New Toxic Chemicals Found in Breast Milk

[Guest guest]

Repost for :

Subject: New Toxic Chemicals Found in Breast Milk

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/12/breast_milk.htm

>

> New Toxic Chemicals Found in Breast Milk

>

> A new class of toxic chemicals has been discovered in breast milk, in

> human blood, in food, in remote rural air, in wild fish, and in the sewage

> sludge being applied as fertilizer on food crops across the U.S.

>

> A Canadian health official recently summed up the discovery saying, " This

> stuff is everywhere. " [1]

>

> The newly-discovered contaminants are brominated flame retardants. Bromine

> is a highly-reactive chemical element, a halogen in the same class as

> chlorine and iodine.

>

> Worldwide, eight chemical corporations manufacture about 300 million

> pounds of brominated fire retardants each year, of which about 80 million

> pounds are members of the class known as polybromo diphenyl ethers, or

> PBDEs.[2]

>

> Although all brominated fire retardants seem capable of creating

> environment and health problems, here we will focus on PBDEs, which leach

> into the environment from the plastics in appliances, TVs and computers,

> foam in upholstery, and the fabrics of carpets and draperies. Many hard

> styrene plastics and many foam padding materials are 5% to 30% PBDE by

> weight.

>

> Like their cousin PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), many PBDEs persist for

> years in the environment, accumulate in the food chain and concentrate in

> fatty tissues. A recent survey of the PBDE literature revealed that some

> PBDEs can cause cancer, interfere with hormones, and disrupt normal growth

> and development in laboratory animals.[3]

>

> Recent studies have shown that these brominated compounds can interfere

> with the thyroid hormone, which is critical for the proper development of

> the brain and central nervous system in animals and humans. Baby mice

> exposed to PBDEs show permanent behavioral and memory problems, which

> worsen with age.[3,4]

>

> Because PBDEs are found at very high levels in computers, carpets and the

> foam padding inside furniture, the thick dust covering " ground zero " in

> lower Manhattan doubtless contains substantial quantities of PBDEs, so

> anyone breathing the air there without proper safety equipment is inhaling

> these toxicants.

>

> The dust at the site of the World Trade Center atrocities resulted from

> " thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, [and] tons of

> office furniture.... " pulverized when the twin towers and other nearby

> buildings collapsed September 11.

>

> To make matters worse, a portion of this high-tech dust is being

> continuously incinerated by a stubborn fire smoldering beneath the

> rubble.[5]

>

> In several " risk assessments " of air pollution hazards at " ground zero " US

> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the air in lower

> Manhattan is safe for workers and residents,[6] but EPA's risk assessment

> did not consider PBDEs (nor did it consider many other chemicals probably

> present in that air).

>

> Notably, in spite of EPA's assurances of safety, more than 4000 people

> have developed chronic chest pain, a persistent cough now known as " world

> trade center cough " and asthma-like (or emphysema-like) breathing problems

> from exposure to the air in lower Manhattan.[7]

>

> EPA has also employed risk assessment to declare the use of contaminated

> sewage sludge " safe " as fertilizer on food crops, but here again EPA did

> not consider the effects of PBDEs (or many other chemicals) on the crops,

> on people eating the crops, or on the natural environment in which the

> crops are grown.

>

> An estimated 8 billion pounds of contaminated sewage sludge are routinely

> spread onto farmland in the US each year. In July of this year researchers

> reported finding high concentrations of PBDEs in 11 samples of sewage

> sludge from Virginia, New York and California.[8]

>

> This of course is one of the unavoidable failings of a risk-assessment

> approach to managing toxic chemicals -- you can only (partially) assess

> the risks of chemicals that you know a great deal about. US chemical

> manufacturers introduce about 1000 new chemicals into commercial use each

> year with no safety testing required and little or none done.

>

> Typically, safety testing only begins after industrial chemicals have been

> discovered causing harm 10 to 20 years after introduction. Risk

> assessments are always " behind the curve " and therefore always give false

> assurances of safety.

