Health, Taken Seriously » Chemicals

Formaldehyde and Styrene added to U.S. list of carcinogens

Sophia — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:43:04 +0000

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added 12 substances to their list of known human carcinogens, including formaldehyde and styrene, this month. Styrene is a precurser to the plastic polystyrene, or PS (#6), which is one of the most commonly produced plastics in the world. Several billion kilograms of the stuff is produced every year. You may come into contact with this plastic most commonly in those ubiquitus red plastic cups (beer anyone?). According to the article, the general population’s greatest exposure to styrene is through cigarette smoking.

Formaldehyde is most commonly found in adhesives used in home construction materials (particle board, fiberboard, plywood, laminant flooring), although it’s also used as a preservative in cosmetics like hair straighteners and even in clothing (that nice wrinkle-free collared shirt your husband wears may very well contain it). While you may not be that concerned about the formaldehyde in your kitchen cabinets or furniture, you should know that it off-gases and is one of the contributors to poor indoor air quality. An amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act by President Obama last year would set limits on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products that will go into effect in 2013. Until then, you can improve your home’s indoor air quality by ventilating it as much as possible or by cleaning the air with certain indoor plants.

Roundup causes birth defects

Sophia — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:05:04 +0000

I live in a community filled with wonderful parks and open spaces. However, since having children, I have enjoyed these spaces with some hesitation, knowing that they may be sprayed with herbicides and insecticides. I have even seen the Parks and Recreation department of my city spray the natural grasses areas of the parks, not just the manicured lawns. Worst of all, I almost never see pesticide flags placed after these sprayings.

My master community association says they use glyphosphate, a Monsanto product better known as Roundup, and 2,4-D. The latter is a selective herbicide that kills broad-leafed weeds, while Roundup is non-selective. My MCA claims that once these products are dry (which occurs 30 min after application), they are not harmful. Statements like these make me cringe, because they give people a false sense of security. Common sense tells us that chemicals designed to kill life could also harm human life. And when the manufacturers are the one claiming their product is safe, especially a product that Monsanto makes millions off of (combined with their GM seeds that resist Roundup, allowing even more of it to be sprayed on crops), then I think consumers should be extra cautious.

I recently read a report by Earth Open Science titled Round Up and Birth Defects–Is the Public Being Kept in the Dark? This June 2011 report claims that glyphosphate produces birth effects at very low doses, like the kind that would be found after agricultural spraying or garden use. The article claims that Monsanto has known since the 1980s that high doses of glyphosphate cause birth defects in laboratory animals, that industry has known since 1993 that birth defects can occur at low doses, that the EU Commission has known this since 2002, the year that its report paved the way for current glyphosphate approval and use. During this time, the public has been kept in the dark by both industry and regulators, while the work of independent scientists has been ignored.

Even before I saw this report, I took steps to protect my family. I avoid our parks in the spring, when most spraying occurs. When my children play in the park, I make them wash their hands and change their clothes as soon as we return home. We always remove our shoes at the door, and I vacuum and mop regularly. And to be entirely honest, we often just stick to our backyard, where the worst thing my children may come into contact with is a bug.

American Academy of Pediatrics calls for Toxic Substances Control Act to be revised

Sophia — Sat, 07 May 2011 16:06:58 +0000

It has long been known that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 is outdated and ineffective. Most notably, the TSCA does little to protect our most vulnerable–pregnant women and children–from dangerous chemicals in the environment. A company that wants to use a chemical in a product can do so without first testing for, much less demonstrating, its safety. Not until the chemical has been widely used and irrefutabely proved to cause harm can it be banned or its use controlled. The TSCA is so weak that since 1976, only 5 chemicals out of 80,000 in circulation have been restricted. Essentially, our current chemical management policy is that we will test new chemicals on the general public, on our developing children, at no cost to the companies manufacturing these chemicals. We have placed a higher priority on a company’s rights than on an individual’s rights. For this reason, I’m pleased to see that the American Academy of Pediatrics, as of last month, is calling for revision of American chemical policy. Perhaps we can adopt legislation like the EU did (REACH) in 2007. Better late than never, right?

