The truth about coronavirus, air pollution and our health

It’s been widely reported that air quality in cities around the world has suddenly improved — but of course, this hasn’t happened in the way anyone would want. A decrease in traffic and commercial and industrial activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a temporary decrease in pollution.

There is a more fundamental connection between air pollution, coronavirus and health, however, and like most things about the virus, this connection is worrisome.

The air pollution and coronavirus connection

COVID-19 is a respiratory illness with complications that include cardiac injury, septic shock, liver dysfunction, acute kidney injury and multi-organ failure. Early analysis indicates that COVID-19 severity and fatalities were dramatically higher among those with heart disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases. The CDC reports that people with serious underlying medical conditions are “at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.”

Long term exposure to air pollution causes many of these diseases and makes respiratory illnesses more dangerous. Globally, air pollution is estimated to be responsible for nearly 40% of lower respiratory tract infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease burden and about 20% of coronary heart disease and diabetes burden. While air quality may have temporarily improved in discrete regions, these health conditions — caused by long term exposure — don’t go away. That is, a few months’ improvement doesn’t make heart disease, diabetes and these other ailments disappear, so the people who have them still face the combination of their conditions and, potentially, COVID-19.

The impact of this dangerous combination will not only hit individuals, but could be an additional burden on our already overloaded healthcare system. Many hospitals are already operating near capacity and facing a spike in demand for equipment like ventilators and masks — supplies which are also needed for those with ongoing heart and lung conditions.

To make matters worse, the United States Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that it would cut back enforcement of environmental protections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Not an equal-opportunity problem

Air pollution, of course, varies greatly from place to place. Low wealth communities and communities of color experience a greater burden from pollution because they’re more likely to be situated near or downwind of refineries, ports, highways and other sources of unhealthy emissions.

These communities also face disproportionate risk from COVID-19 due in part to lack of access to health care and the significant demand to make ends meet, where stay at home, remote working is not an option. The result is a one-two punch of higher risk of infection and fewer resources for care.

Additionally, a new nationwide study shows that U.S. counties that already had high levels of air pollution before the COVID-19 crisis have higher death rates (defined as COVID-19 deaths per total population) — highlighting the importance of continuing to push for reductions in air pollution nationwide during and after the pandemic.

Extreme weather could make the crisis even worse

Finally, there’s the threat of pollution from the upcoming wildfire season adding to the COVID-19 crisis. Scientists have found that changes in weather conditions due to climate change are responsible for much of the increase in wildfires in the U.S. Emissions are now rising in fire-prone areas of the country like the Pacific Northwest due to the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires.

Increased particulate matter (PM2.5) from wildfires in the Western U.S. is associated with higher hospital admissions for respiratory problems among the elderly, the same population being disproportionately affected by COVID-19. If we are still dealing with the virus this summer, wildfires could add to the strain on healthcare systems above and beyond the surge due to COVID-19.

Wildfires aren’t the only extreme weather event worsened by climate change that can affect air quality and the COVID-19 crisis. Hurricane and flooding seasons are also upon us, and these events can disrupt critical systems necessary for healthcare and increase the burden on hospitals and their staff.

They can also cause evacuations and displacement of people from their homes — leading to difficulties in social distancing — and even cause increased hazardous air pollutant emissions, chemical leaks and spills that are dangerous for human health. In 2017, for instance, Hurricane Harvey caused 4,000 tons of unpermitted air pollution from 75 industrial sources in the Houston and Port Arthur areas, including toxic benzene from petrochemical plants in Houston.

Time for the Trump Administration to listen to scientists

All of this takes place against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s dismissive attitude toward science. They’ve spent three years weakening air pollution safeguards and repeatedly ignoring scientific warnings on everything from climate change to toxic chemicals to pandemics like this one.

While daunting, the threats we face are solvable, but first we have to restore a respect for science by our leaders. Only following the facts and acting boldly can adequately protect the health of our families.

Tell the EPA that now is not the time to attack science. Act when it matters most

Every day more than 60 people sign up for news and alerts, to find out when their support helps most. Will you join them? (Read our privacy statement.)

Donate to support this work $35 $50 tmoran April 7, 2020 - 10:58

The truth about coronavirus, air pollution and our health

It’s been widely reported that air quality in cities around the world has suddenly improved — but of course, this hasn’t happened in the way anyone would want. A decrease in traffic and commercial and industrial activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a temporary decrease in pollution.

There is a more fundamental connection between air pollution, coronavirus and health, however, and like most things about the virus, this connection is worrisome.

The air pollution and coronavirus connection

COVID-19 is a respiratory illness with complications that include cardiac injury, septic shock, liver dysfunction, acute kidney injury and multi-organ failure. Early analysis indicates that COVID-19 severity and fatalities were dramatically higher among those with heart disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases. The CDC reports that people with serious underlying medical conditions are “at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.”

Long term exposure to air pollution causes many of these diseases and makes respiratory illnesses more dangerous. Globally, air pollution is estimated to be responsible for nearly 40% of lower respiratory tract infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease burden and about 20% of coronary heart disease and diabetes burden. While air quality may have temporarily improved in discrete regions, these health conditions — caused by long term exposure — don’t go away. That is, a few months’ improvement doesn’t make heart disease, diabetes and these other ailments disappear, so the people who have them still face the combination of their conditions and, potentially, COVID-19.

The impact of this dangerous combination will not only hit individuals, but could be an additional burden on our already overloaded healthcare system. Many hospitals are already operating near capacity and facing a spike in demand for equipment like ventilators and masks — supplies which are also needed for those with ongoing heart and lung conditions.

To make matters worse, the United States Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that it would cut back enforcement of environmental protections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Not an equal-opportunity problem

Air pollution, of course, varies greatly from place to place. Low wealth communities and communities of color experience a greater burden from pollution because they’re more likely to be situated near or downwind of refineries, ports, highways and other sources of unhealthy emissions.

These communities also face disproportionate risk from COVID-19 due in part to lack of access to health care and the significant demand to make ends meet, where stay at home, remote working is not an option. The result is a one-two punch of higher risk of infection and fewer resources for care.

Additionally, a new nationwide study shows that U.S. counties that already had high levels of air pollution before the COVID-19 crisis have higher death rates (defined as COVID-19 deaths per total population) — highlighting the importance of continuing to push for reductions in air pollution nationwide during and after the pandemic.

Extreme weather could make the crisis even worse

Finally, there’s the threat of pollution from the upcoming wildfire season adding to the COVID-19 crisis. Scientists have found that changes in weather conditions due to climate change are responsible for much of the increase in wildfires in the U.S. Emissions are now rising in fire-prone areas of the country like the Pacific Northwest due to the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires.