>

> An alternative to the risk assessment approach is to take precautionary

> action as soon as evidence of harm begins to emerge.

>

> A recent survey by a group of Scandinavian researchers reports that PBDE

> levels have been increasing exponentially in the environment in Sweden for

> 30 years and show no sign of leveling off.[2] Recent studies indicate that

> the US is far more contaminated than Sweden.

>

> For example, sewage sludge in the US contains 10 to 100 times as much PBDE

> as does European sludge.[8] Other major sources of PBDEs are thought to be

> municipal incinerators and landfills.[2] PBDEs can also volatilize (ooze

> into the air) out of electrical components, especially from warm devices

> such as computers and TV sets.

>

> PBDEs are not very soluble in water, but they dissolve readily in fat.

> They are also persistent in the environment (meaning they break down only

> slowly). As they move through the food chain, they concentrate and

> biomagnify. These are the very characteristics that have caused other

> industrial poisons to be labeled bad actors and yanked from the market,

> including DDT and PCBs.

>

> Given these characteristics, it was no surprise when Scandinavian

> scientists reported earlier this year that PBDEs have been increasing

> exponentially in breast milk in Sweden since 1972, the concentration

> doubling every 5 years.[2]

>

> The researchers emphasized that current levels in breast milk, and in the

> Swedish diet, are far below the levels known to harm laboratory animals,

> but they concluded that " the time trend of PBDEs in human breast milk is

> alarming for the future. "

>

> No one knows for sure what the effects of PBDEs might be on developing

> embryos or suckling infants. It is worth emphasizing here that breast

> milk, even laced as it is with low levels of industrial poisons, is still

> the best food for infants because all the alternatives are worse.

>

> PBDEs are now everywhere. European researchers have found PBDEs in

> freshwater and ocean fish (salmon, herring, sprat), in air at remote rural

> locations, in sewage sludge, in deep ocean sediments, in eels, seals,

> shellfish, bottlenose dolphins, porpoises, pilot whales, and crabs, among

> other species. Based on limited studies, the Great Lakes appear to be

> among the most PBDE-contaminated bodies of water in the world, with Lake

> Michigan the worst.[2]

>

> Studies in Germany, Holland, Sweden, Japan and the US have reported the

> presence of PBDEs in fish, meat, cow's milk, fats/- oils, and bakery

> products. Studies of human blood in the US have revealed PBDEs in all

> samples.

>

> In 1999 the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate concluded that, " The

> lower-brominated technical PBDE compounds, containing mostly pentaBDE, are

> persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic in the aquatic environment.

>

> They show effects above all on the liver but also on thyroid hormone and

> affect the behaviour of mice. They occur widely in the environment, in

> human blood and in mother's milk. " [10] In Sweden, this combination of

> characteristics triggers precautionary action to remove such chemicals

> from the market. Denmark and the Netherlands have also taken steps to ban

> PBDEs.[2,11]

>

> In September the European Union decided to take precautionary action

> without waiting for conclusive scientific evidence of harm. The European

> Parliament voted September 6 to ban the use, manufacture, and import of

> some forms of PBDEs during the next few years, but the European Council of

> Ministers must approve the ban before it becomes law.

>

> Naturally, all such bans will be subject to challenge in the secret

> tribunals of the World Trade Organization (WTO) if any of the world's

> eight manufacturers of PBDEs decides to fight for its self-declared

> " right " to turn a profit by discharging industrial poisons into the

> environment.

>

> The manufacturers have reportedly expressed " furious opposition " to the

> European ban.[11] One of the main purposes in setting up the WTO was to

> allow corporations (acting through pliant governments) to use " risk

> assessment " to challenge and repeal the health and safety regulations of

> any and all nations.

>

> Prior to the WTO, corporations had no way to challenge the health and

> safety policies of all nations simultaneously, so the WTO offers

> remarkable new efficiencies in this regard. Risk assessment is ideally

> suited for such a purpose, especially when little is known about the

> chemicals being assessed. The less is known, the safer the chemicals can

> be made to appear -- just as with the air at ground zero.

