Note the researchers: Environmental Defence (an NGO).
Mark Stevenson (an
individual). NOT Health Canada.
Research and
policy in the public interest is no longer the domain of the
Government of
Canada. Our publicly-funded research is funnelled out through
The
Health Research Foundations and prioritized by "the potential
for
commercialization". NGO's are left to find the money to perform
the
research that needs to be done, to try and force legislative and
regulatory
changes.
When you add WHAT IS KNOWN from other
jurisdictions to this most recent
research, what we have is Paralysis by
analysis. I've appended some of the
past emails that deal with this
topic of body burden of chemicals.
Thanks to Jim, Hart and Al for the
story.
Our local paper carried it on page B8, "a small item on the back
pages",
Saskatoon Star Phoenix.
CONTENTS
(1) CBC NEWS,
WINNIPEG, Nov. 9/05, Tests show harmful chemicals in
Winnipegger's
body
(2) GLOBE & MAIL, Nov. 9/05, Canadians a toxic lot,
study finds
(3) Jul 17 2005 - BODY BURDEN - THE POLLUTION IN
NEWBORNS, A benchmark
investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and
pesticides in
umbilical cord blood, Environmental Working Group, July 14,
2005
(4) BODY BURDEN OF CHEMICALS, MOUNT SINAI STUDY "found an
average of 91
industrial
compounds, pollutants, and other chemicals in the
blood and urine of nine
volunteers, with a total of 167 chemicals found in
the group. Like most of
us, the people tested do not work with chemicals on
the job and do not live
near an industrial facility."
(5) GLOBE AND
MAIL, March 5, 2005, "I am polluted"
"You are exposed to hundreds of
chemicals every day, so it's not surprising
that they get inside you. MARK
STEVENSON has himself tested in the name of
the emerging and unsettling
science of body burden" (well researched with
good info)
(6) "SAFE"
LEVEL OF EXPOSURE
(7) LA TIMES, EUROPE DEBATES THE MOST MASSIVE
CHEMICAL BAN IN HISTORY, May
25 2005
(8) BIOACCUMULATION,
BIOMAGNIFICATION, BIOCONCENTRATION (deleted, but
certainly
related)
(9) MAJOR SOURCE OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL POLLUTANTS IN
ARCTIC IS
BIRD GUANO (deleted)
(10) CHEMICALS IN COSMETICS, Think
before you pink
===============================
(1) CBC
NEWS, WINNIPEG, Nov. 9/05,
Tests show harmful chemicals in Winnipegger's
body
Last Updated Nov 9 2005 04:03 PM CST
CBC News
A Winnipeg woman
who took part in a national report on chemical buildup in
the human body was
surprised to learn she showed a much higher concentration
of a
pesticide-related toxin than any other participant.
Environmental Defence
tested the blood and urine samples of 11 men and women
volunteers, including
wildlife artist Robert Bateman. Participants were
tested for a total of 88
chemicals - including polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), flame retardants and
insecticides.
Lab tests showed a total of 60 chemicals, with an average of 44
found in
each volunteer, some in trace amounts.
The contaminants include
suspected carcinogens and chemicals that may cause
reproductive disorders,
harm the development of children, disrupt hormone
systems or are associated
with respiratory illnesses.
39 chemicals: Winnipeg lawyer
Merrell-Ann
Phare, a Winnipeg lawyer, said tests showed she had at least
four times the
amount of a chemical called dimehtyl thiophosphate (DMTP) in
her system,
compared with participants in other parts of the country.
DMTP is a breakdown
product of pesticides, including malathion, which is
used to control
mosquitoes in Winnipeg. Experts say the chemical can
interfere with the
reproductive system and cause cancer.
"As you can imagine, I was really
surprised by that. I was shocked," said
Phare, who said she tries to avoid
exposure to chemicals and eats a
vegetarian, mostly organic diet.
"I
immediately thought of what it meant for my health and the health of
other
people in Winnipeg, particularly children."
The testing indicated Phare's
blood and urine contained 39 of the 88 harmful
chemicals examined.
"I can
look at one individually and say, 'Oh, that one's not too bad or that
one's
not so high.' But when I look at the whole list of all the things that
are in
my body, I wonder how they relate to one another," she said.
"What does it
mean when I have high levels of malathion, plus PCBs, plus
heavy metals? I
think that's one of the concerns is: how do you know how
things interact, and
when levels are being set for what's safe in Canada, do
they take all those
issues into account?"
Not statistically significant
A spokesperson for
Health Canada said the department will look into claims
made in the study,
noting a sample of 11 people is too small to produce
statistically
significant results.
Such body-burden studies have been conducted in Europe
and the United
States, but little is known about pollution levels in
Canadians. The tests
included in Environmental Defence's study cost $1,545
per volunteer, the
report said.
Volunteers were selected to be
representative of the Canadian population.
They were asked about their diet
and lifestyle as part of the report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE: Toxic Nation (pdf
file)
Contaminants included polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs),
persistent
chemicals used as fire retardants that are suspected hormone
disruptors, and
perfluorinated chemicals (PFOs) used in stain repellents,
non-stick cookware
and food packaging.
The group suggests Canadians can
reduce their exposure by making small
changes in their lifestyle and
purchasing habits, such as not using
pesticides and avoiding cosmetics and
toiletries with synthetic fragrances.
In response to the study, Rick Smith,
executive director of Environmental
Defence, called on the federal government
to:
Eliminate the use of toxic chemicals.
Make industry accountable for
chemicals it produces.
Regulate chemicals in consumer products through the
Canadian Environmental
Protection Act.
Focus on reducing pollution in the
Great Lakes
basin.
===========================================
(2) GLOBE
& MAIL, Nov. 9/05, Canadians a toxic lot, study
finds
'We all carry inside of us hundreds of different pollutants
and these
things are accumulating inside our bodies every day '
By
ANDRÉ PICARD
Wednesday, November 9, 2005 Page A17
PUBLIC HEALTH
REPORTER: With reports from Elizabeth St. Philip and Avis
Favaro, CTV
News.
World-renowned wildlife artist Robert Bateman has used his fame and
fortune
to promote environmental protection. But now he has gone one step
further,
giving literally of his blood -- blood that was tested for a host
of
contaminants as part of a study.
The results, to be released in a
report today, show that despite his
clean-living ways, Mr. Bateman's body is
a repository for 48 different toxic
substances. These include heavy metals;
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls used
in electrical transformers and now
banned); PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl
ethers used as fire retardants); PFOs
(perfluorinated chemicals used in
stain repellants, non-stick cookware and
food packaging), pesticides and
insecticides.
While this may seem
startling for someone who lives on B.C.'s idyllic
Saltspring Island and eats
organic food, Mr. Bateman's so-called "body
burden" is that of an average
Canadian.
"The bottom line being that we are all polluted," said Dr. Rick
Smith,
executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, a
Toronto-based
environmental health group. "The message to Canadians is -- it
doesn't
matter where you live, how old you are, it doesn't matter how clean
living
you are or if you eat organic food, or if you get a lot of exercise.
We all
carry inside of us hundreds of different pollutants and these things
are
accumulating inside our bodies every day."
The new report, titled
"Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadians,"
is the first to try and
determine how many manmade chemicals are ending up
in average
citizens.
Tests were done on 11 volunteers, including Mr. Bateman, for 88
chemicals
believed to be carcinogenic, to disrupt reproduction and hormonal
function
and interfere with fetal development. Researchers found that, on
average,
participants had a cocktail of 44 in their bodies.
While the
health effects of these chemicals are not clear, Dr. Smith said
what is clear
is that Canadians would be better off without the exposure.
"The fact is that
you and I have hundreds of chemicals in the body," he
said. "We are part of a
huge uncontrolled experiment, the outcome of which
is entirely
unpredictable."
Health Canada spokesperson Paul Glover said: "It's only 11
people. It's not
statistically significant . . . but it is an indication and
we will take a
look at it."
Researchers argue that the volunteers
represent a cross-section of the
Canadian population, and there is every
reason to believe contaminant levels
would be similar in the general
population. (A number of other countries
have done body-burden studies, which
are very expensive, but Health Canada
has not, so the non-profit group
decided to proceed on its own. Testing cost
$1,500 per person.)
Mr. Glover
said "obviously Canadians will be somewhat concerned. They didn't
choose to
put chemicals in their bodies. So how did they get there? But for
Health
Canada the question is: What is the level of risk?"
Dr. Kapil Khatter, head
of Canadian Physicians for the Environment, also
volunteered to be tested,
and 45 of the 88 compounds were detected in his
blood. The expert said he was
"shocked by the levels of pesticides and heavy
metals in my body."
Dr.
Khatter said what angers him is how little control individuals have
over
their exposure: "We don't have the choice to avoid things coming
of
smokestacks and getting into our food and water and things in
consumer
products we don't know about."
Dr. Khatter said Canadians are
generally too complacent about pollutants and
he hopes the new study will
help draw attention to how they are being
affected personally.
The most
polluted individual in the study turned out to be David Masty,
chief of the
Whapmagoostui First Nation, a Cree community in northern
Quebec. A total of
51 chemicals was found in his blood, as well as some of
the highest levels of
heavy metals, lending more credence to the belief that
toxic pollutants are
accumulating in Canada's North.
According to the report, Canada is a laggard
when it comes to regulating
against pollution, and Environmental Defence
calls on government to
legislate the phase-out of brominated flame retardants
(PBDEs),
perfluorinated chemicals and their precursors (PFOS), and
phthalates
(chemicals that make plastics soft).
The report noted that
younger test subjects had much lower levels of PCBs,
chemicals banned in
1977, and said that shows regulation works.
Environmental Defence also calls
on individual Canadians to reduce their
personal exposure to chemicals by,
for example, buying organic foods and
using non-toxic cleaning products --
though such an approach didn't seem to
help Mr. Bateman.
"I had no idea
when they were taking those samples out of my arm that there
was a
possibility that all [those chemicals] could be in there," said
the
75-year-old artist.
Chemical concentrations
The blood of 11
volunteers was tested for 88 toxic chemicals which can have
one or more
health effects.
HEALTH EFFFECTNUMBER OF CHEMICALS AVERAGE PER
VOLUNTEERRANGEROBERT BATEMAN
Carcinogen412818-3632
Hormone
disruption271813-2419
Respiratory toxicant 211512-1816
Reproductive
toxicant 211512-1816
Reproductive/Developmental toxicant
533828-4642
SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE
CANADA
=====================================
(3) Jul 17 2005
- BODY BURDEN - THE POLLUTION IN NEWBORNS, A benchmark
investigation of
industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in
umbilical cord blood,
Environmental Working Group, July 14, 2005
Kathleen: "Here is some more
absolutely horrifying information. I knew it
was bad, but not this bad - this
makes me want to gag."
Executive Summary is at: http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php
Toxic
chemicals found in umbilical cord blood
By Erik Arvidson
Transcript
Statehouse Bureau
Saturday, July 16, 2005 - BOSTON -- A group of
scientists and medical
experts Thursday called for broader research on the
effects of toxic
chemicals on newborn babies in the wake of a national study
that found
dozens of possibly harmful chemicals in human umbilical cord
blood.
Unborn babies are potentially being exposed to fire
retardants,
methylmercury, and pesticides that may cause abnormal development
or
increased cancer risks, environmental advocates warned.
The
Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C., public
interest
organization, released a study of the umbilical cord blood of 10
randomly
selected newborns in 2004 where nearly 300 types of chemicals were
detected.
Scientists until recently believed that fetuses were protected
from toxic
chemicals by the placenta, the organ that receives nutrients from
the
mother's blood and filters out waste. However, the study's authors,
along
with environmental advocates, believe that the umbilical cord also
carries
industrial chemicals and other pollutants to the fetus.
"These
are not naturally occurring chemicals. They're ones we made up," said
Dr.
Sean Palfrey, past president of the Massachusetts chapter of the
American
Academy of Pediatrics. "These substances are obviously in the
parent's blood
and bodies for some reason. The body doesn't know how to deal
with these
substances and can't secrete them."
The Environmental Working Group study
found traces of a total of 287
chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of the
10 newborns, including some
chemicals that have been banned in the United
States for decades. Each
newborn had an average of 200 of the chemicals
present, according to the
study.
The Environmental Working Group said
it obtained the umbilical cord blood
samples from the American Red Cross, and
that the analysis was done by two
Canadian research labs. The chemical
analysis found polychlorinated
biphenyls, or PCBs, which were used as
lubricants and industrial insulators
until they were banned in 1976. The
chemical, which can persist in river
sediments and the tissue of fish and
some mammals for decades, is considered
by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to be a "probable human
carcinogen."
The study also found
mercury, which comes from emissions from coal-fired
power plants and can harm
brain function. Some of the blood samples also
contained DDT, a pesticide
banned in 1972 after it was found to cause
unacceptable risks to human
health.
In addition, the study found common consumer product chemicals
used to
resist heat, water and oil, such as for nonstick cookware
and
stain-resistant carpets.
Some byproducts that are produced after
the burning of medical or municipal
waste, including dioxins and furans, were
found in the cord blood as well.
Joel Tickner, an assistant professor at
the University of Massachusetts at
Lowell School of Health and the
Environment, said that while the
Environmental Working Group used a small
sample size to study, the number
was still "scientifically relevant." He
added that the troubling part was
that the newborns were randomly
selected.
