2023

Yes, it’s December and this is my first blog post of the year. I have lots of them floating around in my head, but I’ve had trouble getting them out into the world. I appreciate those of you who’ve checked on me to see what I’ve been doing instead of writing. Here are a handful of the reasons I’ve been missing from the blogosphere.

1. I wanted a better way to manage my email list and contact those of you who signed up to get notified when I publish a new post. (I’m very grateful for all of you and your interest!) Unfortunately, my brain is old and starting to balk at learning new things, especially when it comes to technology. I managed to get about 80 percent of my contacts imported into a new program, then it started glitching and I just didn’t have the patience to figure it out. Every time I thought about writing a post I would also think “but I have to figure out the email thing first.” I didn’t want to have to figure it out, so it became easier not to write. (And no, I still haven’t completely switched to the new system, but I’m going to write this post anyway.)

2. I’ve been experimenting with other ways to get my message across and trying to figure out what’s most effective. Besides writing this blog, I post short toxin-related news items on Facebook and X and I comment on other people’s posts when appropriate. I’ve kept up with those efforts a little better than I’ve kept up with the blog. I hope in 2024 I can manage to do both more consistently.  I also contributed a chapter to a book on grace that was published this year.

3. I’ve been trying to free up more time to write by lowering the amount of maintenance chores in my life. I have a large yard and keeping up with it takes significant time and energy (and often means tick bites, which as a chronic Lyme disease sufferer I’d really prefer to avoid). I was determined that this would be the year that I’d finish turning all the weedy mulch nearest the house into easier-to-maintain hardscapes, so for the first part of the year, before the event I’ll talk about next, I pushed hard to get it done (while writing blog posts in my head). No, I didn’t meet that goal, either, but I made some good progress. 

4. The biggest reason that I didn’t write much was that I spent a good portion of the year on the bottom rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As I mention in my book, the basics of food, clothing, and shelter are all hard to manage for people with chemical sensitivities, and shelter is probably the hardest domain to conquer for most of us.

   What happened for me this time around is that the chimney flashing started to leak, a roofer came to repair it, and that set off an unfortunate chain of events. I’ll spare you the full story, but the short version is that I had pain and other symptoms that were significantly worse when I was in certain parts of the house. A little sleuthing led to the surprise discovery that there was a big gap above a duct that led from my living space into the attic, so attic air was freely flowing in. What I finally deduced was that the roof work must have stirred up some mold-laden dust (there was probably mold in the roof decking from the leak) and the spores and mycotoxins made their way into my breathing space. 

   Many people with chemical sensitivities are also very sensitive to mold. It's hard to describe, for people who aren’t highly reactive to it, how little exposure it takes to cause severe inflammation and how much cleaning goes into making a place tolerable again after a mold event. There are various names for the process in the mold community, but I’ve always called it ESI cleaning, which means “every square inch.”  There are a lot of square inches in a home and all its contents, and sometimes the whole process has to be repeated multiple times. It probably seems ridiculous to people who can’t even see or sense the problem, but it’s what some of us have to do.

   For a while I couldn’t sleep in the house safely, and my fear was that it might turn into a permanent situation, which happened in my previous home. I no longer have the campervan I slept in then, but I do have a screen room on the back of the house which I thought I could use for that purpose. Unfortunately, I discovered a roof leak and resultant mold in there, too, so that project got added to the list. It was a lot to do, especially given how bad I was feeling, and writing didn’t happen while I was focused on it. Anyway, I’m pain free and comfortably inside my house again and I’m grateful.

That’s my personal 2023 report. On the toxin front, my award for chemical of the year (really a group of related chemicals) goes to PFAS. At this point 15 state governments have pursued legal action against companies believed to be responsible for polluting the water and soil with it. I’m always curious about why any given toxin can be ignored for decades, then suddenly break into public consciousness. My guess is that this time it was the movie Dark Waters that did it. I think we need more movies about toxins.

