Inside Prevention

Hey Guy, Toxic Shampoo Is Bad for You Too! (Huffington Post, 5/21/2013)

It's not just the ladies who are exposed to chemicals that reduce fertility or may cause cancer. There are plenty of toxic chemicals in men's products as well, especially those marketed to teenage boys, according to a Huffington Post piece by Breast Cancer Fund Director of Program and Policy Janet Nudelman.

A recent analysis by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics indicates that many men's personal care products contain a range of unsafe chemicals of concern linked to cancer and reproductive and developmental harm, including lead acetate, triclosan and coal tar among others.

Read more in the Huffington Post.

Focus on preventing cancer (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/15/2013)

Thousands of women each year face decisions like Angelina Jolie's bold choice to undergo a preventative double mastectomy. But in her San Francisco chronicle op-ed Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo asks: what if fewer women had to?

Most women who develop breast cancer do not have a family history of, or genetic predisposition to, the disease. In fact, the majority of cases can be attributed to environmental causes including toxic chemicals and radiation:

"Decades of scientific evidence points to modern living as a major culprit. In our daily lives we are exposed to toxic chemicals and radiation from a wide range of sources, including cleaning and personal-care products, plastics, food, air, water, medical treatments, our workplaces and our neighborhoods."

We have the power to stop breast cancer before it starts, and reduce risks for the vast majority of women who have no genetic predisposition to the disease:

"We need to develop a federal research agenda that prioritizes investment in the study of chemical agents that contribute to the disease, and public health measures to reduce exposures."

Read more at the San Francisco Chronicle , join us in creating a breast cancer prevention strategy and learn about a groundbreaking report, which concludes that identifying and eliminating the environmental causes of breast cancer presents the greatest opportunity to prevent the disease.

In memory of Barbara Brenner: a tireless, passionate and fearless breast cancer advocate

Statement by Jeanne Rizzo, President & CEO, Breast Cancer Fund.

Barbara Brenner was a force to be reckoned with; a tireless, passionate and fearless breast cancer advocate. We join the vast community of breast cancer advocates and colleagues in expressing our deepest sympathies to her family and friends. 

Her tenure at Breast Cancer Action was bold, and her work advanced the breast cancer movement significantly. We are all the better for her challenging efforts on behalf of those affected by breast cancer.

The Breast Cancer Fund has a long history with Breast Cancer Action and Barbara dating back to the collaborative advocacy with our founder, Andrea Martin that established the California Breast Cancer Research Program, the premier breast cancer research funding program that serves as a national model.

In 2002 the Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action worked together to publish the first State of the Evidence: What Is the Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment? report. Edited by Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with a long history with both organizations, we collaborated on subsequent editions, quickly dropping “what is?” from the title as the science more clearly emerged showing the links between breast cancer and toxic chemical and radiation exposure. This multi-year collaboration was a testament to our organizations’ shared commitment to understanding the environmental causes of the disease.

We offer our condolences to Barbara’s partner, Susie Lampert, family and colleagues at Breast Cancer Action. I know that over the years she battled ALS, Barbara found comfort in knowing that Karuna Jaggar was so ably leading the organization she loved.

All of us at the Breast Cancer Fund look forward to continued collaborations with Breast Cancer Action in honor of her legacy. 

Read more from Breast Cancer Action about Barbara Brenner's life, legacy and inspiring story.

Calif. governor proposes reforms to landmark toxics law (Environment & Energy Publishing, 5/8/13)

Calif. Governor Jerry Brown has proposed significant reforms to Prop. 65, the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. We generally support the Brown administration's efforts—particularly when it comes to warning labels. Brown's proposal would make warning labels much more specific, telling people about particular chemicals while providing tips on how to minimize exposure.

We also support efforts to limit frivolous lawsuits that don’t make California’s products any safer. While there may be some unscrupulous attorneys only looking to make a quick buck using Prop 65, it is important to note that many Prop. 65 lawsuits have propelled momentum on regulations of toxic substances including caramel coloring and lead.

Despite our support of these items, we are concerned about one portion of the proposed reform. Brown is considering lowering the threshold levels of chemicals that would trigger warning labels. Though his newly proposed no-observed-adverse-effect levels may make sense for some chemicals, endocrine disruptors like BPA and phthalates require a more nuanced approach since they can be harmful (especially to pregnant women, infants and children) at extremely low doses. In the end, any provisions should maintain the integrity of Prop. 65 and avoid rendering it toothless regulation.

Gretchen Lee Salter, the Breast Cancer Fund's senior policy manager, was recently interviewed for an E&E article about the proposed changes: 

The law has "really been successful taking toxic chemicals out of consumer products," said Gretchen Lee Salter, senior program and policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. Companies have reformulated items rather than disclosing chemicals, she said, because landing on the state's Proposition 65 list is like the "Scarlet Letter."

"We just want to make sure that any reforms that may happen, that we don't lose that aspect of Proposition 65," Salter said.

And as other states enact toxics policies and create lists of problematic chemicals, they often look to the Golden State's list as authoritative, she said, adding "we want to make sure that California maintains its leadership."

Salter also said she was concerned that the process of changing the law could open the door for the chemical industry lobby to advance the rewrites it wants.

We’ll continue to work with the administration to ensure Prop 65  protects public health in the way it always has.

The E&E story is not available online, but you can read more about Gov. Brown's proposed changes in the San Francisco Chronicle and the LA Times.

J&J removes some chemicals from its baby shampoo, other products (5/6/13)

Breast Cancer Fund Director of Program and Policy Janet Nudelman was quoted in an Environmental Health News article about Johnson & Johnson's landmark decision to remove many harmful chemicals from its personal care products:

"The small companies demonstrate to the big cosmetic giants that making safe products is not only possible, but it's also profitable. It's what consumers want."

