians for bloodwork, Commonweal is
collecting a cohort of California "luminaries" whose blood and urine
will be screened for such chemicals as phthalates,
polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) and flame retardants. "We are
hopeful the tests will create a swell of interest at the same time
this bill is going through the legislature," Davis Baltz explains.
If and when governments start to generate exposure data, it seems a
given that policy changes will follow. Sweden, for example, has been
monitoring the breast milk of first-time mothers for more than three
decades. Milk samples have been gathered annually from cohorts
ranging in size from 20 to 116. Six years ago, studies found that
milk was highly contaminated with fire retardants -- PBDEs -- and
that levels were doubling every two to five years. The response was a
ban on the bioaccumulative compound that is found in hundreds of
everyday products. While PBDEs are being phased out in Europe, they
are still used in Canada and the United States.
Since the ban in Sweden, Mr. Baltz notes, the corresponding curve of
concentration in breast milk has gone down. "There is a clear
relationship between banning a chemical and seeing the body burden go
down."
Breast-milk monitoring is not without controversy. Some women's
groups suggest that informing mothers that they are passing
polybrominated flame retardants, dioxin and even DDT to their babies
might discourage breastfeeding. Commonweal's Sharyle Patton, who was
worked extensively on the issue, insists that human milk is still the
best choice for a baby. The information is obviously alarming, but
she argues it is always better to know. Lactation proponents may
object to the second point, Ms. Patton observes, but they share the
same goal -- "we want to protect babies" -- and agree the answer is
to stop pollution, not nursing mothers.
Although no one knows if environmental toxins are harming our
children, in time biomonitoring may offer clues. Researchers in the
United States are in the organizing stages of an ambitious project
that will follow 100,000 children from birth to age 21. The National
Children's Study will examine many issues, including how low-dose
exposures to synthetic chemicals affect the health of developing
babies, growing children and maturing adolescents. Canadian
researchers lobbied the federal government unsuccessfully to create a
piggyback study that would follow some 10,000 children.
Also in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention runs
a national biomonitoring program that every two years assesses the
exposure of the general American population to environmental
chemicals. The studies are dedicated to answering three questions:
1. Are exposure levels increasing or decreasing over time?
2. Are public-health efforts to reduce exposure working?
3. Do certain groups have higher levels of exposure than others?
In the most recent report, released in January 2003, the CDC warned
that just because an environmental toxin is found in someone's blood
or urine does not mean the chemical causes harm.
Dr. Daniel Krewski of the University of Ottawa agrees.
"It is important to know what chemicals are there, but it is even
more important to know at what concentration," says the head of the
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk. "You can detect a
number of trace chemicals in body tissue, but that's just an
observation that there's something there, it doesn't really address
the level of risk -- if those contaminant levels are really low, the
risk is going to be really low as well."
Dr. Krewski leads a committee at the U.S. National Research Council
that is studying how scientists can best use emerging science to
assess the toxicity of environmental contaminants. Biomonitoring is
one tool that will be explored by the scientists, who will produce
two reports during the next three years.
At Statistics Canada, scientists are preparing the framework for a
national survey of the general population that will collect lifestyle
information and measure environmental exposures in approximately
5,000 randomly selected Canadians. Unlike the National Children's
Study or the CDC Reports, this will be a one-time survey to establish
a national baseline of health measurements.
Dr. Mark Tremblay, who leads the Canadian Health Measures Survey,
says ideally this would only be the beginning -- especially since
much of the cost of such research is incurred at the front end.
Results of the survey are expected in 2008.
On the California coast, Commonweal is working to change the way
people think. Chemical contamination is not just about smokestacks or
toxic spills, they say, "it's about exposures to complex mixtures of
chemicals, even at low levels of exposure."
Commonweal director Charlotte Brody has spent much of her career
trying to change minds. In 1996, the former nurse created Health Care
Without Harm, now an international coalition that encourages
hospitals to consider the environment in all areas of health-care
decisions.
Ms. Brody also works on the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which has
successfully lobbied U.S. cosmetic firms to remove dibutyl-phthalate
from their products.
It's all related, she says.
"We want to work for the government that most of us think should
already be there. It's not asking for Nirvana to think that
government should be working with us to protect the rights of babies
to be born toxin-free," says Ms. Brody. "Corporations can make money
-- godspeed -- but when they mess with my breast milk, they've gone
too far."
Like others at Commonweal, Ms. Brody participated in body-burden
testing.
Because she was an expert on the issues, she anticipated the results
-- 85 contaminants, including 45 carcinogens. Yet despite everything
she knew, she says, "it suddenly moved from the academic to the
personal in a fundamental way."
As outrageous as it sounds, Ms. Brody says, the bioaccumulation
studies are an inspiration.
"There are no personal solutions," she observes. "This is about a
society protecting the health of the next generation, which is what
community and government should really be about.
"It's not out of reach to start moving in the right direction."
- - -
Davis Baltz
Tested for 210 chemicals, 106 found. Among the contaminants in his
blood: 15 dioxins and furans, 41 PCBs, four organochlorine
pesticides, 33 volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, lead,
mercury, five phthalates.
'As alarming as those figures were to me, the reality is everyone in
the world, no matter where they live, is going to have somewhat
similar profiles.'
Karl Wagner
Tested for 103 chemicals, 43 found: Tests found high values for DHEP
(a phthalate, 1.5 times the average) and a high concentration of Deca
PBDE (flame retardant, 45 times the average).
'In my blood there are at least 43 artificial, manmade chemicals.
Chemicals used to make fire-resistant sofas, non-stick pans,
grease-proof pizza boxes, baby bottles, the lining of tin cans and
even pesticides banned decades ago.'
Sharyle Patton
Tested for 210 chemicals, 105 found. Among the contaminants in her
blood: 13 dioxins and furans, 46 PCBs, five organochlorine
pesticides, 33 volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, lead,
mercury and four phthalates.
'I don't live next door to a refinery. I don't live in a city. It
speaks to the fact we're facing global contamination. We're all
walking around with DDT, we're all walking around with PCBs.'
Charlotte Brody
Tested for 210 chemicals, 85 found. Among the contaminants in her
blood: 14 dioxins and furans, 28 PCBs, two organocholorine
pesticides, 32 semi-volatile organic compounds, lead, mercury, three
phthalates.
'Corporations can make money -- godspeed -- but when they mess with
my breast milk, they've gone too far.'
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=1a0ccc38-194a-4f28-8e96-3e62a625b13e
|
 |
