Not My Breasts

Cancer from the kitchen? (NY Times, 12/5/09)

Another excellent op-ed from New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof, this time focusing on the endocrine disruptors in plastics, cosmetics and more that can put us at greater risk for diseases like breast cancer:

The battle over health care focuses on access to insurance, or tempests like the one that erupted over new mammogram guidelines.

But what about broader public health challenges? What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air -- or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves? (Read complete article.)

Ask Janet!

On the next few Fridays (and perhaps beyond), Breast Cancer Fund Science Advisor Janet Gray, Ph.D., of Vassar College, will lend her scientific expertise in environmental health to answering burning questions around the link between breast cancer and environmental exposures.

Question from Ariane, California:
I recently noticed that some of our office supplies promise antimicrobial protection. With H1N1 and the start of the flu season, it seems that everyone is crazy for antimicrobial products, but I have heard some concerns about what’s in these products. Do we have anything to be worried about?

Dear Ariane,
Antimicrobials are currently present in a wide array of consumer products, from household cleaners to mouse pads, and scientists have expressed growing concern over the presence of the chemical triclosan, which is prevalent in many of these disinfectants—especially liquid soaps. Studies have linked the chemical to a range of health and environmental issues, including skin irritation and thyroid disorders (a risk factor for breast cancer). The Environmental Protection Agency recently reapproved triclosan, but only for another five years. The agency’s concerns about the chemical convinced them to move the next review date to 2013, 10 years ahead of schedule.

Another concern with popular hand sanitizers is synthetic fragrance, found in most personal care products. Fragrance is considered a trade secret, which allows companies to avoid disclosing what it contains, but it’s often made up of dozens or even hundreds of synthetic chemicals. Some of the hazards of synthetic fragrance include allergens, phthalates, sensitizers, neurotoxins and synthetic musks.

Don’t despair! Thanks in large part to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (the Breast Cancer Fund is a founding member and leading partner), an increasing number of responsible companies are signing the Compact for Safe Cosmetics and setting a high bar in the marketplace by agreeing not to use toxic chemicals in their products. Several companies are producing hand soaps and sanitizers free of fragrance and triclosan. Two of these with known efficacy are CleanWell, whose effective ingredient is based upon thyme oil, and EO Products, whose germ-killing ingredient is 62% alcohol.

But really, the best thing to do on a regular basis is to wash your hands thoroughly with warm water and mild, non-toxic soap. It’s the safest and most effective route for staying clean and healthy. But when you feel you need to use disinfectants to get you through the winter season, look for safer choices—ones without triclosan or synthetic fragrance. 

Send your questions to Ask Janet! askjanet@breastcancerfund.org

Study: Chemicals, pollutants found in newborns (San Francisco Chronicle, 12/3/09)

Besides BPA, umbilical cord blood of American infants may be contaminated with synthetic musks, according to yesterday's EWG study. These musks are chemicals commonly used in "fragrance," that mystery ingredient in shampoo, lotion, spray cleaner and, yes, perfume.

Fragrance can contain dozens or even hundreds of ingredients, none of which appear on labels, some of which may be toxic and most of which have never been tested for long-term safety. This fragrance loophole is one of the reasons the Breast Cancer Fund, EWG and colleague organizations launched the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics five years ago, and why we continue to push for smarter laws and safer cosmetics for everyone.

The story about musks was picked up by the San Francisco Chronicle:

Chemicals from cosmetics, perfumes and other fragrances were detected along with dozens of other industrial compounds in the umbilical cords of African American, Asian and Latino infants in the United States, according to a national study released Wednesday....

Seven of the 10 babies had in their umbilical cord blood synthetic musks known as Galaxolide and Tonalide, which are toxic to aquatic life and have been shown in preliminary studies to cause hormonal changes.

The musk is used in scented soaps, perfumes and colognes, indicating the infants were contaminated by cosmetics their mothers used. (Read complete article.)

BPA found in 90% of newborns (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/3/09)

Breast Cancer Fund board member Dr. Janet Gray was quoted in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article today about EWG's cord blood study:

A study released Wednesday which found that nine of 10 babies tested were born with bisphenol A in their systems has renewed calls for the chemical to be banned..."It's alarming," Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. "What more evidence do we need to act?" (Read complete article.)