Increased particulate matter (PM2.5) from wildfires in the Western U.S. is associated with higher hospital admissions for respiratory problems among the elderly, the same population being disproportionately affected by COVID-19. If we are still dealing with the virus this summer, wildfires could add to the strain on healthcare systems above and beyond the surge due to COVID-19.

Wildfires aren’t the only extreme weather event worsened by climate change that can affect air quality and the COVID-19 crisis. Hurricane and flooding seasons are also upon us, and these events can disrupt critical systems necessary for healthcare and increase the burden on hospitals and their staff.

They can also cause evacuations and displacement of people from their homes — leading to difficulties in social distancing — and even cause increased hazardous air pollutant emissions, chemical leaks and spills that are dangerous for human health. In 2017, for instance, Hurricane Harvey caused 4,000 tons of unpermitted air pollution from 75 industrial sources in the Houston and Port Arthur areas, including toxic benzene from petrochemical plants in Houston.

Time for the Trump Administration to listen to scientists

All of this takes place against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s dismissive attitude toward science. They’ve spent three years weakening air pollution safeguards and repeatedly ignoring scientific warnings on everything from climate change to toxic chemicals to pandemics like this one.

While daunting, the threats we face are solvable, but first we have to restore a respect for science by our leaders. Only following the facts and acting boldly can adequately protect the health of our families.

Tell the EPA that now is not the time to attack science. Act when it matters most

Every day more than 60 people sign up for news and alerts, to find out when their support helps most. Will you join them? (Read our privacy statement.)

Donate to support this work $35 $50 tmoran April 7, 2020 - 10:58

Pruitt visits East Chicago's toxic neighborhoods – while slashing funding for lead control, cleanup

Scott Pruitt, the deeply controversial head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is off to East Chicago today – a trip that coincides with his plan to strip away many of EPA’s pollution limits and to dramatically cut his agency’s budget.

The hypocrisy of it all hasn’t been lost on community activists who fought for years to try to protect East Chicago children living atop a toxic Superfund site from lead poisoning.

Not only is the Trump administration eliminating federal funding for lead detection and mitigation programs – it’s also asking Congress to slash funding for Superfund cleanup by a whopping 30 percent. These and other EPA cuts have ramifications not just for East Chicago, but for polluted communities nationwide.

A poster child for environmental injustice

A small city in the northwestern corner of Indiana, East Chicago may be the place that best illustrates the importance of having a strong EPA, and the safeguards it enforces, to protect our kids’ health.

The city is the home of USS Lead, a former industrial site contaminated with lead and arsenic – two extremely hazardous chemicals that can have devastating impacts on young children.

Fifty-one percent of residents in East Chicago are Hispanic and 43 percent African-American. More than one-third, 36 percent, fall below the poverty line. Such demographics are very much part of the USS lead site story; to this day, poor people of color in the United States are more likely to live in or near polluted areas.

In 2009, USS Lead was named one of the most contaminated sites in the country. It’s a particularly alarming situation because a housing complex, home to more than 1,000 people, including 600 children, was built on top of the former lead smelter.

Making things worse, when the EPA tested residents’ tap water [PDF] last year, 40 percent of the homes showed high levels of lead due to a separate problem of insufficient use of corrosion control in water pipes.

Gov. Mike Pence: This is no emergency

The local government sought a declaration of emergency from then-Governor Mike Pence, which he rejected. In February of this year, his successor Gov. Eric Holcomb successfully granted the disaster request Pence had denied.

This emergency action doesn’t deflect the bigger challenge posed by the Trump administration’s proposed cuts, which directly affect lead poisoning prevention programs and children’s health.

The Trump White House has also called into question EPA’s mandate to rehabilitate toxic lands. The president’s proposed budget cuts Superfund – the program responsible for the East Chicago cleanup – by $330 million.

East Chicago may catch a break because it has settlement funds to move forward, but there are many other sites nationwide that would be left with toxic land and water, and no support for remediation.

Pence, meanwhile, has yet to visit the Indiana neighborhoods at the center of the lead crisis.

Is Congress taking notes?

Unfortunately, the Pruitt-Trump budget would also cut the EPA’s enforcement office by 31 percent, letting many corporate polluters off the hook.

This office is responsible for holding the companies accountable for their share of the cleanup, such as a 2014 action that forced Atlantic Richfield and DuPont to spend an estimated $21 million at the East Chicago Superfund site.

Perhaps we should thank Administrator Pruitt for visiting East Chicago today. It may not have been his intention, but he’s showing the whole country how much we need an EPA strong enough to protect our health and to fight back against big polluters. We can only hope Congress won’t miss the lesson. 

EDF Action: Tell Congress to reject EPA budget cuts Anonymous April 19, 2017 - 10:52

See comments

Put Mr. Pruitt in East Chicago and see what he would do then. He is such a hypocrite [and the] most non-human person to come to this administration. Ooops, I mean the second non human: The first one is the president.

Donna Dutton April 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm

So many of the problems in Chicago are self inflicted! Time and time again, the city and the state have approved these activities and the proximate housing and development. It is not the federal government's responsibility to bail out Chicago in perpetuity.

JTM April 20, 2017 at 10:16 pm

JTM: East Chicago is in Indiana not Chicago. Two different states.

Harbor Girl 88 April 25, 2017 at 4:33 pm

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Did you even read the article? Who said anything about Chicago?

Johnny Deutche April 26, 2017 at 8:47 am

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Johnny Deutche - don't try to check me. I did read the article. I lived in East Chicago for over 30 years. That is precisely why I READ the article. If you see, I was replying to JTM, not commenting on the article.

Harbor Girl 88 April 26, 2017 at 9:53 am

Pruitt visits East Chicago's toxic neighborhoods – while slashing funding for lead control, cleanup

Scott Pruitt, the deeply controversial head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is off to East Chicago today – a trip that coincides with his plan to strip away many of EPA’s pollution limits and to dramatically cut his agency’s budget.

The hypocrisy of it all hasn’t been lost on community activists who fought for years to try to protect East Chicago children living atop a toxic Superfund site from lead poisoning.

Not only is the Trump administration eliminating federal funding for lead detection and mitigation programs – it’s also asking Congress to slash funding for Superfund cleanup by a whopping 30 percent. These and other EPA cuts have ramifications not just for East Chicago, but for polluted communities nationwide.

