Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Diethylene glycol (DEG)

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Diethylene glycol (DEG)

Diethylene glycol (DEG) is a clear liquid with a sweet taste. It is an effective solvent for resins and adhesives, making them function better. For this reason, DEG is used in many industrial and consumer product settings. It is used in the manufacturing of polymers like polyester and polyurethane to help make them more flexible. It can also be used in dyes and oils for textiles, inks, and adhesives. It can be a component of brake fluid, antifreeze, and wall strippers. DEG can also be found in personal care products like makeup, creams, lotions, and deodorants.

With so many uses, DEG is a chemical many people can be exposed to. People who work in facilities that manufacture materials with DEG are most likely to be exposed. People who live near these facilities may be exposed through improper waste disposal or contamination of drinking water. The general public can also be exposed to DEG through common household and consumer products that contain it. DEG does not absorb well through the skin, so the most common route of exposure is through ingestion. This can happen through accidentally drinking contaminated water or DEG-containing products.

DEG ingestion is very dangerous, and even deadly, if not treated. People who ingest it may initially seem drunk. As the body metabolizes DEG, they can then develop nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. A few days after ingestion, kidney failure and irregular heartbeats are very common. About one week after ingestion, there can be impairment of brain function, loss of motor control, coma, and death.

Because DEG has useful chemical properties and is inexpensive, companies have inappropriately added it into products like medicines, toothpaste, and alcohol as a substitute for other ingredients. Between 1937 and today there have been dozens of instances worldwide of DEG poisoning through contaminated products that have resulted in mass deaths. In 1937, DEG added to a medicine caused 105 deaths in the US, which lead to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. The fact that mass deaths through DEG poisoning have continued since then in the US and elsewhere makes clear that additional oversight and regulation is needed to protect people from DEG exposure and poisoning.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

A citizen science effort to understand arsenic contamination in drinking water

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

A citizen science effort to understand arsenic contamination in drinking water

Arsenic is a naturally-occurring element found in the Earth’s crust. It has some industrial uses through which people can become exposed to it. In some places, like northern New England, arsenic is present in bedrock, and drinking water wells drilled in these areas can expose people to arsenic in their water. Arsenic is classified as a human carcinogen, meaning exposure to it can cause cancer. Skin, liver, bladder, and lung cancer are the most commonly reported cancer types. In northern New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont), mortality rates from bladder cancer are much higher than they are across the US as a whole, and it is thought that the reason is long-term exposure to arsenic in well water. Some wells in these states have arsenic levels over 1,000 times the safe limit set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Arsenic exposure through well water is a serious concern, but the full extent of the problem in northern New England isn’t known. This is because it is difficult to test all drinking water sources in a large, rural geographic area, and because about half of homes in Maine and New Hampshire receive water from private wells which are not subject to regulation by the government. A recent study called the All About Arsenic (AAA) program used citizen science to collect data on arsenic in well water in Maine and New Hampshire and help raise community awareness about mitigating arsenic exposure.

Citizen science is scientific research conducted with the participation of the general public. Research has shown that citizen science can generate new knowledge, create learning opportunities for participants, strengthen community relationships, promote participation in civic life, and address environmental health concerns. In the AAA program, the researchers recruited teachers from a large geographic area in Maine and New Hampshire and paired them with scientist partners from nearby colleges. They developed water sample kits for the teachers’ students to use to collect water samples from their homes and their neighbors’ homes. Samples were analyzed for metals by scientists and results were shared with the teacher and student participants. Teachers and students then prepared community education materials so that classmates, parents, neighbors, local news, and local elected officials would know and understand the results.

The AAA program recruited a total of 31 teachers and 4,859 middle and high school students. Students collected 3,070 drinking water samples from 2016-2022, and 15% exceeded the EPA’s limit for arsenic in drinking water. These samples represented a significant increase in wells in Maine and New Hampshire that now have data regarding their arsenic levels. In some towns, the AAA program more than doubled the number of samples the states previously had. In other towns the AAA sampled, the states previously had no data. In one town, before the AAA program it was not known that arsenic levels exceeded the EPA’s limit. Consistent with the idea that the source of arsenic in these samples is from bedrock, samples that receive water from drilled wells tended to have higher arsenic concentrations.