Precaution and prevention

Sophia — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:31:17 +0000

It is clear that in America, we do not take a preventative approach to our health. Rather than use precaution and limit the use of materials that may pose a risk to our health, we mass produce products and insist they are safe until proven otherwise. Essentially, we are using ourselves and our children as experimental animals. If enough of us get sick and the research can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a certain chemical, additive, heavy metal, or otherwise profitiable product is to blame, then steps will be taken to limit its production and use. But only after years of research and unnecessary suffering and/or death have occurred first. This was the case with tobacco, asbestos, benzene, and vinyl chloride, just to name a few, and will it possibly be the case with things like BPA, phthalates, brominated fire retardants, PFOA (non-stick chemicals used in cookware, clothing, and carpets), pesticides, and cell phones?

I am currently reading The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, Ph.D. She has a great page that summarizes what is wrong with our current approach in America that I’d like to quote here:

“If we insist that we cannot act to prevent future harm until we have proof of past harms, we are treating people like lab rats in uncontrolled experiments. If we say, let’s let the experts decide, where do we get experts without baggage? The costs of experimental laboratory research are growing and debates about the value of various research methods are becoming ever more complex. These debates are sometimes fueled by those who have a knack for turning molehills of scientific minutiae into mountains of uncertainty. In a world where information on the health and safety of workers remains locked up in company files, wrapped in the protections of confidentiality, independent experts to make sense of it are an endangered species.

We have seen repeatedly how some people in industry, whether tobacco, asbestos, benzene or vinyl chloride, understood risks long before the rest of us were able to learn about them. We know of many instances where insurance companies tracked health hazards for years, as claims mounted and reports of various ailments accumulated, without letting workers know the dangers they faced. We also know that current laws discourage giving such information up. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act provides criminal penalties for anyone who has knowledge that someone endangers public health of the environment and does not report it. The results is that most companies no longer develop such knowledge or collect such information, so that they can’t be charged with breaking this law.”

For more information on this subject, see the Kids Safe Chemicals Act blog.

Slow Death

Sophia — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:02:50 +0000

The book Slow Death by Rubber Duck doesn’t sound like a pleasurable read, but it is! Well, at least as much as could be given the subject matter of toxins that are slowly poisoning us and our environment.

The two Canadian authors, Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, decide to experiment with phthalates, BPA, mercury, and PFC’s (non-stick chemicals) to see what their personal levels were and whether they could increase them via normal, daily activities (like using personal care products, eating canned foods, or eating lots of sushi). In addition to describing these mini-experiments (n=1), they elaborate on the history of these toxins, the science behind them, and why they are dangerous. Particularly interesting to me was the research showing that even infinitesimally small amounts of certain chemicals, like BPA, have measurable effects. Slow death indeed!

The final chapter Detox leaves you with hope though. It describes some actions you can take to keep these toxins out of your body. Much of the advice given in the book can be found on the pages of this blog as well:

To reduce your exposure to phthalates, avoid personal-care products with artificial fragrance, avoid PVC shower curtains, never use air fresheners, reduce your consumption of fatty animal products (chemicals like phthalates bioaccumulate in the fat of animals we eat), and avoid toys made with PVC, such as the infamous rubber ducks.
To reduce your exposure to persistant perflourochemicals (PFCs), stop using non-stick cookware, avoid fast food that is wrapped in PFC coated packaging (pizza boxes, microwavable popcorn bags, etc.), and be wary of replacement chemicals taking the place of Teflon and other PFCs.
To reduce your exposure to brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), buy PBDE-free furniture and electronics (Sony, Philips, Panasonic and Samsung are PBDE-free), use naturally fire resistant materials like wool, hemp, and cotton, dust and vacuum often to keep PBDE-laden dust out of your home and off your children’s hands, and properly donate/recycle old electronics to keep persistant PBDEs out of landfills.
To reduce your exposure to mercury, avoid large predatory fish, dispose of CFL lightbulbs or mercury-containing products properly to keep mercury out of landfills, avoid canned white albacore tuna, eat wild fish whenever possible, and support legislators who are pushing for reducing mercury emissions from products and industrial processes.
To reduce your exposure to the antibacterial chemical triclosan, avoid antibacterial products, wash your hand with regular soap for 30 seconds, use natural cleaners in your home, and make sure you read ingredient lists for your makeup and personal care products.
To reduce your exposure to BPA, avoid plastics 3,6, and 7, use glass containers to store food when possible, eat fresh/frozen food instead of canned, and never microwave plastic.