A poster child for environmental injustice

A small city in the northwestern corner of Indiana, East Chicago may be the place that best illustrates the importance of having a strong EPA, and the safeguards it enforces, to protect our kids’ health.

The city is the home of USS Lead, a former industrial site contaminated with lead and arsenic – two extremely hazardous chemicals that can have devastating impacts on young children.

Fifty-one percent of residents in East Chicago are Hispanic and 43 percent African-American. More than one-third, 36 percent, fall below the poverty line. Such demographics are very much part of the USS lead site story; to this day, poor people of color in the United States are more likely to live in or near polluted areas.

In 2009, USS Lead was named one of the most contaminated sites in the country. It’s a particularly alarming situation because a housing complex, home to more than 1,000 people, including 600 children, was built on top of the former lead smelter.

Making things worse, when the EPA tested residents’ tap water [PDF] last year, 40 percent of the homes showed high levels of lead due to a separate problem of insufficient use of corrosion control in water pipes.

Gov. Mike Pence: This is no emergency

The local government sought a declaration of emergency from then-Governor Mike Pence, which he rejected. In February of this year, his successor Gov. Eric Holcomb successfully granted the disaster request Pence had denied.

This emergency action doesn’t deflect the bigger challenge posed by the Trump administration’s proposed cuts, which directly affect lead poisoning prevention programs and children’s health.

The Trump White House has also called into question EPA’s mandate to rehabilitate toxic lands. The president’s proposed budget cuts Superfund – the program responsible for the East Chicago cleanup – by $330 million.

East Chicago may catch a break because it has settlement funds to move forward, but there are many other sites nationwide that would be left with toxic land and water, and no support for remediation.

Pence, meanwhile, has yet to visit the Indiana neighborhoods at the center of the lead crisis.

Is Congress taking notes?

Unfortunately, the Pruitt-Trump budget would also cut the EPA’s enforcement office by 31 percent, letting many corporate polluters off the hook.

This office is responsible for holding the companies accountable for their share of the cleanup, such as a 2014 action that forced Atlantic Richfield and DuPont to spend an estimated $21 million at the East Chicago Superfund site.

Perhaps we should thank Administrator Pruitt for visiting East Chicago today. It may not have been his intention, but he’s showing the whole country how much we need an EPA strong enough to protect our health and to fight back against big polluters. We can only hope Congress won’t miss the lesson. 

EDF Action: Tell Congress to reject EPA budget cuts Anonymous April 19, 2017 - 10:52

See comments

Put Mr. Pruitt in East Chicago and see what he would do then. He is such a hypocrite [and the] most non-human person to come to this administration. Ooops, I mean the second non human: The first one is the president.

Donna Dutton April 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm

So many of the problems in Chicago are self inflicted! Time and time again, the city and the state have approved these activities and the proximate housing and development. It is not the federal government's responsibility to bail out Chicago in perpetuity.

JTM April 20, 2017 at 10:16 pm

JTM: East Chicago is in Indiana not Chicago. Two different states.

Harbor Girl 88 April 25, 2017 at 4:33 pm

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Did you even read the article? Who said anything about Chicago?

Johnny Deutche April 26, 2017 at 8:47 am

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Johnny Deutche - don't try to check me. I did read the article. I lived in East Chicago for over 30 years. That is precisely why I READ the article. If you see, I was replying to JTM, not commenting on the article.

Harbor Girl 88 April 26, 2017 at 9:53 am

40 years and 1000s of untested chemicals later – will Congress finally act?

Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law.

Expert witnesses warned about the urgent need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, telling a congressional hearing the federal law “has clearly failed.”

Their testimony made the problem clear: Thousands of chemicals are in use in everyday household products and nobody knows if they are safe. Even dangerous chemicals remain unregulated.

News stories predicted that action was “already underway” to reform the law, also known as TSCA.

The year was 1994. And Congress couldn’t get its act together to fix America’s main chemical law. Nothing would change.

Help bring TSCA into 21st century

The law that governs most chemicals in commerce was originally passed in 1976. It wasn’t very strong to begin with and for each year that passed, it became increasingly out of date.

It’s now so badly broken that only a small fraction of the chemicals in cleaning products, clothing, furniture and most other products have ever been reviewed for safety.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is virtually powerless to restrict even known dangers such as lead and formaldehyde.

10,000 new chemicals since 1994

Indeed, since the last time Congress tried to fix this law in 1994, things have gotten bad. More than 10,000 additional chemicals have gone on the market with little review of their safety, and only a handful of chemicals already in use have been examined.

States have tried to step in, but since TSCA passed they have only managed to restrict limited uses of about 12 chemicals or groups of chemicals. 

INFOGRAPHIC: Chemicals in your home

The fatal blow for sufficient regulation came in 1991, when EPA’s decade-long attempt to ban asbestos was thrown out by a federal court.  Since then, EPA has never tried again to use TSCA to regulate a chemical.

It took more than a decade for legislation to be introduced again. There were bills in 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2011, but none even made it to the House or Senate floor. They just didn’t have the bi-partisan support necessary to pass.

Millions of babies were exposed

Unfortunately, this failure to act has real, human consequences.

Chemicals in common use are increasingly being linked to diseases such as certain childhood cancers, asthma and diabetes that are on the rise in the American population. Research shows that environmental factors, including chemical exposures, explain a significant part of these trends.

Since 1994, 80 million babies have been born, many or all of whom have come into the world carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies.  

This sad history may be about to change.

A strong, bipartisan bill introduced in March that already has 22 cosponsors split evenly among the parties is moving forward after a key Senate committee overwhelmingly approved the legislation this week. The next step is consideration by the full Senate.

New, bipartisan bill brings hope

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act requires all new and existing chemicals be reviewed for safety, establishes new funding for EPA through user fees, and gives EPA new authority to require testing.

Most importantly, it sets us on a course toward a system that demands safety as a condition for market access, ending the laissez-faire approach we’ve had for 40 years.

There is a real cost to inaction. A baby girl born during those 1994 hearings would be old enough to have her own child today.

Every year Congress fails to fix our broken chemical law is another year when millions of Americans are unnecessarily exposed to toxic or untested chemicals. 

krives April 28, 2015 - 01:34

See comments

This reminds me...Our cancer rates and diabetes rates have been skyrocketing. Every day, I see a commercial on TV about some pharmaceutical drug that has given people serious side effects and, in some cases, caused death. Why is the FDA approving this stuff over and over again as we keep getting the same results? I just don't get it.

Landon @ Bring… April 29, 2015 at 6:47 pm

40 years and 1000s of untested chemicals later – will Congress finally act?

Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law.

Expert witnesses warned about the urgent need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, telling a congressional hearing the federal law “has clearly failed.”

Their testimony made the problem clear: Thousands of chemicals are in use in everyday household products and nobody knows if they are safe. Even dangerous chemicals remain unregulated.

News stories predicted that action was “already underway” to reform the law, also known as TSCA.

The year was 1994. And Congress couldn’t get its act together to fix America’s main chemical law. Nothing would change.

Help bring TSCA into 21st century

The law that governs most chemicals in commerce was originally passed in 1976. It wasn’t very strong to begin with and for each year that passed, it became increasingly out of date.

It’s now so badly broken that only a small fraction of the chemicals in cleaning products, clothing, furniture and most other products have ever been reviewed for safety.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is virtually powerless to restrict even known dangers such as lead and formaldehyde.

10,000 new chemicals since 1994

Indeed, since the last time Congress tried to fix this law in 1994, things have gotten bad. More than 10,000 additional chemicals have gone on the market with little review of their safety, and only a handful of chemicals already in use have been examined.

States have tried to step in, but since TSCA passed they have only managed to restrict limited uses of about 12 chemicals or groups of chemicals. 

INFOGRAPHIC: Chemicals in your home

The fatal blow for sufficient regulation came in 1991, when EPA’s decade-long attempt to ban asbestos was thrown out by a federal court.  Since then, EPA has never tried again to use TSCA to regulate a chemical.

It took more than a decade for legislation to be introduced again. There were bills in 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2011, but none even made it to the House or Senate floor. They just didn’t have the bi-partisan support necessary to pass.

Millions of babies were exposed

Unfortunately, this failure to act has real, human consequences.

Chemicals in common use are increasingly being linked to diseases such as certain childhood cancers, asthma and diabetes that are on the rise in the American population. Research shows that environmental factors, including chemical exposures, explain a significant part of these trends.

Since 1994, 80 million babies have been born, many or all of whom have come into the world carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies.  

This sad history may be about to change.

A strong, bipartisan bill introduced in March that already has 22 cosponsors split evenly among the parties is moving forward after a key Senate committee overwhelmingly approved the legislation this week. The next step is consideration by the full Senate.

New, bipartisan bill brings hope

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act requires all new and existing chemicals be reviewed for safety, establishes new funding for EPA through user fees, and gives EPA new authority to require testing.

Most importantly, it sets us on a course toward a system that demands safety as a condition for market access, ending the laissez-faire approach we’ve had for 40 years.

There is a real cost to inaction. A baby girl born during those 1994 hearings would be old enough to have her own child today.

Every year Congress fails to fix our broken chemical law is another year when millions of Americans are unnecessarily exposed to toxic or untested chemicals. 

krives April 28, 2015 - 01:34

See comments

This reminds me...Our cancer rates and diabetes rates have been skyrocketing. Every day, I see a commercial on TV about some pharmaceutical drug that has given people serious side effects and, in some cases, caused death. Why is the FDA approving this stuff over and over again as we keep getting the same results? I just don't get it.

Landon @ Bring… April 29, 2015 at 6:47 pm

New bill would ban toxic BPA chemical from food packaging

A hotly debated chemical used in food plastics, Bisphenol A or BPA, is back in the policy spotlight.

This week, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass) joined Representatives Lois Capps (D-CA) and Grace Meng (D-NY) to announce the Ban Poisonous Additives Act. The bill would outlaw the use of BPA from food packaging and require any BPA alternatives to undergo extensive review to avoid replacing one chemical with another that may pose just as many health risks.

This appears to be the case with a common BPA replacement in the same chemical class, Bisphenol S.

Low-dose exposure to BPA has been associated with a wide range of health effects such as behavioral problems; prostate, breast and liver cancer as well as obesity.

A study released just last week demonstrated how low dose exposure to BPA during fetal development can alter gene expression in the mammary gland of female rats, resulting in abnormal development of the breast and increased susceptibility to breast cancer later in life.

Read my full blog post here.

Take action for a stronger chemical safety law Anonymous July 11, 2014 - 01:22

New bill would ban toxic BPA chemical from food packaging

A hotly debated chemical used in food plastics, Bisphenol A or BPA, is back in the policy spotlight.

This week, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass) joined Representatives Lois Capps (D-CA) and Grace Meng (D-NY) to announce the Ban Poisonous Additives Act. The bill would outlaw the use of BPA from food packaging and require any BPA alternatives to undergo extensive review to avoid replacing one chemical with another that may pose just as many health risks.

This appears to be the case with a common BPA replacement in the same chemical class, Bisphenol S.

Low-dose exposure to BPA has been associated with a wide range of health effects such as behavioral problems; prostate, breast and liver cancer as well as obesity.

A study released just last week demonstrated how low dose exposure to BPA during fetal development can alter gene expression in the mammary gland of female rats, resulting in abnormal development of the breast and increased susceptibility to breast cancer later in life.

Read my full blog post here.

Take action for a stronger chemical safety law Anonymous July 11, 2014 - 01:22

"BPA-Free" plastics may pose equal or greater hazard than predecessors

In recent years, BPA has become a three-letter household word. In response to growing concerns about a litany of adverse effects associated with exposure to this estrogen-like chemical – particularly in the very young – families across the country ditched their plastic baby bottles, major chain stores banished BPA-based plastics from their shelves, and more than a dozen states imposed new limits on the once obscure compound.

Though slow to build, the response once it started was remarkable in speed and scope. Chemical makers rushed to deliver new formulations, while retailers and product manufacturers quickly touted their new “BPA-Free” alternatives. Unfortunately, it turns out that some of these alternatives may contain chemicals that are just as hazardous as BPA. Worse still is that some replacement chemicals may not have been studied at all, “trading the devil we know for one we don’t.”

Scientists have been increasingly concerned about BPA replacements for some time. This week a new report by investigative reporter Mariah Blake for Mother Jones magazine reviews some of the recent evidence suggesting that many plastics, including those explicitly marketed as “estrogen-free” replacements contain chemicals that are at least as estrogenic as BPA, and describes the industry campaign to obfuscate the growing body of worrisome science. 

It’s not just the companies that are to blame. Blinders are a built-in feature of the federal laws that are supposed to protect us from chemical risks, but which let substances come onto and stay on the market without adequate testing.   

Tell Congress we need better chemical safety laws!

Absent standards requiring rigorous safety assessments—including studies of low-level estrogenic effects on the developing organism—replacements are largely market driven and opportunistic.

