flame retardant

Flame Retardants Linked to Lower IQs, Hyperactivity in Children

Print

A new study confirms that exposure in the womb to fire-beating chemicals in furniture and carpet pads may hinder child development.

Almost a decade after manufacturers stopped using certain chemical flame retardants in furniture foam and carpet padding, many of the compounds still lurk in homes. New work to be presented today reaffirms that the chemicals may also still be hurting young children who were exposed before they were born.

Researchers investigating the health impacts of prenatal exposure to flame retardants collected blood samples from 309 pregnant women early in their second trimester. Spikes in the levels of one class of flame retardant, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) correlated with behavior and cognition difficulties during early childhood.

The researchers tracked children through the first five years of their lives, looking at a battery of tests for IQ and behavior. They found that children of mothers who had high PBDE levels during their second trimester showed cognition deficits when the children were five years old as well as higher rates of hyperactivity at ages two to five. If the mother’s blood had a 10-fold increase in PBDEs, the average five-year-old had about a four-point IQ deficit. “A four-point IQ difference in an individual child may not be perceivable in…ordinary life. However, in a population, if many children are affected, the social and economic impact can be huge due to the shift of IQ distribution and productivity,” says lead author Aimin Chen, an assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. The findings, based on women and children from Cincinnati, will be presented May 6 at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Washington, D.C. The unpublished results have been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, but the paper has not yet been accepted.

Chen’s team did not track the children’s PBDE blood levels after they were born, so the deficits could also have resulted, at least in part, from the additional exposures to the chemical that the children encountered directly after they were born. Chen says that although the lack of blood level data in the children is a limitation, other researchers have measured both mother and child PBDE levels and found similar deficits, strengthening his conclusions. The team also found that association of PBDEs and child IQ and behavior did not result from the mother’s blood levels of lead, a well-known neurotoxic metal.

Although preliminary, Chen’s findings are similar to two recent large U.S. studies that showed associations between prenatal exposure to flame retardants and developmental deficits and reduced IQ. One of those earlier studies, from the University of California, Berkeley, looked at children and PBDE levels through age seven, and was published online last fall in Environmental Health Perspectives. That study measured PBDEs both in pregnant women and in the children themselves. It showed that there is a relationship between high PBDE exposures in utero and deficits in children’s IQ, fine motor function and attention. Though suggestive, none of the studies have proved a definitive cause-and-effect link in humans, however.

Scientists believe that in humans PBDEs can lodge themselves in bodily lipids when contaminated air is inhaled or tainted dust swallowed, although exactly how they may wreak havoc inside the body remains unknown. Tests on animals suggest that the chemicals disrupt the endocrine system. The chemical structure of PBDEs strongly resembles thyroid hormones, and they affect thyroid regulation and decrease the level of thyroid hormones in the blood of animals. These hormones drive growth and development—in particular, brain development. Animal studies have also found that exposure to PBDEs in the womb and via nursing may damage the thyroid system and alter newborns’ brains.

Children are considered to be at particular risk of encountering hazardous dust because they spend so much time close to the floor and often put their hands in their mouths. Moreover, “you are having an impact during critical windows of development, and if you mess up development when brain structures or neuropathways are forming there may not be an ability to repair them later on,” says Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “We don’t have data on whether or not the cognitive or behavioral impacts will reverse. We know from many other exposures to different kinds of environmental compounds that impact behavior or intelligence that [the impact] doesn’t go away.” Chen plans to follow the kids in his study for the next few years to help glean any long-term effects.

The particular flame retardants investigated in Chen’s study, which were typically used in polyurethane foams and carpet pads, were phased out of manufacturing in 2004, but they are still on old furniture, remain in the atmosphere and settle into dust in the home.

Furniture-makers have continued to use flame retardants because of a state law—the California Technical Bulletin 117. It says the furniture sold within state borders must withstand a 12-second exposure to a small flame without igniting. That state regulation has become the de facto law of the land as manufacturers have sought to comply with it so they can sell their wares throughout the U.S. But California is revising its standard so that products will only have to pass a “smolder test” that would prevent fires but would not require flame retardant use in manufacturing. State legislators may finalize the revision later this summer or in the fall.

Products treated with PBDE are not labeled as such, but Chen says parents can take precautions to reduce exposure by having children wash their hands to diminish dust ingestion, and by replacing old furniture and changing old carpet padding.


