Healthy Legacy

Let’s focus on environment and diet to help prevent autism

admin — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:28:35 +0000

Now that autism affects one in fifty school-aged kids—up from 1 in 150 as measured in 2000—we should be asking ourselves some pretty serious questions about why so many kids have autism. Sure, we know that the health and educational systems are better at diagnosing autism, but better diagnosis explains only part of the increase. With exponential increases in rates of autism over the past two decades, there is more going on than better diagnosis.

As more kids are diagnosed with autism, most of our attention is focused on providing services. Serving kids with autism is essential, but there is also a need to examine the possible myriad of factors that might be contributing to this autism epidemic. If we knew how to prevent autism, it would be our responsibility as a society to commit resources at our disposal to do so.

Preventing autism requires that we look at the whole picture. The bulk of research in autism has been focused on genetics, which plays a contributing role in risk for autism. Emerging from more recent research, however, is a pattern of links between risk for autism and environmental and dietary factors. While the etiology of autism is complex, with both genetic and environmental components, it is clear that the role of the immune system is key. A child’s prenatal and postnatal environments, including diet, clearly impact immune health. Autism is likely the result of multiple assaults on the immune system. One of these assaults then tips the person over a threshold into the autism state.

IATP's latest fact sheet, Autism: What Do Environment and Diet Have to Do With It? by Kathleen Schuler, MPH, explores countless studies that point to increased risk of autism and autistic behaviors from numerous environmental toxin exposures, including:

Pollution. Living near a pollution site, hazardous air pollutants, and residence near a freeway.
Pesticides. Residence near agricultural pesticide applications and prenatal exposure to the organophosphate pesticides.
Phthalates. Prenatal exposure to phthalates.
Heavy metals. Exposure to environmental neurotoxins including mercury, aluminum, lead and cadmium.
Persistent organic pollutants. Prenatal exposure to high levels of PCBs and DDE (metabolite of DDT).
Parental occupation. Mother’s occupational exposure to exhaust and combustion products and parental work at night or in handling of solvents.

Environmental toxins like mercury and pesticides cause adverse neurodevelopmental impacts through altering gene expression and interact with dietary factors that can either protect or cause harm to health. Specific nutrients play critical roles in metabolic processes that detoxify and eliminate harmful toxins from the body. For example, deficiencies in zinc and magnesium may interact with toxic metal burdens to increase risk for autism. There is emerging evidence that faulty gene expression may play a role in autism and that environmental and dietary factors are key factors in gene expression.

What about prevention?

We have more to learnabout the factors that contribute to autism but we already know enough to apply public health approaches to prevent and treat autism. Education of women of childbearing age and expecting parents on environmental and dietary factors linked to autism could help reduce exposures that might trigger autism. Behavioral interventions for children with autism could be supplemented with dietary interventions. Numerous studies point to the benefits of nutritional supplements for patients with autism. Prenatal care should include an assessment of nutritional status and a close look at treating and preventing metabolic disorders that increase the risk of autism.

While we know that there’s no one chemical or no one exposure that causes autism, implementing policies that prevent unnecessary exposures to neurotoxins and hormone-disrupting chemicals is a smart public health prevention strategy. One of the first policy steps to reduce exposures to toxic chemicals is to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the outdated and ineffective law that allows thousands of toxic, untested chemicals to continue to be used in consumer products, including in food packaging, without basic information about effects on human health.

In addition to federal action to reduce exposures to toxic chemicals in our environment, state action to protect citizens, especially children, from toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products is also important. Implementing policies such as addressing chemicals in children’s products, as proposed by Minnesota’s Toxic Free Kids Act, will contribute to a healthy environment for the optimal growth and development of our children. To get involved visit Healthy Legacy's Facebook page or contact them at healthylegacy@cleanwater.org.

Read IATP's Autism: What Do Environment and Diet Have to Do With It? by Kathleen Schuler, MPH.

Author(s) (external):

Kathleen Schuler

Feature

Image:

Flickr/CC credit:

buzzymelibee

The obesity epidemic: What do chemicals have to do with it?

Andrew Ranallo — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 20:49:41 +0000

We are all hearing a lot about obesity these days and more people are obese than ever; one-third of American children and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese. The American Medical Association has declared that obesity is a disease.

While some disagree with the designation of obesity as a disease, there is strong evidence that obesity is linked with diseases—specifically Type II diabetes and heart disease. There is also general agreement that obesity is a major public health problem. Preventing obesity would contribute to a healthier, happier population and save an estimated $190 billion per year in direct health care costs.