Microplastics have also been getting a lot of attention. I would give them runner-up status. Sometimes people call PFAS “forever chemicals” and microplastics “everywhere chemicals.” As all chemicals do, they also interact. PFAS has been found in pesticides, which they pick up from the plastic containers they’re stored in.

If you’ve read all this and you’re interested in toxins and in my life, I’m truly grateful for you. Thanks for being with me on this journey.  Stay tuned.  My goal is to get one more post (that’s not about me) published before the year is over.  We shall see . . .

Chemicals and COVID -19

A recent study determined that there are more than 350,000 chemicals and chemical mixtures registered for production and use, a number three times as high as previously estimated. Up to 70,000 of these chemicals are described ambiguously and more than 50,000 are classified as “confidential,” leading to an enormous gap in knowledge. Given the woeful lack of data and study, it isn’t possible to fully understand how chemicals in the environment may be making us more susceptible to COVID-19. We do know enough, though, to take some prudent steps.  Here’s some of what’s known at this point:

1. The numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all linked to levels of fine particulate matter in the air.

Particulate matter is an airborne mixture of solid and liquid particles. The smaller or finer the particles, the more problematic they are for human health, because they can more easily evade defenses. Several recent studies examined the relationship of particulate air pollution to COVID-19. A study by the World Bank Group found that the level of fine particulate matter was a highly significant predictor of how many confirmed cases and hospital admissions there would be in a geographical area. They report that a pollution increase of 20 percent may increase COVID-19 cases by nearly 100 percent. The researchers controlled for health-related preconditions and demographic factors and note that patterns suggest the number of cases is not simply related to population density.

Particulate pollution is also associated with COVID-19 morbidity. The Guardian reports on a US study finding that “even a tiny, single-unit increase in particle pollution levels in the years before the pandemic is associated with a 15% increase in the death rate.”  It further notes that long-term exposure to particle pollution was already known to increase the risk of death from all causes, but that in the case of COVID-19 deaths, the increase was 20 times higher. The correlation held when poverty levels, smoking, obesity, and availability of COVID-19 tests and hospital beds were factored in. It also held when New York City (with many cases) and counties with few cases were removed from the data pool.

2. Indoor air is generally more polluted than outdoor air.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the air inside homes and other buildings tends to be more polluted than outdoor air even in the most populated and industrialized cities. It’s easy to feel helpless about our exposure to outdoor air pollution, but to a large degree, we can control our indoor environments.

Particulate pollution inside a home or other building can come in many forms. Combustion (burning candles or incense, using a fireplace, etc.) is a significant contributor. Household dust is also a source, and can lodge in carpets, sofas, chairs, curtains, and bedding and easily become airborne when, for example, carpets are walked on or people sit on sofas or chairs. For multiple reasons (some of which I’ll discuss later), it’s wise to address as many sources of toxicity inside a building as possible. Different types of contamination interact. As one website explains, “Particles in air are either directly emitted, for instance when fuel is burnt and when dust is carried by wind, or indirectly formed, when gaseous pollutants previously emitted to air turn into particulate matter.”

3. There are known risk factors for COVID-19 complications, and known chemical connections to them.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that people at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 include those with lung disease or asthma, obesity, diabetes, kidney or liver disease, and heart conditions. The list of chemicals that can contribute to these conditions is long.

Researchers tested 50 types of consumer products for 66 chemicals related to asthma or hormone disruption (associated with diabetes and obesity) and found 55 of them. Implicated chemicals include those found in fragrances, cleaners, cosmetics, plastic, hair care products, detergents, and more. Some of the highest concentrations of problematic chemicals were found in fragranced products, such as dryer sheets, air fresheners and perfumes. Vinyl was also a significant source of exposure.

Because the kidney and liver are involved in detoxifying chemicals, all exposures can stress and affect them. The National Kidney Foundation notes that kidney disease may be associated with herbicides, pesticides, air pollution, and heavy metal exposure. There are at least 123 chemicals associated with fatty liver, according to a study in Toxicologic Pathology. A significant number are found in pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides). Solvents, plasticizers, fragrances, paints, polishes, and dyes are also sources. Heart disease is likewise associated with a long list of chemical exposures, including (according to an article in Interdisciplinary Toxicology) those found in pesticides, cleaning products, plastic, adhesives, paints, and many other products.