>

> The US government has no regulations governing the manufacture, use, or

> disposal of PBDEs, and has announced no plans to initiate regulations. US

> chemical policy is still in a primitive state, guided by the philosophy,

> " Don't ask, don't tell. "

>

> PBDEs are similar in chemical form, and in many of their actions, to PCBs

> (polychlorinated biphenyls), which are among the most dangerous and

> persistent chemicals ever let loose by corporate imprudence.

>

> The US banned PCBs in 1976, when much less was known about PCBs than is

> known about PBDEs today. But our political situation is far different

> today than it was in 1976. Corporations today are much more powerful and

> governments are substantially weaker.

>

> Corporations have succeeded in embedding risk assessment into all US

> government decision-making processes, so precautionary action is nearly

> inconceivable within most agencies of government. The public is much

> better informed, but its democratic institutions (public schools, the

> press, the judiciary, Congress and the executive branch) have been

> hijacked by corporate money and now mainly serve powerful elites,

> regardless of the general welfare.

>

> Within 10 to 15 years PBDEs will have surpassed PCBs as environmental

> hazards. Breast milk studies indicate that the danger to infants and

> children is rapidly rising. Who will lead this fight to allow us to take

> precautionary action against the corporate poisoners?

>

> Environmental Research Foundation

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

>

> Yet another chemical that we need to be aware of. Yet, as the article

> states, even though breast milk may have it present, it is still far

> better for an infant to receive contaminated breast milk than any

> commercial formula.

>

> Related Articles:

>

>

> Why The Precautionary Principle? A Meditation on Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

> and the Breasts of Mothers

>

> The Mystery in Your Milk

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> [1] Charlotte Shubert, " Burned by Flame Rretardants? " SCIENCE NEWS Vol.

> 160 (October 13, 2001), pgs. 238-239.

>

> [2] Per Ola Darnerud and others, " Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers:

> Occurrence, Dietary Exposure, and Toxicology, " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

> PERSPECTIVES Vol. 109 Supplement 1 (March 2001), pgs. 49-68.

>

> [3] Kim Hooper and A. Mc, " The PBDEs: An Emerging

> Environmental Challenge and Another Reason for Breast-Milk Monitoring

> Programs, " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 108, No. 5 (May 2000),

> pgs. 387-392.

>

> [4] Per sson and others, " Brominated Flame Retardants: A Novel Class

> of Developmental Neurotoxicants in Our Environment? " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

> PERSPECTIVES Vol. 109, No. 9 (September 2001), pgs. 903-908.

>

> [5] Lipton and C. Revkin, " With Water and Sweat, Fighting the

> Most Stubborn Fire, " NEW YORK TIMES November 19, 2001, page unknown.

> Available at http://www.nytimes.com.

>

> [6] Diane Cardwell, " A Nation Challenged: Lower Manhattan; Workers and

> Residents Are Safe, Officials Say, " NEW YORK TIMES Nov. 2, 2001, pg.

> unknown. Available at www.nytimes.com.

>

> [7] Worth, " A Nation Challenged: The Site; Citing Safety, City Will

> Cut Work Force For Recovery, " NEW YORK TIMES November 1, 2001, pg.

> unknown. Available at www.nytimes.com.

>

> [8] C. Hale and others, " Persistent pollutants in land-applied

> sludges, " NATURE Vol. 412 (July 12, 2001), pgs. 140-141.

>

> [9] Steingraber, HAVING FAITH (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus

> Publishing, 2001). ISBN 0-7382-0467-6.

>

> [10] KemI, " KemI proposes a prohibition of flame retardants, " March 15,

> 1999. See http://www.-kemi.se/aktuellt/pressmedd/1999/- 990312_eng.htm

>

> [11] Environment News Service, " EU Lawmakers Vote Broad Fire Retardant

> Ban, " September 6, 2001. See http://www.ens-news.com/ens/-

> sep2001/2001L-09-06-02.html.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Return to Table of Contents #280

>

>