But how do we prevent obesity? We all know that we should eat healthier and exercise more to maintain a healthy weight, but few people are aware that avoiding exposure to certain chemicals could reduce their risk of obesity, especially during prenatal life and in childhood. An emerging body of science links chemicals that disrupt hormones to increased risk for obesity.

Fetuses and children are the most vulnerable to adverse health effects from hormone-disrupting chemicals. Like hormones themselves, these chemicals exert health impacts even at minute levels of exposure and exposures in the womb can have lifelong impacts.

As detailed in a new IATP fact sheet titled Chemicals and Obesity, an array of chemical obesogens may be contributing to the obesity epidemic. Obesogens are chemical agents that promote fat accumulation and alter feeding behaviors. They activate cell receptors to predispose them to fat accumulation. Obesogenic chemicals can affect the size and number of fat cells or the hormones that regulate appetite and metabolism. They can also cause changes in gene expression, or epigenetic changes, which can have intergenerational impacts.

It is now evident that a variety of environmental chemicals can act on cellular pathways to promote fat accumulation and obesity. We are all exposed to these chemicals every day through foods and food packaging and from an array of consumer products and building materials. Chemicals for which there is evidence of obesogenic activity include:

Bisphenol A, a chemical used in food packaging and plastic.
Phthalates, chemicals found in plastics and fragranced personal care products.
Brominated flame retardants used in electronics and foam products.
Perfluroalkyls, “Teflon chemicals” used in food packaging and nonstick cookware.

Evidence of obesity risk from chemical exposure is growing every day. A recent study found that girls aged between 9 and 12 with higher levels of BPA in their urine had a twofold increased risk for obesity.

In light of a growing obesity epidemic in the U.S., a comprehensive public health response is needed. In addition to initiatives to encourage healthy eating and exercise, we also need actions to prevent exposures to obesogenic chemicals, including:

Better regulation of toxic chemicals through reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA should be strengthened to require the phase out persistent, toxic bio-accumulative chemicals that build up in the food system and in the human body and to require basic safety testing on all new chemicals introduced into commerce.
Better state regulation of chemicals in children’s products through the Toxic Free Kids Act. www.healthylegacy.org/ Three of the above listed chemicals are on the Minnesota Priority Chemicals List.
Voluntary efforts by downstream businesses and retailers to require the phase out the worst chemicals, including those linked with obesity. www.mindthestore.org

Read IATP’s latest fact sheet, Chemicals and Obesity, for more.

Feature

Image:

Flickr/CC credit:

beana_cheese

Image caption:

BPA, used in metal can linings, can have obesogenic effects—especially on developing children.

Cadmium, mercury and phthalates—oh my!

Colleen Borgendale — Wed, 01 May 2013 19:53:49 +0000

Over 5000 children’s products contain toxic chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption and reproductive problems, including the toxic metals, cadmium, mercury and antimony, as well as phthalates and solvents. A new report by the Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States reveals the results of manufacturer reporting to the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Makers of kids’ products reported using 41 of the 66 chemicals identified by WA Ecology as a concern for children’s health. Major manufacturers who reported using the chemicals in their products include Walmart, Gap, Gymboree, Hallmark, H & M and others. They use these chemicals in an array of kids’ products, including clothing, footwear, toys, games, jewelry, accessories, baby products, furniture, bedding, arts and crafts supplies and personal care products. Besides exposing kids in the products themselves, some of these chemicals, for example toxic flame retardants, build up in the environment and in the food we eat.

Examples of product categories reported to contain toxic chemicals include:

Hallmark party hats containing cancer-causing arsenic
Graco car seats containing the toxic flame retardant TBBPA (tetrabromobisphenol A)
Claire’s cosmetics containing cancer-causing formaldehyde
Walmart dolls containing hormone-disrupting bisphenol A

The chemical reports are required under Washington State’s Children’s Safe Products Act of 2008. A searchable database of chemical use reports filed with the Washington State Department of Ecology is available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/cspa/search.html.

Like Washington, the Minnesota Department of Health has published a list or priority chemicals in children’s products. Eight of the nine chemicals on this list are also on the Washington list. The nine priority chemicals are lead, cadmium, bisphenol A, formaldehyde, two brominated flame retardants and three phthalates. However, in Minnesota, manufacturers are not required to report if they use a priority chemical in a children’s product—so both states agencies and consumers are in the dark when it comes to these chemicals. Last month Minnesota’s Senate Commerce Committee voted down the Toxic Free Kids Act of 2013, a bill that would have required such reporting.