The AAA researchers used surveys and interviews to follow up with some households whose water was sampled. Of 72 households surveyed, 29 (40%) took actions to mitigate their exposure to arsenic in their water after receiving their sampling results. Some survey respondents said they had no prior knowledge about arsenic in their well water. Mitigating actions included upgrading their systems, installing point-of-use filters, and using bottled water for drinking. Interviews with households confirmed that the AAA program had direct public health and educational impacts on those that participated in the study. Interviewees specifically mentioned that health risks to their families and children were their main concerns that drove their decision-making after receiving their sampling results.

The AAA program provides valuable insights beyond simply generating more data. It shows that are ways to collect data and disseminate information in communities – like large rural areas – that have been previously underserved by public health agencies. It also demonstrates that communities can and should be crucial partners in every stage of the process, not simply as study subjects. The AAA program involved teachers and students in study design, sample collection, sample analysis, communication of results, and community education, reflecting a true citizen science partnership. Finally, the study demonstrates that there is more environmental exposure to toxic chemicals than we have previously been aware of. Data collection alone won’t change this, so taking action to protect communities is essential. The AAA program shows that when given information about their potential arsenic exposure, many residents took action to protect themselves. However, relying on individual residents to spend time and money on their own arsenic mitigation strategies cannot be the only solution. Using data like that collected in the AAA program, local, state, and federal agencies must monitor, regulate, and provide mitigation equipment for private water wells like they do for public wells. This will be the best way to keep communities safe from arsenic in their drinking water.

CHEJ has previously written about other sources of arsenic exposure here.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Toxaphene

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Toxaphene

Toxaphene is a pesticide made up of a mixture of hundreds of different chemicals. It is a yellow, waxy solid that smells like pine. In the 1970s it was the most commonly used pesticide in the United States, used primarily in southern states on cotton crops. Toxaphene use was banned in the US in 1990, and banned internationally in an environmental treaty in 2001.

Although toxaphene is no longer in use, it is still in the environment today. There are hazardous waste sites containing toxaphene, and at least 68 Superfund sites are known to have it. When it enters the environment, it is most likely to be found in air, soil, or sediment at the bottom of bodies of water. It can travel long distances in air, leading to contamination of large geographic areas. Toxaphene doesn’t break down easily, so once it’s in the environment it persists for a long time. Toxaphene also bioaccumulates, so it builds up in the fatty tissues of fish and mammals that ingest it.

Today, people living near waste sites contaminated with toxaphene are the most likely to become exposed to it through breathing contaminated air, touching contaminated soil, or drinking contaminated water. Eating fish or mammals from contaminated areas can also lead to toxaphene exposure. High exposure through any of these scenarios can lead to brain, liver, kidney, and lung damage. In extreme cases, it can cause seizures and death. In studies of laboratory animals, toxaphene exposure caused liver cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency determined that toxaphene probably causes cancer in humans as well. Banning toxaphene use was a good way to prevent widespread exposure, but toxaphene’s persistence in the environment means that people are still exposed to it today.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Copper

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Copper

Copper is a chemical element and a metal. It is naturally occurring and is found in rocks, soil, water, and air all over the planet. Because it is soft, malleable, and a
good conductor of heat and electricity, it is useful for many purposes. Copper is thought to be the first metal humans collected and smelted to create things, dating back to 5000 BC. Today it is used in wiring, plumbing, cookware, dietary supplements, and pesticides. It is also combined with other metals to make brass, bronze, and sterling silver.

While copper exists naturally in the environment, it can also be released into the air, soil, or water by humans through sources like industrial waste, municipal solid waste, and fossil fuels. In air, copper generally attaches to particles and can travel long distances from its source. In soil, copper can be taken up by plants through their roots. In water, copper can attach to sediments and be taken up by clams andoysters. Once copper is in the environment, it does not break down. For humans, animals, and plants, copper is a required nutrient that is crucial for energy production. Humans generally consume enough copper through eating and drinking. However, exposure to too much copper is detrimental. People who work in or live near facilities that use copper may inhale, ingest, or touch copper dust orparticles at high levels. Many new homes are built using copper pipes, which can contaminate the tap water with copper, especially if the water flowing through those pipes is more acidic than normal. Drinking this water can then cause exposure to high levels of copper.

