Index
of Articles on this Page:
|
Parents,
Protect your Children
On the road to adulthood, children face many risks. Among them are risks
from exposures to environmental toxins. From the time before birth until
puberty, we expose children to multiple chemicals. Since World War II, we
have developed more than 80,000 chemicals for use in cleaners, pesticides,
plastics, personal care products, industrial products and other
conveniences. We know very little about the effect of these
chemicals on a child’s development.
Researchers are finding that some chemicals can cause damage to a child’s
developing brain, while others may cause cancer or mimic and block
hormones.
Children are not little adults. They are vulnerable to chemicals that
adults can tolerate. Their bodies are simply not ready to process and
remove toxins. And kids receive proportionately larger doses of
environmental toxins than adults.
Our children live in a world vastly different
from the one we grew up in even a generation ago. Since World War II at
least 75,000 new synthetic chemical compounds have been developed and
released into the environment; fewer than half of these have been tested
for their potential toxicity to humans, and still less have been assessed
for their particular toxicity to children.
While adults have suffered ill consequences
from numerous home products, from carpets to particleboard cabinets to
paint, children are far more at risk than adults. In 1993, the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
concluded that, beginning in utero, babies and children are
different than adults — they are often much more vulnerable in terms of
environmental toxins.
The government is now making it a matter of
policy to protect our young ones from harmful substances in the
environment. In 1996, in outlining the first "National Agenda to Protect
Children’s Health from Environmental Threats," the EPA announced that
special assessments of risk of chemicals to our offspring must be
undertaken as a matter of urgent national priority.
Toxic Chemicals and Newborns
"In a study spearheaded by the Environmental
Working Group (EWG)
in collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at two major
laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and
pollutants in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and
September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287
chemicals in the group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10
children, collected by Red Cross after the cord was cut, harbored
pesticides, consumer product ingredients, and wastes from burning
coal, gasoline, and garbage."
|
|
Why are babies and children more
vulnerable?
Pound-for-pound, children breathe more air, drink more water, and eat more
food than adults. Thus, they are more exposed to air and water pollution
and pesticides.
Their bodies are more rapidly growing and
developing, so chemicals that can harm development can do maximum damage
at this critical time.
Children also play on the floor, where
allergens, such as dust, and heavier-than-air chemicals settle and
collect.
Then there’s natural behavior: Putting
everything in the mouth is a crucial part of normal development, the way a
baby learns about the world.
|
 AT RISK...
Before
they even enter our world
Is Your Unborn
Baby Contaminated?
Reuters July 2005
The environment is loaded with harmful toxins such
as mercury, gasoline byproducts and pesticides that present a real
public health risk. However, it's a truly sad state of affairs when it
can be said that such chemicals are finding their way into the
developing bodies of unborn babies.
Considering chemical exposures in the womb or
during infancy can be significantly more harmful than exposures later
in life, the following report highlights the nation's dire need for
immediate action.
Facts Don't Lie
The report was released by the Environmental
Working Group, a nonprofit public-interest research group known for
making connections between chemical exposure and adverse health
conditions.
Based on tests of 10 random samples of
umbilical-cord blood (a reflection of what the mother passes to the
baby via the placenta), the group found an average of 287
contaminants--209 of which had never been detected in cord blood
before. Of the detected chemicals:
- 180 cause cancer in humans and animals.
- 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system.
- 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests.
Mercury, pesticides, fire retardants, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the Teflon chemical known as perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) were among the discovered chemicals.
A Move in the Right Direction
Given the horrific results, the survey prompted
several members of Congress to push for legislation that would
strengthen controls on chemicals polluting the environment.
Top
|
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Unborn U.S. babies are
soaking in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts
and pesticides, according to a report released on Thursday.
Although the effects on the babies are not clear,
the survey prompted several members of Congress to press for
legislation that would strengthen controls on chemicals in the
environment.
The report by the Environmental Working Group is
based on tests of 10 samples of umbilical-cord blood taken by the
American Red Cross. They
found an average of 287 contaminants in the blood, including mercury,
fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA.
"These 10 newborn babies ... were born polluted,"
said New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who spoke a news conference about
the findings on Thursday.
"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution
laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in
the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb,"
Slaughter, a Democrat, said.
Cord blood reflects what the mother passes to the
baby through the placenta.
"Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical-cord
blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are
toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or
abnormal development in animal tests," the report said.