4.  It’s wise to choose disinfectants carefully.

In a warning posted soon before COVID-19 became big news, Consumer Reports noted that many people may not know that products labeled “disinfecting” contain EPA-registered pesticides. The report notes that people who use disinfectants and cleaners regularly in their work (janitors and healthcare workers, for example) have higher rates of asthma. According to Newsweek, nurses who cleaned surfaces with disinfectants at least once a week had a 24 to 32 percent higher risk of developing COPD than nurses who used the products less often.

An article entitled Safer Disinfecting at Home in the Times of Coronavirus states that quats (quaternary ammonium chlorides, commonly found in disinfectants) are associated with a list of problems, including breathing difficulty, skin irritation, reproductive harm (including possible fertility and birth defect issues) and antimicrobial resistance. Chlorine bleach can also be problematic. The author recommends using disinfectants containing hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, lactic acid, citric acid, or thymol.

5. Ventilation is our friend.

Information from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicates that fresh air and sunlight seem to have prevented deaths among those infected. An article on the subject reports that “in the 1960s, Ministry of Defence scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant. Something in it, which they called the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria — and the influenza virus — than indoor air. . . . Their research also revealed that the Open Air Factor’s disinfecting powers can be preserved in enclosures — if ventilation rates are kept high enough.”

Adequate ventilation is known to limit the spread of airborne pathogens in healthcare environments. The author of an article entitled Could the Indoor Air Quality of Our Buildings Become Part of the COVID-19 Playbook? asks whether addressing ventilation in other buildings might likewise be part of an anti-viral strategy (which also includes reducing indoor contaminants). The article notes that in their publication Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the CDC recommends increasing ventilation rates and the percentage of outdoor air.

6. Every exposure matters

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “viral load.” The viral load, however, is only a small part of a person’s overall toxic load, or toxic body burden. There are natural and man-made toxins inside every human being (even newborns). Some chemicals are metabolized relatively quickly and others stick around for decades or even a lifetime. Some chemicals have been shown to directly affect the immune system, but every substance added to the body requires resources to manage and takes a person one step closer to the tipping point at which staying healthy is no longer possible.

It can be helpful to know what chemicals are likely to cause what symptoms or diseases, or to know whether you have a genetic weakness that might make you more susceptible to the effects of a certain class of compounds. It isn’t necessary to know that, though, in order to begin to protect yourself.

A guide to addressing indoor air pollution during lockdown and beyond suggests the following:

• Minimize use of air fresheners, pesticides, harsh cleaning products, aerosol sprays, and adhesives.

• Reduce indoor burning.

• Use an exhaust fan or open windows or doors.

To those, I would add the following suggestions:

• Keep things clean (using simple, non-toxic products) and reduce the number of surfaces that hold dust. It’s not a quick, easy fix, but removing carpet can make a big difference.

• Go fragrance free. A single fragrance can contain several hundred chemicals. (Also, fragrances in the products you use affect others around you as well.)

• Determine how toxic your personal care products are and make changes if necessary. The Skin Deep database is a good source of information.

• Reduce plastic use, especially in the kitchen.

• Eat organic food.

Much needs to be done on a societal level to help us stay healthy, but there’s also much that each of us can do personally. Now is a good time to do it.

How Much Plastic Did You Have for Breakfast?

Plastic is everywhere, isn’t it?  It’s helpful, harmful, and so ubiquitous that it’s hardly noticed. I’ve made efforts through the years to reduce my use, but it seems to keep creeping back into my life. I’ve been reading things lately, though, which have motivated me to tackle the issue again.

One of the key problems with conventional plastic is that it doesn’t biodegrade.  It does, however, break off into ever smaller pieces.  As one report notes, “They may be too small to see, but they are still there, worming their way into every nook and cranny of the environment – including our bodies.”