Story By: Dina Fine Maron

Original Link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flame-retardants-linked-lower-iq-hyperactivitiy-children

Mountain Top Removal

National Commission on the Health Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Mining Releases Recommendation

Print


For Immediate Release                                                                 April 23, 2013

Contacts:  
Stephen Lester, Center for Health, Environment & Justice, 703.237.2249 ext. 16, slester@chej.org
Commission member Dr. Jerome Paulson, Children’s National Medical Center
Contact Dr. Paulson via Emily Hartman at 202.476.4500

National Commission on the Health Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Mining Releases Recommendations
Calls for a moratorium on new mining until further studies are conducted

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the National Commission on the Health Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Mining, a group of independent physicians and scientists, released  recommendations for actions necessary to ensure the health and safety of the residents of Appalachia who are impacted by mountaintop removal mining.  

The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) commissioned the scientists to review a report prepared by CHEJ that analyzed the existing body of peer-reviewed, scientific studies on the impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining on human health. That review led to the recommendations released today. The review and the Commission’s statement are available online at www.chej.org/mtopreport.

“The evidence shows that mountaintop removal threatens public health and the environment. It’s time to act to protect rural communities,” said Commission member Dr. Steven B. Wing, PhD.  Wing is Associate Professor of Epidemiology in the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina.

“Corporate leaders, local, state and national policy makers need to pay attention to the information in this report,” said Dr. Jerome A. Paulson, Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health at George Washington University, another Commission member. “The protection of human health needs to be a higher priority than it has been in the past. A moratorium is an appropriate step until such time as those doing mountaintop removal can document that they can do it without significant harm to human health.”

The Commission’s recommendations include placing an immediate moratorium on mountaintop removal (MTR) mining until such time as health studies have been conducted that provide a clearer understanding of the associations between adverse health impacts, notably adverse reproductive outcomes, and MTR mining. In addition, during the moratorium period, appropriate safeguards including remediation and engineering controls should be implemented to mitigate air and water pollution related to MTR mining activities.

This recommendation could be addressed by passage of the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act (ACHE Act, HR 526).  This legislation would require the first comprehensive federal study of the health dangers of mountaintop removal coal mining and would place a moratorium on all new mountaintop removal mining permits while federal officials examine health consequences to surrounding communities.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) are hosting a Congressional briefing on the science behind the ACHE Act today at 2:30 p.m. in the Cannon House Office Building Room 441, Independence Avenue and 1st Street SE, Washington, DC 20003.

###

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING:

Cynthia F. Bearer, MD, PhD, FAAP
Mary Gray Cobey Professor of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Chair and Board of Directors, Children’s Environmental Health Network
Baltimore, Maryland

Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP
Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health
George Washington University
Medical Director for National & Global Affairs, Child Health Advocacy Institute
Director, Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health & the Environment
Children’s National Medical Center
Washington, D.C.

Benjamin M. Stout III, PhD
Professor of Biology
Wheeling Jesuit University
Wheeling, West Virginia

Steven B. Wing, PhD
Associate Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public Health
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Daniel Wartenberg, PhD
Professor of Environmental Epidemiology and Statistics, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Member, National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Possible Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Member, New Jersey Commission on Radiation Protection
Piscataway, New Jersey

About The Center for Health, Environment & Justice
CHEJ is a national organization that helps people build democratic, community based organizations to prevent harm from toxic chemical hazards. CHEJ works with the environmental health and justice movement to eliminate harmful toxic exposures in communities impacted by hazardous waste sites, chemical plants and other polluting industries, as well as eliminate unsafe products used in homes, schools and other facilities. CHEJ mentors and empowers community based groups to become effective in achieving their goals and build a national environmental health and justice movement where every community is safe to live, work, pray and play without toxic hazards. CHEJ has assisted more than 12,000 groups nationwide.

bpa

California Decides Chemical BPA is Toxic

Print

California on Thursday became the latest state to place restrictions on the chemical known as Bisphenol-A and declare it a reproductive toxicant.

The chemical, commonly known as BPA, is found in hard plastic bottles, the cans of food and beverages, sales receipts and dental sealants.

Growing research suggests that BPA, believed to be found in the bodies of 90 percent of the U.S. population, is an endocrine disruptor linked to infertility and other harm.

Consumer health advocates have pushed the state Environmental Protection Agency for years to recognize that BPA causes birth defects.

Dr. Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the San Francisco chapter of the Natural Resources Defense Council, praised the state’s decision.

“They haven’t backed down, and I think that’s to the benefit of public health in California,” she said.

