Canned Food

We knew it.

BPA exposure is particularly of concern for pregnant women, for babies, and for children. Other reports have focused on BPA leaching from baby bottles and polycarbonate containers, so for this study [] imagined a pregnant woman in her 20s, of average build (71 kg or 156.5 lbs) as the individual eating the meals [] put together from different products tested. [The study] found that, just from eating the foods below, she could easily raise her BPA intake to levels known to cause health problems in animals (see detailed summary on page 10). For example:

Family walking in creek

This month’s Green Moms Carnival is focused on the environment and cancer. At first, I was so excited to post about this issue. But then I started to get overwhelmed.

Should I talk about radon? Radon is a leading cause of lung cancer. Elevated levels of radon in the home have also been linked to increasing the risk of children developing acute lymphoblastic leukemia. But, radon is easy to detect and relatively simple to remove from the home, but many people seem unaware of the risk. Seems like a great topic.

But then I thought I should talk about the link between common household pesticides and cancer. For example, did you know that use of conventional pesticides in the home and garden during pregnancy and the first year of a child’s life increases that child’s risk of developing leukemia by as much as a factor of 9? That’s pretty scary. And with so many non toxic alternatives for pest control, that seemed like an awesome topic.

Should I talk about carcinogens in our personal care products, like the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in every parent’s staple, Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Wash?

Should I talk about one of my soapbox subjects – the irony of beauty companies sponsoring breast cancer research when most of them use ingredients that are linked to an increased risk of cancer, and often increased risk of breast cancer? Pinkwashing at its finest.

It gets a little scary when you think about all the products we use every day that are linked to cancer, doesn’t it? All the ingredients and constituents that are carcinogens (cancer causing agents) become overwhelming.

And I think you become immune to it. It seems like there is a new scary product or ingredient every day. So if everything causes cancer, then why worry about it?

Why?

It is easier to do nothing. To think that our easy care, non stick, disposable lifestyles don’t really matter. That one person’s choices do not count or matter.

It really is easier to not think about.

But we can’t. We can’t let the overwhelming information paralyze us.

And while it is certainly true that what you eat, whether you exercise, whether you get enough sleep, your genetic makeup, if you drink, if you smoke, if you take recreational drugs all play a role in your risk of cancer and certain infectious agents (like HPV), environmental factors also play a role. A role that we do not yet fully understand.

Our efforts in the war in cancer seem focused on detecting, treating and curing cancer instead of considering that the world we live in affects whether we get cancer. The Secret History of the War on Cancer
says that the end result if 10 million preventable cancer deaths in the last 30 years. Which is why pinkwashing makes me so angry. It would be a much better investment for those companies to spend money reformulating their products to eliminate known or suspected carcinogens or hormone disruptors instead of trying to sell us even more CARP we don’t need just because it is pink.

Instead, I thought I would talk about two of the books that most moved me to do more, to do better, to live a less toxic life. The first is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and the second is Sandra Steingraber’s incredibly powerful Living Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment (which is now being released in an updated version, my quotes are from the 1997 edition).

Why these two books? Because they point out something very, very telling about the link between the lives we live and the cancers we get. Rachel Carson focused on the rising death rates of cancer, and was disturbed by the evidence that childhood cancer had become the most common disease killer of US children. But Rachel Carson’s concerns have been dismissed, in part because childhood cancer mortality rates have been going down. She didn’t have access to incidence data, which shows while medical improvements have dramatically decreased how many kids die from cancer, how many kids get cancer continues to increase.

Sandra Steingraber writes:

Heroic measures may be saving more children from death, but every year more children are diagnosed with cancer than the year before. Increases are most apparent for leukemia and brain tumors. At present, eight thousand children are dianosed with cancer each year; one in four hundred Americans can expect to develop cancer before the age of 15.

Cancer among children provides a particularly intimate glimpse into the possible routes of exposure to contaminants in the general environment and the possible significance for rising cancer rates among adults. The lifestyle of toddlers has not changed much over the past half century. Young children do not smoke, drink alcohol, or hold stressful jobs. Children do, however, receive a greater dose of whatever chemicals are present in the air, food, and water because, pound for pound, they breathe, eat, and drink more than adults do.

That is it. Our children are getting more cancers despite the fact that the other factors people point out – smoking, drinking, etc. – haven’t changed for them.

Granted, obesity rates are sky rocketing in our kids and I would guess that is a contributor.

Nonetheless, the Environmental Working Group’s 10 Americans study clearly, unequivocally demonstrates that our children are born polluted. Polluted from chemicals we use now, and from chemicals we banned more than 30 years ago because they persist in our environment.

