Archives for category: Household Risks

Sick Child

Healthy Child Healthy World recently interviewed Upstream Contributor, Dr. Leo Trasande, about environmental health.  Here are some of the questions and answers.

So what is environmental health?

Defining our field is often the major challenge of our field! It can be all encompassing—not only exposures to synthetic chemicals, it can go as broadly as impacts of climate change to the physical environment that influences children’s physical activity, diet, and ultimately obesity as well as other health outcomes.

Are people starting to pay more attention to the link between the environment and human health?

Yes. There are multiple drivers. There has been progress in improving medical curricula and research. Second, parents are presenting these concerns to their pediatricians and asking for answers with greater frequency and consistency. The third is the power of the purse. People are acting with their wallets and buying products that don’t have environmental contaminants and reducing their exposure. This creates a significant market force.

Where should parents wanting to raise healthy kids begin?

Start with some of the Healthy Child Easy Steps. Focus on the leading environmental issues we understand he most about. Lead is terribly important. And you can reduce your intake of fish contaminated with methylmercury while still eating the good omega-3s so critical for brain development.

* * *

Does caring about environmental health mean you have to be a rich or a scientist? Or both?

You don’t need a PhD in chemistry or a millionaire’s salary to identify and protect your children from environmental hazards. There are safe and simple steps we can take, like avoiding lead and mercury exposure. You don’t have to spray pesticides in your house. You can open your windows every few days to get rid of organic chemicals and dust and mold.

Read all of the questions and responses here.

Visit Dr. Leo Trasande’s main Upstream page.

Plasticware

From UPI (an article about a study co-conducted by Upstream Contributor, Dr. Frederica Perera):

Bisphenol-A — a chemical found in plastics — was detected in at least 94 percent of urine samples in U.S. urban mothers and children, researchers say.

Lori Hoepner, Robin M Whyatt, Allan C. Just, Antonia M. Calafat, Frederica P. Perera and Andrew G. Rundle of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health at the Mailman School of Public Health in New York said BPA was a chemical found in certain plastics and has applications in everyday consumer products. It is found in toys, reusable water bottles, medical equipment, food and beverage can linings and glass jar tops.

Diet is the most common route of BPA exposure, but it is also in store receipts. Past research has linked BPA with health effects such as cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and metabolic disorders, the researchers said.

The study involved 568 mothers and children enrolled in the Center’s Mothers & Newborns study. Study leader Hoepner and colleagues analysed BPA concentrations found in urine samples collected prenatally and at ages 3, 5 and 7 years.

The study detected BPA in 94 percent of prenatal samples and at least 96 percent of the childhood samples, but the maternal prenatal BPA concentrations were significantly lower than those of their children.

Additionally, the study found concentrations were significantly higher among African-Americans as compared to Dominicans.

BPA concentrations were also correlated with concentrations of another chemical of concern, phthalates, used to soften plastics to increase their flexibility and found in a variety of products including enteric coatings of pharmaceutical pills and nutritional supplements, adhesives, electronics, building materials, personal care products, medical devices, detergents, children’s toys, modeling clay, waxes, paint, ink, pharmaceuticals, food products and textiles, the researchers said.

Read article here.

Visit Frederica Perera’s main Upstream page.

Greenwire: Prenatal exposures prompt EPA to re-examine chemical regulations.

U.S. EPA regulators convened with scientists last month to discuss how to design regulations for chemicals based on emerging science that connects exposures during pregnancy with disease much later in life.

A mother exchanges with her child in the womb chemicals that have remained constant for much of human evolution. They dictate which genes will be turned on and off in the child, which proteins the child will make in his body and how much of them.

New research, in a field called epigenetics, now suggests that these changes, made during the earliest part of gestation, could spell out the child’s longer-term medical record. It could determine his propensity for mood swings, his tendency to gain weight into the realms of obesity, his risk of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer when he hits 50, and his propensity of passing on his genes to his children.

The idea is that the child adapts to environmental cues in the womb that will reflect the chemical composition of the world, thus conferring a Darwinian fitness advantage.