These tiny plastic particles (known as microplastics) enter our body in a number of ways.

We eat them.  Every day we consume millions of microplastic particles.  A recent article notes that we consume 5 grams weekly, which is about the amount in a credit card or plastic bottle cap.  Some of the plastic in our food is there because of bio-accumulation in the food chain and some comes from plastic-containing dust in the air.

We drink them.  They can enter the water supply or leach into drinks bottled in plastic.  They can also enter our beverages in a more direct way.  Until recently, I was unaware that most tea bags are sealed with plastic.  A New Scientist article reports that studies have found that a single tea bag can put 11.6 billion microplastic particles into a cup of tea.  This is many times greater than the amounts found in other foods which have traditionally been considered to be high in plastic contamination.

We breathe them in.  An article titled “Microplastics are Raining Down on Cities” notes that researchers tested the air in four cities and found microplastics (up to 15 different types) in all of them.  Even low-population areas once considered pristine have been affected.  The BBC reports that “even in the Arctic, microscopic particles of plastic are falling out of the sky with snow.”

How these microplastics are affecting our health isn’t completely known, because the issue hasn’t been extensively studied.  However, a Washington Post article notes that “It’s likely that ingesting microplastics could further expose us to chemicals . . . known to be harmful.”  The chemicals include bisphenols (the most well known of which is Bisphenol A, or BPA), phthalates, styrene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  These have been linked to cancer, immune system effects, hormone disruption, damage to the nervous system, and more.  There is evidence that microplastics can cross the blood-brain barrier and they may pass from mothers to their developing children in utero.  A physics professor writes that “microplastics, like the microfibers from our clothing, can also absorb harmful chemicals—like the flame retardants we put on that same clothing—and release them later, perhaps after they’ve wound up in our gut.” 

The obvious solution to the problem is to reduce our use of plastic, but that takes some focus, in part because plastic is so much a part of our lives that we may not always even recognize and notice it.  The Washington Post notes that plastic “lines soup cans, leaches out of storage containers, hides in household dust, and is found inside of toys, electronics, shampoo, cosmetics and countless other products.” Synthetic fabrics, such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon are also easily overlooked forms of plastic.

Experts have recommended various strategies to reduce microplastic exposure, including the following:

• Avoid storing food in plastic.  Plastic with recycling codes of 3, 6, and 7 may be especially problematic.  I once heard a speaker talk about the fact that we think of plastic as non-porous, but that to understand how porous it actually is, we can remember how easily a plastic container can be stained with tomato sauce.  The food can get into the plastic, and the plastic can get into the food. Eating fresh food is wise for many reasons, including the fact that food cans, wrappers, take-out containers and other packaging are often sources of microplastic contamination.

• Don’t heat plastic.  Avoid using plastic containers in the microwave.  Don’t put plastic in your dishwasher.  To combat the issue of plastic in tea bags, look for brands that are compostable, or use loose leaf tea.  Getting rid of as much plastic in the kitchen as possible is wise, but especially consider replacing things like plastic spatulas or colanders that are often used with hot food.

• Stay away from bottled water.  A test of tap water in the United States found microplastic in 94% of the samples, but bottled water has about double the amount. Tap water can have other contaminants too, of course, so a good filter is highly recommended.

• Wear clothing made of natural fabrics like cotton, linen, and wool.  Synthetic fabrics can shed tiny particles into the air, and are also widely implicated in contaminating the water supply.  When we wash our synthetic clothes, plastic particles make their way from our washing machines into the environment.  Some of them reach the ocean, are ingested by marine animals, and become part of the food chain.

• Dust regularly and try to reduce the amount of plastic likely to be found in it. Household dust comes from everything in the home, so reducing the amount of plastic in the home environment will keep the dust from containing as many microplastic particles. High quality air filters are a good idea. Carpet collects dust and is best avoided when possible.

  Microplastic contamination is a big issue, but there are steps each of us can take to reduce our exposures, and what we do to protect ourselves may protect others as well. Lowering our toxic load is a journey, and all journeys are taken one step at a time. 