He said the study confirms a failure by both the state and
federal
governments, and the chemical manufacturing industry, to adequately
study
the use of these industrial chemicals.
"The big question is do
we want to make the mistakes that we've already
made. What can we learn from
those mistakes to make safer chemicals?"
Tickner said. "UMass Lowell has some
of the most innovative and cutting edge
research on green chemistry,
sustainable plastic and biomaterials in the
world. We are ready in this state
to make the alternatives, it just needs a
government and industrial
commitment to do it."
Tickner said parents can take steps to prevent harm
to their newborns by
eating organic foods and not using the common household
and flame-retardant
products found in the study. However, he added that
"individual choices can
only go so far," and that parents can do little about
industrial chemical
pollutants.
Palfrey said that while previous
studies have found chemical exposure in
newborns, none had searched for the
number of chemicals included in the
Environmental Working Group
study.
He added that while the dangers of chemical exposure need to be
further
studied, it's clear that the vital organs of fetuses and young
infants are
"especially vulnerable to harm" from hazardous
chemicals.
The Massachusetts House and Senate both voted Thursday to
restore $250,000
to the state budget for fiscal 2006 for the Toxics Use
Reduction Institute
at UMass Lowell, funds that had been cut by Gov. Mitt
Romney. Tickner said
the funds would pay for research into safer alternatives
to
toxic
substances.
-----------------------------------------
REUTERS
NEWS SERVICE
Unborn Babies Carry Pollutants, Study Finds
<http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=31656>
USA:
July 15, 2005
(I DELETED TEXT, same
story)
========================================
(4) BODY
BURDEN OF CHEMICALS, MOUNT SINAI STUDY
(sorry - with "plain text" the
display of data in boxes is lost)
Body Burden - the pollution in
people
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/es.php
In
a study led by Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, in
collaboration
with the Environmental Working Group and Commonweal,
researchers at two major
laboratories found an average of 91 industrial
compounds, pollutants, and
other chemicals in the blood and urine of nine
volunteers, with a total of
167 chemicals found in the group. Like most of
us, the people tested do not
work with chemicals on the job and do not live
near an industrial
facility.
Scientists refer to this contamination as a person's body burden.
Of the 167
chemicals found, 76 cause cancer in humans or animals, 94 are
toxic to the
brain and nervous system, and 79 cause birth defects or
abnormal
development. The dangers of exposure to these chemicals in
combination has
never been studied.
TABLE 1: The chemicals we found
are linked to serious health problems
Health Effect or Body System Affected
Number of chemicals found in 9 people
tested that are linked to the listed
health impact
Average number found in 9 people Total found in all 9 people
Range(lowest
and highest number found in all 9 people)
cancer [1] 53 76
[2] 36 to 65
birth defects / developmental delays 55 79 [3] 37 to
68
vision 5 11 [4] 4 to 7
hormone system 58 86 [5] 40 to 71
stomach or
intestines 59 84 [6] 41 to 72
kidney 54 80 [7] 37 to 67
brain, nervous
system 62 94 [8] 46 to 73
reproductive system 55 77 [9] 37 to
68
lungs/breathing 55 82 [10] 38 to 67
skin 56 84 [11] 37 to 70
liver
42 69 [12] 26 to 54
cardiovascular system or blood 55 82 [13] 37 to
68
hearing 34 50 [14] 16 to 47
immune system 53 77 [15] 35 to 65
male
reproductive system 47 70 [16] 28 to 60
female reproductive system 42 61 [17]
24 to 56
* Some chemicals are associated with multiple health impacts, and
appear in
multiple categories in this table.
Source: Environmental Working
Group compilation
Footnotes | References: Health Effects
These results
represent the most comprehensive assessment of chemical
contamination in
individuals ever performed. Even so, many chemicals were
not included in the
analysis that are known to contaminate virtually the
entire U.S. population.
Two examples are Scotchgard and the related family
of perfluorinated
chemicals, and a group of compounds known collectively as
brominated flame
retardants.
A more precise picture of human contamination with industrial
chemicals,
pollutants and pesticides is not possible because chemical
companies are not
required to tell EPA how their compounds are used or
monitor where their
products end up in the environment. Neither does U.S. law
require chemical
companies to conduct basic health and safety testing of
their products
either before or after they are commercialized. Eighty percent
of all
applications to produce a new chemical are approved by the U.S. EPA
with no
health and safety data. Eighty percent of these are approved in three
weeks.
Only the chemical companies know whether their products are
dangerous and
whether they are likely to contaminate people. As a first step
toward a
public understanding of the extent of the problem, the chemical
industry
must submit to the EPA and make public on the web, all information
on human
exposure to commercial chemicals, any and all studies relating to
potential
health risks, and comprehensive information on products that
contain
their
chemicals.
========================================
(5)
GLOBE AND MAIL, March 5, 2005, "I am polluted"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050305/TOXIC05/TPEnvironment/
I
am polluted
You are exposed to hundreds of chemicals every day, so it's not
surprising
that they get inside you. MARK STEVENSON has himself tested in the
name of
the emerging and unsettling science of body burden
By MARK
STEVENSON Saturday, March 5, 2005 - Page F8
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050305/TOXIC05/TPEnvironment/
BOSTON
-- My nose is clamped and I'm trying not to choke on a tube a
scientist at
Harvard University has stuffed in my mouth. I am blowing into a
clear plastic
bag, which is sealed and later studied for what it contains.
Sure, everyone
suffers occasionally from a little bad breath. But what they
found in mine
was enough to keep my wife away for a week.
Besides my breath, researchers at
Harvard's School of Public Health examined
my blood, hair, urine, toenails
and bones. It's all in the name of the
emerging science of body burden, a
concept referring to the amount of
chemicals that accumulate in the human
body.
As it turns out, I am polluted. Everyone is to some degree. But as the
list
of toxic chemicals identified in people continues to grow, scientists
are
trying to figure out what the implications are for human health.
"It
is alarming," Professor John Spengler says. "This is not meant to be
settling
information. I think if more people wake up to this fact, the
better we are
going to be . . . and the more demanding we're going to be of
our governments
and our industries."
An estimated 35,000 chemicals are in commercial use in
Canada and more than
twice as many in the United States. The national
American government
registers an average of 2,000 newly synthesized chemicals
each year.
Cosmetics have at least 5,000 chemicals; more than 3,200 are added
to food.
As many as 1,010 chemicals are used in the production of 11,700
consumer
products, and about 500 chemicals are used as active ingredients
in
pesticides, according to Environmental Protection Agency data cited by
the
Environmental Working Group, based in Washington, D.C.
Many chemicals
end up in the environment, even thousands of kilometres
from
industry.
Despite being banned years ago, PCBs are still found in
Arctic wildlife.
Biologists are also finding rising levels of polybrominated
diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs), flame retardants used in foam, textiles and
plastics, as well as
chlorinated paraffins, chemicals used in paints,
sealants and
rubber-processing.
Scotchgard, which is part of a family of
chemicals used to make clothes,
carpets and furniture stain-resistant, has
been found in polar bears in
Alaska and bald eagles around the Great
Lakes.
If chemicals are showing up in wildlife and the environment, it's
no
surprise that many are being discovered in people.
"Pretty much from
the minute you wake up to the moment you go to bed, you're
exposed to
hundreds and hundreds of chemicals," says Jane Houlihan,
vice-president of
research for the Environmental Working Group. ". . . In
most cases, they're
in minuscule quantities. But that fact is it's hundreds
[of chemicals] and
they're adding up."
What's disturbing, Prof. Spengler says, is how the
majority of the chemicals
have been approved for use without any research
being done on their
potential impact on human health, except mainly for those
that end up in
drugs or food.
What's more, little is known about what our
chemical body burden truly is.
"So measurements like we're doing on you, and
myself, and our research
subjects are really part of a new frontier because
it's really trying to
understand . . . what effects these might have on
disruption of human
function," Prof. Spengler says.
No extensive study has
considered the chemical body burden of Canadians,
although separate studies
have reported the presence of individual
compounds -- for example, research
documenting a dramatic rise of PBDEs in
breast milk.
More wide-ranging
studies have been done in the United States.
In one, researchers found at an
average of 91 "industrial compounds,
pollutants and chemicals" in the blood
and urine of nine volunteers and a
total of 167 chemicals in the group.
According to the research, conducted by
Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New
York with the Environmental Working
Group, "76 cause cancer in humans or
animals, 94 are toxic to the brain or
nervous system, and 79 cause birth
defects or abnormal development." None of
the people tested worked with
chemicals or lived near an industrial
facility.
"I expected to find many
different chemicals," Ms. Houlihan says. "But to
actually see the numbers
roll out that show that one person has 100
chemicals in their blood at one
time. It's pretty powerful."
The most comprehensive research on body burden
to date was conducted by the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and released in 2003. As
part of the $6.5-million (U.S.) report, the agency
tested the blood and
urine of 2,500 volunteers for 116 compounds, including
PCBs, pesticides,
dioxins, furans and metals.
It found many of the
contaminants in at least half of the people they
tested. As well, researchers
discovered elevated levels of lead in the blood
of children and the
ubiquitous presence of phthalates, chemicals widely used
in plastics that are
linked to cancer and reproductive problems in studies
on rats.
Meanwhile,
they also discovered that chemicals such as DDT and PCBs, which
are banned or
restricted, appear to be going down.
"Just because they can [detect it]
doesn't mean it's at a dangerous level or
a level that causes health effects.
It mostly reflects the fact that we've
improved our ability to measure," says
Jim Pirkle, deputy director of
science for the CDC, referring to new
technology that allows scientists to
identify compounds in amounts that would
have gone unnoticed a decade
earlier.
Dr. Pirkle notes that most of the
chemicals being found are in
infinitesimally small amounts of parts per
million and parts per billion,
equivalent to a grain of rice in an
Olympic-sized swimming pool.
"There are going to be small levels of many
things in people. That's because
they're dispersed in low levels all over the
environment. What you really
have to do is stop and look at them one by one
and go through them and say,
'Is that a level that's likely to cause disease?
Is that a level that's so
trivially small, we have good instruments that can
measure it, but it's so
small it's not of any concern?' You have to do that
one chemical at a time."
All this brings us back to Harvard and my own
results.
After bombarding my knee for half an hour with a small amount of
radiation,
the technician in the bone lab gives me the news: My skeleton
is
contaminated with lead.
Lead is an acute toxin. It's poisonous at
higher levels. But even at low
concentrations, research has linked it to an
increased risk of hypertension,
kidney disease, impaired neurological
development in children, even
cataracts.
The good news is my lead levels
place me well within the average range for
someone my age with no appreciable
health risk, says Howard Hu, a professor
of occupational and health medicine
at Harvard's School of Public Health.
Others are less fortunate. Dr. Hu has
measured lead amounts five to 10 times
higher in many women, posing potential
harm to their unborn babies.
"There's so many different exposure routes that
just living and breathing
can provide exposures today," he says. "Lead is in
many different consumer
products. It was in gasoline. . . . It was in food
cans, pipes and solder. .
. . It was in toys and plastics."
In another lab
across the street, scientists have clipped a lock of my hair
and are
analyzing it. It will tell them how much mercury my body contains.
Although
it occurs naturally in the environment, mercury is also a byproduct
of
coal-fired power plants and waste incinerators. When it enters the water
and
reacts with bacteria, it is transformed into methyl mercury and
it
accumulates in fish, and people when they eat it.
It's a neurotoxin and
the human fetus is particularly vulnerable. At low
doses, it can cause subtle
changes to the developing brain; at larger doses,
it can cause blindness and
other birth defects. At high levels, it can kill
nerve cells, causing blurred
vision, lack of co-ordination and slurred
speech.
Fortunately, my mercury
level is .411 parts per million, about half the EPA
guideline of 1
ppm.
Next came my blood results. As it turns out, my blood contains PCBs
and
pesticides, including DDT, an insecticide banned in North America
decades
ago. But for many people my age, my results are considered well
within the
low-to-average range.
Unfortunately, as Russ Hauser of
Harvard's School of Public Health points
out, his research is finding that
men exposed to similar doses have problems
with semen quality, which is
associated with infertility.
"PCBs and DDT were banned decades ago, but
they're still present in the
environment," Dr. Hauser says. "You're exposed
primarily through intake of
food because they accumulate as we move up the
food chain. . . . So
consuming fish, dairy products, meats, that's primarily
how you're exposed."
Although the Harvard scientists were looking for
arsenic, a highly poisonous
metal, in my toenails, they found virtually none.
Prof. Spengler wasn't
surprised, saying it's something they typically find in
people who drink
water from a well and mine comes from a lake.
But he was
amazed by something in my breath, the content of which is an
indicator of
relatively recent exposure to chemicals in the air. It wasn't
the list of
solvents, such as benzene, that are often associated with
vehicle exhaust. It
was MTBE, a fuel additive that is not supposed to be
widely used in Canada
(less than 2 per cent of gas in this country contains
it, according to
Environment Canada). Prof. Spengler speculates I breathed
in MTBE on the way
to Harvard in a taxi.
In total, the scientists found 76 chemicals in my body,
including PCBs,
pesticides, solvents and metals. Even though my body contains
extremely
small amounts of them, I can't help but ask Prof. Spengler whether
I should
be worried.
"I would say you're not very toxic compared to people
we've measured all
over the world, even compared to me," he says.
He
points out that his own DDT levels place him in the top fifth of
Americans.
I'm in the bottom fifth.