The mix of chemicals a fetus is exposed to has exploded in the past 200 years, heralded by the Industrial Revolution. Technology has outstripped evolution, said Robert Chapin, senior research fellow in drug safety research and development at Pfizer Inc. People were suddenly surrounded by particulate matter from cars, coal-plant emissions, metals, organic molecules from hand sanitizers, body lotions and other chemicals, some of which could cross into the placenta and merge into the child’s aqueous world.

Some, such as folic acid, were intentionally given to moms as beneficial; others such as bisphenol A became common in the modern environment and had the ability to mimic hormones that are naturally present in humans. Yet others, such as arsenic and tin, are naturally present in some places.

Scientists now suspect that the altered chemical cues during the critical windows of pregnancy — at stages when gender is still developing and the human is little more than a collection of cells — could trigger pathways that manifest as disease well into adulthood.

More . . .

Mother Jones has a superb new article on the public relations behind sugar. It begins as follows:

ON A BRISK SPRING Tuesday in 1976, a pair of executives from the Sugar Association stepped up to the podium of a Chicago ballroom to accept the Oscar of the public relations world, the Silver Anvil award for excellence in “the forging of public opinion.” The trade group had recently pulled off one of the greatest turnarounds in PR history. For nearly a decade, the sugar industry had been buffeted by crisis after crisis as the media and the public soured on sugar and scientists began to view it as a likely cause of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Industry ads claiming that eating sugar helped you lose weight had been called out by the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration had launched a review of whether sugar was even safe to eat. Consumption had declined 12 percent in just two years, and producers could see where that trend might lead. As John “JW” Tatem Jr. and Jack O’Connell Jr., the Sugar Association’s president and director of public relations, posed that day with their trophies, their smiles only hinted at the coup they’d just pulled off.

Their winning campaign, crafted with the help of the prestigious public relations firm Carl Byoir & Associates, had been prompted by a poll showing that consumers had come to see sugar as fattening, and that most doctors suspected it might exacerbate, if not cause, heart disease and diabetes. With an initial annual budget of nearly $800,000 ($3.4 million today) collected from the makers of Dixie Crystals, Domino, C&H, Great Western, and other sugar brands, the association recruited a stable of medical and nutritional professionals to allay the public’s fears, brought snack and beverage companies into the fold, and bankrolled scientific papers that contributed to a “highly supportive” FDA ruling, which, the Silver Anvil application boasted, made it “unlikely that sugar will be subject to legislative restriction in coming years.”

The story of sugar, as Tatem told it, was one of a harmless product under attack by “opportunists dedicated to exploiting the consuming public.” Over the subsequent decades, it would be transformed from what the New York Times in 1977 had deemed “a villain in disguise” into a nutrient so seemingly innocuous that even the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association approved it as part of a healthy diet. Research on the suspected links between sugar and chronic disease largely ground to a halt by the late 1980s, and scientists came to view such pursuits as a career dead end. So effective were the Sugar Association’s efforts that, to this day, no consensus exists about sugar’s potential dangers. The industry’s PR campaign corresponded roughly with a significant rise in Americans’ consumption of “caloric sweeteners,” including table sugar (sucrose) and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This increase was accompanied, in turn, by a surge in the chronic diseases increasingly linked to sugar. Since 1970, obesity rates in the United States have more than doubled, while the incidence of diabetes has more than tripled.

Read the entire article and related items here.

From Metro (quoting Upstream Expert, Dr. Carlos Sonnenschein):

The synthetic chemical bisphenol A, which is used in the linings of beer, soda and food cans, plus plastic water bottles, has been exposed as a hormone disrupter and linked to autism, cancer and other complications in the body. But it might be just the tip of the iceberg of toxic chemicals impacting us every day.

“There are 80,000 chemicals in everyday use that have never been tested,” says Dr. Carlos Sonnenschein of Tufts University School of Medicine’s Department of Anatomy and Cellular Biology. “It really is a nightmare.”

