The Chemicals Within Us: Many common household products contain compounds that could be affecting our health - intra-body toxins

[Guest guest]

Apology in advance if this has already been posted. I've been reading

lists via digests. -

- - - -

foto: It's in There: (Left to right) BPA, a plastic hardener, is in baby

bottles; phthalates soften the plastic in rubber duckies; flame

retardant PBDEs are often used in upholstery

Photos: F. Ramin for Newsweek

- - - -

*The Chemicals Within*

Many common household products contain compounds that could be affecting

our health.

By Anne Underwood

NEWSWEEK

http://www.newsweek.com/id/105588

As an Alaskan fisherman, June, 54, used to think that he was

safe from industrial pollutants at his home in Haines---a town with a

population of 2,400 people and 4,000 eagles, with 20 million acres of

protected wilderness nearby. But in early 2007, June agreed to take part

in a survey of 35 Americans from seven states. It was a biomonitoring

project, in which people's blood and urine were tested for traces of

chemicals---in this case, three potentially hazardous classes of

compounds found in common household products like shampoo, tin cans,

shower curtains and upholstery. The results---released in November in a

report called " Is It in Us? " by a coalition of environmental

groups---were not reassuring. Every one of the participants, ranging

from an Illinois state legislator to a Massachusetts minister, tested

positive for all three classes of contaminants. And while the simple

presence of these chemicals doesn't necessarily indicate a health risk,

the fact that typical Americans carry these chemicals at all shocked

June and his fellow participants. As Felten, 28, of Aurora,

Ill., put it, " Why should chemical companies be allowed to roll the dice

on my health? "

Clearly, there are chemicals in our bodies that don't belong there. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducts a large, ongoing

survey that has found 148 chemicals in Americans of all ages, including

lead, mercury, dioxins and PCBs. Other scientists have detected

antibacterial agents from liquid soaps in breast milk, infants' cord

blood and the urine of young girls. And in 2005, the Environmental

Working Group found an average of 200 chemicals in the cord blood of 10

newborns, including known carcinogens and neurotoxins. " Our babies are

being born pre-polluted, " says Sharyle Patton of Commonweal, which

cosponsored " Is It in Us? " " This is going to be the next big

environmental issue after climate change. "

The shocking thing to most Americans is that we really don't know the

health effects of many chemicals on the market today. Under the Toxic

Substances Control Act of 1976, chemicals already in use were

grandfathered in without scrutiny. These include the three classes of

compounds targeted in " Is It in Us? " ---a plastic strengthener called

bisphenol A (BPA), brominated flame retardants known as PBDEs and

plastic softeners called phthalates. The chemical industry says these

compounds have been used safely for decades, and certainly they do not

have the overtly toxic properties of mercury or lead. But in animal

studies and human cell cultures, they mimic hormones, with effects even

at minute levels, down to parts per billion. Scientists say we're now

awash in a chemical brew of hormone-mimicking compounds that didn't

exist 100 years ago. " We've changed the nature of nature, " says Devra

Lee , director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the

University of Pittsburgh.

Take bisphenol A. It's a basic constituent of the polycarbonate plastics

found in many baby bottles, sippy cups and juice bottles. A highly

versatile compound, it is also found in dental sealants, CDs, DVDs and

the resin linings of food and beverage containers, including many cans

and takeout cartons. But most scientists say small amounts can leach

out---and ultimately find their way into our bodies---when the plastics

start to break down under high heat or wear and tear. The CDC has found

BPA in 92 percent of Americans age 6 and older who were tested. But the

chemical industry says it's safe---and the Food and Drug Administration

agrees. " It's not possible to contact harmful levels of it, " says

Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, which represents the major

chemical companies.

Reproductive biologists aren't so sure. Hunt of Washington

State University was alerted to possible dangers of BPA in 1999 when her

mouse study on an unrelated topic suddenly went haywire, with dozens of

female mice unexpectedly developing chromosomal abnormalities in the

eggs they carried in their ovaries. As it turned out, a lab worker had

used the wrong detergent to clean the animals' cages---one that caused

BPA to leach out of the plastic cages and feeding bottles. Hunt tried

washing brand-new cages with the same detergent to confirm the source of

the problem. She then began studying BPA exposures in unborn rodents,

which she followed into adulthood. The results were striking. Almost

half the eggs of female mice exposed to low doses of BPA during

gestation carried extra copies of chromosomes or were missing

chromosomes. No one has replicated the findings.