"On the one hand, you might say, 'Well, I'm normal.
I might be a little high
on one thing and low on another.' But that's not the
way we should look at
it."
Prof. Spengler says the issue is not whether
one has an average amount of
chemicals in his body. Rather, it's why the
average person is carrying
around so many chemicals in the first
place.
There has been little scientific inquiry into the net effect of
being
exposed to many chemicals at the same time, the so-called "toxic
soup
effect."
Complicating the toxicology is the counterintuitive concept
of hormesis, a
phenomenon in which a small dose of an otherwise toxic
substance can be
helpful. Studies on plants and animals have documented it in
alcohol,
antibiotics, hydrocarbons and pesticides.
Nevertheless, Prof.
Spengler and many other scientists believe that exposure
to a range of
chemicals in the environment may be behind a host of emerging
health problems
in addition to those already well documented. "We're
concerned about the
growing rates of cancer in our society, the growing
rates of autism," he
says. "In most developed countries, asthma has grown
substantially over the
past 20 years, particularly in children"
As for myself, Prof. Spengler says
there's very little I can do to reduce
the contamination that is already in
my body. Aside from eating different
types of fish to lower my mercury level,
the PCBs and pesticides are there
for the long haul while the solvents will
continue to show up in my breath
as long as I'm exposed to cars and trucks,
which are kind of difficult to
avoid.
Prof. Spengler says the solution is
targeting chemicals we don't want in our
bodies in the first place. He points
to PBDEs, which has been referred to as
the "PCBs of the 21st
century."
Research commissioned by The Globe and Mail and CTV News found that
many
everyday foods consumed by Canadians -- such as salmon, ground beef,
cheese
and butter -- are laced with PBDEs.
In Sweden, the flame retardants
were banned after rising levels were noticed
in the breast milk of women.
"They said to the industry, 'We don't want them
in our plastics. We don't
what them in our materials' -- and they started to
see the levels come down,"
Prof. Spengler says.
"Now, you see the similar data out of North American
women. . . . The levels
are already 50 times higher in our populations and
nobody is saying, 'Ban
that product.' . . . So I think this really has to do
with how we've come to
judge what is beneficial to the population," he says.
"[But] at what point
do we invoke some precaution?"
Mark Stevenson is an
independent producer and a regular contributor to the
Discovery Channel's
Daily Planet. A version of this feature has aired on the
show.
MARK'S
BODY
Test results show low levels of 76 chemicals.
Metals in
blood*
metal
Normal levels (ppb):
Mark's levels
(ppb):
Lead
<100
19.13
Manganese
4.2-16.5
969
Cadmium
<5
0.06
Mercury
in hair
EPA reference level: 1.0 ppm
Mark's level: 0.411 ppm
Arsenic in
toenails
Normal level: below 0.2 ppm
Mark's level: 0.032 ppm
Solvents
in breath
(nanogram/litre)
solvent
Mark
MTBE
6.22**
Hexane
2.71
Benzene
4.23
Toluene
4.05
Xylene
1.38
Pinene
4.30
Limonene
108.42***
Pesticides
in blood
Mark has 0.879 ppb of DDT (low to average)
PCBs in blood
Mark
has 0.82 ppb (low to average)
Lead content in bone
Mark has 4.67 ppm
(average)
*Lead, cadmium and mercury are not considered "natural" elements in
the
body. Manganese, on the other hand, is an essential element at very
trace
amounts.
**MTBE, a fuel additive to improve emissions, could have
been inhaled in the
United States where it is much more common than in
Canada.
***The high limonene level could be attributed to orange juice or
air
freshener.
========================================================
(6)
"SAFE" LEVEL OF EXPOSURE
It has been assumed that there is a "safe" level
of exposure to
pharmaceuticals and chemicals. A large dose might harm or
kill, a small
dose is benign. Makes sense?
The chemical industry strongly
rejects what it claims are "unproven fears".
"Just because chemicals are
present does not mean they are at dangerous
levels." The Royal Society of
Chemistry in England, in response to the
Prozac evidence said "just because
you can detect something doesn't
necessarily mean it is
dangerous.'"
But research is showing the assumption that small doses are
harmless to be
false. Scientists have been perplexed. In some instances large
amounts of
a toxin do NOT cause harm, whereas small doses do. It seems to be
a
contradiction.
The explanation now put forth is that body defence
mechanisms will allow
small amounts of a toxin to enter the body - they get
in "under the radar
screen". Whereas a large dose - extreme threat - sets off
alarm bells and
the body aggressively defends against the
encroachment.
You may understand this the same way I do: from teen-age
experience with
alcohol! If I drank a modest amount, nothing too much
happened except that
I didn't feel on-top-of-my-game the next day. Slightly
head-achy. My body
tolerated the alcohol.
It was actually better if I
drank TOO MUCH, because then my stomach revolted
and threw everything out.
Get rid of the poison! It was unpleasant
temporarily, but the next day I
would be clear-headed without hangover
effects. You may remember the same
phenomenon?!
What the scientists are discovering about low doses of
chemicals and
pharmaceuticals: isn't it the same thing as the alcohol
example? A large
dose doesn't harm because my body's defensive reactions go
into high gear:
it wants to survive! I flee the scene. Smaller doses
(especially if I am
exposed to them every day) can definitely be harmful, but
the body attempts
to COPE with the toxins, putting blood through the kidneys
and liver for
cleansing, etc. (Check out the recent rates of kidney
cancer.)
Minute amounts of particular hormones can trigger significant
reactions in
an organism. Think of the developing embryo. It is a tiny clump
of cells.
You or I could not visually detect the infinitesimal speck of
natural
chemical that will determine whether it develops female or
male
characteristics. Science is only beginning to understand the
quantities,
pathways and what happens.
Consider the brain: it is very
careful about what it lets in. There is a
protective shield, the blood-brain
barrier to screen out things that might
damage the brain. Complex
interactions between proteins, insulin - a
myriad of factors - determine the
circumstances under which individual trace
ingredients carried by the blood
will cross the barrier into the brain.
Pharmaceuticals and chemicals
mimic ingredients of our body chemistry; they
become part of the interplay.
It makes sense to me that trace amounts of
these substances will affect the
way we function, in ways we don't
understand. After all, it is "trace
amounts" of hormones in our bodies that
continuously regulate our
activity.
There are a couple of things we do know:
- the
pharmaceuticals have "side effects" which become more problematic
over
time.
- some of the chemicals contribute to the development of dis-ease in
the
body. The same is true of pharmaceuticals. ( I am reminded of a
recent
example: a family friend from Calgary received immediate medical
treatment
for her newly-diagnosed breast cancer. Her explanation was that her
doctor
had prescribed hormone-replacement drugs during menopause and found
out
belatedly that the drug was linked to breast cancer. The doctor
felt
responsible and guilty for the disease caused by her prescription
and
consequently made an all-out effort to obtain immediate treatment for
her
patient's cancer.)
This is background for discussing trace amounts
of pharmaceuticals and
chemicals in water, air and food. These products are
designed to change the
chemistry of organisms. Chemicals in highly diluted
amounts - parts per
trillion are being found to have significant effects on
developing
organisms. We know very little about which chemicals remain in the
water
supply, how they then interact with other chemicals, and the impact
they
have, especially on developing human foetuses and young children, let
alone
on adults.
The fact that science is only now recognizing the
reality of very low-dose
effects leads me to conclude that it is unwise to
abandon my own informed
common sense in naive belief that "all is well,
someone is looking after us.
There is no work to be done by
me".
===================
(7) LA TIMES, EUROPE DEBATES THE MOST
MASSIVE CHEMICAL BAN IN HISTORY, May
25 2005
Thanks to Donna. The
article from the Los Angeles Times is quite
comprehensive.
EUROPE
DEBATES THE MOST MASSIVE CHEMICAL BAN IN HISTORY
The European Parliament is
set to debate new regulations that would
dramatically increase the number of
banned chemicals in the EU. The law
would require manufacturers of some
30,000 currently legal chemicals to
provide scientific evidence that their
products are safe for human health
and the environment. If the legislation
passes, it would have a major impact
on thousands of chemicals and products
manufactured and sold in the U.S.
Despite much weaker regulations in the U.S.
many American companies have no
choice but to adhere to European regulations
given that the EU, with 25
countries and 460 million people, represents an
even larger market than the
U.S.
For more info:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/strict051805.cfm
U.S.
Exporters & Chemical Companies Fight Against New Strict EU
Regulations
From: Grist Magazine <www.grist.org> 5/17/05
U.S. Companies:
Working to Keep Europeans Safe
American firms conforming to E.U. chemical
regs
Though the U.S. was once a global leader in environmental
regulation, that
is, to put it mildly, no longer true. Now, the real
challenge for many U.S.
companies is complying with the stringent standards
that govern the European
Union market -- if they want to reach its 460
million consumers. Using a
"better safe than sorry" model, the E.U. has
instituted hundreds of bans on
industrial compounds linked to cancer,
reproductive problems, and other ill
health effects. The newest piece of such
legislation, set for evaluation by
European Parliament this fall, would
require companies to provide scientific
data on some 30,000 chemical
compounds, in many cases evaluating their
effects on environmental and human
health.
The testing could cost industries up to $6.8 billion and might
involve bans
on thousands of chemicals if they can't be proven safe. "In the
E.U., if
there is a risk with potentially
irreversible impact, we don't
wait until the last piece of information,"
said Rob Donkers, the E.U.'s
environmental counselor in Washington,
D.C.
-------------------------------------
straight to the source: Los
Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 16 May 2005
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-euroreg16may16,0,5222200.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>
Europe's
Rules Forcing U.S. Firms to Clean Up
Unwilling to surrender sales, companies
struggle to meet the EU's tough
stand on toxics.
By Marla Cone
Times
Staff Writer
May 16, 2005
At their headquarters in Santa Clara,
researchers at Coherent Inc., the
world's largest laser manufacturer, are
wrestling with an environmental law
that is transforming their entire product
line.
Soon, everything produced at the Bay Area company < even the
tiniest
microchip inside its high-powered lasers that fly on NASA satellites
and
bleach jeans sold at boutiques < must be free of lead, mercury and
four
other hazardous substances.
The mandate that has Coherent and other
American electronics companies
scrambling doesn't come from lawmakers in
Washington, or even Sacramento.
Instead, it was crafted 5,000 miles away, in
Brussels, the capital of the
European Union.
Europe's law, governing any
product with a battery or a cord, has spawned a
multibillion-dollar effort by
the electronics industry to wean itself from
toxic compounds.
"This is the
first time we've encountered something like this on such a
global scale,"
said Gerry Barker, a vice president of Coherent, whose lasers
are used to
create master copies of Hollywood films, test the safety of car
tires,
imprint expiration dates on soda cans and more.
And the electronics rule is
only the beginning.
Already, Europe is setting environmental standards for
international
commerce, forcing changes in how industries around the world
make plastic,
electronics, toys, cosmetics and furniture. Now, the EU is on
the verge of
going further < overhauling how all toxic compounds are
regulated. A
proposal about to be debated by Europe's Parliament would
require testing
thousands of chemicals, cost industries several billion
dollars, and could
lead to many more compounds and products being pulled off
the market.
Years ago, when rivers oozed poisons, eagle chicks were dying
from DDT in
their eggs and aerosol sprays were eating a hole in the Earth's
ozone layer,
the United States was the world's trailblazer when it came to
regulating
toxic substances. Regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats
controlled
the White House, the United States was the acknowledged global
pioneer of
tough new laws that aimed to safeguard the public from chemicals
considered
risky.
Today, the United States is no longer the vanguard.
Instead, the planet's
most stringent chemical policies, with far-reaching
impacts on global trade,
are often born in Stockholm and codified in
Brussels.
"In the environment, generally, we were the ones who were always
out in
front," said Kal Raustiala, a professor of international law at UCLA.
"Now
we have tended to back off while the Europeans have become more
aggressive
regulators."
Europe has imposed many pioneering and aggressive
< some say foolish and
extreme < bans meant to protect people from
exposure to hundreds of
industrial compounds that have been linked to cancer,
reproductive harm and
other health effects. Recent measures adopted by the
European Union have
taken aim at chemicals called phthalates, which make nail
polishes
chip-resistant, and compounds added to foam cushions that slow the
spread of
fires in furniture.
EU's Big Market
Many companies, even
those based in America, follow the European rules
because the EU, with 25
countries and 460 million people, surpasses even the
United States as a
market. Rather than lose access to it, many companies
redesign their products
to meet European standards. For example, Revlon,
L'Oreal and Estee Lauder
have said that all their products meet European
directives that control the
ingredients of cosmetics. And U.S. computer
companies say they are trying to
remove lead and other substances banned in
the EU from everything they
sell.
As the EU emerges as the world's toughest environmental cop, its
policies
increasingly are at odds with Washington.
Among the compounds now
phased out or restricted in Europe but still used
in high volumes in the
United States are the pesticides atrazine, lindane
and methyl bromide; some
phthalates, found in beauty products, plastic toys
and other products; and
nonylphenol in detergents and plastic packaging. In
animal tests, those
compounds have altered hormones, caused cancer,
triggered neurological
changes in fetuses or damaged a newborn's
reproductive development.
The
"biggest single difference" between EU and U.S. policy is in the
regulation
of cosmetics, said Alastair Iles, a postdoctoral fellow at UC
Berkeley's
Energy and Resources Group. Cosmetics sold in Europe cannot
contain about 600
substances that are allowed in U.S. products, including,
as of last
September, any compound linked to cancer, genetic mutations and
reproductive
effects.