Despite decades of research supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on the harmful effects of BPA and other endocrine disruptors, Dr. Sonnenschein says that “very little has been done about it where it counts for the public, that is, at the regulatory end (EPA, FDA).”

Dr. Sonnenschein urges the public to get involved in banning toxic ingredients because “nothing will change,” he says, “without protests before officials who run for local, state and national office. The public has an important stake in this.”

The potential effects of such ingredients are widespread: “Hormonal disruptors, at their most radical, cause fetal damage during pregnancy. There’s more incidence of breast cancer as there’s more exposure. [Pubescent girls] are particularly sensitive to exposure. But, throughout our lives, continuous exposure means the body is storing the chemicals in fat tissue,” Dr. Sonnenschein adds.

“Most people are fed up with all these chemicals. The evidence is there. It is time for the regulatory agencies to act to protect the people.”

BPA: here to stay

Despite a lawsuit from the international nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, the FDA recently ruled to continue allowing BPA in food packaging. The NRDC’s public health
program’s senior scientist, Dr. Sarah Janssen, responded in a statement, which in part read:

“We believe FDA made the wrong call. The agency has failed to protect our health and safety — in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children. The FDA is out-of-step with scientific and medical research. This illustrates the need for a major overhaul of how the government protects us against dangerous chemicals.”

More.

From :

Is eating organic more expensive? In the long-run the answer would be NO. Synthetic pesticides or fertilizers used on vegetables and fruits affects our health. Pesticides have demonstrably elevated rates of asthma, leukemia, and prostate cancer.

From CHE Blog (post by Sarah Howard):

The UK nonprofit organization CHEM Trust (Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring Trust) just released a report on the links between chemicals and diabetes/obesity. Studies published in recent years provide compelling evidence that human chemical contamination can play a part in both conditions. The report concludes that the chemicals that we accumulate throughout life, via our everyday lifestyles, is likely to contribute to these modern epidemics. This is the same conclusion reached by the National Toxicology Program’s review of the scientific evidence on chemicals and diabetes/obesity, published last month.

The CHEM Trust report, entitled Review of the Science Linking Chemical Exposures to the Human Risk of Obesity and Diabetes, is written by two of the world’s leading experts: Professor Miquel Porta, MD, MPH, PhD, of Spain and Professor Duk-Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of South Korea.

The report focuses on endocrine disrupting chemicals in both obesity and diabetes. Exposures to these chemicals in the womb, at other critical periods of life, and in adulthood may be linked to obesity and disruption of the normal functioning of insulin in later life. Evidence of the role of hormone disrupting chemicals comes from both laboratory studies and studies on human populations.

In one example, the report describes a study from the general US population that found that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in fatty tissue, even more than the fat itself, plays a critical role in the development of diabetes. People who were obese did not have an increased risk of diabetes if their levels of POPs were low. People who were thin did have a higher risk of diabetes if their POP levels were higher. And those with higher POP levels who were also obese had the highest diabetes risk of all.

The chemicals suspected of increasing weight gain or diabetes in humans include a variety of chemicals, including numerous POPs, arsenic, BPA, phthalates, pesticides (including atrazine, organophosphorous and organochlorine pesticides), brominated flame retardants, metals (including cadmium, mercury, organotins), and more. Many of these are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and have the ability to disrupt our natural hormones which control both fat storage and blood sugar regulation, and hence can play a role in obesity and diabetes.

Professor Miquel Porta stated, “The epidemics in obesity and diabetes are extremely worrying. The role of hormone disrupting chemicals in this must be addressed. The number of such chemicals that contaminate humans is considerable. We must encourage new policies that help minimize human exposure to all relevant hormone disruptors, especially women planning pregnancy, as it appears to be the fetus developing in utero that is at greatest risk.

Elizabeth Salter Green, CHEM Trust Director stated, “If exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals is programming us to be fat, it is high time that public health policy takes into account cutting edge science. Obesity and diabetes are examples of the adverse health trends linked with endocrine disruption which need to be urgently addressed. We are talking about prevention, and in this time of financial squeeze, anything that can help with prevention is a good idea. CHEM Trust is calling for the UK Government and the EU to urgently identify hormone disruptors to ensure that chemicals suspected of playing a role in diabetes and obesity are substituted with safer alternatives.”

