====================

June 1, 2006

Globe and Mail

Want a full-time job? Live chemical-free

Ms. Harris says one of the common beliefs held by consumers is that
if products are in stores, all the chemicals used to make them must
automatically be safe because regulators have vetted them. The fact
that thousands of chemicals need detailed reviews suggests to her
that this view is mistaken.

"There is this misconception that Health Canada is protecting us from
anything that could be toxic," she says. "We think it's not true."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060531.wxchemicals01/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home


June 1, 2006

Globe and Mail

Want a full-time job? Live chemical-free

by MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Thursday's Globe and Mail - In Barbara Harris's home, you won't
find air fresheners, non-stick pans or mattresses containing harsh
flame retardants. That's by design: Ms. Harris tries to create a
lifestyle that minimizes the chances she'll come into contact with
harmful chemicals found in everyday products.

"I have a very simple, very scent-free, and very low-chemical
household," she declares.

Ms. Harris, who lives in Springhill, N.S., is part of a grassroots
effort to minimize exposure to chemicals contained in dozens of
consumer items, substances that a growing body of research suggests
may pose health risks.

Along with others at the Environmental Health Association of Nova
Scotia, she's used her experiences to help put together an Internet
self-help guide (www.lesstoxicguide.ca) for those who want to cut
potentially harmful substances out of their lives, and may be
confused about how to go about it.

"It's more than a full-time job for individuals to try to figure out
what's in the products that they're using," Ms. Harris says of the
difficulties.

Efforts to minimize exposures to chemicals in ordinary products are
arising because many everyday household items contain substances such
as a bisphenol A, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and
perfluorochemicals, compounds that recent research has linked to a
host of health problems, ranging from cancer to attention-deficit
disorders and declining sperm counts.

The use of these chemicals wouldn't be a problem, except for another
recent discovery. The chemicals used to make many consumer goods are
migrating from products into the environment, and are now being
detected in practically the entire population.

PBDEs, for instance, widely used in mattresses and computers as flame
retardants, are found in the bodies of Canadians at the second
highest level in the world, just after readings in the United States.
Almost all Canadians also carry in their bloodstreams measurable
quantities of perfluorochemicals, very persistent pollutants that are
used to make non-stick pans and stain-repellant clothing.

The federal government is also looking at many chemicals in long-term
use, and is expected to declare later this year that about 4,000 of
them may present enough of a threat to either human health or to the
environment that they should be given detailed safety reviews.

The chemicals are among 23,000 substances grandfathered in 1988 when
the country adopted its modern anti-pollution rules. At the time,
Canada decided to require in-depth safety evaluations only for new
substances as they were introduced into the marketplace, and put off
a decision on reviewing chemicals already used in commerce.

Worry about exposures to poorly regulated chemicals is why, in her
home, Ms. Harris has looked at practically every consumer item,
trying to select products with the lowest health risk. In her bed, is
"a very expensive organic cotton mattress. There is really no choice
in between for me," she says, a step that has avoided PBDEs.

For household cleaners, she uses mild soaps, baking soda and vinegar.
In the kitchen, forget about non-stick pans and the
perfluorochemicals that are used to make them; she cooks on cast iron
or stainless steel pots and pans, after finding that the fumes from
non-stick cookware made her ill.

When she pops food into the microwave, it's never in a plastic
container. She uses glass or pottery, a step taken to minimize the
chances of chemicals from the hot container leaching into food.

She also advises consumers to relax a bit about the standards they
set. For instance, she doesn't buy stain-resistant clothing, and was
miffed recently when one of the large U.S.-based mail-order clothing
companies began advertising T-shirts with chemical coatings that make
them more impervious to dirt.

"You know, stains above brains," she says.

"I think it's absurd that we put stain-resistant coatings on things
where we don't need them."

The federal chemical review effort could have wide-ranging
implications for common products in homes and offices because of the
thousands of potentially harmful substances under review, many which
are used in consumer products.

One of the most commonly used substances that is expected to be
reviewed is bisphenol A, a chemical that resembles a synthetic
version of the female hormone estrogen. It's used to make
polycarbonate, the hard plastic found in water bottles and compact
discs, as well as the dental sealants commonly used on children's
teeth.

Other common chemicals to be placed under additional scrutiny are
some perfluorochemicals used to make stain-resistant and non-stick
coatings for cookware, fast-food packaging, clothing and furniture,
along with substances used to soften plastic in children's toys.

Even when the federal government announces its decision on the
chemicals selected for review, it will likely be a lengthy process
before assessments are done and harmful substances banned or
restricted.

Ms. Harris says one of the common beliefs held by consumers is that
if products are in stores, all the chemicals used to make them must
automatically be safe because regulators have vetted them. The fact
that thousands of chemicals need detailed reviews suggests to her
that this view is mistaken.

"There is this misconception that Health Canada is protecting us from
anything that could be toxic," she says. "We think it's not true."

Another approach some environmentalists are using to help people
minimize chemical exposures is to monitor what companies say is in
their products, then disseminate this information widely.

Clean Production Action, an environmental organization based in
Montreal, has set up a website (www.safer-products.org) to do just
that. It evaluates products that may contain potentially harmful
chemicals, ranking them by corporate name.

"We often get calls from people saying, 'Well, what am I supposed to
buy and who can I trust to buy from?'" says Beverley Thorpe, a
spokesperson for the organization.

By its rankings, some of the best companies are IKEA, the
Swedish-based home-furnishings chain - which was one of the first to
pull PBDEs from its products - and Dell, the big U.S.-based computer
maker that also distanced itself from the chemicals.

PBDEs have been linked in laboratory animal experiments to behaviour
changes similar to attention deficit and hyperactivity in human
children.

For cars, it ranked Volvo the best because it has prohibited the use
of several PBDEs in its vehicles, along with phthalates, chemicals
used to soften plastic. There are also listings for furniture
companies, cosmetics makers and retailers.

In the retail clothing sector, Ms. Thorpe considers H&M Hennes &
Mauritz to be a cut above because the Swedish-based chain doesn't
allow solvents or other hazardous chemicals to be used in the
production of its garments, and all suppliers must sign a statement
confirming that they don't use any of the substances that it
prohibits.

Although many environmentalist are urging consumers to take matters
into their own hands, some researchers say there is a limit to what
an individual can do.

Dr. Ana Soto, a breast-cancer researcher at Tufts University School
of Medicine in Boston who is one of the world's leading authorities
on bisphenol A, says many chemicals are almost impossible to avoid.

The only way to be sure of eliminating exposures is "don't eat, don't
drink and don't breathe, and you cannot do that," she says.

Although consumers can take steps to cut exposures, she doesn't know
how successful these efforts will ultimately be because of the wide
range of products involved.

"When you're being extremely careful, at the end of the day did you
decrease the exposure by 5 per cent or 95 per cent? I cannot answer
that," Dr. Soto says. In her view, the most effective way to reduce
exposures would be better regulation.

This is the last of five stories in the Toxic Shock series.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060531.wxchemicals01/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home