Associated Press Writer
Published Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009
AUGUSTA, Maine -- Environmental officials in Maine and a dozen other states
issued a statement Wednesday saying federal laws to protect the public from
toxic chemicals are too weak and states instead are leading the way.
The joint statement asks for changes in national laws so they will protect
vulnerable populations by identifying and regulating the most troubling
chemicals in consumer items and elsewhere. It also says manufacturers should
provide regulators with enough information to show that chemicals used in
their products are safe to humans and won't harm the environment.
"Current federal chemical regulations fail to adequately protect the
nation's citizens and environment from toxic chemicals and unsafe products,"
said David Littell, commissioner of the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection. "The effects of exposure to toxic chemicals on human health, the
environment and the economy are enormous and often avoidable."
The 13 states' Principles on Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act also
says chemical and safety information should be widely available to
businesses and the public.
In their statement, the states said they are the leading innovators in
regulating toxics. Maine and Washington, for example, have policies to
promote safer chemicals in children's products and prioritize hazardous
chemicals.
California's Green Chemistry Initiative seeks to reduce and eventually
eliminate toxic chemicals from consumer goods through a "benign by design"
approach in which products are designed with safe chemicals. The effort, in
which the state works directly with manufacturers, is a work in progress,
said Maziar Movassaghi, acting director of California's Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
"No one else in the world has attempted to do what California is attempting
to do," said Movassaghi, adding that the state's policy represents "a
fundamental shift of environmental protection."
The states signing the statement are California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
8 Surprising Ways to Prevent Breast Cancer in the Kitchen
Food choices can make a big difference -- but the ways in which we cook and clean the kitchen are also key.
The Daily Green recently invited Janet Gray, a professor at Vassar College and a board member of the Breast Cancer Fund, to share simple tips that can help reduce breast cancer risk factors. Gray developed the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project to communicate known and suspected environmental breast cancer risk factors to the general public. Here are some of the most surprising tips she suggested for preventing breast cancer with choices in the kitchen -- from the foods we eat to the way we cook them. For all 20 tips, see How to Prevent Breast Cancer: 20 Risk Factors.
Drink Clean Water
Although drinking fluids is absolutely crucial to good health, and water is often the healthiest – certainly the lowest-calorie – option, using tap water rather than bottled water is important for both our health and for the health of our environment. If taste is an issue, filtered tap water is a solution.
Commercial water bottles – including the small ones we carry around and then throw away, the larger gallon-sized bottles we may buy for our refrigerators, and the larger 5-gallon polycarbonate containers found in offices and other public spaces – often are made from plastics that leach chemicals like Bisphenol A, which is known to mimic hormones, and which has been linked to an increased risk for breast cancer and other diseases. Leaching of chemicals from plastic bottles is particularly common when the plastic bottles are warm, as can happen when bottles sit in the sun. If you are using a plastic bottle and the water or other fluid inside it smells "plasticky," don’t drink it! Your nose is telling you good information about the presence of contaminants in the water.
Of course, there are loads of other reasons for not drinking bottled water whenever possible. Tap water is often as safe or safer than bottled water, as public water sources are closely monitored and the results of quality testing on these waters are available to the public. Similar testing and disclosure are not required for bottled water.
And of course, the plastic required for commercial bought bottled water is a huge drain on natural petroleum resources, and adds enormously to our communities' waste burden.
To take water on the go, invest in a cheap, high-quality stainless steel water bottle, or another reusable BPA-free water bottle.
Photo: Istock
Choose (Truly) Microwave-Safe Containers
Despite the label on many plastic containers claiming that they are "microwave-safe," it is prudent to use either glass or ceramic bowls for heating foods in a microwave oven. Heating plastics can make chemicals used in their manufacturing to leach into your food. Even so-called "microwave-safe" containers have been shown to leach Bisphenol A (BPA).
Laboratory studies with rats indicate that exposures to BPA, especially during prenatal through early adolescence, predispose an individual to increased risk for developing breast cancer. Most supermarkets now sell Pyrex or other glass food storage containers that are easy to heat, allow you to freeze, thaw and heat (in oven or microwave) food safely and can be reused for years. When you do microwave your food, whether in glass or ceramic containers, cover the food with a piece of kitchen parchment paper, or other non-dyed, non-bleached paper product. Or just put a ceramic plate on top as a cover.
See 10 more "microwave safe" myths. Photo: Dave White / Istock
Eat Soy (But Not Too Much)
Plant estrogens, also called phytoestrogens, are natural compounds found in many foods. There are two main groups: the isoflavones and the lignans. Isoflavones, which include genistein, are found in soy beans and are the most widely studied of the phytoestrogens. Lignans are found in flaxseed, cereals, fruits and berries. Phytoestrogens are strikingly similar in chemical structure to the common estrogen estradiol and and can mimic many of the effects of the natural hormone. Most research on health effects of phytoestrogens, including effects on breast cancer risk, has been done on soy products and genistein.
Most (but not all) studies suggest that regular intake of soy, especially during adolescence, as a well-integrated component of a regular diet (as opposed to a dietary supplement like a pill), may be protective against breast cancer. On the other hand, some studies examining the effects of ingesting high levels of soy supplements (e.g., genistein pills or isoflavone protein extracts) suggest that this may lead to changes that increase the risk of breast cancer.
So eat a healthy, balanced diet that is rich in vegetables (preferably locally grown and pesticide-free!) including soy products. Introduce your children to soy products (soy flour, tofu, etc.) early in their development, as part of their regular diet. But stay away from concentrated or isolated forms of soy derivatives, including genistein pills.
Photo: Alina Solovyova-Vincent / Istock
Use Natural Cleansers
Many household cleaning products, including chlorine bleach, contain chemicals that may be detrimental to our health. Just look at the labels: Many say "use in ventilated area," or "seek medical help if ingested," or "skin or eye irritant," etc. Unfortunately, there is very little regulatory oversight of cleaning products and many are very poorly labeled, with phrases like "secret formula" being used to tantalize the consumer into thinking there is special magic in the cleanser. In reality, many household cleaning products contain chemicals like alkylphenols (example: 4-nonylphenol) that are endocrine disruptors (endocrine disrupting chemicals mimic hormones and have been implicated in increased risk for breast cancer and other health problems) as well as toxins that affect both our brains and our reproductive systems.
For many household tasks, simple baking soda (a gentle abrasive) or dilute warm vinegar work as well if not better than potentially toxic alternatives. For other suggestions see these guides at the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project and The Daily Green.
Photo: Istock / Photo Illustration by Gloria Dawson
Use Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware
Aluminum is a metal that mimics estrogen. In addition, laboratory studies have shown that aluminum can cause direct damage to DNA in several biological systems. Although studies have not shown a direct causal link between aluminum and breast cancer risk (little work has been reported in this area), breast tissue has been shown to concentrate aluminum and it is found in highest levels in the quadrant of the breast near the underarm region, the same area where the highest proportion of breast cancers are originally diagnosed.