From my Heart to Yours

On this date three years ago, my husband's heart stopped beating. He was in his 50s, seemingly healthy and robust, and most people were genuinely shocked at his death. I didn't wake up that March morning believing that my husband would die that day, but in a general sense I was less shocked than many others seemed to be. That was partly due to life experiences (my mother died when I was young, so I grew up understanding the unpredictability of death) and partly due to understanding some of his risk factors.

I'm going to mark this anniversary by writing about heart disease and talking about some lesser known causes. At some point I'm going to talk about a risk factor or two that I wish Dan would have taken more seriously. I imagine that last sentence put some of you on edge. Believe me, I spent a lot of time debating whether or not to write this post, but I decided to do so for multiple reasons, including that I'd like to think that Dan would want me to.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control notes that it causes one out of every four American deaths. Risk factors listed by the CDC include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, excess weight, poor diet, physical inactivity, and excessive alcohol use. I believe these are fairly well known by the general population. There are many other risk factors, however, that are less understood.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but some of the lesser known contributors to heart disease include the following:

Air pollution - Air pollution is a broad term, but in general, fine particulates in the air, such as from industrial and traffic fumes, are associated with higher rates of heart disease. The American Heart Association reports research showing increases in death and hospitalizations when there are higher rates of smog. ABC News reports on a study finding that being stuck in traffic more than triples the risk of having a heart attack.

Non-stick chemicals - As I've noted many times, chemicals in our consumer products are generally not tested for safety, so the health effects often remain unknown. Some, however, have been linked to heart disease, including a family of chemicals used in products such as non-stick pans and stain resistant coatings. A 2012 study found that people who had the highest rates of the chemical PFOA in their blood were twice as likely to experience heart disease, heart attack, or stroke as those with the lowest levels. Because of the bad press, PFOA is being replaced by other similar chemicals, but many health experts warn that there is no reason to believe that the newer versions are any less problematic.

Chemicals found in food and beverage containers - A 2014 study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluded that the chemical BPA, found in many places, including plastic bottles and in the lining of food cans, was associated with heart disease in both acute and chronic low-dose exposure situations. As with PFOA, the bad press about BPA has led to some changes, but a 2016 study found it present in 67% of cans tested.

Heavy metals - University Health News reports that researchers have implicated at least four heavy metals associated with clogging arteries: lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic.

Mold and other toxins found in water damaged buildings - Water damaged buildings, or those with high indoor humidity levels, tend to be breeding grounds for a multitude of organisms, including a wide variety of fungi and bacteria. Exposure can lead to chronic inflammation, which can contribute to heart disease. A study in the Internet Journal of Toxicology found an association between exposure to molds in damp buildings and high cholesterol levels.

Sleep apnea - The American Heart Association notes that sleep apnea is associated with high blood pressure, arrhythmia, stroke, and heart failure. I'm almost certain that Dan had sleep apnea, and I wish I had been successful at convincing him to get tested.

Sugar consumption - This is the big one that I worried about for years. Dr. Mark Hyman's summary of the research notes that people with the highest sugar consumption have a 400% higher risk of experiencing a heart attack than those who consume the least. Sugar (in all its various forms) is not just a problem because of its "empty calories," adding to weight without contributing nutrition, but because it is inflammatory and dangerous in and of itself.

Americans eat a lot of sugar, and the amount continues to climb. A Huffington Post article reports that the American Heart Association recommends that women cap their consumption at six teaspoons a day and men at nine, but that the average American consumes 30 teaspoons daily. There are a number of reasons for this. One is simply that American food manufacturers sweeten almost everything. I remember returning to the United States after living overseas and being astonished to find sugar in canned kidney beans. Dr. Hyman notes, "Most of us don’t know that a serving of tomato sauce has more sugar than a serving of Oreo cookies, or that fruit yogurt has more sugar than a Coke, or that most breakfast cereals — even those made with whole grain — are 75% sugar. That’s not breakfast, it’s dessert!"