Driving EU policy is a "better safe than sorry" philosophy called
the
precautionary principle. Following that guideline, which is codified into
EU
law, European regulators have taken action against chemicals even when
their
dangers remain largely uncertain.
Across the Atlantic, by contrast,
U.S. regulators are reluctant to move
against a product already in use unless
a clear danger can be shown. A
chemical, they say, is innocent until proven
guilty.
Critics say the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's search
for
scientific clarity takes so long that the public often goes
unprotected.
Paralysis by analysis, the critics call it.
U.S. risk
assessments can last years, sometimes longer than a decade, and
in some
cases, the EPA still reaches no conclusions and relies upon
industries to act
voluntarily. For instance, despite research that showed by
2002 that
polybrominated flame retardants were doubling in concentration in
Americans'
breast milk every few years, the EPA has still not completed its
risk review.
Meanwhile, the U.S. manufacturer of two of the flame retardants
agreed
voluntarily to stop making them last year after they were banned in
Europe
and in California.
In the 1970s and '80s, all the major chemical and
pollution laws in the
United States had a precautionary slant, said Frank
Ackerman, an economist
at Tufts University's Global Development and
Environment Institute.
Lengthy reviews of chemicals, which now dominate U.S.
policy, began to
evolve under President Reagan and grew in the 1990s. Carl
Cranor, an
environmental philosophy professor at UC Riverside, said that a
conservative
groundswell in American politics and a backlash by industries
set off "an
ideological sea change."
Part of the change stems from the
much more vocal role of U.S. companies in
battling chemical regulations, said
Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science
and technology studies at Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government. American attitudes toward
averting environmental risks haven't
changed since the 1970s, Jasanoff said.
"What has changed is politics and
political culture," she said.
EPA's
Limited Role
The Toxic Substances Control Act, adopted by Congress in 1976,
grants the
EPA authority to restrict industrial chemicals that "present an
unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment." The law, however,
also tells
EPA to use "the least burdensome" approach to do so and compare
the costs
and benefits.
A pivotal year for the EPA was 1991, when a
federal appeals court nullified
its ban on asbestos. The court ruled that the
agency, despite 10 years of
research, had failed to prove that asbestos posed
an unreasonable risk and
had not proved that the public would be inadequately
protected by steps
short of a ban.
Since then, the EPA has not banned or
restricted any existing industrial
chemical under the toxics law, except in a
few instances where manufacturers
acted voluntarily. New chemicals entering
the market are more easily
regulated, and so are pesticides, under a separate
law.
Some states, including California, are filling what they see as a void
by
adopting their own rules. California and Maine banned some
polybrominated
flame retardants, for example.
Iles said that restricting a
chemical under federal law now requires a
"very tough burden of
proof."
"Americans tend to think that products are safe because they are in
the
market and must somehow have passed government regulation," he said.
"But
there is no real regulation. Cosmetics, for example, are
almost
unregulated."
Since the asbestos rule was thrown out by the court,
EPA officials perform
more complicated calculations to quantify how much risk
an industrial
chemical poses, assigning a numeric value, for example, to the
odds of
contracting cancer or figuring out what dose might harm a fetus or
child.
They also do more research to predict the costs and the expected
benefits to
public health.
But making these precise judgments is difficult
with today's industrial
compounds. In most cases, the dangers are subtle, not
overtly
life-threatening.
Studies of laboratory animals suggest that low
doses of dozens of chemicals
can contribute to learning problems in children,
skew sex hormones, suppress
immune systems and heighten the risk of cancer.
Some chemicals build up in
the bodies of humans and wildlife, and spread
globally via the air and
oceans. But while harm is well-documented in some
wild animals and lab
tests, the risks to human beings are largely
unknown.
In the face of that scientific uncertainty, Europeans say,
their
precautionary principle is simply common sense. If you smell smoke,
you
don't wait until your house is burning down to eliminate the cause,
they
say. Their standard of evidence for chemicals is similar to the creed
of
doctors: First, do no harm.
"In the EU, if there is a risk with
potentially irreversible impact, we
don't wait until the last piece of
information," said Rob Donkers, the EU's
environmental counselor in
Washington, D.C.
"You can study things until you turn purple, but we do not
work from the
concept that you really need to prove a risk 100,000 times," he
said. "In
the face of potentially very dangerous situations, we start taking
temporary
risk management measures on the basis of the science that is
available."
Europe's policy is, in part, a reaction to a series of
disturbing
revelations about dioxins in chicken, mad cow disease, toxic
substances in
diapers and baby toys, all of which have made many Europeans
more averse to
taking risks with chemicals.
Under Europe's rules, "there
are chemicals that are going to be taken off
the market, and there probably
should be," said Joel Tickner, an assistant
professor at the University of
Massachusetts' School of Health and the
Environment.
Conservative critics
and some officials in the Bush administration
criticize Europe's
precautionary approach as extreme, vague, protectionist
and driven by
emotions, not science.
EPA officials would not go on the record comparing
their policies with the
EU's. But they asserted that their approach, while
different, is also
precautionary.
Instead of banning compounds, the EPA
teams with industry to ensure there
are safe alternatives. In the last five
years, 3M Corp. voluntarily
eliminated a perfluorinated chemical in
Scotchgard that has been found in
human blood and animals around the world,
and Great Lakes Chemical Corp.
ended manufacture of polybrominated flame
retardants used in foam furniture.
In those cases, EPA officials said,
forming partnerships with industry was
quicker than trying to impose
regulations and facing court challenges as
they did with asbestos.
More
than any other environmental policy in Europe, the proposal known as
REACH,
or Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals, worries
U.S.
officials and industries.
Under REACH, which was approved by the EU's
executive arm and is scheduled
to go before the European Parliament this
fall, companies would have to
register basic scientific data for about 30,000
compounds. More extensive
testing would be required of 1,500 compounds that
are known to cause cancer
or birth defects, to build up in bodies or to
persist in the environment, as
well as several thousand others used in large
volumes. Those chemicals would
be subject to bans unless there is proof that
they can be used safely or
that the benefits outweigh the risks. The testing
would cost industries $3.7
billion to $6.8 billion, the EU says.
Some
company executives contend that Europe is blocking products that pose
little
or no danger. In Santa Clara, Barker of Coherent said that the
EU's
precautionary approach sounds good in principle but it forces businesses
to
do things that are "unnecessary and probably very expensive."
In some
cases, U.S. officials say, Europeans are using the precautionary
principle as
an excuse to create trade barriers, such as their bans on
hormones in beef
and genetically modified corn and other foods.
Not on the Same Page
"There
is a protectionist element to this, but it goes beyond Europe trying
to
protect its own industries or even the health of its public," said
Mike
Walls, managing director at the American Chemistry Council, which
represents
chemical manufacturers, the nation's largest exporter. "It's a
drive to
force everyone to conform to their standards < standards that the
rest of
the world hasn't weighed in on."
John Graham, an economist and
senior official of Bush's Office of
Management and Budget, which reviews new
regulations, has called the notion
of a universal precautionary principle "a
mythical concept, kind of like a
unicorn."
"Reasonable people can disagree
about what is precautionary and what is
dangerous," he said at a 2002
conference.
It is ironic, says Richard Jensen, chairman of the University of
Notre
Dame's economics department, that Europeans "who embrace the
precautionary
principle should have such a high tolerance for risk from
smoking and
secondhand smoke."
Americans are more fearful of cigarettes,
nuclear power and car exhaust <
and it shows in their laws. They also
pasteurize foods to kill bacteria,
while European children grow up drinking
and eating raw milk and cheese.
Said UCLA's Raustiala, "The United States is
quite schizophrenic, as are
Europeans, about when we decide" to be
cautious.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives
at
latimes.com/archives.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles
Times
======================
(8) BIOACCUMULATION, BIOMAGNIFICATION,
BIOCONCENTRATION (deleted, but
certainly related)
(9) MAJOR
SOURCE OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL POLLUTANTS IN ARCTIC IS
BIRD GUANO
(deleted)
===================================
(10) CHEMICALS IN
COSMETICS, Think before you pink
Date: Apr 17 2005 - 2:23pm
Many
thanks to Mike for putting together this information from the
Ottawa
Citizen.
Related to our call on the Cancer organizations to act on
the CAUSES of
disease, people should have
this.
/Sandra
-----------------------
Sunday, April 17, 2005
The
Ottawa Citizen
Think before you pink
Cosmetic firms tie on pink
ribbons in support of a cure, but there's
a rub: health activists say their
products may actually cause cancer
by Shelley Page
They keep your
mascara from running, help fragrances to linger longer
and stop your nail
polish from chipping. Chemicals called phthalates
were the beauty industry's
secret ingredient -- until recently. With
stunning swiftness, several
cosmetic giants have removed phthalates
from many of their
products.
First, Body Shop International and Aveda Corporation removed
the
ubiquitous plasticizers from their lines. Then Procter & Gamble
said
it had taken phthalates out of its Max Factor and Cover Girl
nail
polishes. Estee Lauder has eliminated the chemicals from its MAC
and
Clinique nail polishes. Avon has also announced it was ridding
its
cosmetics of the chemicals. In recent months, Revlon and
L'Oreal
announced phthalates were gone.
You won't read this story in
the beauty magazines, where cosmetics
are almost always portrayed as potent
elixirs. But for three years,
breast cancer and environmental activists in
the United States have
been demanding companies change their formulas for the
sake of
consumers' health.
The family of chemicals called phthalates
are just one of several
ingredients that activists say should not be part of
our daily beauty
routine. Their crusade has been met with criticism from the
cosmetics
industry, which says the activists are ignoring the facts in
favour
of fear mongering.
The battle began with Avon.
"What
we've been saying is that Avon positioned itself as a champion
of breast
cancer, so it should be open to scrutiny," says Barbara
Brenner, executive
director of Breast Cancer Action, a scrappy, San
Francisco-based group that
bills itself as "the bad girls of breast
cancer."
"Everyone who wants
to wear cosmetics is entitled to know they are
safe. And you cannot depend on
the company to set the standard
because they are in the business of making
money. We're in the
business of trying to save lives."
Avon markets
itself as "the company of women" and has long been a
huge benefactor of
breast-cancer research, raising more than $300
million worldwide. Avon
saleswomen across North America have raised
more than $8.6 million for the
cause. In Canada, Avon runs
www.reasonsforhope.ca where it compiles
the stories of women who have
battled the disease and sells pink-ribbon
bookmarks, donating the
proceeds to breast-cancer research.
Other
cosmetics companies have also tied themselves with a big pink
ribbon to the
breast-cancer cause. Revlon sponsors the annual Walk
for Women to raise funds
for research. Estee Lauder's Breast Cancer
Research Foundation (BCRF) says
its mission is the "prevention and a
cure in our lifetime." Mary Kay's
website proclaims that the
company's charitable foundation is "committed to
eliminating cancers
affecting women."
But Breast Cancer Action (BCA)
made Avon, "the company of women," its
first target.
Brenner, a
breast-cancer survivor who has been described in media
reports as a
"single-breasted dynamo," practically growls over the
phone as she describes
her expectations for the cosmetic company. Her
group, which has 11,000
members across the U.S., believes that cancer
prevention efforts must embrace
the "precautionary principle" -- the
idea that when an activity raises
threats of harm to human health or
the environment, precautionary measures
should be taken in the
absence of scientific certainty.
While the
American Cancer Society rates environmental concerns low on
the list of
possible causes of cancer, BCA questions the long-term
effects of layering
on, day after day, hundreds of different
chemicals in products ranging from
deodorant to hair spray to shampoo
to nail polish.
The group had
concerns about the safety of two ubiquitous ingredients
in cosmetics made by
Avon and many other cosmetic companies: parabens
and
phthalates.
Parabens are derived from a petroleum base and are used as
a
preservative in everything from shampoo to mascara to deodorant.
They
prevent fungal and bacterial growth and give toiletries shelf
lives
of many months. Recent studies have shown that parabens act like
an
estrogen in the body. They also easily penetrate the skin. BCA
is
worried that, because exposure to external estrogens has been shown
to
increase the risk of breast cancer, repeated exposure to parabens
in
cosmetics might promote the growth of cancerous cells.
"Industry has told
us forever that this stuff is safe, that it
doesn't penetrate the skin. It
turns out we're swimming in this
stuff. We ought to be looking at it more
closely," Brenner said.
Phthalates, meanwhile, are a family of chemicals
that are clear
liquids resembling common vegetable oil. The
larger-molecule
phthalates make vinyl plastic flexible in everything from
toys to
kitchen flooring. Smaller-molecule phthalates are used to make
the
time-release coatings on drugs. They help make adhesives,
lubricants,
weather stripping and safety glass. Four phthalates in
particular
(DMP, DEP, DBP and DEHP) are used in cosmetics and
personal-care
products. DBP gives nail polish a plastic-like consistency that
makes
it flexible and chip resistant. When perfume fragrances are
dissolved
in either DEP, DMP or DEHP, they evaporate more slowly, making
the
scent linger longer.
Hundreds of animal studies have shown that
phthalates can damage the
liver, the kidneys, the lungs and the reproductive
system, primarily
to male offspring, including testicular atrophy, reduced
sperm count
and defects in the structure of the penis. DBP was found to
be
particularly harmful to rats. While there had been no evidence
about
their presence in humans, it could be shown that phthalates
are
absorbed through the skin, inhaled as fumes and ingested when
they
contaminate food.