She points out that disclosure requirements can serve as de facto bans on toxic chemicals:

"Companies would rather quietly reformulate their products than have consumers know there are carcinogens or reproductive toxins in the product."

 Read the full article here.

Beauty tips for the FDA (The Investigative Fund, 5/6/13)

After John Wasik's wife, Kathleen, was diagnosed with breast cancer, the couple started to ask "why"? She didn't have the BRCA breast cancer gene, and her surgeon suggested that environmental factors might be responsible. Eventually, Kathleen discovered the Breast Cancer Fund, and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. She proceeded to throw away her cosmetics—and Wasik started a journey exploring the vital question that we at the Breast Cancer Fund have been asking for the past ten years:

"How is it, I wanted to know, that the FDA, which was created by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, leaves the regulation of cosmetics largely up to the cosmetics industry?"

He explains how the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, the entity that is supposed to be responsible for ensuring the safety of cosmetic products, is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and would not disclose its budget.  As Wasik points out: “the CIR has no power over the industry that finances it.”

Wasik also explores pinkwashing and cosmetic company lobbying: two powerful explanations for our lax regulatory environment. The piece ends on a guardedly hopeful note with the introduction of the Safe Cosmetics Act. 

Wasik reported this piece for the Investigative Fund, which is part of The Nation Institute. He has been working as a financial reporter for the past 25 years, and this article is a must read.

To learn more about the cosmetic links to breast cancer: http://bit.ly/12Wa8YM

To take action on the Safe Cosmetics Act: http://bit.ly/2013SafeCosmeticsAct

Media Roundup: Metals linked to breast cancer found in lipsticks (5/2/13-5/6/13)

A UC-Berkeley study finds that many common lipsticks contain heavy metals like cadmium and chromium, which are both linked to breast cancer. Our Campaign for Safe Cosmetics broke the story about lead in lipstick 6 years ago, but this latest research also tested for concentrations of additional metals.

Breast Cancer Fund Director of Science Sharima Rasanayagam was quoted in The Huffington Post:

"It's definitely a preliminary study and something that needs more research, but we're concerned about there being potentially toxic chemicals in lipstick and consumers not knowing about it."

Rasanayagam was also featured in The San Jose Mercury News and Mother Jones, which directs readers to our State of the Evidence on Cadmium and Other Metals web page:

"Cadmium, for example, is a carcinogen that has been found in breast cancer biopsies and shown to cause cancer cells to multiply in lab experiments. Metals are often used in mineral dyes, which give lipstick its pigment, and are also often found in soil and groundwater. 'Cadmium is a very common contaminant in soil,' says Sharima Rasanayagam, a scientist at the Breast Cancer Fund. 'What's concerning is that consumers don't know they're in the lipstick.'"

Since cosmetics companies and the FDA have failed to take steps to protect consumers from toxic metals found in lipsticks, consumers must educate themselves about how to make safe choices. Lipstick lovers may want to start cutting back on the product, saving it for special occasions, or to choose safer options. Parents should prohibit children from wearing lipstick because toxic metals found in these products are too dangerous for developing minds and bodies.

Check out our Storify, which is tracking the buzz.

Breast Cancer and the Environment (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences podcast, 3/15/2013)

Our fearless leader, Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo, was featured in a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences podcast about breast cancer and the environment. She talked about why translating breast cancer research is critical for the decisions we make in our everyday lives.

"We deal with what personal actions individuals can take to reduce their exposure to known or suspected carcinogens or endocrine disrupting chemicals. We also talk about corporate accountability and responsibility, the businesses that manufacture and sell those products, and how can we engage you, the public, in helping us drive industry to make better decisions." 

Have a listen and let us know what you think.

American Chemistry Council blocks state scientists from doing their jobs

Just as BPA disrupts our hormones, Big Chem is doing everything it can to disrupt the democratic process, using its money, power and influence to block government action that would protect pregnant women and children.

On Friday, shortly after California’s Environmental Protection Agency had announced its decision to add BPA to its list of Prop 65 reproductive toxicants, a judge ordered BPA off the same list.  The judge granted an injunction in the American Chemistry Council's case against California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The chemical industry is trying to argue in court that BPA does not cause birth defects.

Prop 65 requires the governor of California to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and, in some instances, requires labeling of products containing those chemicals.

If BPA is safe, as the chemical industry asserts, why would the FDA have banned it from baby bottles and children’s drinking cups in 2012? Why would 12 states have introduced legislation either banning or requiring the labeling of BPA in food packaging? Why would France have banned it all together from food packaging? Why would countless studies have demonstrated a clear link between BPA and a long list of health problems including infertility and breast cancer?

Stay tuned. We will be following this issue as it progresses. In the meantime, please share your thoughts and comments below!

 

Will Your Canned Soup Carry a Warning Label? (Rodale, 4/12/2013)

A Rodale article about California’s declaration that BPA would be added to the state’s list of Prop 65 chemicals quotes our policy manager, Gretchen Lee Salter:

“The Prop 65 listing is yet another indictment of this toxic chemical that industry continues to argue is safe, despite waves of peer-reviewed scientific studies finding that BPA harms reproduction and is linked to breast cancer," says Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. "And the listing is happening the same week that the French government began warning pregnant women to avoid BPA because fetal exposure has been linked to later-life breast cancer. This is a seriously toxic chemical that none of us should be exposed to." Read the full article here.

Proposition 65 requires the governor of California to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The law also requires labeling of  products that contain high levels of these chemicals, but because BPA can exert negative effects at extremely low levels, environmental health advocates and state officials are still hashing out acceptable levels for labeling.  For more information on the health effects of BPA, check out our recently updated State of the Evidence on BPA.