Americans also eat a lot of sugar because we're addicted to it. I don't use that term lightly. Sugar affects the same reward centers of the brain that other drugs do, and produces tolerance in the same manner. People find themselves needing more and more of it to satisfy their sweet tooth and may experience withdrawal symptoms when they don't consume it at regular intervals. To quote Dr. Hyman again, " Recent and mounting scientific evidence clearly proves that sugar — and flour, which raises blood sugar even more than table sugar — is biologically addictive. In fact, it’s as much as eight times more addictive than cocaine." A 2007 rodent study reported that 94% of the animals chose sugar (or an artificial sweetener) over cocaine when given the choice.

Drug abuse is a serious and growing personal and societal problem that I don't want to trivialize in any way. An Associated Press article reports that almost 13,000 people died of a heroin overdose in 2015 and prescription painkillers killed over 17,500 people. A 2015 LA Times story reports another serious statistic: sugary drinks are linked to 25,000 deaths in the United States each year.

It seems likely that many, if not most Americans are addicted to sugar to some degree. I believe I was, until my health forced me to radically change my diet. I believe Dan was. We talked about it some through the years, and he never quite denied it, but he never quite addressed it, either. About a year before he died, he developed a persistent itchy rash that doctors had trouble diagnosing. At some point I sent him an article which suggested giving up sugar for two weeks in the case of mystery skin ailments. Not long afterwards, he remarked to me that he had decided that he wouldn't cut sugar out completely, but that maybe he would try to cut down.

I remember that conversation clearly. Dan was itchy and miserable, but not fully willing, for a a brief two weeks, to trade sugar for the possibility of relief. The basic definition of addiction is continuing to engage in a behavior despite negative consequences, and I remember feeling a wave of deep sadness and thinking, "This is a strong addiction. It could kill him." I thought there was a good possibility that his heart would cause him major problems some day, but I didn't know how soon the day would come. I think my vague thought of what might happen was that he might have a heart attack in his 60s, and that, if we were lucky, he would live through it and then maybe get serious about changing his diet.

Obviously, I don't know that sugar consumption had anything to do with Dan's sudden death. He had plenty of other risk factors, including genetic ones, and had a period of high work stress in the time period before he died, which could well have been the final straw. I'm also certainly not unaware that my own health limitations added a significant degree of stress to Dan's life. (On the flip side, I think my need to live a low-toxicity life was protective for him in some ways, as well.) I can't point to sugar and say that I know it killed my husband, but the research is clear that it is, in fact, a killer.

I'm very sensitive to "blame the victim" messages and absolutely don't want this to come across that way. This isn't blaming, but warning. It's remembering the events of this day three years ago and deeply and sincerely wanting to spare other people a similar experience. Sometimes people take things more seriously when they know people who have been affected, which is my sole motivation for sharing personal stories.

As I was debating whether or not to write this post, I ran across Leviticus 5:1, which says "If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify." Yes, it's Old Testament and no, it wasn't written about blog posts, but it convinced me. What I can offer the world these days is limited, but I can testify about things I have seen and know about.

I imagine I've made a lot of people mad by this point. To those who are mad because they loved Dan and are angry that I wrote some negative things about him, I'll simply say that I loved him, too, and miss him greatly. I've cried every day this month so far. I'll also remind you that I wrote a very different sort of post about him three years ago.

To those who are mad because in addition to harping about chemicals, I'm now harping about a very prevalent food choice which is a source of comfort and pleasure, I'll simply say that I get it. Those of us who became addicted to sugar were simply eating the standard American diet or found ourselves eating more sugar because we were avoiding fat and dietary cholesterol like the experts recommended. The sugar industry manipulated studies and public policy just like the chemical industry does today. It's easy to understand how we ended up in this place, but now that we're here, it's time to accept that there are real consequences.

I write because I care about you. Whether I know you personally or not, you matter to me simply because you've taken the time to read this post. I know other people care about you, too, and we all want your heart to keep beating for a very long time.