Blood tests did not show how the chemicals got into
the mothers' bodies, or what their effects might be on the babies.
MERCURY AND
PESTICIDES
Among the chemicals found in the cord blood were
methylmercury, produced by coal-fired power plants and certain
industrial processes. People can breathe it in or eat it in seafood
and it causes brain and nerve damage.
Also found were polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs,
which are produced by burning gasoline and garbage and which may cause
cancer; flame-retardant chemicals called polybrominated dibenzodioxins
and furans; and pesticides including DDT and chlordane.
The same group analyzed the breast milk of mothers
across the United States in 2003 and found varying levels of
chemicals, including flame retardants known as PBDEs. This latest
analysis also found PBDEs in cord blood.
Slaughter had similar tests done on her own blood.
"The stunning results show chemicals daily pumping
through my vital organs that include PCBs that were banned decades ago
as well as chemicals like Teflon that are currently under federal
investigation," she said in remarks prepared for the news conference.
"I have auto exhaust fumes, flame retardant
chemicals, and in all, some 271 harmful substances pulsing through my
veins. That's hardly the picture of health I had hoped for, but I've
been living in an industrial society for over 70 years."
The Government
Accountability Office issued a report on Wednesday
saying the Environmental Protection
Agency does not have the powers it needs to fully
regulate toxic chemicals.
The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, found
that the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act gives only "limited
assurance" that new chemicals entering the market are safe and said
the EPA only rarely assesses chemicals already on the market.
"Today, chemicals are being used to make baby
bottles, food packaging and other products that have never been fully
evaluated for their health effects on children -- and some of these
chemicals are turning up in our blood," said New Jersey Democrat Sen.
Frank Lautenberg, who plans to co-sponsor a bill to require chemical
manufacturers to provide data to the EPA on the health affects of
their products.
Top
|
|
18 Feb 2005
A Scribe Newswire- Chicago
How would mothers react if they discovered that baby products contain
a witch's brew of dangerous ingredients? Hopping mad could be a
reasonable understatement.
Most disturbing are three groups of widely used ingredients known as
"hidden carcinogens" -- ingredients which are contaminated by
carcinogens, or which break down to release carcinogens, or which are
precursors of carcinogens to which infants are about 100 times more
sensitive than adults.
The largest group of hidden carcinogens includes dozens of wetting
agents or detergents, particularly PEGs, Laureths, and Ceteareths, all
of which are contaminated with the potent and volatile carcinogens
ethylene oxide and dioxane. These carcinogens could readily be
stripped off during ingredient manufacture, if the industry just made
the effort to do so. Another hidden carcinogenic ingredient is
lanolin, derived from sheep's wool, most samples of which are
contaminated with DDT-like pesticides.
The second group includes another detergent, Triethanolamine (TEA)
which, following interaction with nitrite, is a precursor of a highly
potent nitrosamine carcinogen.
The third group includes Quaterniums and Diazolidinyl urea
preservatives which break down in the product or skin to release the
carcinogenic formaldehyde.
Of additional concern is another group of common preservatives, known
as Parabens. Numerous studies over the last decade have shown that
these are weakly estrogenic. They produce abnormal hormonal effects
following application to the skin of infant rodents, particularly
male, resulting in decreased testosterone levels, and urogenital
abnormalities. Parabens have also been found to accumulate in the
breasts of women with breast cancer.
So, why is it that the multibillion-dollar cosmetic and toiletry
industry has not acted on this information? The answer is that the
major priority of the industry's trade association is "to protect the
freedom of the industry to compete in a fair market place." At the
same time, the association pursues a highly aggressive agenda against
what it claims are "unreasonable or unnecessary labeling or warning
requirements." As Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D.MA) stated at 1997
Hearings on the FDA Reform bill: "The cosmetics industry has borrowed
a page from the playbook of the tobacco industry by putting profits
ahead of public health."
Top
|
|
 Keep Your
Family Safe From Hidden Toxins !
In a day and age where we
increasingly seek a quick solution to our problems we find ourselves
confronted by the cost that we are really paying for convenience.
Health and environmental groups around the world are calling for bans
and action on everything from pesticides, phthalates in perfumes,
arsenic and chromium in CCA pressure treated wood to lead
contamination in our homes. Medical groups such as the Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment educate their members
and lobby for change. Their president, Dr Warren Bell, has expressed
his concern that doctors are not educated on the prevention and
treatment of environmental illnesses and diseases in our institutions
of learning so therefore those effected have little opportunity for
treatment.