Minnesota can take a lesson from the Washington experience. Manufacturers were able to produce this information without undue burden and yes these chemicals are in products our kids are chewing on, touching and inhaling every day! It’s time for Minnesota to follow Washington’s lead and require manufacturers to submit the same type of data. I urge the Minnesota Legislature to come back in 2014 and pass the Toxic Free Kids Act.

Feature

Headline:

Toxins in children's products

Summary:

A new report reveals over 5000 children's products that contain toxic chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption and reproductive problems.

Image:

Asking retailers to get tough on toxics

Andrew Ranallo — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:55:30 +0000

This week, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families launched Mind the Store, a campaign that asks the nation's top 10 retailers to move away from the Hazardous 100+ toxic chemicals. The Hazardous 100+ is a list of chemicals that have been determined to be harmful to human health by several states, the U.S. EPA and the European Union and includes Minnesota’s nine priority chemicals in children’s products.

The Hazardous 100+ have been determined by authoritative bodies to be linked to cancer, developmental or reproductive problems, asthma, hormone disruption and other health problems. It includes chemicals like brominated flame retardants and PFOS that build up in the food chain and in our bodies.

These toxic chemicals don’t belong in our food, they don’t belong in our bodies and they don’t belong in our consumer products. Mind the Store is asking the top ten retailers—Walmart, Kroger, Target, Walgreens, Costco, Home Depot, CVS Caremark, Lowe’s, Best Buy and Safeway—to evaluate whether these chemicals are in any of products they sell and if so, to develop an action plan to phase out their use.

Some of these companies are already taking steps to reduce the use of toxic chemicals in their products. For example, Minnesota-based Target Corporation has an initiative to phase out the use of PVC in products and packaging. They also offer an array of cleaning and personal care products with safer ingredients. We’re asking Target and the other nine companies to take the next step and commit to phasing out other harmful chemicals in their products.

Sure, we need stronger regulation of toxic chemicals at both the state and federal levels, but we don’t need to wait for regulation to take action now. The top ten retailers have the power to move the marketplace toward the use of safer chemicals starting today. They can help create a world in which a mom doesn’t have to do a research project every time she goes shopping, a world where all the products on the shelves are safe to buy.

Let your local retailer know that you want them to phase out the Hazardous 100 + toxic chemicals in the products they sell, so you don’t have to worry about the products you buy. Send a letter to your favorite retailer today.

Feature

Headline:

Retailers: Get tough on toxics

Summary:

Let your local retailer know that you want them to phase out the Hazardous 100+ toxic chemicals in the products they sell, so you don’t have to worry about the products you buy.

Image:

The Safe Chemicals Act is back and not a moment too soon

Andrew Ranallo — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:37:52 +0000

With chemicals like chlorinated tris, a carcinogen, turning up infant changing table pads, the respiratory irritant formaldehyde in baby bath products and hormone disrupter, BPA in food can linings, what’s a parent to do? Parents try to protect their kids from exposures to toxic chemicals by making smart purchases, but they don’t have all the information they need to know what is harmful. It’s the government’s job to assure that harmful products don’t end up on store shelves in the first place. While states like Minnesota are taking action to protect children from toxic chemical exposures, federal action is also critical. The 37-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law regulating industrial chemicals in the U.S., is not doing the job.

A couple of years ago, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which proposed sweeping reforms of this toothless law. While the bill did get through one committee, it never made it through to the floor. The Safe Chemicals Act is back and both Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken are original co-sponsors. We thank Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken for being champions for protecting the health of our kids and families!

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2013 would provide long overdue fixes to the nation’s broken chemical policies and limit the use of unsafe chemicals linked to health problems. It would help prevent the use of persistent chemicals that build up in our food chain and go a long way toward protecting Americans from chemicals before they are linked to reproductive and developmental disorders, cancers and other illnesses that are costly to treat and often preventable. Specifically, it would:

Require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and restrict the "worst of the worst" chemicals
Require basic health and safety information for chemicals
Upgrade scientific methods for assessing chemical safety
Arm the EPA with the authority it needs to restrict chemicals that pose health and environmental concerns

People don’t need or want toxic chemicals in their consumer products. While many companies are reducing their use of toxic chemicals to meet consumer demand for safer products, voluntary action alone will not ensure product safety. Effective regulation, like the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013, is a key driver toward safer chemistry and it embodies the concept of public health prevention. If we prevent toxic exposures that could harm health, we prevent the illnesses linked with those exposures. It’s just common sense public policy. Healthy Legacy is a member of Safer Chemicals, Health Families, working nationally to strengthen federal chemical policies to protect the health of families and children. Sign up to take action through Health Legacy in Minnesota.