Summary of the report’s conclusions

  • Studies suggest that exposure to certain chemicals in the environment can play an important role in obesity and diabetes. The chemicals implicated include some to which the general population are exposed on a daily basis.
  • Substantial evidence exists to consider exposure to EDCs with estrogenic activity as a risk factor for the etiology of obesity and obesity-related metabolic dysfunction.
  • Evidence suggesting a relationship between human contamination with environmental chemicals and the risk of diabetes has existed for more than 15 years, with the volume and strength of evidence becoming particularly persuasive since 2006.
  • Obesity is a known risk factor for diabetes, and chemicals that accumulate in body fat (e.g., POPs) may play a role in the causal relationship between obesity and diabetes.
  • Many of the chemicals that can cause weight gain and related metabolic effects have endocrine disrupting properties.
  • Embryonic, fetal, and infantile stages may be especially vulnerable to obesity from relatively low doses of EDCs. Nonetheless, the risk of obesity due to obesogenic pollutants can also increase during adolescence and adulthood.

Summary of the report’s recommendations

  • Action to reduce exposures to such chemicals is warranted on a precautionary basis, and is likely to be cost-effective.
  • National governments and the EU need to urgently put forward mechanisms to identify EDCs to ensure that currently used chemicals suspected of playing a role in obesity and diabetes are substituted with safer alternatives.
  • Health professionals, citizens’ organisations, companies, authorities and society at large need to be better informed of the role that chemical exposures may play in causing diabetes and obesity.
  • Individuals, industry, the agricultural sector, dieticians and the medical professions all have roles to play in reducing exposures both in the home and in occupational settings.
  • Personal changes in lifestyle are certainly important for the prevention of obesity and diabetes, but this should not obscure the need for government policies within and outside the health sector to decrease human exposure to obesogenic and diabetogenic environmental compounds.
  • As many of the chemicals implicated widely contaminate the animal and human food chains and some are also released from some food containers, dietary interventions ignoring the presence of contaminants in food may hamper the expected beneficial effects of dietary recommendations.
  • In order to protect fetuses and newborn babies, specific advice is needed for pregnant women and midwives regarding EDCs in the diet and in consumer products used by pregnant women and/or babies.
  • Public health policies, including those seeking to reduce exposure to suspect chemicals, need to be implemented swiftly. To preserve quality of life, prevention in both cases is vastly preferable to treatment.
  • Evidence for the association between exposure to EDCs and obesity should lead to a paradigm shift in how to tackle obesity. The focus should be broadened from one based on individual lifestyle, diagnosis and treatment to one that includes population prevention measures.
  • Population-based biomonitoring must be strengthened to provide a better understanding of the extent of human contamination by environmental obesogens and diabetogens in the general population.
  • Progress is also needed in identifying the sources of exposure (e.g., which food products, which consumer products). Further research is particularly warranted on the role that food additives, contaminants in animal feed and human food, and packaging may play in obesity and diabetes.
  • Screens and tests to identify chemicals that can impact on obesity and diabetes should be developed, and certain chemicals should be required to undergo such testing.
  • More attention should be given to protecting populations in the developing world from exposure to environmental pollutants, including that arising from electronic waste, food contamination, air pollution and the erroneous use of certain pesticides.

CHEM Trust’s goal is to protect humans and wildlife from harmful chemicals. They have published previous reports on chemicals and the developing brain, breast cancer, reproductive health, and more.

This report as well as others are available at the CHEM Trust website.

Visit the CHE Blog.

From American Scientist:

When research suggests that a single chemical may cause harm, public concern rises, as it has for the plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) in recent years. But many more of the 83,000 or so humanmade chemicals used in the United States receive little attention. The possible effects of chemicals in combination get still less scrutiny, even though the potential that some chemicals will interact is high, given their numbers.