Scientists are conducting studies on
the effects of these chemicals and presence in the average person with
alarming results. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) just released a
study showing 116 chemicals in the blood and urine of subjects,
chemicals stored in body fat were not taken into consideration and
children showed the highest levels of pesticides.
A special by Bill Moyers last year
entitled Kids and Toxins dealt with many issues including the damage
done to the DNA of babies from the chemicals their mothers breathed in
while pregnant. Dr. Elizabeth A. Guillette, world renowned
anthropologist, with the University of Florida has documented alarming
differences in the Yaqui Valley Mexican children who have been exposed
to pesticides compared to the children in the foothills who do not
face the same contamination. These changes include premature breast
formation and cognitive and motor difficulties.
The Environmental Working Group, one
of many organizations working to seek a ban on CCA pressure treated
wood have recently released a study on toxins in the body as well.
They tested the blood and urine of nine people who did not work with
chemicals or live near industry for 210 pollutants and found traces of
167 of them. Since World War II there has been a huge increase in
chemicals, some 750,000 have been introduced. Increases in many
diseases have also risen since that time at alarming rates. In 1998,
nearly 800 kids in Ontario, younger than 6 were newly diagnosed with
the neurological disorder autism, a 53 per cent jump over the same
period two years earlier, stated a study released at Queen's Park by
Michael Gravelle in March 2000.
Science magazine has reported that
"As science progresses, large numbers of epidemiological studies
continue to find evidence that short-term and long-term exposures to
low concentrations of particles are associated with sizable numbers of
morbidity and mortality events in developed urban areas around the
world."
Hilary Stead of the Guelph Mercury
staff published an article quoting Patrick Kehoe as stating that as
owner of Halton lawn care company he sees first hand how pesticides
caused illness in those who worked in the industry and that he
supported a ban.
On Feb. 7 2003 the Consumer Product
Safety Commission released it's Health risk assessment on the dangers
of CCA treated wood to children. Among their findings were that
children had a 2 to 100 chance in one million of developing cancer
from playing on these structures. A one in a million risk is usually
the cause for the government to take notice. As the CPSC meets in
March to decide on whether to seek a total ban on CCA in playground
equipment you might feel like sticking your head in the sand. Not a
good idea. The warnings of Dr.Dieter Riedel of Health Canada and Dr
David Stilwell of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station have
been confirmed once again by a cross Canada study of playgrounds
released in Jan.by Environmental Defence Canada, the sand is full of
arsenic.
References The entire Center for Disease Control
(CDC) report is online at
www.cdc.gov/exposurereport
Top
|
|
U.S. PIRG Reports
The
Right Start:
The Need to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals from Baby Products
O ctober
2005
Executive
Summary
A child’s first
few years are an exciting time for parents who hope, if for
nothing else, that their child starts his or her life happy and
healthy.
Unfortunately,
not all products marketed for children and babies are completely
safe for their use. Many contain toxic chemicals that may have
detrimental health impacts for children exposed during critical
stages of development.
Two
Chemicals Linked to Health Problems
The media
reports it, scientists have proven it, and American families are
experiencing it: chronic diseases are on the rise in this country.
Cancers, birth defects, childhood asthma, learning and behavior
disorders, even obesity and early puberty are growing more
prevalent in our society.
Scientists do
not know why more children are developing these chronic problems.
We do know, however, that this rise in chronic disease has
occurred alongside a rise in the prevalence, use, and
pervasiveness of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe, the water
we drink, and the consumer products we use. Many of these
chemicals are associated with chronic disease, and many others
have never been tested for human health impacts. Moreover, there
is often no “safe dose” of these chemicals for children. A growing
body of evidence shows health effects at low doses, and chronic,
multi-source exposure means that even a small amount of exposure
from a variety of sources may add up to a major concern.
Even products
designed for babies and young children may contain chemicals that
pose a health concern. Unfortunately, because manufacturers are
not required to label baby products as containing toxic chemicals,
parents have inadequate information to make wise purchasing
decisions. To begin to close this gap, we purchased some popular
baby products and analyzed them for two chemicals of concern:
• Toxic
flame retardants (or PBDEs) are a set of chemicals used
to slow the spread of fire in a wide set of consumer products.