Feature

Image:

Flickr/CC credit:

istorija

Image caption:

BPA in food can linings is one potential exposure route for toxic chemicals.

Healthy Legacy Capitol update

Andrew Ranallo — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:38:34 +0000

Healthy Legacy’s 2013 legislative agenda is making great progress. We are supporting three bills this legislative session that address priority chemicals in children’s products. After countless committee hearings, two of our bills have completed their committee paths and await floor votes in both houses.

Ban on formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasing chemicals in children’s personal care products designed for children under age 8. SF 357 / HF 458 require that these harmful chemicals be removed from children’s bubble bath, shampoo and body washes by August 1, 2014 and removed from store shelves by August 1, 2015. We thank our chief authors Sen. Ann Rest and Rep. John Persell for their leadership and hard work on these bills.
Ban on BPA in children’s food packaging for products designed for children under age 3. SF 379 / HF 459 require that these harmful chemicals be removed from baby food jars, formula cans and toddler food containers by August 1, 2014 and removed from store shelves by August 1, 2015. We thank our chief authors Sen. Katie Sieben and Rep. Joe Atkins for their leadership and hard work on these bills.

Our third bill, the Toxic Free Kids Act (TFKA) of 2013 requires that manufacturers report the presence of a priority chemical in their children’s products and requires the eventual replacement of these harmful chemicals with safer alternatives. This bill passed through several committees in each house, but was voted down on March 18 in the Senate Commerce Committee. The bill was transformed through the committee process into a strong reporting bill that harmonizes with Washington and would put Minnesota on a solid path to address priority chemicals. We thank our chief authors Sen. Chris Eaton and Rep. Ryan Winkler for their leadership and hard work on these bills.

Thanks to the Minnesota legislature, the work of state agencies and the Healthy Legacy coalition, Minnesota is already a leading state in protecting children from toxic chemical exposures. We need to take the next step and assure that we have policies to address all priority chemicals by passing TFKA. We will be back in 2014!

Healthy Legacy is a diverse public health coalition that works to phase out the use of toxic chemicals in consumer products. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is a co-founding member of the coalition.

Feature

Image:

Image caption:

Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasing chemicals have no place in childrens products.

Minnesota is one of 26 states taking the lead on toxic chemicals

Andrew Ranallo — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:31:17 +0000

People across the country are concerned about toxic chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA), flame retardants, phthalates and formaldehyde in products they use every day, including those designed for babies and children. Most people agree that hormone disrupters, carcinogens and developmental toxins don’t belong in our consumer products. While action at the federal level is needed to better regulate toxic chemicals, states are taking the lead on protecting their citizens. At least 26 states will consider policies in 2013 to address concerns over toxic chemicals in consumer products, according to an analysis by Safer States, a national coalition of state-based environmental health organizations. The bills will cover a broad range of topics from bans on toxic flame retardants and bisphenol A (BPA) in consumer products to requirements that states identify chemicals of concern for health, manufacturers disclose their use of chemicals in products and the phase out of chemicals of concern.

Chemicals in our food system contribute to much of the human exposure to toxic chemicals, as persistent, toxic chemicals build up in the food chain and the human body. In addition, we are exposed to hormone-disrupting chemicals like BPA, PFCs and phthalates in food packaging.

“With more studies showing increased exposure to toxic or untested chemicals in our homes, citizens are demanding action at the state level,” said Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States. “Stronger state laws not only benefit public health, but the marketplace, too, by restoring consumer's confidence that products in stores are safe. We urge state legislators across the country to continue leading on these critical public health protections.”

“States realize that we can’t sit idly by and wait on Congress to protect our children from toxic chemicals,” said National Caucus of Environmental Legislators Board Chairman and Maryland Delegate James Hubbard. “The threats to public health from inaction are too great to ignore.”