Health Canada has been monitoring all
phthalate-related issues, in
particular the use of DEHP in a number of
consumer products,
including children's toys and medical products such as IV
tubes and
blood bags. DEHP has been found to have adverse effects in animals
at
very high levels of exposure, and one study implicated it in
causing
premature breast development in a population of Puerto Rican
girls.
DBP, meanwhile, has been declared non-toxic to human health and
the
environment by the Canadian government.
Then, in late 2000, the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) announced the results
of its study on the presence
of a number of compounds, including phthalates,
in 289 human urine
samples. Every person tested had one of the most common
phthalates,
dibutyl phthalate (DBP), in their body. DEP (diethyl phthalate)
and
BBzP (butylbenzyl phthalate) were also found at high levels, as
well
as four other phthalates. Estimates based on the results of
this
study indicate that for more than three million women of
childbearing
age in the U.S., exposures to DBP may be 20 times greater than
the
average exposures in the rest of the population. But no one could
say
what this meant. Are those women with high levels of DBP and
other
phthalates at risk for disease, maybe even cancer? Are
their
offspring at risk? What happens when numerous phthalates build up
in
the body? Is it worse if someone is exposed to myriad phthalates
--
from deodorants, nail polish, time-release pills, or leached from
IV
bags?
Scientist Don Wigle, formerly with Health Canada and now
affiliated
with the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
in
Ottawa, says there are many unknowns about phthalates. Studies of
lab
animals show that exposures just after birth affect
reproductive
health and fertility. "There is no evidence linking phthalates
to
directly adverse health problems in humans, partly because the
studies
really haven't been done."
But the trends in human male reproductive
health include many of the
same effects seen in lab animals that have been
dosed with
phthalates. For example, there are dramatically increasing cases
of
cancer in young males and other testicular problems. An analysis by
a
researcher at the University of Missouri of 101 studies (from 1934
to
1996) shows average sperm counts in industrialized countries
are
declining at a rate of about one per cent a year.
Data from the
CDC show that rates of hypospadias in the U.S. -- a
penis deformity where the
opening of the urethra occurs on the
underside instead of the tip -- began
climbing in the 1970s. Rates of
undescended testicles increased greatly in
the U.S. during the 1970s
and 1980s. Testicular cancer, meanwhile, is the
most common cancer of
young men in many countries, including the U.S. and
Canada. In
industrialized countries, its incidence is increasing about two
to
four per cent a year.
Although a cause-and-effect relationship has
not been established,
the ubiquity of phthalates in the human population
creates a
"biologically plausible presumption" that phthalates may
be
contributing to these problems, according to the Environmental
Working
Group, a collection of Washington-based activist researchers
who study the
health and environmental threats posed by everyday
consumer products, such as
Teflon or fire retardants.
EWG researchers wondered why women had the
highest levels of
phthalates, particularly DBP, in their urine. They
suspected the
culprit might be personal-care products.
They are
Everywhere
EWG searched the ingredient labels of cosmetics and
toiletries, as
well as the U.S. patent office looking for patent applications
for
new products containing DBP. They found:
- DBP in 37 popular nail
polishes, top coats and hardeners, including
products by L'Oreal, Maybelline,
Olay and Cover Girl.
- Patents proposing to include DBP in a broad range
of shampoos and
conditioners, lotions, hair-growth formulations,
antiperspirants and
sunscreen. Even patents relating to gum, candy and
oral
pharmaceuticals proposed DBP as an ingredient.
- Of more than 100
patents analysed by EWG, Procter & Gamble, maker
of Max Factor and Cover
Girl, holds the most (37) that propose to use
DBP in personal-care products.
Other major companies with multiple
patents are L'Oreal (10), Lever Brothers
(4) and Maybelline (3).
Since cosmetic companies, including those in
Canada, aren't required
to state on the labels if their products contain
phthalates, it
wasn't known how common they were in cosmetics. "We had a
pretty
strong hunch that phthalates were in a lot more products than
we
knew," said Stacy Malkan, of Health Care Without Harm.
Health Care
Without Harm, an umbrella organization of dozens of
environment and health
groups, tested 72 cosmetics made by major
brands such as Revlon, Calvin
Klein, Christian Dior and Procter &
Gamble for three types of phthalates.
The lab found phthalates in 52
of the products. Nine of 14 deodorants tested
and all 18 fragrances,
six of seven hair gels, four of seven mousses, 14 of
18 hair sprays
and two of four hand and body lotions contained
phthalates.
DBP was found in only six of the 72 products but it was found
in
substantial concentrations. The phthalate DEP was found in 51 of
72
products. It is considered a less potent reproductive toxin than
DBP,
but is still associated with reproductive damage including
reduced
sperm counts in lab animals.
The activists thought they had
found a smoking gun hidden in
cosmetics. The self-regulated cosmetics
industry watchdog, the
Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel (CIR), declared in
2002 that three
phthalates used in cosmetics -- DEP, DMP and DBP -- are "safe
as
used." The review found "a tremendous margin of safety" between what
is
likely absorbed under everyday use and what level was known to
cause harm in
rats.
Rod Irvin, spokesman for the American chemical
manufacturers
Phthalate Esters Panel, said at the time, "Phthalates are among
the
most-studied products out there. They have a long record of safe
use,
with no reports or evidence of harm to human health."
The
phthalate industry pointed to other studies, including one
released in March,
2001, by the CDC, which found that rats became ill
only after absorbing the
human equivalent of 4.5 bottles of nail
polish every day for 70 years.
Another study concluded that the
mechanism that causes cancer in rats would
not produce tumours in
humans.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
which has regulatory
authority over cosmetics, studied the CDC's data on
phthalates in
2001, and said it found "no reasons for consumers to be alarmed
at
the use of cosmetics containing phthalates."
Still, a number of
European countries, worried about phthalates, had
been studying alternatives.
Denmark, for example, identified 11 other
chemicals that could be used
instead.
Body Shop International became one of the first to react to
concerns
about phthalates and in 2002 announced it would phase them out of
the
perfumes used in its products.
A Direct Attack
BCA wanted
Avon to follow suit. First, it tackled the company's use
of parabens.
According to Avon's own U.S.-based website, 82 products
contain parabens,
including Auto Focus Light Adjusting Foundation,
Beyond Colour Illuminating
Radiance Vitamin C Foundation and Clear
Finish Great Complexion Pressed
Powder.
BCA purchased one share of Avon stock and became a shareholder.
It
then approached three larger shareholders, who were also
"socially
responsible" investment funds: Domini Social Investments
Inc.,
Trillium Asset Management, and Walden Asset Management. BCA
convinced
them to join in sponsoring a shareholder resolution demanding
Avon
study the feasibility of removing parabens completely or
substituting
a non-estrogenic alternative.
"Initially, we simply
signed on to a statement urging Avon to sit
down and talk with these
breast-cancer activists and listen to what
they had to say," Adam Kanzer,
director of shareholder advocacy for
Domini, told the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute. "We were
quite surprised when we didn't get any response to
that request and
decided to examine the issue more seriously."
Kanzer
said that Avon's initial response was to approach the U.S.
Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) in an unsuccessful attempt
to prevent the proposal
from appearing before shareholders. Avon
cited the efficacy of parabens in
reducing the risk of microbial
contamination.
Avon's board of
directors urged stockholders to vote against the resolution.
In its
statement to shareholders opposing the proposal, Avon cited
experts who "do
not support the proponents' assertion that there is
substantial scientific
evidence linking exposure to parabens with
increased health risk." The
company pointed out that paraben use had
the support of the World Health
Organization and the industry's CIR
panel.
"We believe that
discontinuing the use of parabens and replacement
with an inferior
preservative would present a potential health risk
to our consumers that is
neither necessary nor warranted," company
officials wrote to
shareholders.
Brenner countered that the studies Avon cited dated back
nearly three
decades, before more recent research showing parabens mimic
the
effects of estrogen.
At the May, 2003, Avon annual general
meeting, the resolution did not pass.
The following year, a new study
seemed to give credibility to BCA's
concerns that parabens might be
implicated in breast cancer.
Microbiologist Philippa Darbre of the University
of Reading, England,
found parabens in the breast-cancer tumours of 18 of the
20 women she
tested. The very small study did not show that parabens caused
breast
cancer, but according to Dr. Darbre there was evidence the
parabens
came from beauty products.
The parabens she found were the
"ester-bearing form of parabens"
which indicates they came from something
applied to the skin, such as
an underarm deodorant, cream or body spray. When
parabens are eaten,
they are metabolised and lose the ester group, making
them less
strongly estrogen-mimicking.
She suggested they might have
come from deodorant.
"One would expect tumours to occur evenly, with 20
per cent arising
in each of the five areas of the breast," Dr. Darbre told
New
Scientist. "But these results help explain why up to 60 per cent
of
all breast tumours are found in just one-fifth of the breast --
the
upper-outer quadrant, nearest the underarm."
The cosmetic industry
was quick to minimize the findings. The U.S.
Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance
Association (CFTA), which represents
600 cosmetic companies, said the Darbre
study was inconclusive and
the amounts of parabens found in the tumours was
"exceedingly small."
The industry association pointed out that the paraben
reported most
frequently and at the highest concentration was methyparaben,
which
is used to preserve many medicines, including those used to
treat
breast cancer. Maybe the parabens were present in the tumours
because
of the cancer treatment the women were receiving.
Experts at
the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, New York, have also said
that the reason more
tumours are found in the upper, outer quadrant
is because that is where most
of the breast tissue is found.
BCA's next target was phthalates, which it
was set to put on the
agenda of the shareholders meeting in May,
2004.
While it was gearing up the phthalates fight, new information
emerged
about the chemicals which didn't seem to support the
activists'
concerns.
In 2003, the CDC issued more extensive reports on
116 substances in
samples from 2,500 people, including the original
289.
The results showed that the levels of exposure to each phthalate
were
not only within predicted levels but also well within the
safety
levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- levels
that
phthalates manufacturers pointed out already incorporate a number
of
conservative safety margins.
The data showed that average exposure
levels for DBP remained more
than 100 times below government safety levels.
In addition, the
exposure levels indicated from DMP, DBP and DEP were about
half of
what had been indicated in the smaller sample from the initial
study
in 2000. CDC researchers also showed that the exposure levels
of
women aged 20 to 39 were slightly lower for women, not higher.
"It
was clear from the first," Marian Stanley, manager of the
Phthalates Esters
Panel, said at the time, "that a major premise of
the anti-phthalates
campaign was dubious, because the sample was
small and not representative of
the population as a whole. Now we
know the campaign is not supported by the
CDC data."
Activists with BCA and Health Care Without Harm countered by
saying
the safety standards set for phthalates are based on
decades-old
studies and do not consider the new information about birth
defects
caused in animals. Besides, it is not known what daily use of
several
phthalates, one atop the other, does to people.
Just as BCA
and the other activist shareholders were preparing to put
a resolution before
shareholders asking them to force Avon to study
alternatives to phthalates,
Avon made a startling announcement. It
was taking -- or in some cases, had
already taken -- phthalates out
of its products. Most of the Avon products
sold in Canada -- none are
made in this country -- come from the U.S., so
they would also be
affected by this decision.
BCA was
euphoric.
"This is a small but important step by a corporate giant,"
Brenner
said. "It's important for the people Avon markets to, many of
whom
are women of childbearing age, and it's important for
future
generations."
An Avon spokesman said at the time that the move
was a part of the
company's "wish to allay public concern, not a safety
concern" and
was in large part due to changes in the European cosmetics
industry.
Since May last year, Avon has not made any new nail polishes
with
DBP. It has also developed seven new DBP-free nail products.
In
Europe, cosmetic companies had no choice over whether or not to
include
phthalates in their products. The EU announced in 2003 it was
banning DBP and
DEHP from cosmetics as of September, 2004. The two
chemicals were placed in a
category of substances considered
carcinogens, mutagens or toxigens for
reproduction.
The actions of the EU were used as proof by activists that
phthalates
must be dangerous. In reality, however, the EU was banning
them
because there was no proof they were safe.
The EU had adopted the
"precautionary principle" toward chemicals and
had placed the onus on the
cosmetic companies to prove the
ingredients weren't harmful. If the companies
can provide proof of
safety, substances can be taken off the banned list. In
the case of
phthalates, companies chose to find alternatives.
Back in
the U.S., a number of activist groups began the Campaign for
Safe Cosmetics
and last year bombarded hundreds of companies with
letters insisting their
products meet the "standards and deadlines"
set by Europe. More than 60
companies, the vast majority small
players, agreed to meet the EU standards.
However, a few larger
companies have also indicated they are making
changes.
L'Oreal Senior Vice President for Research and Development, Alan
J.
Meyers, recently wrote to Jeanne Rizzo, the executive director of
the
Breast Cancer Fund, also based in San Francisco, to tell her
his
company's products are now in compliance with the EU
cosmetics
directive "no matter where they are sold around the
world."
A Revlon spokesperson told Rizzo before Christmas that "all
products
sold by Revlon are in full compliance" with the EU
directives.
Activist groups claim it was their pressure that pushed the
companies
to remove phthalates, but the EU requirements have been a
powerful
incentive for change.
A Procter & Gamble spokesperson
said after the company banned DBP
from nail polishes that the decision "was
not based on any concern
about the safety of the chemical."