Exposure to too much copper can have adverse health effects. Ingesting it from food or water can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. In extreme cases, this can lead to liver or kidney failure. Inhaling copper that’s attached to particles in the air can cause nose and throat irritation leading to lung damage. Skin contact with high levels of copper can cause rashes and discoloration. Studies in laboratory animals have found that ingesting high levels of copper can cause liver, kidney, blood, brain, and reproductive defects. Copper is an illustrative example of how nutrients essential for survival can become dangerous environmental toxins at high doses.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Aniline

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Aniline

Aniline is a yellow liquid that smells like rotten fish and easily catches fire. It was first discovered in the 1800s and used as a synthetic dye for textiles. Aniline is now also used in the production of products like herbicides, agricultural chemicals, antioxidants, varnishes, rubber, polyurethane, and explosives. Aniline may enter the environment through its industrial use and disposal. It tends to stick to soil, and through soil it can ultimately migrate into groundwater.

If aniline enters soil or water, food or drinking water can become contaminated, and people consuming them may become exposed. Exposure to aniline this way is usually minimal, but can happen at high levels in areas near sites that contain aniline. Those most at risk of aniline exposure are people who work in places that make products using aniline where they may ingest, inhale, or touch the chemical.

When aniline enters the body, it impairs the blood’s ability to transport oxygen. Without oxygen, organs cannot function normally, which can lead to dizziness, headaches, decreased heartbeat, and a bluish discoloration to the skin. These symptoms can occur after a brief exposure, and they become more severe as the amount or length of time of exposure increases. Extreme exposure can result in coma and death. In studies of laboratory animals, long-term aniline exposure caused spleen cancer. For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency classifies aniline as probably causing cancer in humans. Because aniline easily catches fire, it is also dangerous because accidents or spills at sites that contain aniline can cause risk of explosion. These explosion and human health risks make aniline a dangerous chemical whose use and disposal should be closely monitored and regulated.

 

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Cumulative Risks and Toxicity

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Cumulative Risk and Toxicity

Evaluating the cumulative impacts of exposure to multiple chemicals is perhaps the most difficult task facing toxicologists. The standard approach is to evaluate these risks by conducting a risk assessment or risk evaluation which relies heavily on data from exposure to a single chemical. But this only provides a limited assessment of the risks. Over the years there has been a growing recognition that this approach has many flaws (see previous issues of Toxic Tuesday) and limited application to real world exposures to multiple chemicals at low concentrations. EPA has recognized the need to develop tools to evaluate cumulative risks, but has failed to develop a clear road map for how to do this.

A cumulative risk assessment would analyze the combined risks to health or the environment from exposure to multiple agents or stressors (USEPA 2003). This process includes evaluating the risks posed by exposure to multiple toxic chemicals simultaneously and over time as well as the influence on health of stressors such as genetics, lifestyle choices, income and air quality.

Evaluating cumulative risks requires knowledge of what chemicals a person was exposed to, the concentration of each of the substances in the mixture and how long a person was exposed to each of these substances. It also requires knowledge of how these chemicals in combination react to each other and how these chemical interactions in mixtures potentially impact human health. It also necessitates knowledge about the health status of each person exposed. There is both a natural variability as well as unique susceptibility among a group of people that influences health outcomes. For example, people who are sick or who have existing health conditions such as a weak heart or compromised immune system can influence how a person responds to a mixture of chemicals. Socioeconomic factors such as poverty, unemployment rates, education levels and income also influences how people in a community respond. All of these factors combined would have to be considered to assess the cumulative health impact resulting from exposure to multiple chemicals simultaneously.

What’s become very clear over the years is that the scientific community knows very little about most of these factors. Consequently, risk assessors need to make many assumptions about information that is not known or at best uncertain. This is especially true when it comes to information about exposures (concentration and for how long) as well what level of exposure actually triggers harm in the body. The lack of knowledge and understanding of the molecular interactions have made it very difficult for scientists to forecast what will happen when people are exposed to multiple chemicals at low concentrations over time and why the field of toxicology has struggled to address multiple chemical exposures.

This failure has left community leaders and people in communities exposed to multiple chemicals simultaneously frustrated by the lack of answers and the lack for action by government agencies when addressing multiple chemical exposures. It may also be frustrating for government agencies because they are dependent on a tool (risk assessment) that relies on an antiquated approach that cannot answer the questions that people are asking.