Babies are born pre-polluted with BPA

Bisphenol A (BPA), an estrogenic chemical linked to breast cancer and other health problems, has been found for the first time in the umbilical cord blood of newborn American babies, according to a study out today. It's hard evidence that BPA crosses the placenta from mom to child, and that babies are exposed to toxic chemicals during the critical period of development before birth.

The new biomonitoring study (measurements of chemicals in blood, etc.) was conducted by our colleagues at the Environmental Working Group. In all, EWG found 232 toxic chemicals in 10 cord blood samples from babies of African American, Asian and Latino descent born in the U.S. BPA was in 9 of the 10 samples.

Though previous studies indicate that 93 percent of Americans over 6 have BPA in their bodies, this is the first time the chemical's presence has been confirmed in children under 6.

We want BPA out of everyone, infant to adult. A chemical linked to breast cancer shouldn't be circulating in our blood.

The Breast Cancer Fund has been working with members of Congress to get BPA out of a primary source of exposure: food and beverage containers, including canned goods and reusable water bottles. The Ban Poisonous Additives Act was introduced earlier this year, and you can help move it through Congress by asking your senators to sign on as co-sponsors. Either send a letter via our Web site, or call your senate offices (use our legislator lookup tool to find phone numbers).

FDA likely to delay ruling on BPA (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/30/09)

The FDA will delay its new safety analysis of BPA, according to an article in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Despite months of additional study and a self-imposed timetable, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration likely will not release its ruling Monday on the safety of bisphenol A, a chemical used in thousands of household products that has been linked to developmental and behavioral problems.

...Even if a new ruling does not come Monday, environmental groups - including the Breast Cancer Fund, Environmental Working Group and the National Resource Defense Council - say they will ask the FDA to immediately impose a public health warning, mandatory labeling of food cans, and an outright interim ban on polycarbonate plastic in food containers. (Read complete article.)

While the FDA is working on its safety reassessment, the Breast Cancer Fund is working with Congress to ban BPA from all food and beverage containers. You can help: Ask your senators to sign on to the Ban Poisonous Additives Act.

Lead, chemicals found in toys despite stricter law (Washington Post, 11/25/09)

It's been nine months since a federal toy safety law took effect, but toxic toys are still available at major U.S. retailers, according to product tests released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and reported in the Washington Post:

Despite a new law that bans six chemicals from children's products and lowers the lead limit for them, a public interest group has found a number of toys at major retailers that contain the chemicals and illegal amounts of lead.... [W]hile many manufacturers and retailers are complying with the new law, a handful are not, and it is hard for consumers to tell the difference. (Read complete article)

The Breast Cancer Fund supported an amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that banned six phthalates from toys and other plastic products for kids. Phthalates are chemicals that make plastic soft and pliable, but they're also linked to early puberty - a breast cancer risk factor. The law also bans lead in toys.

The law is good, but it requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to enforce it. We'll continue to push for the safety protections Congress intended.

In the meantime, here are a few tips for safe, phthalate-free holiday toy shopping:

• Soft plastic toys that young children might put in their mouths may contain phthalates unless they are marked "phthalate-free," "PVC-free" or "EU compliant," or they carry the CE mark (which indicates that the product is compliant with European Union regulations and therefore should be phthalate-free).
• Both teethers and pacifiers sold in the United States are supposed to be phthalate-free already, though parents should purchase these items from reputable retailers.
• Recycling codes (if toys have them) may help you determine if the items are made with PVC, which often contains phthalates. PVC plastics are marked #3. Better choices are codes #1, #2 or #5. The Breast Cancer Fund recommends that people also avoid plastics marked #6 (styrene) and #7 ("other," but often BPA-based).
• To be safe, we recommend that parents discard soft plastic toys and childcare articles that do not fall into one of the exceptions listed above. When purchasing new items, look for phthalate-free toys and make sure retailers know phthalate-free merchandise is important to you.

Ask Janet!

On the next few Fridays (and perhaps beyond), Breast Cancer Fund Science Advisor Janet Gray, Ph.D., of Vassar College, will lend her scientific expertise in environmental health to answering burning questions around the link between breast cancer and environmental exposures.

Question from Norma, Texas:
All I read about not using personal care products or cleaning products with toxic chemicals seems overwhelming. It makes me want to throw my hands up in the air! Where would you suggest I start?

Dear Norma,
This information can seem overwhelming because chemicals are so pervasive in our surroundings, but by making changes where you can – and being aware of what you’re putting in and on your body – you can reduce your risk and the risk for future generations.  