This may be due in part to the staggering amount of work required to discern those effects. It would be a very difficult task to keep up with research on all of these substances, much less evaluate their relative risk as new results appear. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put considerable effort into this under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the Act has not been updated since its passage in 1976 and excludes many substances from the agency’s purview.

Substances that have the potential to disrupt development in an organism are of special concern. The results of exposure to such chemicals can range from birth defects to developmental irregularities that don’t appear until later in life. Determining whether a substance is an endocrine disruptor, how strongly it acts and at what concentrations, not to mention deciphering hormone pathways themselves, takes a great deal of time and resources. Studies in the lab can’t be directly extrapolated to real-life situations, but they can offer clues about new routes to explore, along with help in evaluating the risk posed by various chemicals.

Heather Patisaul, a biologist at North Carolina State University, studies the effects of BPA and other compounds suspected to disrupt hormonal processes, using female rats as models. “The biggest unknown,” she says, “is if human harm is indeed resulting from exposure to these chemicals at low doses. If it is, it requires a major paradigm shift in how we approach toxicology, because the current strategies are ill equipped to deal with endocrine disruptors.”

A new study adds several more pieces to the puzzle. In a September 2011 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A., Eunah Chung, Maria C. Genco, Laura Megrelis and Joan V. Ruderman chose a less known, but widely used, substance to investigate: triclocarban (3,4,4’-trichlorocarbanilide, or TCC).

TCC has been used as an antimicrobial in consumer products since the 1950s. A 2001 study found that it was present in 84 percent of antimicrobial bar soaps sold in the United States. It’s often mentioned in the same breath with triclosan: Both are halogenated carbons used in soaps and other products, but their chemical identities are unique. The EPA reports that between 1 and 10 million pounds of TCC were used in the United States in 2002. People who shower with soap containing TCC absorb it through their skin. It is metabolized quickly by humans but persists in surface waters and in sewage sludge that is spread on agricultural fields.

Ruderman and her coauthors looked at the gene aromatase-B (AroB) in the brains of developing zebrafish embryos. AroB is regulated by estrogen, among other compounds, and is expressed in subregions of the brain including the hypothalamus and preoptic areas. To determine what concentration of TCC to use, they tested a range, then chose one that did not show signs of developmental delay or toxicity. The 0.25 micromolar experimental concentration was about 1600 times higher than a high-end estimate of levels in surface waters in an industry report to the EPA, and about 12 times higher than a high-end estimate from a university-based study in Environmental Health Perspectives.

The team found that TCC had little effect on AroB when introduced without estrogen, but that it strongly enhanced the effects of introduced estrogen on the gene, with a twofold greater increase than that induced by estrogen alone. They also tested the effects of BPA and found that it induced the gene’s expression even without estrogen present.

Then the researchers exposed embryos to TCC and BPA together. Rather than amplifying the effect of the estrogen-mimicking BPA, TCC suppressed it: Its presence along with BPA resulted in about a twofold decrease in transcription of aromatase-B compared to embryos exposed to BPA alone.

“The experiments we did with BPA plus TCC were an example where each one has a positive effect on an estrogenlike process,” Ruderman says. “But you put them together and they are not additive—in fact in some ways they suppress each other.” It’s surprising that TCC would amplify estrogen’s effect but reduce the effect of an estrogen mimic—a reminder that chemicals in combination can act unpredictably.

In a 2008 study in Environmental Health Perspectives, Bruce Hammock, an entomologist at the University of California, Davis, and colleagues found that TCC enhanced estrogen- and testosterone-dependent gene expression by 2.5 times in human cells. “The major significance” of Ruderman’s study, he says, “is an elegant demonstration that there is the potential for two known environmental chemicals to synergize for an enhanced biological effect.” He thinks it’s unlikely that environmental exposure to both chemicals will be high enough to create such effects, but he notes, “This is a cautionary tale in terms of mixtures in general. As a society we are using thousands of high-volume chemicals with little regard to environmental or human health effects.”

More.