EPA and other public health agencies need to be honest and truthful with the public about what they don’t know about chemical exposure risks. Scientists actually don’t know very much about what happens to people exposed to low level mixtures of toxic chemicals. While this reality may not be reassuring, the truth allows everyone to better understand what they are facing.

There is an alternative that should be considered. EPA should follow the lead of what the government did to take care of Vietnam Veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and the soldiers exposed to emissions from the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. In these cases, soldiers do not have to prove that their illnesses were caused by their exposure to toxic chemicals. If they can show that they were exposed and that they have an illness associated with the chemicals they were exposed to, that’s sufficient for them to get health care and other compensation.

Communities exposed to toxic chemical mixtures shouldn’t be held to a different standard given that the uncertainties about toxic exposures are driven by the same scientific unknowns. In the absence of a basic understanding of what adverse health effects might result from exposures to the mixtures of toxic chemicals released into a community, the government should take steps to address the needs of the community, whether it’s by providing health care for those who were exposed or establishing a medical monitoring program to follow these people, or both.

These steps will begin the long and difficult process of acknowledging what we know and don’t know about exposes to low level mixtures of toxic chemicals and begin to learn what happens to the people exposed in these situations.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

A New Study on How Communities Experience Government Responses to Environmental Disasters

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

A New Study on How Communities Experience Government Responses to Environmental Disasters

In October 2021, residents of Carson, California began smelling odors and experiencing dizziness, headaches, and nausea. The odor was identified as being hydrogen sulfide, and its concentration in the air remained above California’s air quality standards for three months. (CHEJ has previously written about hydrogen sulfide and its health effects here). The government concluded the hydrogen sulfide came from firefighting chemicals used to extinguish a warehouse fire in September 2021. The county government distributed air purifiers and provided hotel rooms for temporary relocation, but many residents felt like the response wasn’t fast or substantial enough. Importantly, Carson is a diverse city with one of the highest pollution burdens in California, making residents particularly vulnerable to health effects from disasters like this one.

A recent study in the journal Environmental Health conducted 6 focus groups with 33 members of the Carson community. It uncovered valuable information about how the community experienced the government response to this disaster and what we can learn from it. It found 5 themes that emerged from these focus groups:

  • Breakdowns in communication between institutions of authority and residents. Participants agreed that they didn’t know the source of the odor and received little information about it from responsible agencies. There was not even common understanding of which agencies were responsible. When residents contacted agencies themselves to get information they were often dismissed or ignored. This led to many receiving information from unofficial sources, but they weren’t sure if that information was accurate. Without clear and accurate information, participants felt abandoned and powerless. Spanish-speaking participants in particular said they felt ignored and left in the dark.
  • Institutions downplaying residents’ concerns. Throughout the disaster, residents reported nausea, headaches, dizziness, nose bleeds, trouble sleeping, and stomach problems. However, they felt that local news, government agencies, and healthcare providers downplayed the risks and dismissed their health problems. This disparity between their lived experience and response from institutions led to participants feeling gaslit, causing them to lose trust in these institutions.
  • Stress of the unknown impacts of the odors on health. Many participants explained how the disaster and lack of information led to severe stress and fear in addition to the health effects of the odor. Some are experiencing long-term physical and mental health effects.
  • Efforts to build community power. The lack of information and transparency from institutions made some residents build their own power through research, information sharing, networking, and activism. Participants described doing research themselves on the health effects of hydrogen sulfide exposure because government agencies didn’t provide that information. They shared this research and county response information in social media groups, homeowners associations, local community organizations, and other social networks. Spanish-speaking participants said they were unaware of the social media community groups and mostly received information from neighbors, highlighting how different communities within Carson experienced the disaster response differently. Participants agreed that community leaders emerged through this process who pressured local leaders to take action. They expressed pride and gratitude for the community power and relationships they built.
  • Long-term impacts. Many participants expressed that this experience made them lose trust in local institutions including news, government, and healthcare. They felt that issues of race, class, and the power of polluting industries in Carson led to the lack of response. Many agreed that they now have increased awareness of odors, pollution, and environmental justice issues.

Other communities that have experienced environmental disasters may recognize the experiences of residents in Carson, California. While it may be a common experience for communities, it’s not often something described in scientific studies. This study helps make researchers, public policy experts, and decision makers aware of the problem and the long-term effect it has on communities.