But even
if U.S.-based companies are changing because of regulatory
changes in Europe,
it was activists who started the chain reaction in
Europe. Robert Donkers,
co-author of the REACH report which called
for the banning of harmful
chemicals in the EU, said that activists
are "much more influential in the
dialogue in Europe than at least in
the U.S."
He said the traditional
parties in Europe didn't respond to the
environmental concerns of the '60s
and '70s, so a "green movement"
grew to deal with the problems. Green Party
members were elected.
Activist groups became "social partners," Donkers
said.
In Canada, there are few activist groups lobbying for
safer
cosmetics. Breast Cancer Action Montreal said it defers to the
San
Francisco-based group, while several other women's
health-research
groups said they were aware it was an issue but they didn't
have the
resources to devote to the cause.
The Environmental Health
Association of Nova Scotia has produced its
Less Toxic Guide (www.lesstoxicguide.ca) enumerating its
concerns
about cosmetics safety. And the Western Canadian Wilderness
Committee
last month called on consumers to buy safer products.
Carl
Carter, of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance
Association, said
that the Canadian cosmetics industry wants to be as
safe as possible, and
will have to respond to the changes taking
place in Europe. But he says that
some of the changes aren't based on
good science.
"In the case of
phthalates, from the government perspective, it's a
tough one. The science
has been fairly clear in terms of their
safety, but there has been a lot of
pressure from interest groups in
the media and so forth. Various
jurisdictions are feeling pressured
to take some sort of action, but it may
not be best based on science."
While L'Oreal says its products throughout
the world are in
compliance with the EU restrictions, the Canadian arm of the
company
admitted it still uses phthalates. Nadine Lajoie, L'Oreal
Canada
spokeswoman, said the company uses the plasticizers in its
perfume
because "the use of phthalates in cosmetics is supported by
an
extensive body of scientific research and data that confirm
their
safety."
Unlike the EU, both the FDA and Health Canada have not
restricted the
use of phthalates. However, both agencies have questioned
their
safety. An FDA report, Aggregate Exposures to
Phthalates in
Humans, stated, "No study has ever examined the impact
of phthalates (on
human reproduction) ... Lack of evidence can hardly
be used as evidence of
safety when no one has ever studied the issue
on humans."
The report's
authors also observed, "The increasing incidence of
hypospadias, undescended
testes, testicular cancer, and declining
sperm counts in the U.S. and many
other parts of the world suggests
that a closer look at many reproductive
tract toxicants and endocrine
disruptors is urgently needed in people. With
respect to phthalates,
however, evidence from relevant animal studies and
from limited
studies of non-reproductive tract impacts in hospitalized
patients is
sufficient to require phasing out the use of many of the
phthalates."
A Health Canada panel stated that "the status quo is not an
acceptable
option."
Officials from Health Canada told the Citizen it
is reviewing its
policy on phthalates.
Activists, meanwhile, say they
will continue to push until cosmetics
are free of suspect
substances.
"It's not our goal to terrify people," Brenner said. "We
really want
people to understand that the only people working in
their
self-interest are people who are not making money selling
these
products. We want to tell people what are in their products and
help
them work to get this stuff out of their products."
What Price
Beauty?
Yesterday: Hundreds of chemicals in our daily beauty
routines.
Today: Beauty and the breast: The worldwide campaign
against
chemicals in cosmetics.
Monday: The dangers of hair
dye.
Tuesday: What's really in the bathwater with the
baby.
Wednesday: The wrinkle in anti-wrinkle creams.
Thursday:
Shopping organics: Finding green in a world of grey.
Friday: You are what
you eat ... breathe ... scrub ... lather ... spray.
Saturday, April 23: A
consumer's guide to personal-care products.
© The Ottawa Citizen
2005
====================
Sun 17 Apr 2005
The Ottawa
Citizen
What Price Beauty?
Face Facts: A Timeline
By: Susan
Allan
National Children's Study
Dr. Phil Landrigan of the U.S.
Center for Children's Health and the
Environment urges Congress to support
his proposal to study 100,000
children from the womb to adulthood. "More than
75,000 new synthetic
chemical compounds have been developed and disseminated
in the
environment during the past 50 years. Children are especially
at
risk," he tells a House of Representatives committee. "Such a
study
holds the potential for providing extraordinarily
valuable
information on the impact of environmental toxins on
children's
health."
November 2000
Beauty Secrets
The
Washington-based Environmental Working Group issues "the
first-ever" consumer
alert on beauty products containing dibutyl
phthalate. The release follows a
report from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention that found all of
the 289 people tested had
dibutyl phthalate in their
body.
"Researchers are just beginning to discover the names of the
hundreds
of commercial chemicals that contaminate the human body," the
group
said. "This situation is the single biggest failure in
U.S.
environmental law." The EWG writes to cosmetics companies
urging
companies to take notice of the findings.
'Researchers are just
beginning to discover the names of the hundreds
of commercial chemicals that
contaminate the human body'
Summer 2002
Better Safe than
Sorry
The Center for Children's Health and the Environment runs
seven
full-page advertisements in the New York Times raising concerns
about
the effects of chemical exposures on children. "She's the
test
subject for thousands of chemicals. Why?" asks one. "Medicines
are
the only chemicals that have to be proven safe. Why?" asks
another.
July 2002
Not Too Pretty
The Safe Cosmetics
Campaign begins by releasing a report showing that
tests found phthalates in
52 of 72 chosen name-brand beauty products.
The coalition of environmental
and health organizations urges the
industry-financed Cosmetic Ingredient
Review panel in the U.S. to
label all products containing the ingredient
while working to produce
phthalate-free products. The coalition highlights
its findings in
full-page ads in the New York Times. One advertise-ment
featured a
young, pregnant woman sniffing a bottle of perfume. "Sexy for
her,"
it read. "For baby, it could really be poison."
October
2002
Who's Really Cleaning Up Here?
Breast Cancer Action launches
its Think Before You Pink campaign with
a full-page ad in the New York Times
asking a provocative question:
Are companies with pink-ribbon promotions
making a difference or
exploiting breast cancer?
November
2002
Memo to CIR
The Environmental Working Group, Coming Clean and
the World Wildlife
Fund present comments to the U.S. Cosmetic Ingredient
Review panel
concerning the use of phthalates in cosmetics. "We ask that
the
expert panel at this time recommend against the use in cosmetics
of
DBP and toxicologically similar phthalates based on human
biomonitoring
data showing high levels of exposure relative to safety
limits, and based on
the fact that the industry is capable of
producing cosmetics free of
phthalates."
January 2003
EU Cosmetics Directive
The
European Union amends cosmetics legislation to ban chemicals
known or
strongly suspected of causing cancer and birth defects. The
amendments take
force in September 2004.
April 2003
California Body Burden
Campaign
California legislators contemplate a bill to establish
state-wide
biomonitoring that would test individuals for synthetic
chemicals.
The bill, championed by Senator Deborah Ortiz, would establish
the
Health Californians Biomonitoring Program.
October
2003
Dirty Laundry
Greenpeace in London announces that independent
lab tests have found
"gender bending" chemicals in everyday products used by
children.
Activists fan out across the city slapping caution stickers on
kids
pyjamas found to contain phthalates and nonylphenol ethoxylate.
(The
chemicals were believed to be in the inks and plastic film used
in
the design on the front of the garment.) The group urges consumers
to
send toxic products to the Secretary of State for trade and
industry.
Philanthropy or Hypocrisy?
Breast Cancer Action, a San
Francisco-based group, takes out
full-page ad in the New York Times that
challenges major cosmetics
companies marketing "pink-ribbon products" to
remove parabens and
phthalates from their products. "Corporate conscience
belongs in a
company's products," the ad said, "not just in its
marketing."
Early 2004
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sends
letters to hundreds of
cosmetics companies urging them not to use toxic
chemicals linked to
cancer and birth defects.
June 2004
Skin
Deep
EWG releases the results of a six-month study of 7,500
brand-name
products, declaring that most cosmetics and personal-care
products
sold in the U.S. have never been assessed for safety. "The news
is
cause for concern, but not alarm," says Jane Houlihan, EWG's
vice
president for research. The group petitions the FDA to assess
the
safety of personal-care products.
Biomonitoring and
California
A bill introduced by Deborah Ortiz to establish
statewide
biomonitoring in California fails by one vote. The legislation
would
have established a program to test for "pollution in people"
by
measuring blood, urine and breastmilk for toxic chemicals.
Proposed
Ban on Phthalates
Judy Chu, a California assembly member who introduced a
bill to ban
phthalates from cosmetics and personal-products, learns that her
bill
has been defeated. "Preventing birth defects is far more
important
than producing nail polish that doesn't chip," she had
argued.
September 2004
Read Our Lips
The Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics takes out a full-page ad in USA Today
demanding companies remove
toxic chemicals from their products:
"Which company do you trust with your
daughter?" it asks.
October 2004
Think Before You Pink
The
Women's Environmental Network (WEN) in the U.K. launches a
campaign
encouraging consumers to ask questions before buying
pink-ribbon products. A
campaign leaflet explains: "We are concerned
that some companies claiming to
support the 'fight' against breast
cancer may be using or producing toxic
chemicals that may increase a
person's risk of developing the
disease."
Contaminated: The Next Generation
The World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) and the Co-operative Bank in Britain
release a report after
testing 33 people from seven families for 104
man-made chemicals. The
grandmothers in each family were found to be
carrying fewest of the chemicals
tested (56) while children and
parents were found to have 75. Phthalates were
found in
three-quarters of the group, including children.
Bad
Blood
The WWF in Europe releases its Bad Blood report revealing that
it
found a total of 55 industrial chemicals in the blood of 14
EU
politicians. The DetoX campaign, shown below, is aimed to get the EU
to
adopt new chemical legislation that would phase out
hazardous
chemicals.
November 2004
Bad Blood in
Poland
WWF Poland analyses the blood of 15 Polish celebrities and finds
such
toxins as pesticides, phthalates and PCBs.
December
2004
Phthalate-free formulas
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
celebrates as L'Oreal and Revlon
confirm they will reformulate products to be
free of phthalates. In a
Dec. 15 letter, a senior official at Unilever writes
that the company
does not use phthalates in its products.
February
2005
A Warning from the FDA
The FDA writes to cosmetics
manufacturers and warns them it is
preparing to act on consumer concerns.
"You should know that FDA
intends to consider taking compliance action, where
appropriate,
regarding cosmetic products that contain ingredients that
we
determine have not shown to be safe."
DetoX Campaign
WWF
Italy tests 18 Italian celebrities and finds 65 contaminants in
their blood
including heavy metals, PCDs and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. The tests
are part of WWF's DetoX campaign.
Toxic Valentine
Greenpeace warns
Valentine Day shoppers that it found phthalates and
synthetic musks in 36
well-known brands of perfumes. They encourage
visitors to their website to
spread the word with an e-mail Valentine
that says, "Love is ... ensuring
you're not contaminated!"
Sealed With a Kiss
The Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics encourages women to send a Valentine
to cosmetics company CEOs
urging them to sign a pledge to remove
toxic chemicals from their
products.
Pollution in People
Deborah Ortiz introduces another
bill in the California legislature
in a renewed attempt to create a statewide
biomonitoring program to
test Californians for chemical
exposure.
March 2005
Operation Beauty Drop
Teens in Montana
and California start a campaign that encourages
consumers to read labels and
toss questionable items into Operation
Beauty Drop bins at schools and local
stores.
International Women's Day 2005
A coalition of women's
groups rally against toxic chemicals in the
centre of Berlin. "While
chemicals are seen as a technical issue,
when it comes down to health, it's a
personal issue," says Sonja
Haider, spokeswoman for Women in Europe for a
Common Future.
Chemical checkup
The WWF in Europe invites
Europeans to enter to win the chance to
have their families' blood screened
for 100 potentially hazardous
man-made chemicals. One family is to be chosen
from each of 14 EU
countries.
Bill to Ban Phthalates
Judy Chu
introduces the Phthalates Ban Bill in the California
assembly, this time
calling for the ban on two phthalates from
cosmetics. "It is outrageous that
American women aren't given the
same protection that European women are," she
says. A spokeswoman for
the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
says the group will
"vigorously oppose" the legislation.
'It is
outrageous that American women aren't given the same
protection that European
women are'
=====================
April 16, 2005
The
Ottawa Citizen
The great cosmetics debate
A growing number of
scientists and countries worry that cosmetics can
hurt you. Yet Health Canada
insists there is nothing to fear.
by Shelley Page and Susan
Allan
Almost one million Canadians, mostly women, are harmed each
year
because of bad reactions to the cosmetics and toiletries they use
to
cleanse their bodies and rejuvenate their skin. According to
documents
from Health Canada, consumers frequently suffer bad
reactions -- ranging from
minor to severe -- because they don't know
what is in their personal-care
products.
And Canadians won't know until the end of next year when
Canada
catches up to the U.S. and the European Union by
requiring
manufacturers to list ingredients on products.
If Canadians
don't know about the potential short-term effects of
beauty products, neither
are they informed about the huge gaps in
knowledge surrounding cosmetic
safety.
New research shows cosmetics and toiletries sometimes contain
a
potentially dangerous cocktail of carcinogens, mutagens and
reproductive
toxins that can alter the function of hormones, and in
rare circumstances,
lead to infertility.
Amidst growing concerns, governments in the United
States and Europe
are taking precautionary actions.