Levels of these chemicals found in the breast milk of American
women and some fetuses are approaching levels shown to impair
learning and cause behavior problems in lab mice.
•
Phthalates are a family of chemicals used in many plastic
children’s products to improve flexibility and in personal care
products to bind fragrance. Adults and children are exposed to
phthalates through everyday contact with these products as well as
through contact with indoor air and dust. These chemicals have
been linked to premature birth, reproductive defects, and early
onset puberty.
Findings: Many Baby Products Contain Toxic Chemicals
We selected a
sample of a variety of baby products from several manufacturers
and tested them for toxic flame retardants or phthalates. We
found:
• Toxic
Flame Retardants.
We tested seven
infant sleep aids and other products for toxic flame retardants;
three of those products tested positive for PBDEs in the foam
material. The tests found multiple PBDEs in the foam material of
the First Years’ Air Flow Sleep Positioner, the Leachco Sleep ‘n
Secure 3-in-1 Infant Sleep Positioner, and the PeeWees Disposable
Crib Mattress Pads.
•
Phthalates.
We tested 18
bath books, teethers, bath toys, and other products for
phthalates; 15 of these products tested positive for phthalates.
These tests
show that some baby products may in fact contain toxic chemicals.
Unfortunately, since manufacturers do not have to label their
products as containing phthalates or toxic flame retardants,
parents have no way of knowing whether or not a product poses a
hidden hazard.
Recommendations for Parents
Parents have
the right to know about chemicals in the products they purchase
for their children. In the absence of good government regulations,
but armed with the knowledge that some chemicals are a cause for
concern, parents can take a few simple actions to limit their
child’s exposure to these and other toxic chemicals.
At the store,
parents should select toys, baby dishware, and sleep aids made of
materials that are less likely to contain toxic chemicals. At
home, parents should avoid washing plastic dishware with harsh
dishwashing soap and hot water, which may allow chemicals to leach
out of the plastic. For a useful tip sheet, parents should
click here.
Recommendations for Policy Makers
Parents cannot
deal with these issues alone. The U.S. government must ensure the
safety of all products on the market for children.
• Phase
Out Dangerous Chemicals.
Despite some
remaining data gaps about the hazards of some chemicals, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must act based on the
overwhelming weight of evidence showing that some chemicals might
harm human health. The United States should phase out the use of
hazardous chemicals – especially in children’s products. Until the
federal government acts, state governments should fill the
regulatory gap and support policies to phase out these chemicals
as well.
•
Reform U.S. Chemicals Policy.
Currently,
manufacturers can put chemicals on the market without proving they
are safe. Manufacturers should be required to provide all hazard
and health-impact information to EPA so the agency can begin to
assess the thousands of chemicals currently on the market for
which it has little or inadequate data. Next, manufacturers of
chemicals should be required to conduct an alternatives analysis,
in order to determine if they really are using the least hazardous
chemical for each application. Finally, EPA must have the
authority to ban or restrict the use of a chemical if it can harm
human health.
•
Consumer Product Safety Commission Should Protect Consumers.
The Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has an obligation to protect
consumers from dangerous products. The CPSC should first label
these products with the names of the chemicals they contain in
order to allow parents to choose less toxic products. Second, the
CPSC should take a precautionary approach and require
manufacturers to remove chemicals that may pose a particular
threat to fetuses, infants, and children, particularly when the
chemical is not necessary for the product to function according to
design.
Top
|
| |
Special Risks to Children of Color
Children from African-America,
Latina/Latino, Native American and Asian-pacific Islander families in
the United States often are at special risk from these threats. Racial
discrimination and economic inequalities often affect where they live,
go to school, if they have access to medical care, and what industry
or types of job a parent has.
Air pollution is an
example. National studies have shown that racial-ethnic communities
experience greater exposure to substandard outdoor air quality because
residents tend to live in greater concentrations in areas with above
average numbers of air polluting facilities and in areas where the air
does not meet federal standards. African American and Latina/Latino
children then to have higher incidence of asthma than other children.
African-American children, ages 5-14, are more likely than
Anglo-American children to die from asthma.
Young children from
urban racial-ethnic families face greater threats from lead poisoning
than Anglo-American children. African-American children have about
five times the rate of lead poisoning of white children while
Mexican-American children have about two times the rate.
Children of farm
workers face additional risks. They have higher rates of respiratory
problems, skin rashes and cancers because of direct and indirect
exposure to pesticides.