Toxic America

Sophia — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:39:35 +0000

CNN just aired a couple episodes of a show they called Toxic America. I found the Toxic Towns episode depressing, but enjoyed the Toxic Childhood one. There really wasn’t any additional information shared by Dr. Sanjay Gupta about toxic chemicals that can’t be found on this blog, but I was really pleased to see this issue getting such mainstream attention. If you missed the shows and want to learn more, see CNN’s website. Of particular interest is the U.S. map with information about air quality for each state (my state was low in benzene, dioxins, and mercury, but high in lead) and pesticides on produce.

Environment and Cancer

Sophia — Sat, 08 May 2010 15:45:39 +0000

Cancer is a subject near and dear to my heart. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer 10 years ago and one of my dearest friends with brain cancer last year. The fear of my children developing cancer or some other disease because of chemicals in their environment that I could have protected them from is the primary reason I research, read, write this blog, and make all the difficult life-style changes I have.

The President’s Cancer Panel just released the 2008-2009 annual report called Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. It summarizes the Panel’s findings from Sept 2008 to Jan 2009, during which the Panel received testimony from 45 experts. Here are some of the highlights from the overview. Also see below for the Panel’s recommendations on how to reduce exposure to cancer-causing agents in our environment. If the 147-page report is a tad long for you, you can read the EWG’s short article summarizing this report.

Highlights from the report:

41% of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. 21% of Americans will die from cancer.
The incidence of some cancers, including the most common ones among children, are increasing for unexplained reasons.
Research on environmental causes of cancer has been limited by low priority and inadequate funding. There is a lack of emphasis on environmental research as a route to primary cancer prevention, particularly compared with research emphases on genetic and molecular mechanisms in cancer.
The prevailing regulatory approach in the United States is reactionary rather than precautionary. That is, instead of taking preventive action when uncertainty exists about the potential harm a chemical or other environmental contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly demonstrated before action to ameliorate it is initiated. Moreover, instead of requiring industry or other proponents of specific chemicals, devices, or activities to prove their safety, the public bears the burden of proving that a given environmental exposure is harmful. Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.
Children of all ages are considerably more vulnerable than adults to increased cancer risk and other adverse effects from virtually all harmful environmental exposures. In addition, some toxics have adverse effects not only on those exposed directly (including in utero), but on the offspring of exposed individuals.
Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. It is believed that a single large dose of ionizing radiation and numerous low doses equal to the single large dose have much the same effect on the body over time.
Environmental health, including cancer risk, has been largely excluded from overall national policy on protecting and improving the health of Americans. It is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it, but cancer prevention efforts have focused narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviors, and chemopreventive interventions.
Opportunities for eliminating or minimizing cancer-causing and cancer-promoting environmental exposures must be acted upon to protect all Americans, but especially children. They are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known or suspected carcinogens, including radiation. Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born “pre-polluted.” Children also can be harmed by genetic or other damage resulting from environmental exposures sustained by the mother (and in some cases, the father).
Existing regulations, and the exposure assessments on which they are based, are outdated in most cases, and many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.

And while we’re waiting for the government and researchers to make appropriate changes, here’s what we can do:

Recognize that children are far more susceptible to damage from environmental carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds than adults. To the extent possible, parents should choose foods, house and garden products, play spaces, toys, medicines, and medical tests that will minimize children’s exposure to toxics. Ideally, both mothers and fathers should avoid exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and known or suspected carcinogens prior to a child’s conception and throughout pregnancy and early life, when risk of damage is greatest.
Remove shoes before entering the home.
Filter tap water.
Store and carry water in stainless steel, glass, or BPA- and phthalate-free containers. Never microwave food in plastic containers.
Choose food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Eat meat that is free-range to reduce exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots. Avoid consumption of processed, charred, and well done meats (which will reduce exposure to carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic hydrocarbons).
Don’t use pesticides or fertilizers in your yard. This will help keep these chemicals from contaminating drinking water supplies.
Reduce your exposure to electromagnetic energy by wearing a headset when using a cell phone, texting instead of calling, and keeping calls brief.
Periodically check home radon levels.
Reduce exposure to radiation from medical sources by discussing the need for medical tests or procedures that involve radiation with health care providers.

Cleaning the shower safely

Sophia — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:41:25 +0000

Our master bathroom shower is all white tile. It was a cost-effective choice when building our home, but man is it a pain to keep clean! The minerals in our water supply leave a pink residue in the shower and black mildew is very obvious on the white tile and light grout. I’m ashamed to admit that after many different attempts to really clean the shower, I broke down and bought a bottle of something with bleach. It was my first purchase of a non-green, toxic household cleaner in years. My husband used it once and for days, I could smell the chlorine bleach in our bathroom. I was determined to find a better solution.