And it is easy to see why somebody looking at a “BPA-free” label would assume the product is safe – a perception that may be reinforced if they’re paying a premium price for the privilege. But right now, there’s no way to know for sure whether they’re right. The fact is, we don’t know.

Researchers and regulators disagree on whether BPA is safe. What’s not in dispute is whether BPA is estrogenic. The question is whether the levels at which we are exposed present significant risks of adverse health effects. Determining when and at what level exposure to an estrogenic chemical leads to adverse health effects is part of an ongoing effort by researchers to define and test for an endocrine disruptor.

Both marketers and consumers alike will be tempted by a quick, easy fix that might not be the right fix – or any fix at all. So what’s an average person supposed to do in the face of so much conflicting information? For starters, don’t panic.  But also don’t assume that a substitute plastic is any better, no matter what the label says. When storing food, you’re better off using glass or stainless steel containers if you can. 

All of this goes to show (once again) that consumers can’t simply shop their way to safety. We need stronger laws, stronger regulations, more information, and improved chemical testing.  And we need more people speaking up for stronger, health protective chemical policy in this country.  

Check out Sarah Vogel’s book on BPA dupham March 5, 2014 - 03:27

"BPA-Free" plastics may pose equal or greater hazard than predecessors

In recent years, BPA has become a three-letter household word. In response to growing concerns about a litany of adverse effects associated with exposure to this estrogen-like chemical – particularly in the very young – families across the country ditched their plastic baby bottles, major chain stores banished BPA-based plastics from their shelves, and more than a dozen states imposed new limits on the once obscure compound.

Though slow to build, the response once it started was remarkable in speed and scope. Chemical makers rushed to deliver new formulations, while retailers and product manufacturers quickly touted their new “BPA-Free” alternatives. Unfortunately, it turns out that some of these alternatives may contain chemicals that are just as hazardous as BPA. Worse still is that some replacement chemicals may not have been studied at all, “trading the devil we know for one we don’t.”

Scientists have been increasingly concerned about BPA replacements for some time. This week a new report by investigative reporter Mariah Blake for Mother Jones magazine reviews some of the recent evidence suggesting that many plastics, including those explicitly marketed as “estrogen-free” replacements contain chemicals that are at least as estrogenic as BPA, and describes the industry campaign to obfuscate the growing body of worrisome science. 

It’s not just the companies that are to blame. Blinders are a built-in feature of the federal laws that are supposed to protect us from chemical risks, but which let substances come onto and stay on the market without adequate testing.   

Tell Congress we need better chemical safety laws!

Absent standards requiring rigorous safety assessments—including studies of low-level estrogenic effects on the developing organism—replacements are largely market driven and opportunistic.

And it is easy to see why somebody looking at a “BPA-free” label would assume the product is safe – a perception that may be reinforced if they’re paying a premium price for the privilege. But right now, there’s no way to know for sure whether they’re right. The fact is, we don’t know.

Researchers and regulators disagree on whether BPA is safe. What’s not in dispute is whether BPA is estrogenic. The question is whether the levels at which we are exposed present significant risks of adverse health effects. Determining when and at what level exposure to an estrogenic chemical leads to adverse health effects is part of an ongoing effort by researchers to define and test for an endocrine disruptor.

Both marketers and consumers alike will be tempted by a quick, easy fix that might not be the right fix – or any fix at all. So what’s an average person supposed to do in the face of so much conflicting information? For starters, don’t panic.  But also don’t assume that a substitute plastic is any better, no matter what the label says. When storing food, you’re better off using glass or stainless steel containers if you can. 

All of this goes to show (once again) that consumers can’t simply shop their way to safety. We need stronger laws, stronger regulations, more information, and improved chemical testing.  And we need more people speaking up for stronger, health protective chemical policy in this country.  

Check out Sarah Vogel’s book on BPA dupham March 5, 2014 - 03:27

You have BPA questions, we have answers

3/3/2014 UPDATE: The BPA 101 Google Hangout has already taken place but you can watch it here.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is probably one of the most talked about, blogged about, Tweeted about and researched chemicals out there. It’s become a three-letter household word. And yet, despite rising scientific concerns that it may be linked to numerous health problems including breast and prostate cancer, infertility and behavioral problems, its market continues to boom amid debates about its safety.

We get many questions about BPA here at EDF, so we decided to discuss the latest updates on the chemical in a Google+ Hangout on Tuesday, December 17 at 1:00 p.m. EST. We’ll be joined by our friends at Moms Clean Air Force, as well as one of the world’s leading experts on BPA, Dr. Laura Vandenberg of University of Massachusetts, Amherst. I’ll share highlights from my recent book on BPA, and Dr. Vandenberg will provide insights based on her latest research and a review of the science. Dominique Browning of Moms Clean Air Force will moderate and take questions from you.

Watch the BPA 101 Google Hangout! BPA is everywhere

Billions of pounds of BPA are produced every year to make plastics found all around us, from food can linings and dental sealants to bus stop shelters. Because of its widespread use, it is impossible to completely avoid.  State and local governments have regulated specific uses of BPA — primarily in baby bottles, but also infant formula and, in Connecticut, receipt paper. BPA’s widespread use in canned food continues and has the approval of the FDA.

It’s still found in some reusable water bottles, and is one of the ingredients of the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A. Given its ubiquity in consumer products, it’s not surprising that researchers have found BPA in the bodies of nearly every American, including newborns.

What’s troubling about BPA is that it is an “endocrine disrupting” chemical, meaning it has the potential to mimic and interfere with our own hormonal systems.

Pregnant women and children are particularly susceptible to the impact of endocrine disruptors. Children are not simply little people: They are developing and growing, guided at each step by the incredibly complex web of processes orchestrated by the endocrine system. Alarmingly, research has shown that exposure to even very small quantities of endocrine disruptors during early development can impact health later in life.

For example, studies in laboratory animals show that exposure can alter the structure of the developing breast and prostate glands, setting that individual up for a much higher risk of developing certain cancers later in life.

And yet, production of BPA has doubled in recent decades.

Take Action: Make sure your members of Congress know that protecting American families from exposure to harmful chemicals is important to you!

dupham December 11, 2013 - 03:29

You have BPA questions, we have answers

3/3/2014 UPDATE: The BPA 101 Google Hangout has already taken place but you can watch it here.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is probably one of the most talked about, blogged about, Tweeted about and researched chemicals out there. It’s become a three-letter household word. And yet, despite rising scientific concerns that it may be linked to numerous health problems including breast and prostate cancer, infertility and behavioral problems, its market continues to boom amid debates about its safety.