Indigenous children who
live on reservations where mining and/or storage of toxic/hazardous
waste, including nuclear waste, experience higher rates of illnesses
related to these kinds of activities than children without such
exposure.
Top
|
|
Early Puberty linked to
Shampoos
Containing Estrogen
SYNOPSIS:
Some shampoos popular with African Americans contain high enough doses
of estrogen to push young girls into early puberty.
Unbeknown to many parents, a few hair products -
especially some marketed to black people - contain small amounts of
hormones that could cause premature sexual development in girls.
The evidence that hair products containing
oestrogens cause premature puberty is largely circumstantial, and the
case is still unproven. But Ella Toombs, acting director for the
Office of Cosmetics and Colors at the US Food and Drug Administration,
told New Scientist: "No amount [of oestrogen] is considered
safe and can be included in an over-the-counter product."
Under FDA regulations, over-the-counter products
containing hormones are drugs, and thus require specific approval.
However, there appears to be a grey area regarding products marketed
before 1994. The FDA failed to respond to a request to clarify the
position. At least five companies are still making hormone-containing
hair products, a source within the industry - who preferred not to be
named - told New Scientist.
Throughout the West, girls are tending to reach
puberty earlier. This has been blamed on everything from improved diet
to environmental contaminants. But African-American girls are
developing even earlier than their white counterparts. About half of
black girls in the US begin developing breasts or pubic hair by age
eight, compared with just 15 per cent of white girls, one study has
found. In Africa, girls enter puberty much later, regardless of their
socioeconomic status.
"Placenta, hormones or estrogen"
That big discrepancy may be explained, at least in part, by the more
frequent use of hormone-containing hair products among African
Americans, says Chandra Tiwary, former chief of paediatric
endocrinology at Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas. "I believe that
the frequency of sexual precocity can be reduced simply if children do
not use those hair products," he says.
The products are sold as shampoos or treatments to
deep-condition dry, brittle hair. The labels usually state that they
contain placenta, hormones or "estrogen", although not all products
that make such claims contain active hormones. While New Scientist's
inquiries suggest such products are no longer sold in Europe, many are
still available worldwide over the Internet.
And they remain popular among African Americans. A
small study published earlier this year by Su-Ting Li of the Child
Health Institute in Seattle suggests that nearly half of
African-American parents use such products, and that most also use
them on their children.
For other ethnic groups the figure is under 10 per
cent. Tiwary told New Scientist that he has carried out a
bigger, as yet unpublished, survey of 2000 households that confirms
these findings.
In 1998 Tiwary, now retired, published a study of
four girls - including a 14-month-old - who developed breasts or pubic
hair months after beginning to use such products. The symptoms started
to disappear when they stopped using them. The year before, he
published a study showing that some of the products used by his
patients contained up to four milligrams of oestradiol per 100 grams.
Others contained up to two grams of oestriol per 100 grams.
Readily absorbed
B&B Super Gro, for example, which was marketed
before 1994 and is still on sale in the US and claims to be "rich in
hormones", was found to contain 1.6 grams of oestriol per 100 grams.
While the levels of oestriol in the products were much higher,
oestradiol is a far more potent form of oestrogen.
There is no doubt that oestrogens are readily
absorbed through the skin--hormone therapy is often delivered via
patches. Long-term exposure to these doses could cause premature
puberty, Tiwary believes.
And his studies are not the only ones hinting at a
possible effect. Anecdotal reports in scientific papers going back to
1982 describe early puberty in children after use of hair treatments,
as well as certain ointments. Tiwary notified the FDA of his concerns
in 1994, but says he never received a reply.
The evidence that oestrogen-containing hair
products cause early puberty remains limited. There are too many other
suspect substances to pin the blame on them without further studies.
"A person isn't exposed to just one chemical, but
rather a mix of many," says Julia Brody, director of the Silent Spring
Institute in Massachusetts, a non-profit organisation that looks at
the environment and women's health. "There is an increasing awareness
that hormonally active compounds are present in cosmetic products."