I hope that these books, and the Living Downstream trailer inspire you.

You can take simple steps to reduce chemical exposures. Start with one of the simplest, and it requires no money. Just take off your shoes to reduce tracking in DDT, PCBs, and lead into your home. Then, trying switching to non toxic cleaners and personal care products. Stop using conventional pesticides.

But more than that, I hope it inspires you to do more. To work on greening your school, your daycare, your work or your church. To advocate for change. To write your elected representatives to support legislative efforts. To vote with your pocketbook.

To run for office.

To walk upstream.

Go check out the other Green Moms who posted this month on the environment and cancer by starting with Nature Moms (post will be up 3/8).

And, for full disclosure, the text links to books in the post are part of my Amazon Affiliate account. If you click and buy, I’ll probably make about $0.00025 or something miniscule like that. Just so you know.

After my segments on Fox & Friends and Fox & Friends After Show Show, I got quite a few comments that it doesn’t matter if there is lead in the purse if the purse isn’t sucked on. There was also an extensive discussion on an eBay board about it.

I understand that there are a lot of risks in the world. The media bombards us daily with the latest health scare. It is hard to sort out what to worry about and what to ignore. And I get that there are more pressing concerns than lead in vinyl or lead in paint.

And we’ve also come a long way when it comes to lead. We’ve phased it out of paints used in the home. We’ve eliminated it as a fuel additive. At the same time, however, we are finding that levels once believed to be safe aren’t. About 290,000 children in the US have ADHD because of exposure to trace amounts of lead. And, as Dr. Greene explains, a number of recent studies have linked childhood exposure to lead to the surge in Alzheimer’s disease that we are seeing today (my rebuttal to those that say that they got exposed to lead when they were young and are just fine, thank you).

Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and kids are more at risk. Part of the reason kids are more at risk is because of the type of behavior they engage in. Part of it is that they absorb 50% of the lead that they ingest, whereas adults only absorb about 11% of the lead that they ingest.

So, tell me you don’t care about lead in vinyl because you’ve got a lot of other stuff to worry about or you don’t think the risk is that big. That’s fine. But don’t tell me you don’t care because you don’t suck on it. That just tells me you don’t understand the issue.

When it comes to lead in vinyl, lead migrates to the surface. Lead doesn’t like being in the plastic matrix so it moves out of it and comes to the surface. That process occurs more rapidly with exposure to friction and light/heat. Also as the product ages. Once the lead moves to the surface, it is transferred to hands upon handling, and from there can be ingested. Take, for example, lead in vinyl purses. If you handle your purse and your purse has lead, then the lead will be on your hands. If you touch your mouth, then you may well ingest some. Say you get in your car and grab some fries. You probably handled your purse before you got in the car, and as you were getting your money out. Don’t tell me you are going to wash your hands before you eat those fries. And the lead dust that transfers.

Or you handle your purse and then hold your child’s hand. And your child sticks her hands in her mouth. Or eats an apple without washing her hands. Or you handle your vinyl diaper bag and then offer your baby a bottle. All of those situations can result in lead transfer.

Don’t believe that lead comes out of vinyl? Well, the Center for Environmental Health did wipe tests of the purses it found lead in, and found enough coming off with the wipe tests to be of concern. And, the Consumer Product Safety Commission acted years ago to take vinyl blinds off the market because of the high levels of lead dust generated and collecting around the blinds.

When it comes to lead in paint, you do not have to lick the walls. Microscopic lead dust is generated around the home, particularly at friction surfaces, or where painted surfaces rub together. Your door jambs, your windows, your built in cabinets. Plus, we get lead dust blown into our homes from weathering of other buildings and we track in lead contaminated dust.

And the thing is, lead exposure is additive. We already get some in our diets. We also get some in our water from the pipes and fittings. We may get some at home – more if our home was built before 1978. Add in the exposure to lead in vinyl products, and your child’s exposure may be enough to shave off IQ points. Is it really worth that vinyl purse?

Now, when any product contains to be antibacterial, it grabs my interest. You see, the EPA’s pesticide regulations govern claims regarding consumer products treated with pesticides.  Generally, antibacterial claims mean that the product is treated with triclosan. And triclosan has some potentially significant problems. Triclosan has been linked to liver and inhalation toxicity, and low levels of triclosan may disrupt thyroid function. Triclosan also ends up in our aquatic environments because wastewater treatment plants can’t fully address the triclsoan load. And in the environment, triclosan is disruptive .