As seen in Carson, the absence of transparent information and community engagement breeds distrust of institutions, which has broad implications for societal stability and health. But Carson also demonstrates a path forward to strengthen communities: residents have the relationships, drive, and expertise to help protect each other. Government responses should harness this power to better protect public health. Current government responses to environmental disasters are often insufficient, and in imagining better responses systems we must center community needs, expertise, and engagement.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) is a manmade chemical and is the most common member of a class of chemicals called phthalates. DEHP is used as a plasticizer, meaning it is added to plastics to make them more flexible, transparent, and durable. DEHP is commonly used as a plasticizer in consumer products such as tablecloths, shower curtains, rainwear, garden hoses, plastic tubing, upholstery, flooring, and food packaging containers. It can also be used as a fragrance ingredient in personal care products such as perfume, laundry detergent, and air fresheners.

When DEHP is added to plastics, over time it can leach out of those products and into the surrounding environment. For instance, when it is used in plastic food packaging, it can leach out of the plastic and into the food it’s holding. Eating this contaminated food is the most likely way people are exposed to DEHP. When it leaches out of household products like upholstery, flooring, and shower curtains, it sticks to dust particles that people may then accidentally inhale or ingest. DEHP is also added to some medical tubing, so some procedures like blood transfusions and kidney dialysis may also lead to exposure.

Exposure to DEHP is associated with reproductive dysfunction in humans. In men, it is linked to lower testosterone and sperm motility. In pregnant women, it is linked to preterm birth. While it is not known if DEHP causes cancer in humans, in studies of laboratory animals, exposure caused liver, pancreatic, and testicular cancer. The US Department of Health and Human Services classifies DEHP as reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans. The US Environmental Protection Agency classifies it as a probable cancer-causing agent in humans.

DEHP exposure is harmful to human health and the US government knows it – in 2008 the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act made it illegal to sell children’s products that contain more than 0.1% DEHP. However, DEHP is still allowed in a wide variety of products that end up in homes, businesses, healthcare facilities, and landfills. Additional regulation to require products to be free of DEHP would have a crucial impact on limiting exposure and the reproductive and cancer harm that come with it.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Do Environmental Standards Protect Public Health?

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Do Environmental Standards Protect Public Health?

Federal environmental standards were created to protect the environment and human health. Regulations to limit chemicals in water, air, soil, and food set requirements that must be upheld by all levels of government (local, state, tribal, etc.), ideally creating uniform policy and protections for communities across the country. Examples include the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act,  Clean Water Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that regulate pollutants in drinking water, air, water and food, respectively. It’s natural to think that these laws would protect people from exposure to toxic chemicals, but this is only partially true. While these regulations have made significant improvements in drinking water, air, water and food quality, there are many gaps and limitations in these regulations that result in people unwittingly being exposed to toxic chemicals, especially in environmental justice communities.

With one exception, a major problem with these laws is that they do not establish legally enforceable standards. Instead, government agencies have developed guidelines and recommendations. Another significant problem is that several key regulations only apply to point-source pollutants (“single, identifiable sources of pollution from which pollutants are discharged, such as a pipe, factory smokestack, ditch, etc.”), leaving non-point source pollutants (“pollution that comes from multiple diffuse sources,”) to state, tribal, or local jurisdiction or without regulations. This gap results in discrepancies in exposures to chemicals and health outcomes of communities based on where people live and work, especially in areas described as Sacrifice Zones – areas that are disproportionately impacted by pollution produced by proximity to intensive, concentrated industry, often in low-income communities of color. Without standards in place to protect these areas, these communities are exposed to abnormally high levels of chemicals which increases their risk of cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other diseases.

Health-based standards are important because they define a level of exposure that’s intended to protect the health of all people. Only the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was passed in 1974, sets a health-based maximum concentration of a chemical allowed in water. This legally enforceable standard sets this rule apart from all other regulations. If the level of chemical exceeds its drink water standard, health agencies will issue orders notifying people to stop drinking the water. And, if a company is found responsible for contaminating the water, they are held liable for treatment costs and any potential adverse health effects that result. This is the way health-based regulations are supposed to work.   

However, this is not how the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Acts work. For these regulations, similar maximum exposure levels are not defined. There are no air standards that define a “safe” or even “acceptable” concentration of a chemical in the air. The Clean Air Act (CAA), which passed in 1970, established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) which include regulations for 6 pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide. This rule sets emissions limits for each of these pollutants for varying periods of time such as one year. Under this system, there is no limit to how much a person could be exposed to in the ambient air. Put another way, no one knows what it means if a person is exposed to 50 parts per million (ppm) of benzene in ambient air.