Top
|
|
Hormone-Containing
Hair Product Use
in Prepubertal Children
Exclusive from New Scientist
Some cosmetics contain estrogens, representing a
potential source of exogenous estrogen for children. In contrast to
pharmaceutical preparations, the Food and Drug Administration
(Rockville, Md) does not regulate cosmetics containing less than
10 000 IU of estrogen per ounce, only stating that the label should
direct consumers to limit the amount of product used to less than
20 000 IU/mo.1,
2 A therapeutic dose
of oral ethinyl estradiol for hormone-replacement therapy in adults is
0.02 to 0.05 mg/d (4000-10 000 IU/d). An equivalent therapeutic
transdermal estradiol dose for hormone-replacement therapy is 0.05 mg/d.
Two case series suggest that exogenous hormones
found in hair products may be associated with early pubertal
development in African American girls. In 3 of 4 cases, pubertal
characteristics regressed on discontinuation of these products.
Patterns of use of hormone-containing hair products (HCHPs) are
unknown. One survey of parents at 4 southern US Army hospital clinics
revealed that 64% of African American parents and 6.9% of
European-American parents used HCHPs, and 55.5% of those parents used
them on their children.
We estimated the prevalence of HCHP use among
different ethnic groups in an urban clinic population, which included
immigrant populations. We surveyed parents with children younger than
10 years attending 3 Seattle, Wash, pediatric clinics between November
1999 and January 2000. Color copies of product labels of HCHPs were
used as pictorial guides. Age, sex, and frequency of exposure to HCHPs
were documented to better understand whether prepubertal children were
regularly exposed to these products.
A total of 130 parents were surveyed.
Race/ethnicity was reported as follows: 25% African American, 25%
African immigrant, 20% European American, 12% Asian/Pacific Islander,
11% Hispanic, and 6% other/unspecified. Of the 247 children reported,
55% were girls, 41% were boys, and 4% did not specify sex. Age group
distribution was as follows: 8%, younger than 1 year; 48%, 1 to 5
years; 26%, 6 to 9 years; and 19%, 10 to 18 years.
The use of HCHPs was reported by 21% (27/130) of
respondents (More African American parents (45%) used HCHP than
parents of all other races/ethnicities (2 = 16.4; P<.001),
including African immigrant parents (12%). Eighty-five percent of
parents using HCHPs also used these products on their children,
including children younger than 5 years. Most families (65%) who used
HCHPs on their children used them only occasionally but a third of
families reported regular use. One limitation of this study is that we
were unable to quantitate the exact dose or absorption of these
products.
A recent study revealed that girls are developing at an earlier age
than has been observed previously and there is a significant
difference between mean age of onset of puberty in European American
compared with African American girls.Since it is unknown why African
American girls are entering puberty at an earlier age than their
European American or African counterparts, it is possible that the use
of HCHPs may contribute to earlier onset of puberty in this
population. More research is needed to ascertain whether an
association exists between the use of HCHPs and the early onset of
puberty.
Top
|
A study finds benefits are 'immediate' and
suggests that youths are exposed to the chemicals primarily
through food, not spraying of homes.
Switching to organic foods provides children "dramatic and
immediate" protection from pesticides that are widely used on a
variety of crops, according to a study by a team of federally
funded scientists.
Concentrations of two organophosphate pesticides — malathion and
chlorpyrifos — declined substantially in the bodies of elementary
school-age children during a five-day period when organic foods
were substituted for conventional foods.
The two chemicals are the most commonly used insecticides in U.S.
agriculture. More than 2 million pounds were applied to California
crops in 2003, according to records of the state Department of
Pesticide Regulation.
The health effects of exposure to minute amounts of pesticides
found in food are largely unknown, especially for children. Some
research, however, suggests that the residue may harm the
developing nervous system.
For 15 days, a team of environmental health scientists from the
University of Washington, Emory University and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention tested the urine of 23 elementary
school-age children in the Seattle area.
During the first three days and last seven days, the children ate
their normal foods. But during the middle five days, organic items
were substituted for most of their diet, including fruits,
vegetables, juices and wheat- and corn-based processed items such
as cereal and pasta.
Average levels of both pesticides in the children "decreased to
the nondetect levels immediately after the introduction of organic
diets and remained nondetectable until the conventional diets were
reintroduced," the researchers reported Thursday in the online
version of the scientific journal Environmental Health
Perspectives.
When they ate organic foods, the children on average had zero
malathion detected in their urine, with a high of seven parts per
billion in one child. But when the children returned to eating
conventional foods, one child had as much as 263 parts per billion
and the average increased to 1.6 parts per billion.
For chlorpyrifos, the children had less than one part per billion
when they ate organic foods, but the average increased fivefold as
soon as they returned to their previous diet.