The European Union
recently banned some worrisome ingredients from
cosmetics unless companies
can provide proof they are safe.
This past February, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration warned
cosmetic manufacturers that they may soon be
forced to warn consumers
if their products contain ingredients that have not
been tested for
safety. The unprecedented action from the FDA means labels,
stating
"Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined,"
could
appear on an estimated 99 per cent of personal-care products sold
in
the U.S., many of which are also sold in Canada, according to
the
Washington-based Environmental Working Group (EWG), an
activist
research organization that independently analyses products for
safety.
The FDA's action is, in part, a response to an EWG petition
filed
last June that identified 356 products containing ingredients
whose
safety could not be substantiated. The Citizen was able to find
most
of those products for sale in Canada.
The EWG noted the cosmetics
industry's safety panel was unable to
perform safety reviews on the
ingredients because basic data was
lacking. The EWG also complained that 99
per cent of all products
they studied contained one or more ingredients that
have never been
assessed for either data adequacy or basic safety by the
industry's
panel, the FDA or any other publicly accountable
institution.
Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the U.S.-based Campaign For
Safe
Cosmetics, says it's misleading to say ingredients are safe
when
evidence does not exist to back the claim. "The vast majority
of
ingredients used in cosmetics have never been tested for safety,"
she
told the Citizen in an interview.
Health Canada says it has no
concerns about the labelling or safety
of cosmetics.
"We believe that
we have more control over the safety of cosmetics
products here in Canada and
do not have a need for a requirement for
such a statement," says Luisa
Carter-Phillips, the head of Health
Canada's Cosmetics Division Product
Safety Bureau, citing Health
Canada's "hot list" of banned and restricted
substances, as well as
the department's power to pull products off the
shelves if they are
suspected of being unsafe.
In the U.S., the
government must actually prove a product is unsafe
before it can be pulled
off the shelves.
Ms. Carter-Phillips also downplayed concerns that
Canadians don't
know what is in their personal-care products, citing the
labelling
laws that will take effect in November 2006.
Many critics
say Health Canada's labelling system will only confuse
people. Ingredients
will be listed using the symbol-based
International Nomenclature Cosmetic
Ingredients system, which is used
in many countries. "We fully acknowledge
that this ingredient list
will only be understood in conjunction with a
medical professional,"
said Carl Carter, vice-president of the Canadian
Cosmetic, Fragrance
and Toiletry Association, which represents approximately
60 cosmetics
companies. But Mr. Carter said in a country with two
official
languages INCI
was the best solution, especially for
companies that plan to sell
products worldwide. "We know consumers want to
know what is in their
products," says Mr. Carter. "We don't want to hide what
is in our
products so consumers can make an informed choice whether they
have
allergies, concerns or fears."
Mr. Carter acknowledged that
Canada is decades behind some countries,
but he blamed the government. "We
have been totally flabbergasted
about how hard we have had to work to get
labels." He said the
cosmetics industry has been in discussions with the
government since
the 1970s, when ingredient labels began to appear in the
U.S.
Others agree the new labels will be confusing. "It will
be
unintelligible," says Dr. Samuel Epstein, professor of
Environmental
and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School
of
Public Health. Dr. Epstein, co-author of The Safe Shopper's Bible,
is
the head of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and a longtime critic
of
Canada's failure to inform consumers about product
ingredients.
"The system they plan to use will mean nothing to 99.9 per
cent of
the public. It's an international scientific language that will
seem
like gibberish to anyone but those with a pharmacology
degree."
Beyond concerns over labelling, many experts interviewed by
the
Citizen expressed concerns about the new research emerging about
the
safety of beauty products.
About This Series
Today:
Hundreds of chemicals in our daily beauty routines, Saturday
Observer, pages
B1-B4
Tomorrow: Beauty and the breast: The worldwide campaign
against
chemicals in cosmetics.
Monday: The dangers of hair
dye.
Tuesday: What's really in the bathwater with the
baby.
Wednesday: The wrinkle in anti-wrinkle creams.
Thursday:
Shopping organics: Finding green in a world of grey.
Friday: You are what
you eat ... breathe ... scrub ... lather ... spray.
Saturday, April 23: A
consumer's guide to personal-care products.
What Price Beauty? A Special
Report. Ran with fact box "About this
series", which has been appended to the
story.
© The Ottawa Citizen
2005
=======================
Saturday » April 16 » 2005
The
Ottawa Citizen
Not so pretty: Most beauty routines include the use of
carcinogens,
allergens and other harmful substances
They are in everything
from shampoo to hair dye to nail polish and hair
spray.
Shelley Page
and Susan Allan
By the time the average woman grabs her morning coffee,
she has
spritzed, sprayed and lathered with 126 different chemicals in
nine
different products, everything from shampoo and hair gel to
skin
toner, foundation and perfume. Tweens and teenagers, just beginning
a
lifelong regimen, might use fewer products, while heavy-handed
glamour
queens will have lacquered themselves with even more
chemicals.
But
here's a beauty tip: far from being youth-giving lotions and
elixirs, science
is now telling us that some of the products we use
to enhance our appearance
can actually cause harm.
Artificial colourings derived from coal tar are
found in eye shadow,
lipstick and blush and have been implicated in cancer
and allergic
reactions. Cream foundations can contain formaldehyde and
silica,
which have both been shown to cause harm. Parabens, which
are
preservatives, are in most moisturizers and many deodorants
even
though they are skin and eye irritants and have been found to
mimic
the female hormone, estrogen. Ingredients in hair dyes and
perfumes
can cause mild to severe allergies and asthma. Cosmetics have
been
found to be rich in cancer-causing impurities. Some ingredients
are
just plain irritating: The same chemicals we coat our skin with
are
also used in industrial manufacturing to grease gears,
clean
industrial equipment and stabilize pesticides.
The quantities of
these substances in most personal-care products are
minute, but one British
pharmacologist recently estimated that each
year women absorb about two
kilograms of chemicals from their
cosmetic products. Scientists now know that
skin does not act as a
barrier but rather facilitates absorption. In fact,
it's so effective
at delivering mixtures to the bloodstream that,
increasingly, drugs
are applied to the skin using patches or creams. Yet,
unlike drugs,
cosmetics are rarely studied by a government body for their
safety on
humans even though no other products come in such intimate contact
to
our skin.
Cosmetics and other personal-care products are at the
centre of an
ugly debate over exactly how great a risk they pose to human
health
-- and how closely they should be regulated.
The cosmetics
industry says personal-care products are harmless,
especially when compared
to daily hazards such as car exhaust,
dry-cleaning fumes, pesticide exposure,
even cigarette smoke.
Carl Carter represents more than 60 cosmetics
companies as vice
president of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and
Fragrance
Association (CCTFA). "I have a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old and
I
love them dearly and I wouldn't let them use anything unsafe," he
said
in an interview. "I have absolutely no concerns about the safety
of the
products available in Canada." He said that cosmetics
companies do conduct
safety tests -- if not clinical trials -- and
government intervention is not
needed.
But a growing number of health-care activists want the
cosmetics
industry more closely regulated. Consumer groups in Europe and
the
United States have mounted an orchestrated attack that
includes
confronting shareholders of major cosmetics companies,
petitioning
companies to make their formulations safer and forcing
government
regulators to crack down on cosmetics manufacturers. Some
consumer
groups in Europe have taken cosmetic companies to court over
adverse
reactions to certain beauty products.
"We're not talking about
life and death, we're talking about face
cream," says health-care advocate
Charlotte Brody. "Most women
understand that if we can make cosmetics without
carcinogens or
reproductive toxins, we should be doing that, we shouldn't be
arguing
about how much of a certain carcinogen is dangerous."
Ms.
Brody, who founded Health Care Without Harm, says no amount of a
dangerous
substance is safe.
"The old way of thinking was that it was OK to put a
little bit of a
carcinogen in cosmetics as long as you got less than the dose
that
caused cancer," she said in an interview from her home in
Virginia.
"What we're learning -- there are new studies every day and
areas
that are still grey -- that small amounts of chemicals can turn
on
and off genes, the same way drugs do; that an amount that doesn't
seem
to have an effect on adults can have a dramatic effect on a
developing child;
that some people are much more sensitive to
chemicals than others, just like
drugs; that mixtures matter a lot."
The Citizen has interviewed dozens of
scientists, health-care
advocates, cosmetics-industry representatives and
government
regulators and pored over piles of scientific studies. This is
what
the investigation found:
- The vast majority of the ingredients
in toiletries in Canada and
other countries have not been rigorously studied
by a
publicly-accountable body for safety on humans, unlike
pharmaceutical
drugs which are put through clinical trials. The
Washington-based
Environmental Working Group, which organizes activist
campaigns on
consumer products, reported last year that of the 10,500
chemical
ingredients used in personal-care products, only 11 per cent
have
been assessed by a government body for safety, including
their
potential to cause allergies. According to the EWG, the remaining
89
per cent of unassessed ingredients are used in more than 99 per cent
of
all products on the market.
- An increasing number of studies link common
cosmetic ingredients to
a host of long-term health problems, some as serious
as cancer and
infertility. No one is yet sure about the cumulative effects
of
layering dozens of different products, one on top of the other,
day
after day.
- Scientists and activists have compiled a list of more
than a dozen
ingredients that are widely used in cosmetics in Canada and have
the
potential to harm users. This list, which contains
endocrine
disruptors and known carcinogens, includes lead acetate,
silica,
petrolatum, Resorcinol, phenol, carrageenan, talc,
phenylenediamine,
synthetic fragrance and formaldehyde.
- In Canada,
the government does not compel manufacturers to prove
their products are safe
before they are marketed. Last year, almost
16,000 new or reformulated
personal-care products came on the market
in Canada.
- Health Canada
says it is very concerned about a number of chemicals
and chemical byproducts
in cosmetics and has significantly expanded
its "hot list" of banned or
restricted ingredients, including
carcinogenic impurities. Later this year it
will expand the list
further to include other worrisome ingredients,
including coal tar
and some synthetic fragrances.
- Despite a decade
of discussions, companies selling cosmetics in
Canada -- unlike most other
countries -- do not have to list
ingredients on their products. That will
change in November 2006.
According to Health Canada's own estimates,
unlabelled cosmetics
cause 900,000 adverse reactions a year. Even when the
ingredients are
listed, it will be in an international scientific language
that the
cosmetics industry association admits will be incomprehensible
to
consumers without the help of a doctor or pharmacist.
- The
European Union has started to ban ingredients from cosmetics
when
manufacturers cannot prove they are safe. Canada is breaking
away from
powerful U.S. cosmetics influences and following the lead
of the Europeans,
an approach that U.S. industry officials call a
huge
over-reaction.
Dr. Wilma Bergfeld, chairman of the industry-run Cosmetic
Ingredient
Review (CIR) panel in the U.S., dismissed concerns in 2003,
saying,
"Whatever may be added to the pool by the cosmetics industry is
so
minute, and what is added to the pool by other
industrial-based
pollutants so enormous, it isn't even fathomable that
cosmetics would
be scrutinized and considered a culprit."
Canadians
spend an estimated $5.3 billion annually on beauty care.
Yet, the Canadian
government doesn't tell consumers about the risks
posed by personal-care
products, nor do the companies that make them
and profit from the
purchases.
Women's magazines, which make most of their money from
advertisements
bought by the cosmetics industry, are not telling this story
either.
In the absence of systematic ingredient safety testing, the
long-term
health effects of some cosmetics are only just being
discovered.
Among recent findings:
- A study published last month in
Public Health Reports, the official
journal of the U.S. Public Health
Service, found that using permanent
hair dyes increases an individual's risk
of developing bladder cancer
by up to 50 per cent.
- Lead acetate, the
key ingredient in progressive grey-hair reducers
commonly used by men, is now
considered a carcinogen and a
reproductive toxin by the state of California
and last fall was
banned from use in cosmetics by the European Union.
Meanwhile, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration says products containing
lead
acetate can be safely used because studies have shown that they
don't
cause a significant increase in blood lead levels. Progressive
dyes
with lead acetate are readily available in stores across
Canada.
- Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHAs) in skin creams promise fewer
wrinkles
but studies show they cause sun damage that actually leads
to
premature aging. In January, the FDA issued a rare guideline
to
manufacturers asking them to warn consumers to wear a sunscreen
after
using AHAs. In Canada, the hot list says AHAs should not be
sold
without a sunscreen advisory, yet the vast majority of
companies
ignore that requirement.
- Just last month, Greenpeace
tested 36 well-known perfumes and found
that virtually all contained
phthalate esters and synthetic musk,
chemicals that the environmental
organization said "can enter the
body and may cause unwanted health impacts"
such as altering hormone
function.
Phthalates are used as plasticizers
to give nail polish its
flexibility and enable perfumes to evaporate more
slowly. They have
been shown to impair fertility and cause developmental
toxicity in
the male offspring of rats.
Greenpeace complained that
high levels of one phthalate, called
dibutyl phthalate or DBP, were found in
two major brand-name
perfumes. However, the concentrations found are still
within safety
limits set by Health Canada.
The Environmental Working
Group, which last year evaluated 7,500
personal-care products sold in the
U.S., and in most cases Canada,
found:
- One-third of the products
they tested contain one or more
ingredients classified as possible human
carcinogens.
- Ninety-nine per cent of the products contained one or
more
ingredients that have never been assessed for potential
health
impacts by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel, the
cosmetic
industry's self-regulated trade association.