The state agency is targeting BPA under Proposition 65, which publishes lists of chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. When products in California contain hazardous amounts of a listed toxicant, they are required to carry warning labels. BPA could now show up on the warning labels of hundreds of household items.

The law does not ban the compounds, but consumer backlash can lead them to be phased out of the market.

A state panel of health experts first considered recognizing BPA as a reproductive hazard in 2009 but decided there wasn’t enough evidence.

This time, the state based its decision on a federal report that expressed concern about BPA’s effects on development of the prostate gland and brain, and behavioral effects in fetuses and infants.

The American Chemistry Council is suing the state to keep BPA off the list. Spokeswoman Kathryn St. John noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says BPA is “safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods.”


Story By: Stephanie M. Lee

imagesdde

Chemical, toy industries oppose bill requiring phase out of children’s products with potentially toxic chemicals

Print

SALEM — Parents, public health advocates and small business owners squared off with representatives from the chemical, toy and retail industries over a bill that would require the eventual phase out of children’s products made with potentially toxic chemicals.

House Bill 3162 would require the Oregon Health Authority maintain a list of “high priority chemicals of concern for children’s health.” The agency would be required to post the information, including details on the health impacts associated with exposure to each chemical.

It would also require manufacturers who gross more than $5 million annually to phase out those chemicals in their products within five years or seek a waiver from the state.

Chemicals such as Bisphenol A, arsenic, mercury and cadmium would be subject to the requirements in the bill. Products such as children’s cosmetics, car seats, bicycles, toys and other items would be affected.

“As a matter of public health, the state should ensure that no Oregonian unknowingly purchases a product that contains hazardous chemicals for their child or family,” said Sheri Mahlstrom, a registered nurse speaking on behalf of the Oregon Nurses Association.

Jennifer Gibbons of the Toy Industry Association and Matt Markee of the American Chemistry Council said federal standards regulating such chemicals already ensure public health.

“The mere presence of a chemical in a product does not mean that it can cause harm to a child,” Gibbons said. “If those chemicals are in a product, that doesn’t necessarily mean it causes harm, because then you have to look at exposure and then you have to look at risk.”

Gibbons’ testimony sparked skepticism from Rep. Jason Conger, R-Bend, a sponsor of the bill. Conger’s daughter, now 13, was exposed as an infant to high levels of lead because they lived in an old house at the time, he said.

“You’re suggesting that none of the products we would list are harmful, which I find hard to believe because they include things like formaldehyde,” Conger said to Gibbons. “Are you suggesting that either none of those chemicals are in children’s products, or are you saying those chemicals are not harmful?”

Conger eventually relented in order to allow others signed up to testify to speak.

The bill is based on legislation approved in 2008 in Washington, which maintains a list of 66 chemicals of concern to children.

House Bill 3162 would require the listing of chemicals that are included in both Washington’s list and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s toxics focus list.


Story by: Yuxing Zheng

Original Link: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/chemical_toy_industries_oppose.html

Flyering Picture

An Insider’s View of The Toy Industry Association Flyering Event

Print

My name is Tommy Mutell and I just started working at CHEJ’s New York City office as an intern last month. Last Tuesday I was given the opportunity to participate in a flyering event alongside about forty other people organized by the JustGreen Partnership to bring awareness to the nation-wide lobbying efforts of the Toy Industry Association (TIA) against the discontinuation of harmful chemicals such as BPA, phthalates, and mercury in toys.

TIA claims to have the best interests of its consumers as a primary mission to their association. However, what they say to consumers about toy safety and what they do regarding toy safety legislation and regulations are two different things. Our time at the Toy Fair, an event that attracted tens of thousands of visitors from 92 countries, was spent calling out TIA for their recent lobbying of continued usage of toxic chemicals in toys and other consumer products.

“The Toy Industry Association should stop toying around with our children’s health, and support state and federal efforts to protect children from toxic chemicals in children’s products,” said Mike Schade, Campaign Coordinator with the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ).

The flyering event was really a great learning experience and I received a lot of satisfaction in helping to spread the word to the issues we are working to resolve. It felt like the few dozen of us accomplished the amount of work in about an hour that it would take me alone months to complete. I am learning that our collaborative efforts of flyering and raising awareness are really at the frontline of making an impact and bringing about change, and I am going to continue to work on the discontinuation of toxic chemicals in toys and consumer products in the months to come.  I also enjoyed meeting and working with other interns, staff, and volunteers at different environmental groups within the city, as well as members of NYPIRG, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, and the Center for Environmental Health to name a few.