There are other potential effects. Hundreds of animal and test-tube

studies suggest that low-dose exposures, particularly during gestation,

may later lead to breast and prostate cancer, abnormalities in the

reproductive tract and behavioral problems, among other things. But

there is disagreement about the implications for human health. Two

groups convened by the National Institutes of Health have reached

opposite conclusions. In 2007, advisers to the government's National

Toxicology Program found " minimal " cause for concern. Meanwhile, another

scientific panel produced a consensus statement saying that, based on

animal data, common levels of exposure could pose a problem and that

further study was needed. " We can't say there are conclusive data in

humans, " says Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri, who

headed the second panel. " But given the fact that we're seeing

irreparable damage in animals, for heaven's sake, let's get this out of

products our babies are coming in contact with. "

No government in the world has seen the need to do that yet. But two

weeks ago, Michigan Rep. Dingell, chair of the House Committee on

Energy and Commerce, sent letters to seven manufacturers of infant

formula asking if their cans were lined with BPA and if they had tested

their products for it. In 2006 Whole Foods stopped carrying baby bottles

made from polycarbonate plastic, which contains BPA. The chain now sells

only BPA-free bottles and sippy cups.

Phthalates have also raised concern. The compounds are used to soften

the plastics in products ranging from rubber duckies and vinyl shower

curtains to certain medical tubing and IV bags. They are also found in

hundreds of personal-care products, including many fragrances, body

lotions, nail polishes and shampoos. Again, 30 years of data from

institutions like the NIH and EPA point to potential problems in animals

stemming from prenatal exposure, including abnormalities in the

reproductive tract and a decline of sperm quality. Now there is a

smattering of human studies, too. In 2006 Danish researchers found that

higher levels of a particular phthalate in mothers' breast milk

correlated with lower testosterone in male babies at 1 to 3 months of

age. Similarly, Dr. Russ Hauser at Harvard studied roughly 500 men at a

fertility clinic and found that those with higher levels of certain

phthalates in their urine had lower sperm counts and sperm motility. A

Swedish study of young military recruits, however, found no such

correlation. These are all association studies---which by definition

cannot prove cause and effect.

Other scientists are starting to look at what happens when these

chemicals are combined. L. Earl Gray Jr., a research biologist at the

EPA, has tested mixtures of two or more phthalates in animals. He

deliberately selected doses of each that were too low to cause effects

individually---yet found that as many as 50 percent of male rats who

were exposed to the combination in utero developed abnormalities in the

reproductive tract. In his latest study, he combined three phthalates

with four pesticides and found that at the highest doses, the effects

equaled those of a sevenfold dose of a single phthalate. " All the males

were malformed, " he says.

The toy industry contends that phthalates pose no danger, particularly a

widely used one called DINP. This chemical " has been well studied here

in the U.S. and in Europe and found to be safe specifically for kids'

products, " says Joan Lawrence, a vice president of the Toy Industry

Association. She notes that companies cannot easily replace it because

none of the potential substitutes " has its lengthy safety record. "

Nonetheless, last October, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed

a ban on the use of six phthalates in children's products sold in the

state---though three of them, including DINP, are prohibited only in

items that kids under 3 are likely to put in their mouths. In December,

Toys " R " Us notified its vendors of its intention to comply with the

California ban by Jan. 1, 2009, the date the law takes effect. Mattel is

already in compliance.

Finally there are the flame retardants, PBDEs. They turn up in fabrics,

upholstery, foam mattresses, circuit boards and the casings of computers

and televisions---and apparently escape into indoor air and dust. Animal

studies show they can have negative impacts on learning and memory,

sperm counts and thyroid functioning in rats and mice. PBDEs tend to

linger a long time in the body, and one mixture in particular seems

" quite biologically active, especially during development, as we've seen

in studies on rats, mice and fish, " says Birnbaum, director of

experimental toxicology at the EPA. " If I were nursing my baby, I

wouldn't stop because of PBDEs in breast milk, but many of us wish they

weren't there. " According to the EPA, 11 states---including California,

Maine, Michigan and New York---have bans on two major types.

It could take decades to resolve doubts about the safety of all these

chemicals, one way or the other. But June isn't waiting. He's

stopped buying tomato sauce in tin cans to avoid the BPA, which

scientists say tends to leach out of can linings when the contents are

particularly acidic. He's ditched his vinyl shower curtain in favor of a

cloth one. And he's considering getting rid of the foam mattress on his

fishing boat. " I guess the survey had a bigger impact on me than I

realized, " he says. Let's all hope the chemicals aren't having an even

bigger impact on us.

With Kuchment

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes.For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this

email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner*.*