The Problem with Pink

It’s October, and that means a lot of things will be colored pink this month in support of breast cancer prevention and treatment. Breast cancer is a personal issue for my family. I lost my mother to the disease when I was a young teen and as I write this, my sister is fighting it. I grew up cancer's shadow, and I obviously support awareness and research. I get quite frustrated and angry at some aspects of the “turn everything pink” movement, though, especially the ridiculous practice of slapping a pink label on a product that contains ingredients actually known to cause cancer. This has come to be known as “pinkwashing.”

Pinkwashing is an extremely common practice. The writer of the Mommy Greenest website notes that the problem seems to be getting larger with every passing year. Some of the myriad of examples include the following:

• Perfumes, which contain hormone disruptors and other possible carcinogens (In 2011, the Susan G. Komen Foundation commissioned a perfume which contained toluene, which is banned by the International Fragrance Association)

• Bottled water and canned soup, both of which can leach BPA

• Nail polish, which contains numerous known carcinogens, including formaldehyde and pthalates

• Lipstick containing hormone disruptors and lead

It’s hard to justify selling a product with known carcinogens in the name of breast cancer prevention or treatment. It makes even less sense when you realize what a small amount of the purchase price often goes to the cause. (In some cases the amount is zero.) The Think Before You Pink campaign advises asking yourself some questions before buying a pink-labeled product. These include whether any money from the purchase goes to breast cancer programs, who will receive the donation and what will be done with it, whether or not a company caps the amount they donate, and whether the product itself raises the cancer risk.

We're surrounded by products that are known to contribute to cancer in general and breast cancer in particular. The Mommy Greenest article advises avoiding perfumes and other products with synthetic fragrances, canned foods, vinyl, many plastics, and personal care products which contain common preservatives known as parabens. An article in The Independent reported on a study finding that the products linked most strongly to breast cancer were air fresheners and mold and mildew removers. Association was also found with insect repellants.

For more information on environmental contributors to breast cancer, see the Breast Cancer Fund website. It isn’t wrong to continue to support research into treatment, but why not also act on what we already know? Knowledge isn't helpful unless we use it.

Chemicals and Conception

Celebrating Mother's Day yesterday reminded me again of what a blessing it is to be the mother of two amazing young men. As I ponder the gift of motherhood, I can't help but think of a number of people I know who would very much like to be parents, but have found that goal difficult to achieve. There are many possible reasons for infertility, but a factor that may be overlooked, and that can be controlled to an extent, is exposure to chemical toxins. (How did you know I was going to say that?)

Earlier this year, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published a study that examined "persistent pollutants" and the time to pregnancy of couples wishing to conceive. The study and a report of it published in E Magazine noted the following:

• Couples exposed to toxins known as persistent organic pollutants took longer to become pregnant.

• Men’s chemical exposures were more important to the equation than their partners'.

• The concentration of chemicals found to delay conception was lower than the average found in the U.S. population.

An online article entitled "Toxins and Fertility" notes that only about 5 percent of the almost 80,000 chemicals used in the US today have been tested for their reproductive effects. Despite that, we do know that certain chemicals may cause problems for couples wishing to become parents. The article and a fact sheet produced by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families list the following chemicals that may affect reproduction:

• Phthalates, which are widely used and may be found in nail polish, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, antiperspirant, sunscreen, gum, candy, medications, and many other places

• Parabens, added to a wide range of household products, including bath products and cosmetics

• Bisphenol A (BPA), which can be found in polycarbonate plastic and some food and beverage can linings

• Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), commonly used in stain-proof and non-stick products

• Cadmium, a metal used in pigments, metal coatings, plastics, and batteries

• Fluoride, added to many municipal water supplies

• Common pesticides and fungicides, including Vinclozolinis, Kepone, DBCP, ethylene dibromide, and Methoxychlor (MCX)

• Triclosan (Microban),found in anti-bacterial soaps, dental products, cosmetics, deodorant, first aid products, kitchenware, appliances, toys, and more

The chemicals listed are linked to a wide range of other health effects as well. Avoiding them benefits us all.