SararhVogelBook

Is It Safe? New Book

Print

We are all just a little bit plastic. Traces of bisphenol A or BPA, a chemical used in plastics production, are widely detected in our bodies and environment. Is this chemical, and its presence in the human body, safe? A new book by our friend and colleague See summary.

BPA in Receipts – The chemical that’s everywhere, or so it seems

Print

It’s very likely that you’ve heard of a chemical called BPA or bisphenol A. It’s been in the news because it’s an endocrine disrupting chemical used in making plastic products and in the lining of metal cans. The problem is that BPA leaches out of plastic bottles, canned foods and other products and gets into the food and drink. Trace amounts of BPA have been found in the urine of at least 90% of Americans.  BPA mimics the hormone estrogen in the body and has been linked to reproductive and developmental abnormalities as well as other adverse health effects.

Source: American Chemical Society

Concerns about these adverse health effects led Canada to define BPA as a toxic substance and 11 states to ban its use in baby bottles and sippy cups. The FDA followed suit in July of this year. Concerns remain however about BPA leaching into infant formula, food and beverages. Approximately eight billion pounds of BPA are used each year worldwide.

Although diet is the primary route of exposure to BPA, research has shown that it can also be absorbed though the skin in a less familiar way – the handling of receipts of all kinds. BPA is the primary chemical used in cash register and thermal receipts commonly used in stores, ATM machines, gas stations, various tickets, and many other uses. BPA is used as a color developer for the printing dye. It’s applied as powder coating that acts in the presence of heat to produce an image without ink. The problem here is that the chemical is not bound to the paper, so it rubs off when you handle the receipt. It gets on your fingers and quickly gets into your blood stream. If you handle receipts every day, and it accumulates in the body, you increase your risk. This is especially a concern for workers who handle receipts all day long, or for pregnant women.

While there’s no way to tell if a receipt contains BPA or not, a number of studies have tested receipts for BPA. One study reported in the New York Times of 103 thermal receipts collected from cities in the U.S., Japan, South Korea and Vietnam in 2010 and 2011 found 94% of the receipts to contain BPA. All of the receipts in the U.S. had traces of BPA, even some marked as BPA-free. A study by researchers in Boston found 8 of 10 cash register receipts had BPA, and a study by the Environmental Working Group in 2010 found 14 of 36 receipts collected from fast food restaurants, retailers, grocery stores, gas stations and post offices tested positive for BPA.

Although studies in animals have found that very low concentrations of BPA can produce adverse effects, it’s unclear what level of exposure in people can produce adverse effects. It’s also unclear how much exposure from thermal receipts contributes to a person’s total exposure to BPA. Diet remains the primary route of exposure. It is clear, however, that there are readily available alternatives to BPA and this is another source of chemical contamination that can easily be eliminated. It’s also easy to say “no thank you,” when asked if you want your receipt.

baby

Tell FDA no BPA in infant formula packaging

Print

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering banning the use of the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in infant formula packaging. Tell FDA that you support the ban. BPA is found in many products including food cans, receipt paper and the lining of some infant formula packages. Exposure even at low doses is linked to breast and prostate cancer, diabetes and heart disease. For more details, see:

This is the symbol of PVC packaging.  Just remember Bad News Comes in 3's - Don't Buy PVC!

Warning: PVC Packaging Laden with Toxic Cadmium

Print




A brand new report by the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse has documented elevated levels of toxic cadmium and lead in PVC packaging sold by dollar-store discount retailers.  They found that:

This is the symbol of PVC packaging. Just remember Bad News Comes in 3′s – Don’t Buy PVC!

“Almost 40 percent of imported PVC packaging of products tested, sold by discount retail chains, was found to violate state toxics laws… These packages contained cadmium or lead, which are restricted by laws in 19 states due to toxicity.” – TPCH press release

“Packaging in violation of state laws is likely not one-time sourcing or production mistakes, but rather appears pervasive in imported PVC packaging,” – Kathleen Hennings of Iowa Department of Natural Resources.”

PVC packaging violates laws in 19 states.

No less than nineteen states have laws that prohibit the sale or distribution of packaging containing intentionally added cadmium, lead, mercury, and hexavalent chromium, and set limits on the incidental concentration of these materials in packaging. The purpose? To prevent the use of toxic heavy metals in packaging materials that enter landfills, incinerators, recycling streams, and ultimately, the environment.  The Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse has been working to implement and enforce these laws.