We get many questions about BPA here at EDF, so we decided to discuss the latest updates on the chemical in a Google+ Hangout on Tuesday, December 17 at 1:00 p.m. EST. We’ll be joined by our friends at Moms Clean Air Force, as well as one of the world’s leading experts on BPA, Dr. Laura Vandenberg of University of Massachusetts, Amherst. I’ll share highlights from my recent book on BPA, and Dr. Vandenberg will provide insights based on her latest research and a review of the science. Dominique Browning of Moms Clean Air Force will moderate and take questions from you.

Watch the BPA 101 Google Hangout! BPA is everywhere

Billions of pounds of BPA are produced every year to make plastics found all around us, from food can linings and dental sealants to bus stop shelters. Because of its widespread use, it is impossible to completely avoid.  State and local governments have regulated specific uses of BPA — primarily in baby bottles, but also infant formula and, in Connecticut, receipt paper. BPA’s widespread use in canned food continues and has the approval of the FDA.

It’s still found in some reusable water bottles, and is one of the ingredients of the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A. Given its ubiquity in consumer products, it’s not surprising that researchers have found BPA in the bodies of nearly every American, including newborns.

What’s troubling about BPA is that it is an “endocrine disrupting” chemical, meaning it has the potential to mimic and interfere with our own hormonal systems.

Pregnant women and children are particularly susceptible to the impact of endocrine disruptors. Children are not simply little people: They are developing and growing, guided at each step by the incredibly complex web of processes orchestrated by the endocrine system. Alarmingly, research has shown that exposure to even very small quantities of endocrine disruptors during early development can impact health later in life.

For example, studies in laboratory animals show that exposure can alter the structure of the developing breast and prostate glands, setting that individual up for a much higher risk of developing certain cancers later in life.

And yet, production of BPA has doubled in recent decades.

Take Action: Make sure your members of Congress know that protecting American families from exposure to harmful chemicals is important to you!

dupham December 11, 2013 - 03:29

7 key takeaways from today's hearing on chemical safety reform

On November 13, the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will convene a hearing on pending legislation to reform our badly broken chemical law. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976, is outdated and leaves Americans unprotected from the serious health impact of toxic chemicals. In an unusual move, the House hearing will focus on a Senate bill: legislation introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in May of this year. Witnesses will discuss the pending legislation, its strengths and flaws, and how it needs to be improved to create an effective and efficient system that protects Americans from hazardous chemicals.

Here are seven things you should know about the hearing.

1)      EDF’s own Dr. Richard Denison will be testifying. He’s spent a good part of his career fighting for chemical reform and will be laying out the need for reform and evaluating how the Lautenberg-Vitter bill would measure up. Broadly, EDF’s view of the Senate bill is that while it addresses some of the major flaws in the current law, it needs serious fixes as it moves forward in order to secure a system that protects American health. Read Denison’s testimony, as well as an op-ed he wrote posted on TheHill.com for more in his own words.

2)      There is widespread agreement that TSCA is a broken law. TSCA is almost 40 years old and grandfathered in more than 60,000 existing chemicals without requiring any assessment of their potential health effects. Meanwhile, new chemicals enter the marketplace after a time- and data-limited review and no requirement that EPA determine their safety.  States, retailers and consumers have been forced to try and fill the void left by a hamstrung EPA. But with tens of thousands of chemicals in use, there’s just no way for individuals, states or retailers to do the job of the federal government.

3)      The Senate bill would make some substantial improvements to TSCA.  The Lautenberg-Vitter bill would make some key fixes to TSCA, including mandating safety evaluations for all chemicals currently in use.  It also requires EPA to find a new chemical is likely safe before it enters the market.  The bill makes it easier for EPA to require testing and fixes a flaw in the safety standard that prevented the agency from even banning the known carcinogen asbestos.  However…

4)      The bill still needs serious work. The Lautenberg-Vitter legislation has too much red tape, not enough deadlines, not enough protection for vulnerable populations and excessive preemption of state chemical laws, among other problems. But…

5)      The bill is fixable. There are workable solutions for each of the problems identified, and some of these are already being discussed in the Senate.  If Members of Congress commit to serious negotiations, they can make the improvements necessary to pass meaningful chemical safety legislation. 

6)      Chemical Reform is first and foremost about improving our health.  There aregood business and economic arguments for chemical safety reform—building the market for new green chemistry alternatives, for instance—but our primary concern is protecting the health of Americans. And simply put, the broken chemical law puts our health at risk.  Researchers are finding hundreds of chemicals in all of us, many of which are linked to health problems and diseases such as breast cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and diabetes. It is urgent that we fix this law. So…

7)      Congress needs to act. The pending legislation in the Senate is a real opportunity. It will be hard work to make the necessary fixes and pass chemical safety reform that protects our health, but that’s what we expect from and demand of our Members of Congress. 

If you’d like to get involved, tell your Congressman to act to improve and move the Chemical Safety Improvement Act.

// dupham November 13, 2013 - 09:24

7 key takeaways from today's hearing on chemical safety reform

On November 13, the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will convene a hearing on pending legislation to reform our badly broken chemical law. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976, is outdated and leaves Americans unprotected from the serious health impact of toxic chemicals. In an unusual move, the House hearing will focus on a Senate bill: legislation introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in May of this year. Witnesses will discuss the pending legislation, its strengths and flaws, and how it needs to be improved to create an effective and efficient system that protects Americans from hazardous chemicals.

Here are seven things you should know about the hearing.

1)      EDF’s own Dr. Richard Denison will be testifying. He’s spent a good part of his career fighting for chemical reform and will be laying out the need for reform and evaluating how the Lautenberg-Vitter bill would measure up. Broadly, EDF’s view of the Senate bill is that while it addresses some of the major flaws in the current law, it needs serious fixes as it moves forward in order to secure a system that protects American health. Read Denison’s testimony, as well as an op-ed he wrote posted on TheHill.com for more in his own words.

2)      There is widespread agreement that TSCA is a broken law. TSCA is almost 40 years old and grandfathered in more than 60,000 existing chemicals without requiring any assessment of their potential health effects. Meanwhile, new chemicals enter the marketplace after a time- and data-limited review and no requirement that EPA determine their safety.  States, retailers and consumers have been forced to try and fill the void left by a hamstrung EPA. But with tens of thousands of chemicals in use, there’s just no way for individuals, states or retailers to do the job of the federal government.

3)      The Senate bill would make some substantial improvements to TSCA.  The Lautenberg-Vitter bill would make some key fixes to TSCA, including mandating safety evaluations for all chemicals currently in use.  It also requires EPA to find a new chemical is likely safe before it enters the market.  The bill makes it easier for EPA to require testing and fixes a flaw in the safety standard that prevented the agency from even banning the known carcinogen asbestos.  However…

4)      The bill still needs serious work. The Lautenberg-Vitter legislation has too much red tape, not enough deadlines, not enough protection for vulnerable populations and excessive preemption of state chemical laws, among other problems. But…

5)      The bill is fixable. There are workable solutions for each of the problems identified, and some of these are already being discussed in the Senate.  If Members of Congress commit to serious negotiations, they can make the improvements necessary to pass meaningful chemical safety legislation. 

6)      Chemical Reform is first and foremost about improving our health.  There aregood business and economic arguments for chemical safety reform—building the market for new green chemistry alternatives, for instance—but our primary concern is protecting the health of Americans. And simply put, the broken chemical law puts our health at risk.  Researchers are finding hundreds of chemicals in all of us, many of which are linked to health problems and diseases such as breast cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and diabetes. It is urgent that we fix this law. So…

7)      Congress needs to act. The pending legislation in the Senate is a real opportunity. It will be hard work to make the necessary fixes and pass chemical safety reform that protects our health, but that’s what we expect from and demand of our Members of Congress. 

If you’d like to get involved, tell your Congressman to act to improve and move the Chemical Safety Improvement Act.

//--> dupham November 13, 2013 - 09:24

The Times agrees: America needs a new toxic chemicals law

When President Gerald Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, the law was intended to increase information about chemical health and safety and give EPA the authority to regulate hazardous chemicals. In practice, however, the bill has proven to be “toothless.”

That is how a recent editorial in The New York Times described TSCA, adding that “it would be hard to design a law more stacked against the regulators.”

The flaws in TSCA make it extraordinarily difficult for EPA to obtain even basic information on the health and safety of chemicals. Without that information, EPA’s regulators can’t regulate harmful chemicals and the chemical industry has no incentive to improve the safety of its products. 

For thirty seven years, TSCA has failed to protect the public from hazardous chemicals in products and the environment. That is why Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) recently introduced the Safe Chemicals Act, and why the American Academic of Pediatrics endorses it, noting that the bill would: 

• Require chemical manufacturers to prove that chemicals are safe
• Protect Americans from harmful chemicals by giving the EPA authority to restrict unsafe uses

Richard Denison, a senior scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, has worked for more than a decade on reforming TSCA. It’s time, he says, to fix the fundamental flaws in TSCA and create a system that will “place the burden on chemical companies to prove their products are safe, rather than on the EPA to prove they are unsafe.”

dupham April 29, 2013 - 02:08

The Times agrees: America needs a new toxic chemicals law

When President Gerald Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, the law was intended to increase information about chemical health and safety and give EPA the authority to regulate hazardous chemicals. In practice, however, the bill has proven to be “toothless.”

That is how a recent editorial in The New York Times described TSCA, adding that “it would be hard to design a law more stacked against the regulators.”

The flaws in TSCA make it extraordinarily difficult for EPA to obtain even basic information on the health and safety of chemicals. Without that information, EPA’s regulators can’t regulate harmful chemicals and the chemical industry has no incentive to improve the safety of its products. 

For thirty seven years, TSCA has failed to protect the public from hazardous chemicals in products and the environment. That is why Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) recently introduced the Safe Chemicals Act, and why the American Academic of Pediatrics endorses it, noting that the bill would: 

• Require chemical manufacturers to prove that chemicals are safe
• Protect Americans from harmful chemicals by giving the EPA authority to restrict unsafe uses

Richard Denison, a senior scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, has worked for more than a decade on reforming TSCA. It’s time, he says, to fix the fundamental flaws in TSCA and create a system that will “place the burden on chemical companies to prove their products are safe, rather than on the EPA to prove they are unsafe.”

dupham April 29, 2013 - 02:08

Prevention as Cure: The Challenge of Breast Cancer

Breast cancer cells

Image by crafty_dame/Flickr

For six years I have watched a very dear friend fight against her breast cancer.  First diagnosed at 32, she underwent radical treatments— surgeries, radiation and chemo— only to develop metastatic breast cancer after three years. Metastatic breast cancer is a death sentence. We all hope for miracles, but the reality is that the median life expectancy for women with this advanced stage of the disease is 2 years. 

My friend is not alone. In fact, she is one of three million women in the United States who have, or who have been treated for, breast cancer.  She is also among the growing number of women under 50, with no family history of breast cancer, who are getting the disease.  In 2012 alone, despite significant advances in treatment over the past decade, the disease killed more than 40,000 women and 227,000 more were diagnosed with it.    

Today, every woman should ask: “What can I do to prevent the disease for myself or my daughter?” Breast cancer has both genetic and environmental risk factors, aad while medicine doesn’t yet know how to identify and alter genes that might make us more susceptible, we can do things to reduce risks in our environment.  But first, women need to know what those risk factors are.

Breast Cancer: The household chemical connection

It turns out that some of them come from products we use in our households every day.

A new report just released by the federal Interagency Breast Cancer and Environment Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC) details what we know – and don’t know – about the environmental contributors to the risk of breast cancer and offers a long-sought blueprint for research into breast cancer prevention.

The report makes a number of important recommendations based on researchers’ increasingly detailed understanding of the breast itself, which turns out to be a highly dynamic organ. It undergoes multiple periods of rapid change over the course of a woman’s life: from conception to puberty, pregnancy, lactation and menopause.  The breast is also full of hormone receptors. 

For these reasons, the IBCERCC report recommends that more attention be paid to chemicals with estrogen-like characteristics and to the effects of their exposure in women during critical periods of breast development. The hope is that research in this area will lead to the development of tests that improve our ability to identify breast carcinogens.  

Already, some promising efforts are underway. A consortium of researchers, including scientists from the University of California-Berkeley, the breast cancer research group at the Silent Spring Institute, and the cross-agency government program Tox21 are collaborating on the development  of tests that will do a better job of predicting what chemicals  help cause breast cancer. These groups outlined their work at a recent meeting convened by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as part of our new initiative on advancing chemical testing and public health in the 21st century.

Using public policy to save lives

To accelerate the development of such tests, however, we need a legal mandate. Few chemicals used in food, personal care products, and household cleaners have undergone any testing for cancer risk, and even fewer have been adequately tested for effects that might occur during critical periods of breast development.  Why? Because the laws governing chemicals used in household products don’t require such testing.

This is true even for chemicals, like bisphenol A, which can mimic the effects of the body’s hormones. Bisphenol A (the subject of my recently published book) is used in everything from the lining of food cans to receipt paper and can mimic the effects of estrogen and interfere with the effectiveness of some breast cancer treatment drugs.

Recognizing this fundamental policy failure, the IBCERCC report calls for reform of our nation’s chemical policy, including changes to our main chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), which has not been substantially updated in 37 years. The President’s Cancer Panel, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have made similar recommendations. 

Breast cancer is largely a preventable disease. To reduce the risks of chemical exposures, we need tests that accurately detect breast carcinogens, and we need policies that require such testing.  These goals are achievable in the near term, but only if we demand them.

EDF is working with a growing coalition to support strong chemical policy that protects health.  But we need everyone to speak out on this life or death issue.  Let’s work to prevent breast cancer and get toxic chemicals out of our products, our homes and homes and our lives. The lives of too many young women, my friend included, are being cut short by this disease. It’s time to say enough. Make your voice heard. 

krives February 25, 2013 - 04:47

See comments

Madison county Mississippi is number one for breast and prostate cancer death in US! Madison county Mississippi is the second biggest cancer mortality death rate in the US! Where there’s a cancer cluster there is environmental factors. We have three Landfills that was put on African-American. Years ago. Fast forward years now Madison is the richest town in Mississippi. We have a Superfund site with Creosote on bachelor Creek. Bachelor Creek branch into Bear Creek the name of our water supply. This all started when I woke up in 2014 and realize my neighbors were sick or dead around here. I go out into the neighborhood and I found more people sick. I found cats dogs and horses dying with tumors. Lots of tumors and brain tumors! We have no environmental protection in Mississippi! DEQ is assuring me that the water is fine. Just like Flint Michigan they expect us to believe the crap! Being murdered by the environment and no one will help us! I have contacted every environmental group across the US and nothing! Pleading for help! SOS

Robin H. March 11, 2019 at 11:39 pm

Prevention as Cure: The Challenge of Breast Cancer

Breast cancer cells

Image by crafty_dame/Flickr

For six years I have watched a very dear friend fight against her breast cancer.  First diagnosed at 32, she underwent radical treatments— surgeries, radiation and chemo— only to develop metastatic breast cancer after three years. Metastatic breast cancer is a death sentence. We all hope for miracles, but the reality is that the median life expectancy for women with this advanced stage of the disease is 2 years. 

My friend is not alone. In fact, she is one of three million women in the United States who have, or who have been treated for, breast cancer.  She is also among the growing number of women under 50, with no family history of breast cancer, who are getting the disease.  In 2012 alone, despite significant advances in treatment over the past decade, the disease killed more than 40,000 women and 227,000 more were diagnosed with it.    

Today, every woman should ask: “What can I do to prevent the disease for myself or my daughter?” Breast cancer has both genetic and environmental risk factors, aad while medicine doesn’t yet know how to identify and alter genes that might make us more susceptible, we can do things to reduce risks in our environment.  But first, women need to know what those risk factors are.

Breast Cancer: The household chemical connection

It turns out that some of them come from products we use in our households every day.

A new report just released by the federal Interagency Breast Cancer and Environment Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC) details what we know – and don’t know – about the environmental contributors to the risk of breast cancer and offers a long-sought blueprint for research into breast cancer prevention.

The report makes a number of important recommendations based on researchers’ increasingly detailed understanding of the breast itself, which turns out to be a highly dynamic organ. It undergoes multiple periods of rapid change over the course of a woman’s life: from conception to puberty, pregnancy, lactation and menopause.  The breast is also full of hormone receptors. 

For these reasons, the IBCERCC report recommends that more attention be paid to chemicals with estrogen-like characteristics and to the effects of their exposure in women during critical periods of breast development. The hope is that research in this area will lead to the development of tests that improve our ability to identify breast carcinogens.  

Already, some promising efforts are underway. A consortium of researchers, including scientists from the University of California-Berkeley, the breast cancer research group at the Silent Spring Institute, and the cross-agency government program Tox21 are collaborating on the development  of tests that will do a better job of predicting what chemicals  help cause breast cancer. These groups outlined their work at a recent meeting convened by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as part of our new initiative on advancing chemical testing and public health in the 21st century.

Using public policy to save lives

To accelerate the development of such tests, however, we need a legal mandate. Few chemicals used in food, personal care products, and household cleaners have undergone any testing for cancer risk, and even fewer have been adequately tested for effects that might occur during critical periods of breast development.  Why? Because the laws governing chemicals used in household products don’t require such testing.

This is true even for chemicals, like bisphenol A, which can mimic the effects of the body’s hormones. Bisphenol A (the subject of my recently published book) is used in everything from the lining of food cans to receipt paper and can mimic the effects of estrogen and interfere with the effectiveness of some breast cancer treatment drugs.

Recognizing this fundamental policy failure, the IBCERCC report calls for reform of our nation’s chemical policy, including changes to our main chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), which has not been substantially updated in 37 years. The President’s Cancer Panel, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have made similar recommendations. 

Breast cancer is largely a preventable disease. To reduce the risks of chemical exposures, we need tests that accurately detect breast carcinogens, and we need policies that require such testing.  These goals are achievable in the near term, but only if we demand them.

EDF is working with a growing coalition to support strong chemical policy that protects health.  But we need everyone to speak out on this life or death issue.  Let’s work to prevent breast cancer and get toxic chemicals out of our products, our homes and homes and our lives. The lives of too many young women, my friend included, are being cut short by this disease. It’s time to say enough. Make your voice heard. 

krives February 25, 2013 - 04:47

See comments

Madison county Mississippi is number one for breast and prostate cancer death in US! Madison county Mississippi is the second biggest cancer mortality death rate in the US! Where there’s a cancer cluster there is environmental factors. We have three Landfills that was put on African-American. Years ago. Fast forward years now Madison is the richest town in Mississippi. We have a Superfund site with Creosote on bachelor Creek. Bachelor Creek branch into Bear Creek the name of our water supply. This all started when I woke up in 2014 and realize my neighbors were sick or dead around here. I go out into the neighborhood and I found more people sick. I found cats dogs and horses dying with tumors. Lots of tumors and brain tumors! We have no environmental protection in Mississippi! DEQ is assuring me that the water is fine. Just like Flint Michigan they expect us to believe the crap! Being murdered by the environment and no one will help us! I have contacted every environmental group across the US and nothing! Pleading for help! SOS

Robin H. March 11, 2019 at 11:39 pm