Similarly, the Clean Water Act, which passed in 1972, also does not define a “safe” or “acceptable” concentration of a chemical in open waters. The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates contaminants and wastewater only from point source polluters by “prohibiting the discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters.” A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be acquired in order to discharge pollutants to water bodies. The permit regulates what can be discharged (and how much) and establishes a monitoring system to track discharges. This regulation does not address non-point source pollutants. As is the case with the CAA, there is no limit to the concentration of a chemical that can be discharged into a body of water. Put another way, no one knows what it means if a person is exposed to 50 ppm benzene in a river.

The situation is even worse when it comes to chemical contamination of soil. In this case, there are no federal standards that protect ambient soil quality. EPA has developed guidelines ad recommendations for determining “acceptable” levels of residual contamination at Superfund sites post-remediation. These Superfund sites use Soil Screening Guidance (SSG) which “presents a framework for developing risk-based Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) that protect human health.” However, these guideline values are not legally enforceable standards. Instead, they are used by state and federal agencies to decide how much residual contamination is “acceptable” in one community versus another. EPA can decide to leave 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead at one site and 1,000 ppm at another by using different risk factors. According to EPA, this “flexibility” is important in managing risks. Practically, this means that the community that’s organized and generates political pressure gets a better cleanup, while the one that doesn’t, gets less protection and higher levels of contamination which is typical in Sacrifice Zone communities.

The same goes for toxic chemicals in food. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was passed in 2002, regulates pesticide levels in foods. These regulations define how much pesticide can be applied to food in the field, how often, and the timing of the application in relation to consumption. There are also guidelines for certain metals. For example, FDA has  seafood intake recommendations intended to limit exposure to metals like mercury. These guidelines and are not legally enforceable. FDA states the reason for this is that metals are often “widespread in the environment and because it is not possible to remove [them] from seafood or grow or produce certain foods completely free of [them].”

It’s reasonable for people to think, and expect, that government wouldn’t allow unsafe levels of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe, the water we swim in, the soil we play in, and in the food we eat. However, that’s not the case. With exception of drinking water, existing environmental and public health regulations do not set health-based standards that define a level of exposure that’s “safe” or even acceptable. Instead, we are left with unenforceable guidelines that give federal agencies enormous power to negotiate with the companies responsible for the contamination. This may be practical, but it’s not protective of public health and it leaves communities vulnerable to toxic exposures that can negatively impact their health.  

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)

N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a chemical in a class of chemicals called nitrosamines. NMDA is a yellow liquid but readily evaporates at room temperature.

Until the 1970s it was used to make rocket fuel, but was then discontinued because of the resulting environmental contamination. In the United States today, NDMA is only made for scientific research purposes. However, NDMA can be formed as a byproduct when its commonly found precursors come into contact with each other.

These scenarios where NDMA forms as a byproduct occur in industrial settings like water treatment plants, pesticide manufacturing facilities, and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. This can result in NDMA entering soil, drinking water, and air.

NDMA can also be formed from precursors found in common consumer products like lotion, cosmetics, beer, cured meat, and smoked meat. When we use these products, we can be exposed to the NDMA in them. Furthermore, foods like cured meat, smoked meat, fish, cheese, and beer are high in compounds called nitrates, which our bodies can convert into NDMA once we eat them. These kinds of consumer products are how most of the population is exposed to NDMA.
 
Exposure to NDMA can cause liver damage in humans. Workers exposed to NDMA in industrial settings had higher risks of liver, blood, bladder, stomach, and prostate cancers. Increased NDMA exposure through food is associated with stomach and colorectal cancers. In studies of laboratory animals, NDMA exposure
caused liver injury and stillbirth as well as liver, lung, kidney, and testicular cancers. Based on all of this evidence, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer both classify NDMA as a probable cancer-causing chemical in humans.

Because NDMA can be found in industrial settings and a wide variety of consumer products, it can be hard to know our exposure risk. This makes it particularly important for the federal government to regulate NDMA precursor chemicals in manufacturing, personal care products, and food preservation in order to keep people safe from the adverse health effects of exposure.
 

Learn about more toxics