We now use Seventh Generation’s Shower Cleaner, made with hydrogen peroxide. I spray it all over the shower, let it sit for 5-10 minutes, then scrub with a heavy duty brush. It really takes care of the mildew and I’m not overwhelmed by the fumes. The key to keeping our shower clean has been to do this religiously. I can’t let a month go by without cleaning it. So far, by staying on top of cleaning (I do it every week or sometimes every other), we have been able to keep it sparkly white with minimal effort. Lucky for my husband, I can still clean the shower while pregnant now!

Buying an organic mattress

Sophia — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:34:39 +0000

We have been in need of a new crib mattress. While we are expecting our third baby (and you’d think we already had a crib mattress), we have decided to keep our 2 year old on it in his crib for now. We bought a second hand crib from a neighbor but didn’t want to use the mattress. Conventional crib mattresses are filled with petroleum based polyurethane foam, which is highly flammable. This usually leads to the mattress being covered with flame retardant chemicals (PBDEs) that we are trying to avoid in our home when possible. Traditional mattresses can also have other chemicals in them, and many of these chemicals off-gas (see What’s the Problem with Conventional Mattresses below). This is really not something I want my newborn spending 2/3 of his life on. The crib mattress we used with my older two children is more than a decade old and I figured it had off-gassed most everything already. We wrapped it in an organic wool mattress pad and organic cotton sheets and felt good enough about it. But with this baby, I know more and am less comfortable using a traditional mattress. So I was on the market for a healthier alternative.

Buying a natural/organic mattress is a big deal. They are expensive. It’s something I almost did with my second child, but the cost deterred me. To off-set some of that this time, I ended up buying used furniture for the baby’s room so that I could spend my money on a better mattress instead. Parents don’t blink an eye when it comes time to buy a $400 crib, but then they skimp on the mattress. Well, I did the opposite–I spent $50 on a 3-year old used crib and was willing to spend up to $400 on a natural/organic mattress. If you’re looking for one, here’s what you can expect.

There are two types of mattresses available. The cheaper is an innerspring mattress, much like the one you probably sleep on. They tend to run $200-300. The steel coils are usually wrapped in organic cotton or wool, and then the mattress is covered in wool (which is fire resistant and provides a natural barrier to dust mites). Wool can also absorb up to 30 times its weight in moisture, so it’s great for sweaty sleepers. It also is breathable and good at regulating body temperature–keeping baby warm in the winter and cooler in the summer. There are some manufacturers (Naturepedic) that have opted not to use wool, as some people can be allergic to it. Instead, they wrap their mattresses in food-grade plastic (polyethelene). Their mattresses get good reviews on Amazon, but I wasn’t about to spend hundreds of dollars on an organic cotton mattress that was then wrapped in plastic. I don’t care if it is food grade. I also felt uncertain about how the mattress met flammability codes. Mattresses with wool are naturally flame resistant. Naturepedic wasn’t especially clear on their website about how their mattresses were flame resisent (“exclusive fire protection system features a non-toxic and naturally derived fire barrier system that is safe and effective”) and this made me nervous.

The second type of natural mattress is one made of natural latex. This is similar to the memory foam beds out there. They tend to be a bit more expensive ($400-600), but the entire mattress is latex, making it super comfy and easy to work with (no need to worry about exact measurements as you can squeeze a slightly larger mattress into the crib, and changing sheets is also easier as you can just bend the corners of the mattress to put them on). I found latex mattresses almost always came surrounded in wool, and then sometimes with a bamboo cover or organic cotton one. These mattresses were either 4″ or 6″ deep.

It was very hard to decide on what mattress to get. I spent weeks researching mattresses and was frustrated by how difficult it was to find information about the materials (was the wool organic or chemically treated, how was the latex processed, what were the sources for these materials, etc.). It was especially challenging shopping online when there are so few online reviews of natural and organic mattresses. Many companies make their own organic mattresses (Daxstores, Purerest) but without any consumer feedback, I just wasn’t certain. It’s not easy buying a mattress online without touching and feeling it, and being able to ask detailed questions. I almost bought one from Daxstores, a company I have bought bedding from before that has excellent customer service, but was worried about the cost of shipping the mattress back if I needed to return it.