The findings suggest that children are exposed to organophosphate
chemicals mainly through food, not through spraying in homes or
other sources. In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
banned most residential uses of chlorpyrifos but has left most
agricultural uses unrestricted. Three other organophosphate
pesticides that are not widely used on farms and are more highly
restricted by the EPA were undetectable in most of the children,
according to the study, directed by Emory's Chensheng Lu.
"In conclusion," the researchers wrote, "we were able to
demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate
protective effect against exposure to organophosphorus pesticides
that are commonly used in agricultural production."
Margaret Reeves, a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network
North America, based in San Francisco, said the findings were "not
surprising because we know that food is an important source of
[organophosphate] exposure. Also, we know that these pesticides
don't last very long … in the body, and you can have a relatively
quick response" to a diet change.
Pesticide manufacturers say that while low levels of residue are
detectable on many products, there is no evidence that children
are harmed by them. They say that pesticides, which are the most
highly tested and regulated chemicals in the United States, are
vital to providing an affordable and plentiful world food supply.
But Reeves said the children's study "is a pretty strong argument
that [organic food] is a good way to go, if you have access to it
and can afford it."
Organic foods can be expensive and sometimes difficult to find.
But parents can minimize their children's exposure if they
substitute organic products for those that contain the most
residue. Experts advise parents to wash produce and peel skins if
they buy conventional foods, but for foods that cannot be peeled,
such as grapes and strawberries, organic may be a wise choice.
In the late 1990s, U.S. Department of Agriculture data showed that
about 75% of foods sampled from conventionally grown crops
contained pesticide residue, compared with 23% for organic
products.
The Consumers Union reported in 2000 that peaches, apples, pears,
grapes, green beans, spinach, winter squash, strawberries and
cantaloupe had the highest levels of pesticide residues. Those
with few residues included bananas, broccoli, canned peaches,
canned or frozen peas, canned or frozen corn, milk, orange juice,
apple juice and grape juice.
Thirty-five percent of peaches sampled by the USDA in 2003
contained traces of chlorpyrifos, and 26% of the celery in 2002
had malathion residue, according to the new study.
Top
|
|
Dioxin--A Major Culprit?
Dioxin is a major public health issue for the general population
as well as for children.
Dioxin is the most toxic, deadly by-product of many
chemical, manufacturing, and combustion processes. Any use of
chlorine in industrial processes, including incineration,
chemical and plastic manufacturing, paper and pulp bleaching, or
burning hazardous waste in cement kilns, results in dioxin
formation. Dioxin enters the human body through diet, with food
from animals being the predominant pathway. The American people
are at serious risk from their daily intake of dioxin in food.
-
There is a growing body of evidence that dioxin exposure in
the general population causes developmental and reproductive
effects in children. The effects on the development of the
nervous system are associated more with exposure in the womb,
while dental effects are more strongly associated with dioxin
exposure from breast milk. These effects, including the small
shifts in cognitive ability and alterations in thyroid levels,
may be just the tip of the iceberg of our understanding of the
impact of dioxin on the general population.
-
All American children are born with dioxin in their bodies.
The greatest impact of this exposure appears to be on the
growth and development of children. Disrupted sexual
development, birth defects and damage to the immune system may
result.
-
Dioxin exposure has been associated with IQ deficits,
increased prevalence of withdrawn/depressed behavior, adverse
effects on attention processes, and an increase in hyperactive
behavior in children.
-
There is evidence of both developmental and reproductive
effects in children exposed to dioxin. These developmental
effects include defects in permanent teeth, adverse effects on
thyroid hormones, altered sex ratio (more females than males),
and increased respiratory disease.
Top
|
|
By: Carolyn Susman
Palm Beach Post
December 14, 2005
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. --
Several cosmetics and personal care products popular with
teenagers contain ingredients linked to breast cancer and other
serious health problems, according to a new analysis of
cosmetics products.
While the presence of such
ingredients does not prove that an individual product causes
cancer or other diseases, their use in multiple products applied
to the skin is cause for concern, environmental health advocates
say.
Many teenagers, however, are
unaware of hazardous ingredients in cosmetic and personal care
products that are linked to cancer, genetic mutations and
reproductive harm, or that safer choices usually exist in the
market.
A recent study of beauty
products by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group,
called Skin Deep - an online, brand-by-brand safety guide that
con | |