To introduce and raise awareness around the environmental causes of breast cancer, the Breast Cancer Fund and LUNA launched the Pure Prevention campaign, which provides easy, everyday tips to help individuals reduce their exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. The tips for prevention focus on reducing exposure to common risks found in our homes (plastics, household cleaners and insecticides), on our foods (pesticides and hormones), and in our personal care products. It also provides recommendations for how to choose – or create – safer alternatives, as well as how to learn more and take action through the Breast Cancer Fund to eliminate these environmental causes through smart public policies and regulations.

In collaboration with faculty, students and technical professionals at Vassar College, we’ve also created the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project, a multimedia Web site to encourage people to learn more about common exposures found both inside and outside the home and make informed choices to reduce your risk.

The Breast Cancer Fund works to aggregate the in-depth science linking environmental exposures and breast cancer and to mobilize the public in support of policy initiatives, corporate accountability campaigns and other innovative programs that promote breast cancer prevention. To learn more about the science, look to the Breast Cancer Fund’s State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, a comprehensive report of the scientific evidence on chemicals and radiation linked to breast cancer. The scientific evidence provides the basis to move toward research and public policy changes necessary to stop breast cancer before it starts.

And, don’t forget to check out my 20 Tips for Breast Cancer Prevention on The Daily Green! 

Have questions about breast cancer and environmental exposures? Ask Janet! askjanet@breastcancerfund.org.

Mammography Screening: Are we asking the wrong question?

This week, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced new mammography guidelines, moving the recommended age for women to receive their annual screenings from 40 to 50. Because mammography is one of the few tools available for breast cancer detection, the response from women across the country has been one of overwhelming frustration and anxiety.

With a mission to identify and eliminate the environmental causes of breast cancer, the Breast Cancer Fund has long been concerned about women’s exposures to ionizing radiation, the longest and best-established link to the disease.

The Breast Cancer Fund calls for a change in the national conversation about breast cancer detection, moving away from blanket guidelines and toward an investment in safer and more effective alternatives and in better understanding the causes of the disease.

This is a moment of opportunity to recognize the weaknesses in our current tools and fully invest in breast cancer prevention.

Read the Breast Cancer Fund’s complete position on the new mammography guidelines.

Ask Janet!

On the next few Fridays (and perhaps beyond), Breast Cancer Fund Science Advisor Janet Gray, Ph.D., of Vassar College, will lend her scientific expertise in environmental health to answering burning questions around the link between breast cancer and environmental exposures. Dr. Gray’s Tips for Breast Cancer Prevention were featured on The Daily Green during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October. She is also the editor of the Breast Cancer Fund’s State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment.

Question from Emilie, California:
I know that dry cleaning has harmful chemicals and is known for being an insidious pollutant of the environment as it’s difficult to contain the solvents. My dry cleaner recently changed ownership and is promoting that they are “earth friendly” cleaners. However, I’ve heard that some of the new methods of dry cleaning are better at being contained (and thus less polluting) but are still using the same or similar solvents.  What guidance can you give those of us with wardrobes full of professional clothing that require dry cleaning to ensure we are not unknowingly being exposed to toxic dry cleaning solvents.

Dear Emilie,
Thank you for your question. Dry cleaning is both hazardous for the environment and human health because of the use of perchloroethylene (also called PCE or PERC) to prevent water from penetrating the fabric’s threads. PERC has been found to be a water contaminant linked to increased breast cancer rates. Breast cancer clusters in Cape Cod, Mass., and recently Camp Lejeune, N.C., have shown a strong connection between incidences of the disease and high levels of the chemical found in their water supplies.

There has been some concern that cleaners will claim that they’re “organic” but continue to use PERC because it’s an organic solvent or volatile organic compound (VOC). In my October tips, I suggest that the best way to avoid exposure is to examine the fabric to determine if it’s necessary to dry clean. Manufacturers often put “dry clean only” on the label to prevent liability, but gentle wet washing and air drying may be sufficient.  

Along the same lines, a developing alternative in professional dry cleaning is wet cleaning and liquid carbon dioxide cleaning that uses water as a solvent rather than PERC.

The most environmentally-friendly method remains the do-it-yourself option where you can control the amount of water and type of detergent that you use. You also avoid unnecessary plastic bags!

Have questions about breast cancer and environmental exposures? Ask Janet! askjanet@breastcancerfund.org.