From (Dec 12, 2007):

So far this year, more than 30 million lead-laced imported toys have been recalled in the United States. That’s on top of millions more toys that pose choking and other hazards. Killer toys kinda make it hard for kids to truly enjoy the holidays. So a group of youngsters came together to offer the following yuletide message. Feel free to sing along – preferably with a group of carolers outside your local Congress member’s office

From the Maine Public Broadcasting Network:

Maine is among just a handful of states that require manufacturers to report the use of certain chemicals in their products. It also has the earliest deadine for companies to report. This week the results are in, and more than 650 products are on the list. Business representatives and state regulators say the reported presence of the chemicals does not indicate there’s a risk present. But health advocates say the list will help consumers protect their health from chemicals that leach out of products.

Listen to the four minute story here.

More.

From Portland Tribune:

In late-October, Multnomah County enacted Oregon’s first restrictions against products containing bisphenol A, a widely used chemical compound often called BPA. The ban on BPA-laced baby bottles, sippy cups, and reusable water bottles will have little impact on what’s sold in the county, because retailers have largely stopped selling them.

But county commissioners’ unanimous decision gives momentum to broader campaigns against BPA and other toxic chemicals in our environment, especially in the food supply.

It’s only a “baby step” in the right direction, says Maye Thompson, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility’s environmental health program director. However, she says, “I think it’s going to make people ask, ‘What’s next?’ ”

There are rumblings that other counties may follow Multnomah County’s lead and adopt local BPA bans, says Renee Hackenmiller-Paradis, Oregon Environmental Council’s environmental health program director, and a leader of the statewide anti-BPA campaign. Those could put more pressure on the Legislature to act, as businesses often dislike facing a patchwork of local regulations.

When the Legislature returns to Salem for a brief session in February, it’s unlikely that anti-BPA forces will push the same bill that passed in the Senate this year but was blocked in the House, says state Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer, D-Portland. House Republicans still have a 30-30 tie with Democrats and could, as in the 2011 session, prevent a House floor vote on the bill.

Instead, Keny-Guyer and other environmental-minded lawmakers may pursue a broader toxics bill modeled after those passed by Washington and other states.

“It’s kind of ridiculous to go through the Legislature to pick off chemical by chemical that is harmful to kids,” Keny-Guyer says.

Washington’s 2009 law requires authorities to create a laundry list of toxic chemicals that are of greatest health concern. Once the list is fashioned, the law will require manufacturers to disclose the presence of those substances in children’s products.

“I believe Oregon should be looking to pass similar policies,” says state Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland, who led the campaign against BPA in the Legislature and chairs the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Other products targeted

The anti-BPA campaign is rapidly spreading to other products where there’s substantial human exposure to the substance, such as cash register receipts and canned foods and beverages.

Bisphenol A helps make plastic products durable and shatter-resistent, and has been widely used in bottles, computers, CD cases, bicycle helmets, baby pacifiers and other items.

BPA also is used in canned food and drink linings to prevent corrosion, contamination and spoilage. It has proved highly effective at warding off bacterial infections such as botulism.

However, BPA is an endocrine disrupter that mimics the effects of estrogen in the human body. Though there are disputes among scientists — largely between independent and industry-funded researchers — scores of studies have shown potential health hazards from exposure to BPA, including breast and prostate cancer, heart disease and obesity.

Canned food battle looms

Canned food is shaping up as the next major battlefield. “We need to get it out of the food supply,” Thompson says.

But bisphenol A has safeguarded the canned food supply for four or five decades, so it’s “no light matter” trying to find a reliable substitute, says Peter Truitt, president of Salem’s Truitt Brothers Inc. “We’re not going to run the risk of making someone ill,” he says, referring to BPA’s role in preventing food-borne bacteria. “We know that risk. It brings you to your knees overnight.”

However, studies show BPA in canned goods leaches into the food and beverages, particularly in foods that are fatty and highly acidic, such as tomato products.

A 2011 research project by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration detected BPA in 71 of 78 canned foods it tested. “It is well established that residual BPA . . . migrates into can contents during processing and storage,” the FDA reported.