Use alternatives to cooking utensils made out of aluminum, especially those that are older. Instead, use pots or pans made out of stainless steel or cast iron. Newer anodized aluminum pots and pans are considerably safer than older, non-anodized forms as the process of anodizing prevents the aluminum from leaching into food as it is being cooked.
One other possible source of aluminum in breast tissue may be use of underarm antiperspirants. Try to avoid using underarm cosmetics that contain aluminum. Check for safer alternatives at the Environmental Working Group’s Safe Cosmetics database or use home-made solutions like diluted baking soda.
Find a natural deodorant that really works. Photo: Cuisinart
Eat Clean Fish
Intake of certain foods that may contain high levels of PCBs and dioxins should be limited, especially for pregnant women and children. Both are known carcinogens that have been linked with increased risk for breast cancer. Although PCBs have been banned from production and use in the US since the 1970s, they remain in our environment, including our rivers and lakes. PCBs bioaccumulate, meaning they are more concentrated in predatory species than in prey, so they can be highly concentrated in fish at the top of the food chain.
If eating locally caught fish, eat smaller varieties such as bluegill, pumpkinseed, stream trout, smelt and yellow perch. Limit consumption of fish that are fattier (and more likely to accumulate PCBs) like lake trout, or fish that are bottom dwellers like catfish. These latter species are more likely to be contaminated with chemicals including PCBs. Consult fish advisories published by the Environmental Protection Agency or state health and wildlife agencies before eating fish caught in local waters. Before heading to the fish counter, consult nonprofit groups that monitor contaminant levels in fish.
Some farmed salmon and sea bass have been shown to have particularly high levels of PCBs; opt for wild fish for these varieties.
In general, careful preparation and cooking can reduce the amount of PCBs consumed. Fillet fish by removing as much fat as possible. Also cook using methods such as baking or broiling in a pan with a rack, rather than frying – frying may actually seal some of the toxic chemicals within the remaining fat of the fish, while other methods may ease the cooking off of natural fats, leading to the dripping out of accumulated chemicals.
Photo: Grant V. Faint / Getty Images
Avoid (Most) Canned Foods
In addition to being found in many plastic bottles, Bisphenol A is also found in the epoxy resin liner of most canned fruits and vegetables. The BPA from this lining has been shown to leach into the vegetables in the can. Studies have shown that amount leached is enough to cause breast cancer cells to grow and proliferate in the lab.
One company that makes BPA free canned beans is Eden Organic, showing that the technology is there to make cans for most fruits and vegetables without using BPA-contaminated products.
Another reason for buying fresh or frozen vegetables is that they tend to have few preservatives and less added sodium. And buying fresh vegetables means you can talk directly with the farmers to learn more about what pesticides and other chemicals they use (or don’t use) during the growing season.
Photo: Istock
Don't Poison Yourself When Fighting Pests
Many common pesticides (such as ant, roach and mice poisons) have been linked to a variety of human diseases, including breast cancer. It probably shouldn't surprise us that these compounds can be dangerous; they are designed to kill insects with which we share many common biological systems!
Several pesticides are known endocrine disruptors (they disrupt natural hormone-signaling pathways), and through these mechanisms have been implicated in increased risk for breast cancer. In addition to effects by themselves, these chemicals have been shown to have additive effects with other kinds of endocrine disruptors. In other words, exposures to small doses of pesticides may have greater effects when people are also exposed to other chemicals to which we are all commonly exposed.
Unfortunately, when pesticides are applied in the home, they don’t just kill bugs and disappear. Rather they often stick around (for years or decades) and are found in the air and on the dust we touch and breathe, meaning that we all have sustained and multiple exposures to these toxic chemicals. And when we apply them outside, pesticides enter the air we breath, fall on the lawn on which we walk and our children play and eventually seep into our water. The result can be devastating for the wildlife with which we share our world, and also may have significant impact on rates of human diseases, including breast cancer.
The best way to minimize insects inside and outside the home is through careful and regular cleaning. Integrated Pest Management (also known as IPM) approaches provide chemical-free (or low-chemical) strategies for protecting home environments, yards and agricultural crops. The University of California at Davis has published a good resource for learning more about IPM applications for the home and garden.
Photo: stockxpert
The Daily Green recently invited Janet Gray, a professor at Vassar College and a board member of the Breast Cancer Fund, to share simple tips that can help reduce breast cancer risk factors. Gray developed the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project to communicate known and suspected environmental breast cancer risk factors to the general public. Here are some of the most surprising tips she suggested for preventing breast cancer with choices in the kitchen -- from the foods we eat to the way we cook them. For all 20 tips, see How to Prevent Breast Cancer: 20 Risk Factors.
Drink Clean Water
Although drinking fluids is absolutely crucial to good health, and water is often the healthiest – certainly the lowest-calorie – option, using tap water rather than bottled water is important for both our health and for the health of our environment. If taste is an issue, filtered tap water is a solution.
Commercial water bottles – including the small ones we carry around and then throw away, the larger gallon-sized bottles we may buy for our refrigerators, and the larger 5-gallon polycarbonate containers found in offices and other public spaces – often are made from plastics that leach chemicals like Bisphenol A, which is known to mimic hormones, and which has been linked to an increased risk for breast cancer and other diseases. Leaching of chemicals from plastic bottles is particularly common when the plastic bottles are warm, as can happen when bottles sit in the sun. If you are using a plastic bottle and the water or other fluid inside it smells "plasticky," don’t drink it! Your nose is telling you good information about the presence of contaminants in the water.
Of course, there are loads of other reasons for not drinking bottled water whenever possible. Tap water is often as safe or safer than bottled water, as public water sources are closely monitored and the results of quality testing on these waters are available to the public. Similar testing and disclosure are not required for bottled water.
And of course, the plastic required for commercial bought bottled water is a huge drain on natural petroleum resources, and adds enormously to our communities' waste burden.
To take water on the go, invest in a cheap, high-quality stainless steel water bottle, or another reusable BPA-free water bottle.
Photo: Istock
Choose (Truly) Microwave-Safe Containers
Despite the label on many plastic containers claiming that they are "microwave-safe," it is prudent to use either glass or ceramic bowls for heating foods in a microwave oven. Heating plastics can make chemicals used in their manufacturing to leach into your food. Even so-called "microwave-safe" containers have been shown to leach Bisphenol A (BPA).