State action on toxic chemicals is nothing new. Since 2003, 19 states have adopted 93 chemical safety policies. According to SAFER, “The majority of legislation passed with healthy bipartisan support—99% of Democratic legislators and 75% of Republican legislators voted in favor of bills, and both Republican and Democratic governors signed them into law.”

Minnesota is one of the leading states in protecting children from toxic chemicals, due to the leadership of Minnesota legislators and the work of Healthy Legacy. Healthy Legacy, led by IATP and Clean Water Action, is a coalition of 36 groups across the state representing more than a million Minnesotans. In 2009, Minnesota was the first state to pass a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. Now eleven states and the FDA have taken action on BPA. Minnesota also passed the Toxic Free Kids Act, which required the Minnesota Department of Health to generate a list of chemicals of high concern and a list of priority chemicals in children’s products. There are nine chemicals on the priority chemicals list, including three phthalates, two flame retardants, lead, cadmium, BPA and formaldehyde.

For the 2013 legislative session, Healthy Legacy will advocate for three bills to protect children’s health.

The Toxic Free Kids Act of 2013 requires that manufacturers report if there are priority chemicals in their children’s products and gives the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency authority to require phase out of priority chemicals, if children could be exposed.
Phasing out formaldehyde in children’s personal care products. This bill would prevent children’s exposure to carcinogenic formaldehyde and chemicals that emit formaldehyde in products like baby shampoos and lotions.
Phasing out BPA in children’s food packaging. This bill would prevent children’s exposure to hormone disrupting BPA in products like formula cans, baby food jars and canned food designed for children.

Help Minnesota take the steps needed to protect children’s health. Sign up to take action in support of Healthy Legacy’s policy agenda.

Feature

Image:

Flickr/CC credit:

stevendepolo

Image caption:

Phasing out BPA in children's food packaging is a priority of the Healthy Legacy 2013 legislative agenda.

Dr. Martha Herbert on autism, diet and the environment

Andrew Ranallo — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:50:17 +0000

Autism is a developmental disorder that impairs communication and social interaction. It is a whole body disorder, with immune system difficulties and often includes physical health problems such as gut disturbance, allergies, and seizures. One in 88 children is now diagnosed with autism in the U.S., compared with 1 in 150 in 2000.

While we don’t know exactly what causes autism or why it has increased, we know that genetics plays a role. Growing evidence suggests that it’s not genetics alone; environmental and dietary factors may play a significant role in increasing the risk for autism. Dr. Martha Herbert of Harvard University, a leading thinker on this issue presented at IATP’s event, "Autism: What do diet and environment have to do with it?" last Friday. Dr. Herbert is the author with Karen Weintraub of The Autism Revolution: Whole-Body Strategies for Making Life All It Can Be.

Dr. Herbert walked the audience of 150 scientists, educators, health practitioners, parents and advocates through the complex science on factors contributing to increased autism risk. She explained that the brain may not be hardwired for autism as previously thought, but may be instead overloaded in people with autism because the signals aren’t working like they should. When the brain gets overloaded then some functions shut down resulting in autistic symptoms like lack of social interaction, inability to communicate and other problems.

How does the brain get overloaded? Dr. Herbert explained that it’s “too much bad and not enough good,” “bad” things are environmental toxins, viruses, infections and stress. Studies have documented increased risk of autism and/or autistic behaviors from exposure to pollution, pesticides, heavy metals and phthalates. Examples of “good” things are nutrients and rest. A diet of processed food lacks the nutrients our brains need to function.

Furhtermore, we can learn from the way diet and environment interact, explained Dr. Herbert. For example, exposure to pesticides and heavy metals is associated with increased oxidative stress in the brain, which contributes to metabolic abnormalities linked to brain dysfunction. Diet is an important factor in immune health and helping the body fight off toxic exposures, so when toxic chemicals build up, and nutrients are not available to help the body get rid of them, you get brain overload. Many children with autism experience relief in their physical and social symptoms through dietary interventions, such as avoiding foods with gluten and casein and increased consumption of nutrient rich foods.

Dr. Herbert summarizes what is happening as “… the outcome of a combination of complex genetic individuality interacting with immense variation in what combinations of toxic exposures, nutritional shortfalls and stressors people experience.”

Viewing autism through the lens of environment and diet provides a more hopeful view of this puzzling condition. Exploring additional research approaches to identify key environmental factors and documenting successful dietary interventions are both needed to help the public health system put some of the pieces together and solve the puzzle of autism.

For more information see IATP's Q&A Factsheet “Autism, Environment and Diet: Questions and Answers."