- One of every
100 products on the market, including shampoos,
lotions, foundations and lip
balms, contains ingredients identified
by government authorities in numerous
countries as known or probable
human carcinogens.
- Seventy-one per
cent of hair dyes contain chemicals, such as
phenylenediamine, which have
been derived from the carcinogen coal
tar.
- Fifty-five per cent of
all products assessed contain "penetration
enhancers," ingredients that
encourage the skin to absorb a lotion or
cream, at the same time increasing
exposures to other chemicals in
the product. EWG found 50 products containing
penetration enhancers
in combination with known or probable human
carcinogens.
- Nearly 70 per cent of all products sold in the U.S.
contain
ingredients that can be contaminated with impurities arising
during
the manufacturing process or as a result of a reaction to
other
chemicals in the product, and that have been linked to cancer
and
other health problems. Studies by the FDA and European agencies
show
that these impurities are common, in some cases occurring in
nearly
half of all products tested.
The authors of the EWG report
insisted the report was not cause for
alarm, just concern.
The report
was roundly challenged by the cosmetics industry, which
said that the work
wasn't peer reviewed and was pulled together by
activists selectively using
science. Even some mainstream
cancer-patient groups were quick to dismiss the
concerns.
Michael Thun, head of epidemiology for the American Cancer
Society,
said at the time, "If cosmetics pose any risk at all, that risk
is
very small compared to known major risks like smoking,
(poor)
nutrition, obesity and physical inactivity and
sunlight."
However, the work of EWG is causing change. In February, the
FDA
issued an unprecedented warning to the cosmetics industry stating
that
the agency will enforce an existing law requiring companies to
inform
consumers that personal-care products have not been tested for
safety. Its
announcement was in reaction to an EWG petition filed
eight months earlier
demanding that consumers be warned that products
have not been proven safe by
the government, or any other
publicly-accountable body.
The FDA
announcement could mean 99 per cent of personal-care products
on the U.S.
market would require warnings, according to the EWG.
Mr. Carter, of the
Canadian cosmetics industry association,
acknowledged that the industry is
under unprecedented pressure to
change its formulations and provide more
information to consumers. It
is being pushed by activists and by policy
changes in Europe, where a
revolution led by Green politicians is
underway.
The U.S. has generally allowed the use of chemicals until it
can be
proven that they make people sick. Cosmetics companies there can
put
almost unlimited amounts of chemicals into personal-care
products.
According to the EWG, the toxicity of product ingredients
is
scrutinized almost exclusively by the CIR. "Because testing
is
voluntary and controlled by the manufacturers, many ingredients
in
cosmetics products are not safety tested at all," said the
EWG.
Europe, however, is embracing a "precautionary principle"
approach
for all products, not just cosmetics. They are debating REACH
--
Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals --
which
proposes laws that will put the onus on manufacturers to
prove
products are safe. Chemicals in all products that fail the
toxicity
test would be phased out within a decade. This is expected to lead
to
the identification and phasing out of the most harmful
chemicals.
Last September, the EU banned hundreds of known or
probable
carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxicants from perfume,
makeup,
hair dye and other cosmetics. Scientists are assessing
additional
chemicals found in cosmetics for possible inclusion on the
list.
Consumers in Europe are also now able to ask cosmetic
companies
through www.european-cosmetics.info for
details not only about the
ingredients, but also about the quantity used and
for any data on
"undesirable effects on human health resulting from the use
of the
cosmetic product."
Robert Donkers, who co-authored the EU's
REACH report, said in an
interview that it is not about banning substances in
the face of the
unknown.
"We look at the information that we have on
the table right now. If
we think something is an imminent threat, we have to
make a political
decision and decide either to take risk-management measures
on that
basis or to wait for more information."
There's no
contradiction, he says, between the precautionary
principle and science. "We
have to ask: By the time we decide we are
right, will it be too late to
act?"
North American chemical manufacturers say precautionary
actions
should be proportional to the risks addressed. They argue that
excess
precaution stifles innovation.
In November 2003, the EWG
obtained an internal memo from American
Chemistry Council -- a trade
association of companies in the business
of chemical manufacturing -- that
discussed the chemical industry's
plans to conduct a covert campaign
attacking the growing movement in
California to adopt the precautionary
principle of public health. The
ACC called the approach a "threat to the
entire U.S. chemical
industry."
Canada "is absolutely sandwiched"
between the EU and the U.S., says Mr.
Carter.
Canada is undergoing a
process that is similar to -- but much slower
than -- Europe's REACH.
Chemicals are being assessed under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(CEPA) for their potential to
harm the environment and human
health.
Most new substances manufactured or imported into Canada must
be
assessed for safety, while chemicals in use are slowly being
evaluated,
including those in cosmetics, although they are not a
priority.
But in
the short term, neither process will provide protections for
Canadians. Of
the 23,000 chemicals on what is known as the Domestic
Substances List only
very few have been fully evaluated for their
health effects.
Kathleen
Cooper, senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental
Law Association in
Toronto, observes that CEPA has a "massive
backlog."
"It's a long,
long process involving lots of bureaucrats who don't
have enough resources to
do their jobs," Ms. Cooper says of the CEPA
process. "Industry delivers these
platitudes saying 'It's all being
tested.' When they keep it at that level of
spin, they can sort of
barely tell the truth.
"They (industry) do
their own evaluation, but they're testing whether
it's causing an allergic
reaction on a rabbit ... they're not looking
at effects on developing fetuses
and they're certainly not evaluating
the effects on the developing brain,
which is where the vulnerability
is the greatest."
Most manufacturers
say that a safety margin of 100 is the norm -- you
could use 100 times as
much of your cosmetic as you are currently
using without risk of harm. In
Canada, the onus to show personal-care
products are safe lies with the
companies.
"A lot of people are surprised (that cosmetics aren't tested
for
safety)," acknowledged Luisa Carter-Phillips, head of Health
Canada's
cosmetics program. "Testing is very costly and time-consuming,"
she
said. "The burden of testing is put on the companies." This is
the
case throughout the world, she said.
Still, Ms. Carter-Phillips
gave assurances that Health Canada has
"much more control over the safety of
cosmetic products here" than
the FDA. Health Canada also has plans to develop
environmental
assessment regulations specifically tailored for food, drugs
and
cosmetics.
And in 2003, Health Canada expanded its hot list, which
is
independent of the CEPA process. It previously restricted the use
of
only 93 cosmetic ingredients, but was increased to almost 500
after
Health Canada reviewed existing studies and looked at some of
the
chemicals the EU has restricted.
Even though companies are not yet
required to list ingredients on
labels, they do have to submit a list of
ingredients to the
government. If the products contain ingredients that are
on the hot
list, Health Canada "flags" the product and notifies the company
to
withdraw or reformulate.
It's not clear how aggressively the hot
list is enforced.
"Health Canada hasn't come to us and told us they have
identified
this (hot-list violations) as a major issue," said the CCTFA's
Mr.
Carter.
Health Canada said that after it expanded the hot list it
sent out
letters to manufacturers notifying them that almost 1,700 products
on
the shelves were in violation of the new list. The government
didn't
have to pull any products off the shelves, Ms. Carter-Phillips
said,
either because the products were no longer being sold, the
companies
withdrew or reformulated products.
Still, the Citizen found
products for sale that didn't follow the
restrictions of the hot list-- for
example, Alpha Hydroxy Acids are
routinely sold without warning users to
protect themselves with a
sunscreen.
Canada, unlike the EU, has not
banned ingredients from hair dyes,
including lead acetate, or some
phthalates. But Ms. Carter-Phillips
said the hot list ensures Canada is
tougher on cosmetics than the U.S.
Among the ingredients Canada restricts
or limits are several dyes,
additives, antibiotics and even hormones.
Retinol, the Vitamin A
derivative that is used to smooth wrinkles, is only
permitted in
concentrations of less than one per cent.
There are also
outright bans on various impurities, including
carcinogens such as
1,4-dioxane and nitrosamines, both of which are
easily absorbed through the
skin and are common byproducts of the
manufacturing
process.
1,4-dioxane has frequently been found in shampoos and
conditioners
made with sodium or ammonium lauryl sulfates.
Nitrosamines,
meanwhile, can form when common cosmetic ingredients such
as
diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA) and monoethanolamine
(MEA)
combine with another common ingredient, nitrates. A chemical
reaction can
occur during manufacturing or after a product is opened
and sits in your
bathroom cabinet.
Ms. Carter-Phillips said that 1,4-dioxane and
nitrosamines are
byproducts that Health Canada is very worried about, and
scrutinizes
the ingredients in new products to ensure the combination
of
chemicals that leads to these byproducts aren't present. But
because
these impurities are byproducts, and not actual ingredients,
some
activists say its presence is difficult to police.
The hot list
is updated regularly, said Ms. Carter-Phillips, and if
new evidence comes to
light that shows an ingredient or product is
harmful, Health Canada can react
quickly.
She cited an example from 2003 when consumers complained about
the
glue in some artificial nail products, which was causing
"painful
tearing and possible permanent loss of natural nail, should
the
artificial nail be jammed or caught." Consumers also suffered
allergic
reactions, including skin rashes, contact dermatitis,
itching and oozing
blisters, nose and throat irritation and headaches.
Health Canada
identified the problem. It was the strong adhesion
properties of a glue, MMA,
or methyl methacrylate. Health Canada
banned MMA from products sold in Canada
and warned consumers of the
dangers.
Because the government didn't
conduct pre-market testing, consumers
had to learn about MMA the hard way,
through personal experience.
Ms. Carter-Phillips said cosmetics companies
are not supposed to put
anything in a product that might "cause injury to the
user under
customary use or according to directions.
"What may be
acceptable today, based on the science, may not
necessarily be acceptable in
the future," she explained.
She also said that certain cosmetics
containing small amounts of
carcinogens or reproductive toxins are not
banned. "Although some
ingredients may pose a hazard at large doses, the
principles of
toxicology indicate that in many cases these ingredients may be
of
low risk at smaller quantities," she said.
While Canada bans some
harmful ingredients from cosmetics, these same
ingredients can sometimes be
bought in over-the-counter drug products
and will have a Drug Identification
Number, or DIN. In many cases, a
consumer would not know the difference and
would likely assume they
were buying a cosmetic. A consumer has no way of
knowing that the
drug product they just bought contains a harmful active
ingredient.
For example, the ingredient hydroquinone, a skin whitener
that is
considered a carcinogen and skin irritant by the EU, is banned as
a
cosmetic ingredient in Canada but is available in 17 drug products
that
to the uninformed consumer seem very much like cosmetics. The
EWG says these
creams are only safe when washed off the skin
immediately; however, consumers
aren't warned of this.
The CCTFA is lobbying to have these cosmetic-like
drug products
(including dandruff shampoo, sunscreen, antiperspirants
and
fluoride-containing toothpaste) sold as cosmetics, as is the case
in
the U.S. and the EU.
Barbara McElgunn, Health Policy Advisor with
the Canadian Institute
of Child Health, questions whether the hot list is
enforced.
"What if any one of the 500 on the hot list appear in
cosmetics? What
authority does Health Canada have? There's no recall. There's
no
authority for fines or any kind of enforcement. In cases where
they
specify a level of an ingredient, who is looking to make sure that
is
the level being used? Is there any follow-up?" Ms. McElgunn
said.
"Basically, the government responds to pressure and industry
is
putting even bigger pressures on government than the health
interests
are."
Indeed, the cosmetic industry association's stated
mandate is to
lobby the government for as little regulation as
possible.
But Mr. Carter, of the CCTFA, said it is the government's
dithering
that has meant, for example, that all cosmetics sold in Canada
don't
yet have ingredients on labels. He also said he hopes Canada
works
with other countries to adopt a unified approach to determining
what
chemicals are safe, what are not safe.
As Health Canada tries to
weigh the scientific evidence -- much of it
generated by the cosmetics
industry itself -- others debate how much
protection should be afforded the
women, and increasingly children
and men, who use these
products.
Daniel Krewski, of the McLaughlin Centre of Population
Risk
Assessment at the University of Ottawa, says the
precautionary
principle should only be applied to major risk issues such as
climate
change where the potential for serious consequences
exists.
Dr. Krewski laments that the principle is now invoked
whenever
advocates think there must be action in the face of
uncertainty.
"We have to find the balance between prudence and the
interests of
public health and making sure we expend our scarce public
health
protection dollars wisely."
Don Wigle, an affiliate scientist
at the McLaughlin Centre, urges a
more cautious approach.
Dr. Wigle,
who is an expert in the environmental health of children,
said he is guided
by the words of Justice Horace Krever, who in the
early '90s led a inquiry on
the safety of Canada's blood supply.
"Basically, he said that in the absence
of conclusive evidence when
there is a serious and widespread threat that
affects the public
health, we should take action."
Lead toxicity is a
case in point, Dr. Wigle says. "For most of the
20th century, the health
hazards of lead, especially the effects on
the brains of children, were
consistently downplayed by scientists
and public-health officials," he said
in an interview. "As the
science got better, the effects on brain at ever
lower blood-lead
levels became clear." Today no exposure is considered
safe.
Dr. Krewski cautions that it's impossible to eliminate all
potential
hazards from one's life. "We need to understand that there will
be
risks. We have to look at the more serious risks with greater
concern
and focus most of our efforts on managing those risks."
© The
Ottawa Citizen
2005
=================================================