A 2011 report by the Breast Cancer Fund tested canned foods and found widely varying amounts of BPA, even in health foods. It was detected in Spaghettios, Chef Boyardee pasta and meatballs, Earth’s Best Organic Noodlemania Soup and Anni’s Homegrown Cheesy Ravioli.

More.

Image from Flickr.

From

Dr. Landrigan discusses why the Children’s Environmental Health Center (CEHC) was created at Mount Sinai. Scientific evidence is strong and continuing to build that hazardous exposures in the modern environment are important causes of these diseases. Indoor and outdoor air pollution are now established as causes of asthma. Childhood cancer is linked to solvents, pesticides, and radiation. Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences has determined that environmental factors contribute to 28% of developmental disorders in children.

The Mission of the CEHC is to address this challenge — to protect children from toxic chemicals in their air, their water, and their food by spearheading efforts to track the root environmental causes of disease. The Center’s research builds on over three decades of work by its director Dr. Philip Landrigan, a renowned pediatrician and epidemiologist who has devoted his career to protecting children against environmental threats to health.

To view Mount Sinai’s Children’s Health Campaign containing tips, facts, videos, articles and more on important children’s health issues such as diabetes, autism, asthma, allergies and nutrition, click here.

To view the Children’s Environmental Health Center, click here.

From by :

Not sure which dangerous, toxic chemicals are in your household products? Neither is your government. See where hidden dangers may lurk in common household products, then tell Congress to pass legislation to protect our families from toxic chemicals. Because what you don’t know CAN hurt you.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Long a pacesetter in efforts to control dangerous chemicals, California is moving toward sweeping new rules to reduce toxins in cleaning products, cosmetics, electronics, toys and possibly many other consumer goods.

They are among the most cutting-edge codes of their kind since 1986, when voters passed Proposition 65. That law set a national precedent by forcing businesses to warn customers if they “knowingly and intentionally” expose people to chemicals the state determined to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Otherwise, regulators often deeming chemicals or other compounds safe until proven harmful.

The newly proposed Safer Consumer Products Regulations will be debated by industry, academics and environmentalists for months as they move toward final form in late 2012.

They would roughly quadruple the number of chemicals targeted by the state and require companies not just to notify consumers, but to look for less-damaging alternatives. Companies must phase out toxins, do more research, take other measures approved by regulators or face fines of $25,000 per day.

The still-evolving plan was created to minimize “regrettable substitutions,” swapping one risky compound for another.It should help prevent scenarios like the one in which jewelry manufacturers traded lead for cadmium, another dangerous metal.

“This is revolutionary stuff. This is a real sea change in chemical policy,” Tim Malloy, an environmental law professor at UCLA, told regional business leaders at a forum last week in San Diego.

On Monday and Tuesday, the state’s Green Ribbon Science Panel will meet in Sacramento to assess the strategy as it moves through the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

There’s something in the draft rules for almost everyone to embrace and everyone to question. The proposal faces criticism from business backers concerned about the state driving companies away with “chemophobia,” along with myriad practical questions about how a regulatory program will work.

It’s not clear how much compliance will cost, which chemicals and products will be targeted first, how to balance company secrets with demands for transparency, which kinds of human harm will take precedence in ranking health problems and how the toxics control department will develop a rigorous oversight program without additional money.

“Industry wants clarity and certainty. DTSC wants something that’s enforceable,” said John Ulrich co-chairman of the Green Chemistry Alliance, a business-based group. “Somehow or another, we have got to find the balance.”

Kathryn Alcántar, California policy director for the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, says the rules could create significant benefits for consumers but she fears the current version gives businesses too much ability to hide product information.

“If there is not enough transparency … then people are not going to have faith in the program,” she said.

Once implemented, the new rules will influence manufacturing around the world to the extent that companies align their entire product lines with California law to avoid raising questions about differences between products. They also could foster of a new industry in the state devoted to finding safer products.

“There is an equal feeling across the planet — an unease — with evidence of harm that we are seeing in the natural world, the buildup of chemicals in our bodies that we were never evolved to deal with, and a realization that the source of those chemicals probably isn’t only the manufacturing but actually consumer products,” said Debbie Raphael, director of the toxics control agency.