Laboratory studies with rats indicate that exposures to BPA, especially during prenatal through early adolescence, predispose an individual to increased risk for developing breast cancer. Most supermarkets now sell Pyrex or other glass food storage containers that are easy to heat, allow you to freeze, thaw and heat (in oven or microwave) food safely and can be reused for years. When you do microwave your food, whether in glass or ceramic containers, cover the food with a piece of kitchen parchment paper, or other non-dyed, non-bleached paper product. Or just put a ceramic plate on top as a cover.
See 10 more "microwave safe" myths. Photo: Dave White / Istock
Eat Soy (But Not Too Much)
Plant estrogens, also called phytoestrogens, are natural compounds found in many foods. There are two main groups: the isoflavones and the lignans. Isoflavones, which include genistein, are found in soy beans and are the most widely studied of the phytoestrogens. Lignans are found in flaxseed, cereals, fruits and berries. Phytoestrogens are strikingly similar in chemical structure to the common estrogen estradiol and and can mimic many of the effects of the natural hormone. Most research on health effects of phytoestrogens, including effects on breast cancer risk, has been done on soy products and genistein.
Most (but not all) studies suggest that regular intake of soy, especially during adolescence, as a well-integrated component of a regular diet (as opposed to a dietary supplement like a pill), may be protective against breast cancer. On the other hand, some studies examining the effects of ingesting high levels of soy supplements (e.g., genistein pills or isoflavone protein extracts) suggest that this may lead to changes that increase the risk of breast cancer.
So eat a healthy, balanced diet that is rich in vegetables (preferably locally grown and pesticide-free!) including soy products. Introduce your children to soy products (soy flour, tofu, etc.) early in their development, as part of their regular diet. But stay away from concentrated or isolated forms of soy derivatives, including genistein pills.
Photo: Alina Solovyova-Vincent / Istock
Use Natural Cleansers
Many household cleaning products, including chlorine bleach, contain chemicals that may be detrimental to our health. Just look at the labels: Many say "use in ventilated area," or "seek medical help if ingested," or "skin or eye irritant," etc. Unfortunately, there is very little regulatory oversight of cleaning products and many are very poorly labeled, with phrases like "secret formula" being used to tantalize the consumer into thinking there is special magic in the cleanser. In reality, many household cleaning products contain chemicals like alkylphenols (example: 4-nonylphenol) that are endocrine disruptors (endocrine disrupting chemicals mimic hormones and have been implicated in increased risk for breast cancer and other health problems) as well as toxins that affect both our brains and our reproductive systems.
For many household tasks, simple baking soda (a gentle abrasive) or dilute warm vinegar work as well if not better than potentially toxic alternatives. For other suggestions see these guides at the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project and The Daily Green.
Photo: Istock / Photo Illustration by Gloria Dawson
Use Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware
Aluminum is a metal that mimics estrogen. In addition, laboratory studies have shown that aluminum can cause direct damage to DNA in several biological systems. Although studies have not shown a direct causal link between aluminum and breast cancer risk (little work has been reported in this area), breast tissue has been shown to concentrate aluminum and it is found in highest levels in the quadrant of the breast near the underarm region, the same area where the highest proportion of breast cancers are originally diagnosed.
Use alternatives to cooking utensils made out of aluminum, especially those that are older. Instead, use pots or pans made out of stainless steel or cast iron. Newer anodized aluminum pots and pans are considerably safer than older, non-anodized forms as the process of anodizing prevents the aluminum from leaching into food as it is being cooked.
One other possible source of aluminum in breast tissue may be use of underarm antiperspirants. Try to avoid using underarm cosmetics that contain aluminum. Check for safer alternatives at the Environmental Working Group’s Safe Cosmetics database or use home-made solutions like diluted baking soda.
Find a natural deodorant that really works. Photo: Cuisinart
Eat Clean Fish
Intake of certain foods that may contain high levels of PCBs and dioxins should be limited, especially for pregnant women and children. Both are known carcinogens that have been linked with increased risk for breast cancer. Although PCBs have been banned from production and use in the US since the 1970s, they remain in our environment, including our rivers and lakes. PCBs bioaccumulate, meaning they are more concentrated in predatory species than in prey, so they can be highly concentrated in fish at the top of the food chain.
If eating locally caught fish, eat smaller varieties such as bluegill, pumpkinseed, stream trout, smelt and yellow perch. Limit consumption of fish that are fattier (and more likely to accumulate PCBs) like lake trout, or fish that are bottom dwellers like catfish. These latter species are more likely to be contaminated with chemicals including PCBs. Consult fish advisories published by the Environmental Protection Agency or state health and wildlife agencies before eating fish caught in local waters. Before heading to the fish counter, consult nonprofit groups that monitor contaminant levels in fish.
Some farmed salmon and sea bass have been shown to have particularly high levels of PCBs; opt for wild fish for these varieties.
In general, careful preparation and cooking can reduce the amount of PCBs consumed. Fillet fish by removing as much fat as possible. Also cook using methods such as baking or broiling in a pan with a rack, rather than frying – frying may actually seal some of the toxic chemicals within the remaining fat of the fish, while other methods may ease the cooking off of natural fats, leading to the dripping out of accumulated chemicals.
Photo: Grant V. Faint / Getty Images
Avoid (Most) Canned Foods
In addition to being found in many plastic bottles, Bisphenol A is also found in the epoxy resin liner of most canned fruits and vegetables. The BPA from this lining has been shown to leach into the vegetables in the can. Studies have shown that amount leached is enough to cause breast cancer cells to grow and proliferate in the lab.
One company that makes BPA free canned beans is Eden Organic, showing that the technology is there to make cans for most fruits and vegetables without using BPA-contaminated products.
Another reason for buying fresh or frozen vegetables is that they tend to have few preservatives and less added sodium. And buying fresh vegetables means you can talk directly with the farmers to learn more about what pesticides and other chemicals they use (or don’t use) during the growing season.
Photo: Istock
Don't Poison Yourself When Fighting Pests
Many common pesticides (such as ant, roach and mice poisons) have been linked to a variety of human diseases, including breast cancer. It probably shouldn't surprise us that these compounds can be dangerous; they are designed to kill insects with which we share many common biological systems!
Several pesticides are known endocrine disruptors (they disrupt natural hormone-signaling pathways), and through these mechanisms have been implicated in increased risk for breast cancer. In addition to effects by themselves, these chemicals have been shown to have additive effects with other kinds of endocrine disruptors. In other words, exposures to small doses of pesticides may have greater effects when people are also exposed to other chemicals to which we are all commonly exposed.
Unfortunately, when pesticides are applied in the home, they don’t just kill bugs and disappear. Rather they often stick around (for years or decades) and are found in the air and on the dust we touch and breathe, meaning that we all have sustained and multiple exposures to these toxic chemicals. And when we apply them outside, pesticides enter the air we breath, fall on the lawn on which we walk and our children play and eventually seep into our water. The result can be devastating for the wildlife with which we share our world, and also may have significant impact on rates of human diseases, including breast cancer.
The best way to minimize insects inside and outside the home is through careful and regular cleaning. Integrated Pest Management (also known as IPM) approaches provide chemical-free (or low-chemical) strategies for protecting home environments, yards and agricultural crops. The University of California at Davis has published a good resource for learning more about IPM applications for the home and garden.
Photo: stockxpert
Monday, August 17, 2009
MRI May Cause More Harm Than Good In Newly Diagnosed Early Breast Cancer
The review, appearing early online in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, says evidence shows that MRI increases the chances of more extensive surgery over conservative approaches, with no evidence that it improves surgical care or prognosis.
Randomized controlled trials have shown women with early stage breast cancer who are treated with breast-conservation therapy (local excision and radiotherapy) have the same survival rates as those who undergo mastectomy. Recently, MRI has been introduced in preoperative staging of the affected breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer because it detects additional areas of cancer that do not show up on conventional imaging.
In the current review, Nehmat Houssami, MBBS, Ph.D., of the University of Sydney, Australia, and Daniel F. Hayes, M.D., of University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., reviewed available data on preoperative MRI's detection capability and its impact on treatment. The use of preoperative MRI scans in women with early stage breast cancer has been based on assumptions that MRI's detection capability in this setting will improve surgical treatment by improving surgical planning, potentially leading to a reduction in re-excision surgery, and by guiding surgeons to remove additional disease detected by MRI and potentially reducing recurrence in the treated breast.
The authors say emerging data show that this approach to local staging of the breast leads to more women being treated with mastectomy without evidence of improvement in surgical outcomes or long-term prognosis.
After reviewing the data, the authors conclude that there is evidence that MRI changes surgical management, generally from breast conservation to more radical surgery, but that there is no evidence that it improves surgical treatment or outcomes.
"Overall, there is growing evidence that MRI does not improve surgical care, and it could be argued that it has a potentially harmful effect," conclude the authors. They say well-designed, randomized controlled trials are needed to quantify potential benefit and harm, including careful evaluation of its impact on quality of life.
"We acknowledge that logistics and costs of conducting such large-scale, multicenter trials are enormous. If the technology is truly as beneficial as its proponents claim, then these costs are worth it. If it is not, then they are outweighed by the costs of adopting expensive technology and associated intervention without evidence of clinical benefit," they conclude.
Nehmat Houssami, Daniel F. Hayes. Review of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Breast Cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2009; DOI: 10.3322/caac.20028
American Cancer Society (2009, August 15). MRI May Cause More Harm Than Good In Newly Diagnosed Early Breast Cancer. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090813083331.htm
Randomized controlled trials have shown women with early stage breast cancer who are treated with breast-conservation therapy (local excision and radiotherapy) have the same survival rates as those who undergo mastectomy. Recently, MRI has been introduced in preoperative staging of the affected breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer because it detects additional areas of cancer that do not show up on conventional imaging.
In the current review, Nehmat Houssami, MBBS, Ph.D., of the University of Sydney, Australia, and Daniel F. Hayes, M.D., of University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., reviewed available data on preoperative MRI's detection capability and its impact on treatment. The use of preoperative MRI scans in women with early stage breast cancer has been based on assumptions that MRI's detection capability in this setting will improve surgical treatment by improving surgical planning, potentially leading to a reduction in re-excision surgery, and by guiding surgeons to remove additional disease detected by MRI and potentially reducing recurrence in the treated breast.
The authors say emerging data show that this approach to local staging of the breast leads to more women being treated with mastectomy without evidence of improvement in surgical outcomes or long-term prognosis.
After reviewing the data, the authors conclude that there is evidence that MRI changes surgical management, generally from breast conservation to more radical surgery, but that there is no evidence that it improves surgical treatment or outcomes.
"Overall, there is growing evidence that MRI does not improve surgical care, and it could be argued that it has a potentially harmful effect," conclude the authors. They say well-designed, randomized controlled trials are needed to quantify potential benefit and harm, including careful evaluation of its impact on quality of life.
"We acknowledge that logistics and costs of conducting such large-scale, multicenter trials are enormous. If the technology is truly as beneficial as its proponents claim, then these costs are worth it. If it is not, then they are outweighed by the costs of adopting expensive technology and associated intervention without evidence of clinical benefit," they conclude.
Nehmat Houssami, Daniel F. Hayes. Review of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Breast Cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2009; DOI: 10.3322/caac.20028
American Cancer Society (2009, August 15). MRI May Cause More Harm Than Good In Newly Diagnosed Early Breast Cancer. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090813083331.htm
MRI May Cause More Harm Than Good In Newly Diagnosed Early Breast Cancer
The review, appearing early online in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, says evidence shows that MRI increases the chances of more extensive surgery over conservative approaches, with no evidence that it improves surgical care or prognosis.
Randomized controlled trials have shown women with early stage breast cancer who are treated with breast-conservation therapy (local excision and radiotherapy) have the same survival rates as those who undergo mastectomy. Recently, MRI has been introduced in preoperative staging of the affected breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer because it detects additional areas of cancer that do not show up on conventional imaging.
In the current review, Nehmat Houssami, MBBS, Ph.D., of the University of Sydney, Australia, and Daniel F. Hayes, M.D., of University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., reviewed available data on preoperative MRI's detection capability and its impact on treatment. The use of preoperative MRI scans in women with early stage breast cancer has been based on assumptions that MRI's detection capability in this setting will improve surgical treatment by improving surgical planning, potentially leading to a reduction in re-excision surgery, and by guiding surgeons to remove additional disease detected by MRI and potentially reducing recurrence in the treated breast.
The authors say emerging data show that this approach to local staging of the breast leads to more women being treated with mastectomy without evidence of improvement in surgical outcomes or long-term prognosis.
After reviewing the data, the authors conclude that there is evidence that MRI changes surgical management, generally from breast conservation to more radical surgery, but that there is no evidence that it improves surgical treatment or outcomes.
"Overall, there is growing evidence that MRI does not improve surgical care, and it could be argued that it has a potentially harmful effect," conclude the authors. They say well-designed, randomized controlled trials are needed to quantify potential benefit and harm, including careful evaluation of its impact on quality of life.
"We acknowledge that logistics and costs of conducting such large-scale, multicenter trials are enormous. If the technology is truly as beneficial as its proponents claim, then these costs are worth it. If it is not, then they are outweighed by the costs of adopting expensive technology and associated intervention without evidence of clinical benefit," they conclude.
Nehmat Houssami, Daniel F. Hayes. Review of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Breast Cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2009; DOI: 10.3322/caac.20028
American Cancer Society (2009, August 15). MRI May Cause More Harm Than Good In Newly Diagnosed Early Breast Cancer. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090813083331.htm
Randomized controlled trials have shown women with early stage breast cancer who are treated with breast-conservation therapy (local excision and radiotherapy) have the same survival rates as those who undergo mastectomy. Recently, MRI has been introduced in preoperative staging of the affected breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer because it detects additional areas of cancer that do not show up on conventional imaging.
In the current review, Nehmat Houssami, MBBS, Ph.D., of the University of Sydney, Australia, and Daniel F. Hayes, M.D., of University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., reviewed available data on preoperative MRI's detection capability and its impact on treatment. The use of preoperative MRI scans in women with early stage breast cancer has been based on assumptions that MRI's detection capability in this setting will improve surgical treatment by improving surgical planning, potentially leading to a reduction in re-excision surgery, and by guiding surgeons to remove additional disease detected by MRI and potentially reducing recurrence in the treated breast.
The authors say emerging data show that this approach to local staging of the breast leads to more women being treated with mastectomy without evidence of improvement in surgical outcomes or long-term prognosis.
After reviewing the data, the authors conclude that there is evidence that MRI changes surgical management, generally from breast conservation to more radical surgery, but that there is no evidence that it improves surgical treatment or outcomes.
"Overall, there is growing evidence that MRI does not improve surgical care, and it could be argued that it has a potentially harmful effect," conclude the authors. They say well-designed, randomized controlled trials are needed to quantify potential benefit and harm, including careful evaluation of its impact on quality of life.
"We acknowledge that logistics and costs of conducting such large-scale, multicenter trials are enormous. If the technology is truly as beneficial as its proponents claim, then these costs are worth it. If it is not, then they are outweighed by the costs of adopting expensive technology and associated intervention without evidence of clinical benefit," they conclude.
Nehmat Houssami, Daniel F. Hayes. Review of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Breast Cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2009; DOI: 10.3322/caac.20028
American Cancer Society (2009, August 15). MRI May Cause More Harm Than Good In Newly Diagnosed Early Breast Cancer. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090813083331.htm
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
House panel wants new review of BPA safety
By Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust of the Journal Sentinel
A congressional committee is investigating whether the Food and Drug Administration gave undue influence to chemical makers after several recent reports in the Journal Sentinel revealed how government regulators relied heavily on industry lobbyists when considering the safety of the controversial chemical bisphenol A.
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg on Tuesday, asking the agency to examine its relationship with industry groups. They also want the FDA to reconsider its assessment that the chemical is safe.
FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said Tuesday that the agency is expected to release a new decision on the chemical within "weeks, not months."
Also on Tuesday, the California Senate voted to ban BPA from food and drink containers designed for children ages 3 and younger. The bill moves to the state Assembly for a vote.
The federal investigation comes after the Journal Sentinel revealed Saturday that lobbyists met last week at an exclusive club in Washington to hammer out a public relations strategy to sell the benefits of BPA to the American public, including "befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process."
The group also discussed hiring a pregnant woman as a spokeswoman for the chemical, referring to such a person as the "holy grail" for the public-relations campaign.
That story followed earlier reports in the Journal Sentinel that showed how industry lobbyists wrote large sections of the FDA opinion, released last September. The FDA's opinion was based on two studies, both paid for by industry. Those studies since have been assailed by an international consortium of scientists as "incomplete and unreliable," the newspaper reported in April.
Last month, the Journal Sentinel reported that e-mails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed that the FDA relied on chemical industry lobbyists to examine BPA's risks. The agency also counted on lobbyists to track legislation and even to monitor press coverage.
In one instance, an FDA official sought information from the chemical lobby to discredit a study that found the chemical caused miscarriages, even before FDA scientists had a chance to scrutinize the study.
"These new press accounts raise serious questions about the extent to which FDA relied on industry for independent scientific advice," Waxman and Stupak wrote.
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, the lobby group for food packagers, has hired a crisis consultant firm.
The congressmen have written to John Rost, the association's chairman, demanding that he furnish them with all copies of documents and communications, including talking points, minutes, summaries, memorandums, media statements, e-mails and drafts. They also want a list of all those who attended last week's meeting.
Rost said Tuesday that he was too busy to talk to reporters.
However, the association posted a press release Saturday on its Web site defending its tactics.
"Should it come as a surprise that our industry seeks to defend the legitimate scientific process that has concluded BPA is safe to use in food contact applications?" the press release reads. "Should it be viewed as a scandal that the accumulated frustration of the industry leads to consideration of alternative means of communication? We think not."
BPA, found in the urine of 93% of Americans tested, has been linked to heart disease, cancers of the breast and prostate, heart disease and hyperactivity. Used to make hard, clear plastic, it leaches into food. The FDA ruled last September that the chemical is safe.
News of the lobbying efforts to manipulate the legislative process drew a sharp response from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who introduced a bill in the House last March to ban BPA in all food and drink packaging.
"Instead of spending money to manipulate the legislative process through fear tactics or slick PR campaigns, I suggest these companies ramp up their research and development, ensuring that only safe alternatives to this dangerous substance are used in food and beverage containers," Markey said. "No matter how they package it, BPA is a toxic substance linked to cancer and heart disease."
A congressional committee is investigating whether the Food and Drug Administration gave undue influence to chemical makers after several recent reports in the Journal Sentinel revealed how government regulators relied heavily on industry lobbyists when considering the safety of the controversial chemical bisphenol A.
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg on Tuesday, asking the agency to examine its relationship with industry groups. They also want the FDA to reconsider its assessment that the chemical is safe.
FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said Tuesday that the agency is expected to release a new decision on the chemical within "weeks, not months."
Also on Tuesday, the California Senate voted to ban BPA from food and drink containers designed for children ages 3 and younger. The bill moves to the state Assembly for a vote.
The federal investigation comes after the Journal Sentinel revealed Saturday that lobbyists met last week at an exclusive club in Washington to hammer out a public relations strategy to sell the benefits of BPA to the American public, including "befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process."
The group also discussed hiring a pregnant woman as a spokeswoman for the chemical, referring to such a person as the "holy grail" for the public-relations campaign.
That story followed earlier reports in the Journal Sentinel that showed how industry lobbyists wrote large sections of the FDA opinion, released last September. The FDA's opinion was based on two studies, both paid for by industry. Those studies since have been assailed by an international consortium of scientists as "incomplete and unreliable," the newspaper reported in April.
Last month, the Journal Sentinel reported that e-mails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed that the FDA relied on chemical industry lobbyists to examine BPA's risks. The agency also counted on lobbyists to track legislation and even to monitor press coverage.
In one instance, an FDA official sought information from the chemical lobby to discredit a study that found the chemical caused miscarriages, even before FDA scientists had a chance to scrutinize the study.
"These new press accounts raise serious questions about the extent to which FDA relied on industry for independent scientific advice," Waxman and Stupak wrote.
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, the lobby group for food packagers, has hired a crisis consultant firm.
The congressmen have written to John Rost, the association's chairman, demanding that he furnish them with all copies of documents and communications, including talking points, minutes, summaries, memorandums, media statements, e-mails and drafts. They also want a list of all those who attended last week's meeting.
Rost said Tuesday that he was too busy to talk to reporters.
However, the association posted a press release Saturday on its Web site defending its tactics.
"Should it come as a surprise that our industry seeks to defend the legitimate scientific process that has concluded BPA is safe to use in food contact applications?" the press release reads. "Should it be viewed as a scandal that the accumulated frustration of the industry leads to consideration of alternative means of communication? We think not."
BPA, found in the urine of 93% of Americans tested, has been linked to heart disease, cancers of the breast and prostate, heart disease and hyperactivity. Used to make hard, clear plastic, it leaches into food. The FDA ruled last September that the chemical is safe.
News of the lobbying efforts to manipulate the legislative process drew a sharp response from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who introduced a bill in the House last March to ban BPA in all food and drink packaging.
"Instead of spending money to manipulate the legislative process through fear tactics or slick PR campaigns, I suggest these companies ramp up their research and development, ensuring that only safe alternatives to this dangerous substance are used in food and beverage containers," Markey said. "No matter how they package it, BPA is a toxic substance linked to cancer and heart disease."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Strategy Being Devised To Protect Use of BPA: Groups Hope to Block Ban of Chemical
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Manufacturers of cans for beverages and foods and some of their biggest customers, including Coca-Cola, are trying to devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government bans of a controversial chemical used in the linings of metal cans and lids.
According to internal notes of a private meeting, obtained by The Washington Post, frustrated industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA. The notes said the executives are particularly concerned about the views of young mothers, who often make purchasing decisions for households and who are most likely to be focused on health concerns.
Those at the meeting held at the Cosmos Club "believe a balance of legislative and grassroots outreach [to mothers 21 to 35 years old and students] is imperative to the stability of their industry; however, the association members continue to struggle to initiate research and develop a clear-cut plan to defend their industry," an unidentified participant wrote.
Industry representatives weighed a range of ideas, including "using fear tactics [e.g. "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" as well as giving control back to consumers (e.g. you have a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing BPA-free packaging," the notes said.
The attendees estimated it would cost $500,000 to craft a message for a public relations campaign, according to the notes. "Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA,' " the notes said.
Those in attendance said the mainstream media are ignoring their side of the controversy, and attendees talked about how the group is focusing on "legislative battles and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process," the document said.
Kathleen M. Roberts, a lobbyist with Bergeson and Campbell for the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, which represents makers of metal cans and their customers, organized Thursday's meeting and confirmed the accuracy of the notes. She said her members are concerned about bills pending in state legislatures as well as on Capitol Hill that would restrict or eliminate the use of BPA in metal cans. She said BPA is a safe compound that has been tarred by activist groups and that consumers do not fully appreciate its importance.
"We had discussions about whether people really understand what the ramifications would be if BPA were eliminated and alternatives aren't in place," Roberts said. "Everything was on the table, it was a brainstorming session, and no particular decisions have been made."
A commercial alternative to BPA does exist; Japan has significantly reduced its use of BPA in many canned goods. Roberts acknowledged that alternatives are available but not for all uses currently in the marketplace.
Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that wants BPA banned, said the meeting notes struck a familiar chord. "The BPA industry has adopted the tactics of tobacco and asbestos -- when they had no science to make their case, they resorted to scare tactics and public relations," he said. "It seems pretty desperate."
Bisphenol A, used in commerce since the 1950s, is added to plastics to give them strength. It is found in hundreds of household products, including plastic bottles and food containers. It is also present in the linings of canned goods such as soup, baby formula and canned fruits and vegetables.
Over the past decade, a growing body of scientific studies has linked the chemical to breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm count, miscarriage and other reproductive problems in laboratory animals. More recent studies using human data have linked BPA to heart disease and diabetes. And it has been found to interfere with the effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.
Researchers have found that BPA leaches from containers into food and beverages, even at cold temperatures. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health published earlier this month found that subjects who drank liquids from plastic bottles containing BPA had a 69 percent increase in the BPA in their urine.
Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about the chemical, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by a chemical industry trade group.
The FDA's position on BPA runs counter to a report by another federal agency, the National Toxicology Program, which found "some concern" that BPA may cause developmental problems in the brains and hormonal systems of children. And last fall, the FDA's own scientific advisory board criticized agency officials for relying on industry-funded studies to declare the chemical safe.
Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles in 2008. The six biggest baby bottle manufacturers in the United States have agreed not to use the chemical. Earlier this month, Chicago became the first city in the nation to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, and half a dozen states have similar legislation pending. On Capitol Hill, several bills would prohibit bisphenol A in all food and beverage containers.
Meanwhile, the FDA, under the leadership of a new commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, is conducting a new review of the science surrounding BPA.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Manufacturers of cans for beverages and foods and some of their biggest customers, including Coca-Cola, are trying to devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government bans of a controversial chemical used in the linings of metal cans and lids.
According to internal notes of a private meeting, obtained by The Washington Post, frustrated industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA. The notes said the executives are particularly concerned about the views of young mothers, who often make purchasing decisions for households and who are most likely to be focused on health concerns.
Those at the meeting held at the Cosmos Club "believe a balance of legislative and grassroots outreach [to mothers 21 to 35 years old and students] is imperative to the stability of their industry; however, the association members continue to struggle to initiate research and develop a clear-cut plan to defend their industry," an unidentified participant wrote.
Industry representatives weighed a range of ideas, including "using fear tactics [e.g. "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" as well as giving control back to consumers (e.g. you have a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing BPA-free packaging," the notes said.
The attendees estimated it would cost $500,000 to craft a message for a public relations campaign, according to the notes. "Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA,' " the notes said.
Those in attendance said the mainstream media are ignoring their side of the controversy, and attendees talked about how the group is focusing on "legislative battles and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process," the document said.
Kathleen M. Roberts, a lobbyist with Bergeson and Campbell for the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, which represents makers of metal cans and their customers, organized Thursday's meeting and confirmed the accuracy of the notes. She said her members are concerned about bills pending in state legislatures as well as on Capitol Hill that would restrict or eliminate the use of BPA in metal cans. She said BPA is a safe compound that has been tarred by activist groups and that consumers do not fully appreciate its importance.
"We had discussions about whether people really understand what the ramifications would be if BPA were eliminated and alternatives aren't in place," Roberts said. "Everything was on the table, it was a brainstorming session, and no particular decisions have been made."
A commercial alternative to BPA does exist; Japan has significantly reduced its use of BPA in many canned goods. Roberts acknowledged that alternatives are available but not for all uses currently in the marketplace.
Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that wants BPA banned, said the meeting notes struck a familiar chord. "The BPA industry has adopted the tactics of tobacco and asbestos -- when they had no science to make their case, they resorted to scare tactics and public relations," he said. "It seems pretty desperate."
Bisphenol A, used in commerce since the 1950s, is added to plastics to give them strength. It is found in hundreds of household products, including plastic bottles and food containers. It is also present in the linings of canned goods such as soup, baby formula and canned fruits and vegetables.
Over the past decade, a growing body of scientific studies has linked the chemical to breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm count, miscarriage and other reproductive problems in laboratory animals. More recent studies using human data have linked BPA to heart disease and diabetes. And it has been found to interfere with the effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.
Researchers have found that BPA leaches from containers into food and beverages, even at cold temperatures. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health published earlier this month found that subjects who drank liquids from plastic bottles containing BPA had a 69 percent increase in the BPA in their urine.
Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about the chemical, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by a chemical industry trade group.
The FDA's position on BPA runs counter to a report by another federal agency, the National Toxicology Program, which found "some concern" that BPA may cause developmental problems in the brains and hormonal systems of children. And last fall, the FDA's own scientific advisory board criticized agency officials for relying on industry-funded studies to declare the chemical safe.
Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles in 2008. The six biggest baby bottle manufacturers in the United States have agreed not to use the chemical. Earlier this month, Chicago became the first city in the nation to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, and half a dozen states have similar legislation pending. On Capitol Hill, several bills would prohibit bisphenol A in all food and beverage containers.
Meanwhile, the FDA, under the leadership of a new commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, is conducting a new review of the science surrounding BPA.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Household Products Start to Come Clean on Ingredients
Household Products Start to Come Clean on Ingredients
By ANJALI ATHAVALEY
You can read a label to find out what's in your food. And a quick look inside a collar or hem tells you what your clothes are made of. Now, the same is happening with the stuff you use to clean your kitchen and bathroom.
A few manufacturers of household cleaning products have begun disclosing the chemicals in some of their products. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. last month rolled out Web site WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com to describe most of the ingredients for its Windex, Glade, and Shout brands. Clorox Co. lists ingredients for its Formula 409 and other products at TheCloroxCompany.com.
Seventh Generation Inc., which has long disclosed most of the ingredients for its eco-friendly cleaning products, last year started explaining chemical names in terms that consumers can better understand on its labels. And Procter & Gamble Co. plans to list its ingredients online and describe them in consumer friendly terms.
These efforts are receiving a boost from industry trade groups that recently set up joint guidelines to encourage use of a standardized format for presenting the technical information. "Consumers want to know more to ensure the safety of their family," says a Procter & Gamble spokesman. "The industry is changing along with that."
View Full Image
Scott Sodora/WSJ
Makers of some common household cleaners will begin disclosing chemical ingredients to ease safety concerns.
Health and environmental groups are concerned that some chemicals in household cleaners could contribute to asthma or respiratory problems, especially if consumers aren't aware of their presence. The groups say they welcome the industry's plans to boost disclosure, but say the efforts don't go far enough. Rather than signing on to a voluntary initiative, these groups say companies should be required to participate. They say ingredients should be listed on product labels, rather than on Web sites, so they are available to consumers before purchase.
And, these groups say, not all chemicals are likely to be listed -- manufacturers, for instance, generally don't disclose ingredients in fragrances because these are considered trade secrets. "We are concerned no one knows what's in these products and that it's not very easy to find out," says Tom Neltner, chairman of the Sierra Club's Toxics Committee.
Federal law generally doesn't require manufacturers to disclose which chemicals are used in household cleaning products, though companies must include on labels any emergency warnings and instructions for first aid. For institutional cleaning products, companies are required to disclose certain chemicals that may be hazardous because professional cleaners are generally exposed to greater volumes of chemicals than the average household user. That information is contained in "material safety data sheets" posted on corporate Web sites.
A bill introduced in Congress last year would have required manufacturers to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the data necessary to determine if a chemical is safe. It also would have given the agency more authority to restrict the use of chemicals that fail to meet its safety standards. Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey plans to introduce a similar bill in the coming weeks, a spokesman says.
"Every day, consumers rely on household products that contain thousands of chemicals," Sen. Lautenberg said in a statement. "We must ensure these chemicals are safe before they reach the market."
The developments come at a time when consumer demand for cleaning products marketed as eco-friendly is on the rise, partly because consumers assume green products are safer, according to a recent report by Mintel International, a market-research firm. The market for so-called green cleaning products grew to $64.5 million last year from $17.7 million in 2003, it said.
Lydia Chen Shah, a 29-year-old marketing communications manager in Glendora, Calif., says she has gravitated to cleaners that are marketed as green, such as products by Seventh Generation and Method. "I don't want to feel like as soon as I put some household cleaner on the surface I'm going to have to stay away from it for a while," says Ms. Shah, who has pets and says she worries about their safety.
Currently there is no federal standard regulating the terms green or natural as it applies to cleaning products. Environmental groups advise people to read the label to learn why a product is labeled as green.
Advocacy groups have pored through companies' material safety data sheets listing chemicals that may be hazardous to professional cleaners. They say further study is needed to explore possible health effects on consumers who use smaller amounts of these chemicals at home. "In some cleaning products there are ingredients that are known to be respiratory irritants or sensitizers," says Ted Schettler, science director of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Health Network.
One group, Women's Voices for the Earth, outlined its concerns about certain chemicals in its 2007 Household Hazards report. The report pulled together various studies that had found associations between chemicals in cleaning products and certain health effects -- such as occupational asthma in cleaning workers. While the scientific data cited in the report are inconclusive, the group says there is cause for concern, and further research should be done.
One chemical found in detergents and all-purpose cleaners is monoethanolamine. It is used in various products such as Mr. Clean Multi-Surfaces Antibacterial Cleaner, made by Procter & Gamble, and Clorox's Formula 409 All Purpose Cleaner, according to the material safety data sheets listed on the companies' Web sites.
Studies done in the 1990s link the chemical to occupational asthma in cleaning workers, according to the Women's Voices for the Earth report. But Clorox says its products are safe and points to an analysis published by the U.K.'s Health and Safety Executive in 1997 that concluded there wasn't enough evidence to classify the chemical as a respiratory sensitizer.
Clorox says not everything on its material safety data sheets is hazardous because "we err on disclosing anything that might be germane to anyone using the product," says Reza Rahaman, vice president of global stewardship for the company.
Procter & Gamble said in an email: "A number of leading scientific and regulatory bodies around the world have investigated and reviewed this material and its safety profile, and all resulting data supports the conclusion that MEA does not pose a health risk to workers when used and handled in accordance to the manufacturer's safety recommendations."