The GoodGuide gives Q-tips Cotton Swabs, Antimicrobial a “10″ in Health. The Health portion of the score relates to the potential health effects of the product’s ingredients. The ingredients identified by GoodGuide  (from the product’s label) consist solely of 100% cotton. Yet, cotton doesn’t have any antimicrobial properties, so I sent off an email to inquire what made the  Q-tips antibacterial.

And, yes, I was right. The cotton swabs are treated with triclosan.

In fact, here is the response I received from my “friends at Q-Tips”:

Thank you for writing us regarding Q-Tips.

Swab made with 100% high quality bleached cotton specially carded to provide softness and 50% more cotton at the tip (Package carries “Seal of Cotton” logo).

The cotton tip is treated with an “antimicrobial” ingredient and is secured to the applicator with adhesive. The antimicrobial system is incorporated during the cotton swabs forming process.

Antimicrobial system/Processing aid consists of:

- Triclosan is the Antimicrobial

- Methocel is the binder

The incorporation of an antibacterial agent will help prevent the introduction of bacteria, mold and fungi during use and when exposed to potential contamination and environmental conditions (i.e. high humidity and termperature) conducive to bacterial growth and proliferation in storage or use.

So, I disagree with the GoodGuide giving this product top billing as a safe baby product. Any product with triclosan show receive a lower rating because of triclosan’s impact to the environment. In this case, the triclosan content may be low, and there may not be much exposure given how Q-tips are used, but there is still triclosan present, and parents may not expect it. And while the triclosan may be added to prevent contamination of the swab (and thereby exempting Unilever from the requirements of registering the triclosan as a pesticide), the packaging claim of antibacterial probably gives parents and caregivers the impression that using these Q-tips will prevent the transmission of disease. I don’t think that parents or caregivers should be encouraged to use these triclosan-containing Q-tips over conventional Q-tips (and if you are going to use conventional Q-tips, why not go for a green solution . . . )

So, to the GoodGuide, I encourage you to examine the products you are recommending and don’t just rely on the numbers. Put some thought into it.

But, even though the FDA now has some concern about BPA’s safety, it claims it can’t do anything. The Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reports that top FDA officials say that while BPA’s safety is uncertain, they are powerless to regulate it. Why? Because it is listed among some 3,000 chemicals that are “generally regarded as safe” and that designation exempts those chemicals from scrutiny.

As the FDA explains:

Current BPA food contact uses were approved under food additive regulations issued more than 40 years ago.  This regulatory structure limits the oversight and flexibility of FDA.  Once a food additive is approved, any manufacturer of food or food packaging may use the food additive in accordance with the regulation.  There is no requirement to notify FDA of that use. For example, today there exist hundreds of different formulations for BPA-containing epoxy linings, which have varying characteristics.  As currently regulated, manufacturers are not required to disclose to FDA the existence or nature of these formulations.  Furthermore, if FDA were to decide to revoke one or more approved uses, FDA would need to undertake what could be a lengthy process of rulemaking to accomplish this goal.

So, FDA is going to study BPA some more. And it is looking for some legislative help so that it can regulate BPA, at least according to the officials quoted by the Milwaukee Sentinel. But that doesn’t help the rest of us very much if we are looking for ways to avoid BPA exposure, particularly if you are pregnant, or have young children.

And it isn’t very satisfying that at this late date, more than 10 years after leading scientists questioned BPA’s safety, that the FDA is reaching this decision but taking the position it can’t do anything. More stalling at the behest of the chemical industry?

The American Chemistry Council continues to proclaim that BPA is perfectly safe, because, as the ACC always says, BPA has not been proven harmful to children or adults. The FDA held a conference call on Friday for some media to discuss BPA. And while I was not invited, I avidly followed one of the journalists who was tweeting the call. And she kept tweeting statements of the ACC representative about how safe BPA was and how all the studies were flawed because they failed to account for human metabolization of BPA. When I tweeted at her to ask about the fact that infants under 3 months lack the full complement of enzymes necessary to metabolize BPA (and fetuses have none), the ACC representative completely dismissed the scientific studies. If you don’t know who the ACC is, it is an organization whose members include Monsanto, Bayer, Merck, DuPont and many others. And the FDA has been accused of being too cozy with the chemical industry lobbyists, including the chair of the FDA panel taking a $5 million donation.

And to be honest, the FDA’s reversal really annoys the heck out of me after FDA Acting Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach, MD’s article, Andy’s Take on BPA from August of 2008. In his article, he stated that “with progress comes peril!” He then argued that “science creates these products and science must inform us of their risks.” So, he contended that until science showed us that BPA was unsafe, we should assume that it is safe. Which seemed like a bunch of bunk to me. If you believe that “with progress comes peril”, then it seems to me that you would take a cautious approach, and instead have science inform us that a chemical was safe before it was used.