More.

From the Wall Street Journal (a report about Upstream contributor Dr. Frederica Perera):

Congested cities are fast becoming test tubes for scientists studying the impact of traffic fumes on the brain.

As roadways choke on traffic, researchers suspect that the tailpipe exhaust from cars and trucks—especially tiny carbon particles already implicated in heart disease, cancer and respiratory ailments—may also injure brain cells and synapses key to learning and memory.

New public-health studies and laboratory experiments suggest that, at every stage of life, traffic fumes exact a measurable toll on mental capacity, intelligence and emotional stability. “There are more and more scientists trying to find whether and why exposure to traffic exhaust can damage the human brain,” says medical epidemiologist Jiu-Chiuan Chen at the University of Southern California who is analyzing the effects of traffic pollution on the brain health of 7,500 women in 22 states. “The human data are very new.”

So far, the evidence is largely circumstantial but worrisome, researchers say. And no one is certain yet of the consequences for brain biology or behavior. “There is real cause for concern,” says neurochemist Annette Kirshner at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. “But we ought to proceed with caution.”

To be sure, cars and trucks today generate one-tenth the pollution of a vehicle in 1970. Still, more people are on the road and they are stuck in traffic more often. Drivers traveling the 10-worst U.S. traffic corridors annually spend an average of 140 hours, or about the time spent in the office in a month, idling in traffic, a new analysis reported.

No one knows whether regular commuters breathing heavy traffic fumes suffer any lasting brain effect. Researchers have only studied the potential impact based on where people live and where air-pollution levels are highest. Even if there were any chronic cognitive effect on drivers, it could easily be too small to measure reliably or might be swamped by other health factors such as stress, diet or exercise that affect the brain, experts say.

* * *

Scientists believe that simple steps to speed traffic are a factor in reducing some public-health problems. In New Jersey, premature births, a risk factor for cognitive delays, in areas around highway toll plazas dropped 10.8% after the introduction of E-ZPass, which eased traffic congestion and reduced exhaust fumes, according to reports published in scientific journals this year and in 2009. The researchers, Princeton University economist Janet Currie and her colleagues at Columbia University, analyzed health data for the decade ending 2003.

After New York traffic managers rerouted streets in Times Square recently to lessen congestion, air-pollution levels in the vicinity dropped by 63%.

Scientists are only beginning to understand the basic biology of car exhaust’s toxic neural effects, especially from prenatal or lifetime exposures. “It is hard to disentangle all the things in auto exhaust and sort out the effects of traffic from all the other possibilities,” says Dr. Currie, who studies the relationship between traffic and infant health.

Researchers in Los Angeles, the U.S.’s most congested city, are studying lab mice raised on air piped in from a nearby freeway. They discovered that the particles inhaled by the mice—each particle less than one-thousandth the width of a human hair—somehow affected the brain, causing inflammation and altering neurochemistry among neurons involved in learning and memory.

To study the effect of exhaust on expectant mothers, Frederica Perera at Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health began in 1998 to equip hundreds of pregnant women with personal air monitors to measure the chemistry of the air they breathed. As the babies were born, Dr. Perera and colleagues discovered a distinctive biochemical mark in the DNA of about half of the infants, left by prenatal exposure to high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in exhaust.

By age 3, the children who bore the mark of exhaust in their genes were developing mental capacities fractionally more slowly. By age 5, their IQ scores averaged about four points lower on standard intelligence tests than those of less exposed children, the team reported in 2009. The differences, while small, were significant in terms of later educational development, the researchers said.

By age 7, the children were more likely to show symptoms of anxiety, depression and attention problems, the researchers reported this year in Environmental Health Perspectives.

“The mother’s exposure—what she breathed into her lungs—could affect her child’s later behavior,” Dr. Perera says. “The placenta is not the perfect barrier we once thought.”

More.

See the excellent interview of WSJ journalist covering this story (Lee Hotz) below:

View the extended Upstream Interview of Dr. Frederica Perera here.

 

%d bloggers like this: