The Chemicals in Commerce Act

I've previously written about the woefully inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act, in effect since the 1970s, and about efforts to update it. Last year, the Safe Chemicals Act was introduced in the Senate, but failed to gain bipartisan support. A bipartisan bill known as the Chemical Safety Improvement Act was then proposed. Public health and environmental groups have been divided in their opinion of whether the bill is strong enough in its current form to promote.

Now a bill has been introduced in the House. It's known as the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) and many groups are characterizing it as a step backwards rather than forward. Noted problems include those related to setting health standards, prioritizing problematic chemicals, and enforcing deadlines and minimum requirements for action. Opposition is coming not only from health and environmental groups, but also from a coalition of states that oppose the bill because current state authority to regulate chemicals would be undermined and largely eliminated.

The regulation of chemicals is often framed as a fight between health and economic interests. As a recent Huffington Post article reports, however, problems associated with toxic exposures have an associated financial cost. The article notes that a 2011 study found that toxic chemicals and air pollutants cost $76.6 billion in lost working hours, reduced IQ points, and children’s health care. The study included only a fraction of possible concerns. It didn’t, for example, look at childhood obesity related to exposure to bisphenol A, which is estimated to cost the economy $1.49 billion.

If you'd like to add your voice to those calling for meaningful reform and expressing disappointment in the Chemicals in Commerce Act, the Center for Environmental Health has provided a way for people to easily contact their representatives about the issue. There's also an online petition that can be signed on the website of the organization Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families.

It would be nice if regulations were in place that required manufacturers to prove products safe before putting them on the market and making it easy to remove them once problems surfaced. Since that doesn’t exist, each of us must continue to do our homework and to purchase products with the health of ourselves, our families, and our fellow human beings in mind.

Our Sensitive Sons

The common belief within the toxic illness community seems to be that women are more likely than men to develop the condition. This belief is reinforced by the fact that online support groups appear to have a greater percentage of female than male participants. I was somewhat surprised, then, to read an article this week that detailed ways in which boys may be more vulnerable to environmental pollutants than their female counterparts are.

The article, published in Environmental Health News, makes the following points:

• There’s a stronger link between air pollution and autism in boys.

• The insecticide chlorpyrifos, found in Dursban and other products, seems to reduce the IQs of boys more than girls.

• Boys are more susceptible to damage from low-level lead exposure.

• Phthalates, found in vinyl and many other products, have been linked to larger behavioral changes, primarily aggression and attention disorders, in boys.

• A study found that high in-utero exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), another ubiquitous chemical, caused hyperactivity, aggression, and anxiety in boys, but not girls. The boys were also born with lower thyroid hormones, while female levels were normal.

The author explains the findings by noting that the pre-birth development of a female is simpler than that of a male. It takes a greater number of cell divisions to make a male, and with each division comes a greater vulnerability to toxic exposures.

After birth, these vulnerabilities continue. In females, the XX chromosome offers a bit of back-up protection, with a healthy X able to take over for one with a genetic defect. Males, with their XY makeup, have no such backup system. The article also notes that X chromosomes carry more genetic information, so the XY combination may mean a loss of brain development proteins or repair mechanisms.

In addition, estrogen protects the brain. Their lower estrogen levels mean that male brains are more fragile and prone to injury. Hormone imbalances may contribute to a wide range of chemical-related health effects, because many chemicals are endocrine disruptors which suppress or mimic hormones.

If it’s true that the common belief is that women are more vulnerable to chemical illness and the truth is the opposite, why is that? Perhaps it’s because we still have a lot to learn as a culture about all the possible symptoms that toxic exposures can cause. There will always be differences between boys and girls, but maybe some of the “natural boy” traits we’ve assigned to the gender, such as aggression, hyperactivity, and lack of focus, aren’t entirely natural after all.

Brain Drain

In 2006, physicians associated with the Harvard School of Public Health and Mount Sinai hospital authored an article linking common chemicals to neurodevelopmental disorders in children. Although they noted that hundreds of chemicals are known to have neurotoxic effects, they singled out five chemicals of special concern for developing brains. Last week, in an article published in the journal Lancet Neurology, authors Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan added six more chemicals to the list.

Key points from the study and reports of it by Forbes and CNN include the following:

• Young and pre-born children are especially sensitive to the effects of neurotoxins. Effects include autism and lowered IQ. Landrigan notes, "Beyond IQ, we're talking about behavior problems -- shortening of attention span, increased risk of ADHD. We're talking about emotional problems, less impulse control, (being) more likely to make bad decisions, get into trouble, be dyslexic and drop out of school. ... These are problems that are established early, but travel through childhood, adolescence, even into adult life."

• The chemicals are known to cross the blood brain barrier. When this happens to children with developing brains the effects are permanent.

• Chemicals of concern include pesticides, solvents, flame retardants, and more. The authors note that at least 1,000 chemicals have demonstrated an ability to interfere with brain function in animal studies. Landrigan adds, "We are very worried that there are a number of other chemicals out there in consumer products that we all contact every day that have the potential to damage the developing brain, but have never been safety tested.” Grandjean notes, "We are not just talking about single chemicals anymore. We are talking about chemicals in general."

• The authors call for testing of all chemicals. Landrigan notes that the problem is not one of capability, but of political will.

The Safe Chemicals Act continues to languish in Washington. Other countries have taken action. In 2007, the European Union enacted REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). Landrigan remarks, "I find it very irritating some of the multinational manufacturers are now marketing products in Europe and the U.S. with the same brand name and same label, but in Europe (they) are free of toxic chemicals and in the U.S. they contain toxic chemicals."

Yep. I too, find it irritating. The words infuriating and ridiculous also come to mind. If the brain health of our most vulnerable doesn't move us to action, I'm not sure what will.

Flame Retardants

I’m not keeping up with this blog very well lately, due in part to the fact that I’m spending a lot of time putting our garage back together after a fire we had in October. It seems appropriate that when I pull myself away from that task it’s to write about flame retardants. Like so many chemicals before them, they are an example of a good idea gone very wrong.

The History

The widespread use of chemical flame retardants began in 1975, when the state of California adopted a law requiring children’s products and “seating furninture” (couches, loveseats and chairs) to meet certain flammability standards. Fill material in furniture was required to withstand a small flame for at least twelve seconds. In order to comply with the law, manufacturers began adding chemicals, mostly those known as Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (“PDBEs”) to their products. A typical sofa can contain up to two pounds of chemical flame retardants.

Because California is so large, manufacturers who don’t wish to be shut out of California’s market often change their entire product lines in order to meet California’s requirements. This was the case with fire standards. Most furniture and children’s products in the U.S. are manufactured to meet California’s requirements and contain large amounts of PDBEs or similar chemicals. Flame retardants can also be found in electronics, insulation, carpet padding, children’s clothing, automobiles, crib mattresses, adult mattresses manufactured before 2007, and other products.

The Problem

Unfortunately, chemical fire retardants have been linked to a wide range of negative health and environmental effects. The Environmental Protection Agency notes that PDBEs may be “persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment.” They note that since they are not chemically bound to the products in which they are used, they may easily migrate from them.

The problem of PDBEs leaching from products means that the chemicals accumulate in the home environment. Duke University reports on research showing that the concentration of flame retardants in household dust is as concentrated as that found in sewage sludge. Flame retardants can be found in the blood of virtually every American, in much higher levels than found in residents of other countries. Children often have higher levels than do adults. The Environmental Working Group notes that a 2008 study found levels of fire retardants in children’s blood to be three times higher than those of their mothers.

PBDEs are chemically similar to thyroid hormones and can mimic them in the human body. Thyroid hormones are important for brain development and metabolism and many of the health problems associated with flame retardants relate to these areas. Human and animal studies have found the following health problems associated with PDBEs and other chemical flame retardants:

• Decreased IQ

• Poor attention

• Hyperactivity

• Memory problems

• Impaired fine-motor control

• Weight gain

• Anxiety

• Thyroid abnormalities

• Early Puberty

• Abnormal reproductive cycles

• Reduced fertility

• Lower birth weight

• Birth defects

• DNA mutation

• Increased cancer risk

• Increased diabetes risk

Because house pets share the home environment, they are as affected by chemicals in the home as human residents are. Seattle’s KOMO News reports that flame retardants may be killing cats. The article notes that in recent decades, millions of indoor cats have developed hyperthyroidism, which is often fatal, and that “significant association” has been found between the illness and flame retardants.

Small Victories

There’s a small bit of good news. Recently, California has changed the way in which flammability is measured. The 12-second flame test has been replaced by a “smolder” test, based on one proposed by the American Society for Testing and Materials. It should be easier for manufacturers to meet the new requirements without using flame retardants. They will still be allowed to use the chemicals, but the hope is that increasing numbers will choose not to do so.

Although the original law was undoubtedly well-intentioned, there is little data to indicate that flame retardants have significantly reduced fire risk. Treated products still burn, and the smoke they produce when they do may be highly toxic. Many firefighters have joined the campaign to reduce flame retardant use because of the dangers associated with inhaling chemical-laden smoke. The Centers for Disease Control notes that firefighters have significantly higher rates of many types of cancer.

How to Reduce Your Exposure

Flame retardants are difficult to avoid, but there are steps people can take to reduce their exposure, including the following:

• Avoid products made with polyurethane foam when possible. Generally fillings made of down, wool, or polyester are not treated with flame retardants.

• Minimize your exposure to household dust. This can mean cleaning with a damp rag or mop to avoid spreading dust, using air purifiers and vacuums with HEPA filters, and replacing carpet with hard surface flooring.

• Wash hands often, especially before eating. The Duke study noted that the amount of flame retardant on toddlers’ hands was a good predictor of the levels in their blood, suggesting that hand to mouth may be the biggest exposure pathway.

• Watch what you drink. Oddly enough, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), which is commonly found in sports drinks and citrus sodas, was patented as a flame retardant. Many researchers are concerned that the brominated oil may have the same effects as other brominated chemicals like PBDE. BVO has been banned as a food additive in Japan and the European Union, but is allowed in the US and Canada.

As with other issues of product toxicity, consumers can advocate for change by creating demand for healthier goods. When considering the purchase of new furnishings or other products, it can be helpful to call or write the manufacturer to ask about the use of flame retardants. If we care about the issue, manufacturers need to know.

Lessons from Algernon: Chemicals and Cognition

I often find myself thinking about a book that I first read many years ago. Flowers for Algernon is the story of a mentally disabled man named Charlie who undergoes surgery to improve his IQ. Algernon is the laboratory mouse who served as the first experimental subject of the procedure. The story is written from Charlie's point of view, and the grammar, spelling, and word choices change as his intelligence does.

I think about the book frequently, because a lot of my communication with fellow toxic illness sufferers is done through e-mail, and the grammar, spelling, and word choices of my friends tells me a lot about how they are doing and whether they have recently had any significant chemical exposures. People who are normally articulate and even eloquent lose their ability to spell and form coherent sentences. I often find myself reading sections of written communication over and over, trying to glean their meaning. Undoubtedly, others have similar experiences with passages I write when my brain isn't at its best.

Chemicals can affect the brain in many ways. The National Institutes of Health states that encephalopathy is a term for brain disease or malfunction and that it may be caused by a number of things, including toxins like solvents, paints, drugs, radiation, industrial chemicals and certain metals. The list of possible symptoms includes progressive loss of memory, inability to concentrate, and decline in cognitive ability.

The cognitive effects of chemical exposures are very real. Even those of us who have been managing our illness for many years find that we forget to go through our "first-aid" routines after we have been exposed. People often talk about going into a store or other toxic environment and wandering about in a daze, forgetting why they are there and failing to realize that they should leave. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the same dynamic may be happening on a societal level. I'm afraid that we may get to a point where we are too far gone to realize the trouble that common chemicals are causing us and to make the effort to save ourselves.

Some legislators in Kansas are trying to save themselves, at least from one possible toxin. An article in the Huffington Post reports that the Kansas Republican Assembly would like city officials in Topeka to cease adding fluoride to the city's drinking water, at least during the legislative session, "to protect our legislators from potential loss of IQ.and other negative side effects of fluoride." Fluoride is only one of many chemicals linked to a lowering of IQ levels. Just within the past few weeks I've read articles linking lower IQ levels to lead, flame retardants, and chemicals related to natural gas production.

The fictional Charlie learned from the experience of Algernon that his cognitive abilities were likely to decline again after they had risen. Unfortunately, he was unable to find a way to prevent that from happening. We can prevent further cognitive decline from happening to us, though. Medicine Net states that early treatment of many types of encephalopathy can halt or reduce the symptoms and that "often, cases of encephalopathy can be prevented by avoiding the many primary causes." We can save ourselves, but if we are going to protect ourselves from the effects of environmental toxins, we need to do it before our collective cognitive functioning is so diminished that we fail to fully understand the problem. Let's save ourselves, friends. Seriously, let's save ourselves while we still can.