So what can you do if you want to avoid BPA? Well, skip polycarbonate plastic and avoid canned foods and beverages. And you really might want to, particularly if you are pregnant. In a non-scientific CBS Early Show experiment, Kelly Wallace ate a sandwich made from canned tuna, and had her blood drawn. She then spent 2 days avoiding BPA, and had her blood drawn again. The first set of blood samples showed a BPA level five times higher than what is found in the average US woman. 

To avoid canned foods and beverages, go for fresh, frozen, dried or jarred in glass or a plastic other than polycarconate. Polycarbonate is in the #7 “other plastic” group. Not all #7 plastic is polycarbonate, however. If you need BPA free feeding gear for kids and babies, check out my dear friend’s website, The Soft Landing. If you need a guide, check out Z Recommends’ The ZRecs Guide for advice on BPA-free children’s products.

If none of that has persuaded you to eliminate at least some disposable plastic, then watch this.

Maximenko’s Plastic Pollution Growth Model from 5 Gyres on Vimeo.

Did you think lead was the only concern in children’s jewelry? Unfortunately, no.

The Associated Press reports that Chinese manufacturers are switching to the toxic metal cadmium in children’s jewelry because they are barred from using lead under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). To be honest, I’m not sure that it completely accurate. As stated in the article, jewelry industry veterans say that cadmium has been used in products for Chinese markets for years. I think many of those were imported into the US as well. In my experience testing using my Niton XRF Analyzer, I found cadmium in children’s jewelry before the CPSIA was enacted, although it is probably true that manufacturers looking for a substitute for lead because of the CPSIA may be turning to cadmium, especially since the price of cadmium has plummeted recently, although the more common replacement for lead is zinc.

In any event, the AP articles reports on its investigation involving 103 children’s jewelry items, almost all of which were purchased in November and December of last year. Those 103 items were tested, and 12 of the items contained at least 10% cadmium (or more than 100,000 ppm cadmium). Included in this list are pendants featuring “The Princess and The Frog” characters. The items were purchased at Walmart, Claire’s and a dollar store. In addition, two other items contained lower amounts of cadmium, and 89 of the items were free of cadmium.

According to the AP story, the most contaminated piece was a shocking 91% cadmium by weight, or 910,000 ppm. Other jewelry items tested at 89%, 86% and 84% cadmium by weight. 

Cadmium is a known carcinogen. It is also listed on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm as a reproductive toxicant for males.

Kids don’t have to swallow an item to be exposed. They can get low level doses of cadmium by mouthing, biting or sucking on the jewelry items, as kids tend to do.

The AP investigation also tested the items with high cadmium to see if any exposure would occur if the items were swallowed. This testing involved an acid bath designed to mimic stomach acid. Three flip flop bracelet charms sold at Walmart contained between 84 and 86 percent cadmium. These charms fared the worst in the stormach acid test. One of the charms leached more cadmium in 24 hours than what the World Health Organization would deem a safe exposure over 60 weeks for a 33 pound child.

In several tweets on Sunday, Scott Wolfson. Consumer Product Safety Commission spokesperson, indicated that the CPSC would be investigating the matter and that the CPSC was on its way to China to address the issue. Keep in mind that the CPSIA does not regulate total cadmium content in children’s products. Instead, under the CPSIA, there is a limit for soluble cadmium in paints and coatings used on children’s toys. However, the CPSC can pursue products that the CPSC deems to be a public danger under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act – as it used to do for lead in children’s jewerly before the CPSIA was enacted. And, of course, in California, items that expose a consumer to significant risk level of cadmium must have a Proposition 65 warning.

In addition to jewelry as discussed in the article, I’ve also seen an increase in cadmium turning up in vinyl items. Cadmium compounds can be used to stabilize vinyl just as lead can be used, and with the regulation of lead under the CPSIA, I’ve seen many more vinyl items with cadmium in the last year in my XRF testing.

Yep, that’s right. That staple in many homes contains some not so nice chemicals. I’ve posted before about the problems with the ingredients in Johnson’s Head-to-Toe baby wash. The No More Toxic Tub report from the Campaing for Safe Cosmetics led to several posts about hysterical mommy bloggers.

A new peer-reviewed report published in the Journal of Dermatology Nurses’ Association revisits the problem. The report finds that Quaternium 15, a preservative found in Johnson’s Head to Toe Baby Wash and many other conventional bath and beauty products, may be responsible for dermatitis in many users (dermatitis can be misdiagnosed as eczema).