Feature

Headline:

Autism, diet and environment

Summary:

At IATP's latest event, Dr. Martha Herbert of Harvard University walked the audience of 150 scientists, educators, health practitioners, parents and advocates through the complex science on factors contributing to increased autism risk.

Image:

Image caption:

Dr. Martha Herbert at IATP's "Autism: What do diet and environment have to do with it?" event.

Honesty is the best policy: BPA-free doesn’t always = toxic-free

Andrew Ranallo — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:49:53 +0000

Just a few short years ago, BPA—at the time, a chemical relatively unknown to the general public—was used in a plethora of consumer products: from baby bottles, to receipt paper, to food can linings and more. As we’ve worked to educate the public about the health concerns related to BPA (breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity and reproductive harm, to name a few) the call to phase this harmful chemical out of everyday products has grown to a roar.

We’re proud of that success. Thanks to consumer pressure, several state laws have been enacted to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups and many companies have taken action of their own accord. Some canned food manufacturers, like Campbell’s, are transitioning away from using BPA in can linings. Unfortunately, phasing out this one problem chemical isn’t enough, since the laws that are meant to regulate toxics in the United States are woefully inadequate. This is especially true for the chemicals in our food packaging. Because the FDA’s system for evaluating and approving chemicals in food packaging is so out of date, toxic chemicals like formaldehyde and phthalates are perfectly legal to use in food.

The campaign to get BPA out of canned food is not just about BPA (though of course it’s a chemical we’re very concerned about). While we need to focus on harmful individual chemicals, we also need to start asking more of our manufacturers. We need to ensure that the foods and products all of us come into contact with on a daily basis are truly safe. To reach that goal, companies like Campbell’s need be open and honest about their timeline to phase BPA out of cans. They also need to disclose what alternative chemical they will use in its place and the process they used to determine that chemical was safe.

Eden Foods is a great example of a company that has led the way in not only phasing BPA out of food cans, but also in being transparent with consumers about what they use in its place. Their website has in-depth information both about the alternatives they use and why they made the decision to go BPA-free. This is the high bar of honesty that consumers want and expect from the brands they trust.

Soon, we’ll be sharing an opportunity for you to get involved with this issue—so please stay tuned! In the meantime, learn more about how to avoid BPA and other toxic chemicals in canned food.

This blog entry was originally published on healthylegacy.org.

IATP author(s):

Katie Rojas-Jahn

Feature

Image:

Flickr/CC credit:

istorija

Flame retardant peanut butter?

Andrew Ranallo — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:07:00 +0000

A new study just published online ahead of print in Environmental Health Perspectives has found a toxic flame retardant, HBCD, in many common grocery store foods including peanut butter, cold cut meats, fish and more.

HBCD is a chemical used in polysterene foam insulation, some textiles and electrical applications. Exposure to the chemical often occurs through dust.Because of concerns about it's toxicity (including reproductive harm and endocrine disruption) and its presence in the environment, the Minnesota Department of Health named HBCD to the priority chemicals list in 2011.

The findings in the new study are of concern because HBCD had not previously been found in food. While eating one peanut butter sandwich may not lead to a specific health problem, it is yet another source of daily exposure to a mixture of problem chemicals we experience on an ongoing basis. Because HBCD is a fat-loving chemical, researchers tested foods like peanut butter with higher fat content.Once in the body, HBCD may also bind to fat there, allowing it to stick around for a long period of time.

HBCD is under the microscope at the international level, too, where it is under review for designation as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP). Alternatives to HBCD are often already available on the European market.

Ultimately this study points to a larger problem of harmful chemicals that are ending up in unexpected places. And even if one harmful flame retardant is banned, another chemical, often just as toxic, can be substituted in its place. That happens because the current law meant to regulate chemicals in the U.S., the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is completely ineffective. There are currently more than 80,000 chemicals on the market, but the EPA has only required safety testing on about 200, with only five ever being restricted under the law.

That's why we support passage of the Safe Chemicals Act, a bill introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (and co-sposnored by Minnesota Senators Franken and Klobuchar, among others) that would overhaul TSCA. In the meantime, you can use our Quick Tips to Avoid Priority Chemicals fact sheet to help reduce your exposure to the nine chemicals on the Minnesota priority chemicals list.

IATP author(s):

Katie Rojas-Jahn

Feature

Image:

Flickr/CC credit:

anthro_aya