We ended up getting one made by a local company from a local eco home goods store. It was a 6″ natural latex mattress with a wool/bamboo blend cover. It retailed for $475 and we had a 25% off coupon. Now we just need a mattress pad/protector and we are set. We plan on using this mattress for 3-4 years, putting it on a toddler bed to get more of our money’s worth. And we are considering getting our older two children natural rubber twin mattresses (which seem to run about $800-1000) in the future and possibly one for ourselves. We’ll see though. That is definitely a serious investment.

So what’s the problem with conventional mattresses?

According to Dr. Alan Greene, author of Raising Baby Green:

Conventional mattresses are often covered in the polyvinyl chloride (PVC), widely considered to be one of the most toxic and environmentally unfriendly plastics in use today.
Phthalates, associated with asthma, reproductive effects, and cancer, make up 30% by weight of the PVC surface of a typical crib mattress. The FDA and Consumer Product Safety Commission have issued general warnings regarding the use of phthalates, yet the PVC surfaces of baby mattresses still contain phthalates.
The surface of a typical mattress is also treated with toxic fire-retardant chemicals such as antimony, arsenic, and phosphorous. Various biocides are often added as well.
Polyurethane foam, the predominant filling material used in baby mattresses, typically contains various problematic ingredients, including chemical catalysts, surfactants, emulsifiers, pigments, and other chemical additives. These frequently include formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and organotin compounds.
Polyurethane foam (essentially solid petroluem) is extremely flammable. To combat this hazard, toxic industrial fire retardants (PBDEs) are added.
There is some speculation that the off-gassing of mattresses may be a factor in SIDS, especially if baby’s placed on his stomach such that his face is close to the mattress.

Where can I buy a greener mattress?

Suite Sleep (make sure to read their page on how their mattresses are made)
Daxstores (they carry some of the best priced innerspring and latex mattresses)
Purerest (I have no personal experience with this store but Dr. Alan Greene recommends them)
Ecobedroom (also recommended by Dr. Greene)
Nontoxic (also recommended by Dr. Greene)
Natura (I have purchased other bedding products from them before and have been very pleased)

Are there other ways to make my bed healthier if I can’t afford a new mattress?

Consider buying a natural/organic mattress pad or topper. I have purchased several wool mattress pads that I hope create some of a barrier between a conventional mattress and the person sleeping on it. Wool mattress toppers can be bought several inches thick, providing a very plush sleeping experience.
Buy organic cotton sheets. Gaiam sells organic bedding for a very reasonable price. Many of the stores mentioned above for mattresses also sell organic bedding.
Buy a natural pillow. I have used a natural latex pillow from Natura for 4 years and love it! My children sleep on shredded natural latex pillows, which are more affordable than solid latex. I think that many organic wool filled pillows seem very nice.

Why choose organic?

While latex is not organic, other bedding materials like cotton and wool can be. Latex can be synthetic or natural though. See this site for more information about natural latex.
25% of the world’s insecticides are used on cotton, making it the most insecticide-intensive crop in the world.
Chemicals used to grow cotton (pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizers) can end up in the cotton that your baby’s skin lies against. The porous nature of skin allows it to absorb what it comes into contact with. Organic cotton is not just good for the planet, but also for your baby.
According to Dr. Alan Greene, organic wool is produced without detergents, dyes, and other irritating substances. Organic wool also comes from sheep that weren’t dunked into a pool of toxic organophosphate “dip” to kill parasites, as are conventially raised sheep. Instead, beneficial insects and ntural repellents handle parasites.
Organic wool comes from herds of sheep that are carefully managed to protect the land from damage caused by overgrazing.

I’ll try to post an update after our baby is born to report on how we like our mattress.

Sign the petition to support the Kid Safe Chemical Act

Sophia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:23:12 +0000

The Environmental Working Group wants to collect 75,000 signatures to show that Americans support the Kid Safe Chemical Act. We don’t think that current chemical legislation is adequate (see my letter) and believe that all chemicals should demonstrate safety before they can be sold. The EWG has already gotten 40,000 signatures in one week. Consider signing their petiton!

You can see more about what happened on February 4th’s Environment and Public Works hearing “Current Science on Public Exposures to Toxic Chemicals” here. You can even read the testimony of the president of the EWG, Ken Cook.