The report states that Quaternium 15 is “the most sensitizing formaldehyde-releasing preservative and has been repeatedly shown to be a strong allergen that can cause contact dermatitis.”

As quoted in the press release from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, “Quaternium 15 is present in an alarmingly high number of baby products, making exposure and sensitization at an early age increasingly common,” said Sharon Jacob, M.D., co-author of the paper and physician at the Department of Medicine and Pediatrics at Rady Children’s Hospital. “This is a concern because repeated exposures to sensitizing chemicals, especially in early life, can cause a person to develop allergic reactions over time. Therefore, we advise parents to choose products without quaternium 15 and other formaldehyde-releasing preservatives whenever possible.”

Okay, so say you want to skip products containing Quaternium 15 or any other formaldhyde donor preservatives. I understand that you don’t want to need a chemistry degree just to shop. So, my general advice is to use the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep cosmetic safety database and look for products with a score of 2 or lower, and with no ingredient about 4. Another general recommendation is to find a company you trust, and use those products.

For baby washes/shampoos,, one way to avoid preservatives is to avoid detergent shampoos as opposed to soap shampoos. Pure castile soap – a vegetable based soap – doesn’t require a preservative because the pH prevents the growth of mold and bacteria. It’s easy to be confused here because most “shampoo” and “body wash” products are actually detergents that require artificial surfactants, emulsifiers and preservatives. There are some safe detergents, but if you want the easiest and quickest way to buy safely, look for pure castile soap like Earth Mama Angel Baby and Dr. Bronners. (Disclosure – if you click on the Earth Mama Angel Baby link over on the left, I make a little money since I’m an affiliate. Also, in connection with my other company, 3 Green Angels, Earth Mama Angel Baby has retained the company to host several Twitter parties.)

A recently published study suggests that exposure to environmental contaminants – namely, DDT – may increase risk of diabetes. Most of the wisdom on diabetes has focused on diet, exercise, weight, etc. Environmental contaminants haven’t been a big focus, although recent studies have started to show that a correlation may exist.

This study, focusing on a group of Great Lakes fisherman with blood samples taken before exposure and the onset of diabetes, showed “consistent, dose-relationship associations with DDE” with diabetes. DDE is a breakdown product of the pesticide DDT. DDT, although banned more than 35 years ago, is still found in our environment and is present in most of us.

Diabetes affectsw the body’s ability to produce or use insulin. Insulin, a hormone, regulates how glucose, the body’s fuel, enters cells. About 8% of the population has diabetes. And, according to the American Diabetes Association, that population grew by more than 13% from 2005 to 2007.

If diabetes has a link to environmental contaminants, then it would mean a shift in treatment and prevention. That doesn’t mean that you can abandon eating right and exercise, but it may mean that other factors should be considered.

This isn’t the first study to find some evidence. In a study of more than 2,000 adults, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found people with the highest levels of six pollutants were 38 times more likely to have diabetes than those with the lowest exposure. Also, Vietnam veterans exposed to the dioxin-laced defoliant Agent Orange were significantly more likely than average to become diabetic, prompting the government to offer compensation to diabetic veterans.

This study was designed to evaluate two criticisms of prior studies. The study discredited the hypothesis that pollutants like DDE only appear to be potential causes of the disease because diabetics more slowly break down the chemicals, and therefore carry more of them. This study showed no difference in DDE metabolism rates between diabetics and non-diabetics.

Also, this paper showed exposure occurred before diabetes, not after.

Smart Mama’s Simple Step to Reduce Exposure:  If you want to reduce your exposure to DDT, one of the easiest things you can do is take off your shoes when you come home. We track long banned pollutants into our homes on our shoes.

This is the unique URL for this post. Please click before sharing.

If you aren’t caught up on the BPA debate, you might want to read some BPA basics.

It is interesting that the Massachusetts DPH is issuing this advisory just a few weeks after the leaked memorandum from a meeting of the canned food and beverage industry in which the industry representatives described a pregnant woman who would tout the safety of BPA to be the “holy grail.” Hmmm  . . perhaps not in Massachusetts.

To avoid BPA, you need to avoid polycarbonate plastic containers for storing food and drink. This means polycarbonate plastic baby bottles. But it also means the 5 gallon water bottles used for home water delivery as well.

You also find BPA in the epoxy linings of most canned food and beverage in the United States. Instead, go for fresh, frozen, dried, or jarred. In terms of infant formula, powdered is generally better than liquid, although it is my understanding the Similac 32 ounce plastic container for prepared liquid formula is BPA free.

This is the unique URL for this post. Please click before sharing. Thanks!