In their latest report released this past Friday, a total of 61 flexible PVC packaging samples were screened using XRF technology. 39% of the packaging samples failed the screening test for cadmium and in one instance, also for lead. All the failed packaging samples were imported, mostly from China.

Packaging that failed the screening tests was used for children’s products, pet supplies, personal care, household items, home furnishings, hardware, and apparel.  The products were purchased at eight retail chains across America.  Six of the eight retail chains operate at least 500 locations each across 35 or more states.

Not the first time PVC packaging contaminated with toxic metals

This isn’t the first time the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse has documented PVC packaging laden with toxic heavy metals.  In 2007, they published a report which found sixty-one percent of the PVC packages tested were not in compliance with state laws due to the use of cadmium and/or lead. In 2009 they published a follow up report which found that all packaging samples failing for cadmium content were flexible PVC, and over 90 percent of these were imported.

Other studies have documented other chemicals of concern in PVC packaging, including phthalates, organotins, bisphenol A (BPA), and adipates.  Unfortunately, these were not tested for in the brand new study, and are also likely lurking in PVC packaging at retailers.

Is cadmium the new lead?

In recent years, the vinyl chemical industry has been moving away from lead as a stabilizer, but apparently has been replacing lead with cadmium and organotins.

There’s a body of evidence that cadmium may be the new lead. Like lead, cadmium has been linked to learning problems in school children, which are on the rise.  A recent study by researchers from Harvard found children with higher cadmium levels are three times more likely to have learning disabilities and participate in special education.

Our friends at SAFER have compiled lots of great information on cadmium, including a summary of cadmium’s health concerns.

Just Remember – Bad News Comes in 3’s, Don’t Buy PVC

Thankfully, it’s not too hard for consumers to identify and avoid PVC/vinyl packaging, to help reduce your exposure to cadmium and the other toxic additives commonly found in vinyl.

One way to be sure if the packaging of a product is made from PVC is to look for the number “3” inside or the letter “V” underneath the universal recycling symbol.   If it is, that means it’s made out of the poison plastic.  That’s why we say Bad News Comes in 3′s – Don’t Buy PVC!

Not sure? Call the manufacturer or retailer and ask them directly.

Have some PVC packaging? Return it to the manufacturer or retailer and demand they go PVC-free!

To help you remember, watch this animated video we created a few years ago– Sam Suds and the Case of PVC, the Poison Plastic.

babyboyonfloor

Stop The Madness – You’re Hurting Our Children

Print

The future of our country will be the hands of our children.  But what does that mean?  We can raise our children with values and ethics and teach the basic lessons of life, encourage learning and education.  Yet our children and our future children are at risk of not being able to lead our country. Our children risk not being able to succeed in business, in society because of the environmental chemicals that they are exposed to every single day.  Chemicals are leaching from the floors that they crawl on as infants, beds that they sleep on nightly or the toys they play with and put into their mouths, all release dangerous chemicals.  What will their future be like?  How can our country grow and prosper or compete in the global economy?

Recently the Center for Disease our federal health agency reported that 1 out of every 88 American children is affected by autism. That is a 78% increase in autism since 2002 and 23% increase since 2006. As if that is not bad enough, the agency also reports that 14% of American children are affected by Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Of course not all of these problems are the result of chemicals in a child’s environment but a good percentage are.  Looking at the chemicals that are in every day products, ones that are linked to these particular diseases, it is clear society can prevent the harming of children.  PCBs, for example are fond in our environment, in lighting and windows of schools built before 1980.  Lead is found in toys imported from other countries; paint in older building, homes, play grounds and around various industrial sites.  Brominated flame retardants are in mattresses, pillows, clothing and all types of furniture. Also there are Endocrine disruptors like phthalates found in PVC products that are all around us in flooring, toys, pipes, shower curtains and binds.

Not a single one of these chemicals in products are necessary for life or for comfort.  Every one of them can be taken out of children’s environment today.  We know how, and we know where to find and remove these threats.  We are just lacking the political will.

Our politicians need to stop the madness and find the conviction and courage to stand up to Corporate America and say no more . . .”Our children will no longer be sacrificed.”

If I as a parent deliberately, knowing harmed my child I would go to jail, yet in America corporations are above the law and spend huge amount of money to keep their unsafe product from being eliminated in our marketplace and environment.

Just look at the statistics above or the rising cancer incidence in children across the country.  This is an election year where we have a chance to ask the hard questions and vote out of office those that intend to harm our children to protect corporate interests.  Everyone needs to get involved, today, so that we together can reverse the trend and protect our futures. For more information