Doctors and advocacy groups are also concerned about glycol ethers, which have been linked to reduced fertility and low birth weight in mice, according to the Women's Voices for the Earth report. One chemical in this category, 2-butoxyethanol, is used in products like Sunshine Makers Inc.'s Simple Green All Purpose Cleaning Foam, according to its material safety data sheet.
Sunshine Makers says its products are safe. "Independent laboratory test data show that there was no reproductive toxicity associated with exposure to Simple Green," Carol Chapin, senior director of research and development, said in an email.
Since most of the studies that analyze the health effects of chemicals in cleaners focus on occupational use rather than household use, "the information isn't really applicable to consumers," says Brian Sansoni, spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association, a trade group. "Workers tend to deal with larger quantities of the chemicals in question. Consumers are not going to come into contact with those kinds of volumes of ingredients."
By ANJALI ATHAVALEY
You can read a label to find out what's in your food. And a quick look inside a collar or hem tells you what your clothes are made of. Now, the same is happening with the stuff you use to clean your kitchen and bathroom.
A few manufacturers of household cleaning products have begun disclosing the chemicals in some of their products. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. last month rolled out Web site WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com to describe most of the ingredients for its Windex, Glade, and Shout brands. Clorox Co. lists ingredients for its Formula 409 and other products at TheCloroxCompany.com.
Seventh Generation Inc., which has long disclosed most of the ingredients for its eco-friendly cleaning products, last year started explaining chemical names in terms that consumers can better understand on its labels. And Procter & Gamble Co. plans to list its ingredients online and describe them in consumer friendly terms.
These efforts are receiving a boost from industry trade groups that recently set up joint guidelines to encourage use of a standardized format for presenting the technical information. "Consumers want to know more to ensure the safety of their family," says a Procter & Gamble spokesman. "The industry is changing along with that."
View Full Image
Scott Sodora/WSJ
Makers of some common household cleaners will begin disclosing chemical ingredients to ease safety concerns.
Health and environmental groups are concerned that some chemicals in household cleaners could contribute to asthma or respiratory problems, especially if consumers aren't aware of their presence. The groups say they welcome the industry's plans to boost disclosure, but say the efforts don't go far enough. Rather than signing on to a voluntary initiative, these groups say companies should be required to participate. They say ingredients should be listed on product labels, rather than on Web sites, so they are available to consumers before purchase.
And, these groups say, not all chemicals are likely to be listed -- manufacturers, for instance, generally don't disclose ingredients in fragrances because these are considered trade secrets. "We are concerned no one knows what's in these products and that it's not very easy to find out," says Tom Neltner, chairman of the Sierra Club's Toxics Committee.
Federal law generally doesn't require manufacturers to disclose which chemicals are used in household cleaning products, though companies must include on labels any emergency warnings and instructions for first aid. For institutional cleaning products, companies are required to disclose certain chemicals that may be hazardous because professional cleaners are generally exposed to greater volumes of chemicals than the average household user. That information is contained in "material safety data sheets" posted on corporate Web sites.
A bill introduced in Congress last year would have required manufacturers to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the data necessary to determine if a chemical is safe. It also would have given the agency more authority to restrict the use of chemicals that fail to meet its safety standards. Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey plans to introduce a similar bill in the coming weeks, a spokesman says.
"Every day, consumers rely on household products that contain thousands of chemicals," Sen. Lautenberg said in a statement. "We must ensure these chemicals are safe before they reach the market."
The developments come at a time when consumer demand for cleaning products marketed as eco-friendly is on the rise, partly because consumers assume green products are safer, according to a recent report by Mintel International, a market-research firm. The market for so-called green cleaning products grew to $64.5 million last year from $17.7 million in 2003, it said.
Lydia Chen Shah, a 29-year-old marketing communications manager in Glendora, Calif., says she has gravitated to cleaners that are marketed as green, such as products by Seventh Generation and Method. "I don't want to feel like as soon as I put some household cleaner on the surface I'm going to have to stay away from it for a while," says Ms. Shah, who has pets and says she worries about their safety.
Currently there is no federal standard regulating the terms green or natural as it applies to cleaning products. Environmental groups advise people to read the label to learn why a product is labeled as green.
Advocacy groups have pored through companies' material safety data sheets listing chemicals that may be hazardous to professional cleaners. They say further study is needed to explore possible health effects on consumers who use smaller amounts of these chemicals at home. "In some cleaning products there are ingredients that are known to be respiratory irritants or sensitizers," says Ted Schettler, science director of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Health Network.
One group, Women's Voices for the Earth, outlined its concerns about certain chemicals in its 2007 Household Hazards report. The report pulled together various studies that had found associations between chemicals in cleaning products and certain health effects -- such as occupational asthma in cleaning workers. While the scientific data cited in the report are inconclusive, the group says there is cause for concern, and further research should be done.
One chemical found in detergents and all-purpose cleaners is monoethanolamine. It is used in various products such as Mr. Clean Multi-Surfaces Antibacterial Cleaner, made by Procter & Gamble, and Clorox's Formula 409 All Purpose Cleaner, according to the material safety data sheets listed on the companies' Web sites.
Studies done in the 1990s link the chemical to occupational asthma in cleaning workers, according to the Women's Voices for the Earth report. But Clorox says its products are safe and points to an analysis published by the U.K.'s Health and Safety Executive in 1997 that concluded there wasn't enough evidence to classify the chemical as a respiratory sensitizer.
Clorox says not everything on its material safety data sheets is hazardous because "we err on disclosing anything that might be germane to anyone using the product," says Reza Rahaman, vice president of global stewardship for the company.
Procter & Gamble said in an email: "A number of leading scientific and regulatory bodies around the world have investigated and reviewed this material and its safety profile, and all resulting data supports the conclusion that MEA does not pose a health risk to workers when used and handled in accordance to the manufacturer's safety recommendations."
Doctors and advocacy groups are also concerned about glycol ethers, which have been linked to reduced fertility and low birth weight in mice, according to the Women's Voices for the Earth report. One chemical in this category, 2-butoxyethanol, is used in products like Sunshine Makers Inc.'s Simple Green All Purpose Cleaning Foam, according to its material safety data sheet.
Sunshine Makers says its products are safe. "Independent laboratory test data show that there was no reproductive toxicity associated with exposure to Simple Green," Carol Chapin, senior director of research and development, said in an email.
Since most of the studies that analyze the health effects of chemicals in cleaners focus on occupational use rather than household use, "the information isn't really applicable to consumers," says Brian Sansoni, spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association, a trade group. "Workers tend to deal with larger quantities of the chemicals in question. Consumers are not going to come into contact with those kinds of volumes of ingredients."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
