The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary

This a compelling new report put out last month by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.  It created quite a stir in the media so I wanted to be sure my readers had a chance to read it for themselves and take action.  If you are tired of the governments lack of concern regarding the dangers of toxic chemicals in our homes, speak up on behalf of chemical reform by adding your name to the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign.

The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary

There is growing agreement across the political spectrum that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not adequately protect Americans from toxic chemicals. In the 34 years since TSCA was enacted, the EPA has been able to require testing on just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S., and just five chemicals have been regulated under this law. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked Congress to provide her agency with better chemical management tools for safeguarding our nation’s health.[1]

Much has changed since TSCA became law more than 30 years ago. Scientists have developed a more refined understanding of how some chemicals can cause and contribute to serious illness, including cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, neurologic diseases, and asthma.

The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition believes that, by reforming TSCA, we can reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals, improve our nation’s health, and lower the cost of health care. This report documents some of the scientific findings and economic analysis underlying our position.

Chronic disease is on the rise

More than 30 years of environmental health studies have led to a growing consensus that chemicals are playing a role in the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and disorders in our country, including:

•Leukemia, brain cancer, and other childhood cancers, which have increased by more than 20% since 1975.[2]

•Breast cancer, which went up by 40% between 1973 and 1998.[3] While breast cancer rates have declined since 2003, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is now one in eight, up from one in ten in 1973.[4]

•Asthma, which approximately doubled in prevalence between 1980 and 1995 and has stayed at the elevated rate.[5][6]

•Difficulty in conceiving and maintaining a pregnancy affected 40% more women in 2002 than in 1982. The incidence of reported difficulty has almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25.[7][8][9]

•The birth defect resulting in undescended testes, which has increased 200% between 1970 and 1993.[10]

•Autism, the diagnosis of which has increased more than 10 times in the last 15 years.[11]

The health and economic benefits of reforming TSCA

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 133 million people in the U.S.—almost half of all Americans—are now living with these and other chronic diseases and conditions, which now account for 70% of deaths and 75% of U.S. health care costs.[12]

Estimates of the proportion of the disease burden that can be attributed to chemicals vary widely, ranging from 1% of all disease[13] to 5% of childhood cancer[14] to 10% of diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and neurodevelopmental deficits[15] to 30% of childhood asthma.[14] Whatever the actual contribution, effective chemical policy reform will incorporate the last 30 years of science to reduce the chemical exposures that contribute to the rising incidence of chronic disease. And any decline in the incidence of chronic diseases can also be expected to bring health care cost savings. Even if chemical policy reform leads to reductions in toxic chemical exposures that translate into just a tenth of one percent reduction of health care costs, it would save the U.S. health care system an estimated $5 billion every year.

The U.S. now spends over $7,000 per person per year directly on health care.[12] This sum does not include the many other kinds of costs, such as the costs of raising a child with a severe learning disability or coping with a young mother’s breast cancer diagnosis. Chemical policy reform holds the promise of reducing the economic, social and personal costs of chronic disease by creating a more healthy future for all Americans.

For more information and to take action now, please visit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
For alternative Green NonToxic cleaners, please click here.

Citations:

1.^U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Administrator Jackson Unveils New Administration Framework for Chemical Management Reform in the United States,” http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D07993FDCF801C-2285257640005D27A6 (accessed November 8, 2009)

2.^Tracey J. Woodruff, et al., America’s Children and the Environment, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008)

3.^Holly L. Howe, et al., “Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer (1973 through 1998), Featuring Cancers with Recent Increasing Trends,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93, no. 11 (June 2001): 824–42

4.^Janet Gray, ed, State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, (San Francisco: Breast Cancer Fund, 2008)

5.^Tracey J. Woodruff, et al., “Trends in Environmentally Related Childhood Illnesses,” Pediatrics, 113, no. 4 (April 2004): 1133– 1140

6.^Jeanne E. Moorman, et al., “National Surveillance for Asthma, United States 1980–2004,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5608a1.htm (November 1, 2009)

7.^Anjani Chandra and Elizabeth Hervey Stephen, “Impaired Fecundity in the United States: 1982–1995,” Family Planning Perspectives, 30, no 1, (1998): 34–42

8.^Anjani Chandra, et al., “Fertility, Family Planning and Reproductive Health of US Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth,” Vital and Health Statistics, 23, no. 25 (2005)

9.^Kate Brett, “Fecundity in 2002 National Survey of Family Growth Women 15–24 Years of Age”, Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics (2008)

10.^Leonard J. Paulozzi, “International Trends in Rates of Hypospadias and Cryptorchidism,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 107, no. 4, (1999): 297–302

11.^National Institute of Mental Health, “NIMH’s Response to New Autism Prevalence Estimate,” http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/updates/2009/nimhs-response-tonew-autism-prevalence-estimate.shtml (November 4, 2009)

12.^ abNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, The Power of Prevention: Chronic Disease...the Public Health Challenge of the 21st Century, (Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009)

13.^Commission of the European Communities, “Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals (REACH), establishing European Chemicals Agency and Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants: Extended Impact Assessment.” (October 29, 2003): 30

14.^ abPhilip J. Landrigan, et al., “Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer, and Developmental Disabilities,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, No. 7 (July 2002): 721–8

15.^Tom Muir and Mike Zegarac, “Societal Costs of Exposure to Toxic Substances: Economic and Health Costs of Four Case Studies That Are Candidates for Environmental Causation,” Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements, 109, No. S6 (December 2001): 885–903

A Natural Approach to ADD/ADHD

There is increasing concern about the growing number of children on Ritalin and similar drugs, and many parents are looking for more natural alternatives. The following is a summary of some of the nutrients and herbs that many parents are using with good results to offer nutritional support for learning and brain function.

To give a good nutritional foundation to the brain and nervous system and to the whole child, a good program should always begin with a high quality multi-vitamin/mineral. The B vitamins are really important for the brain…parents have reported that they makes children not only smart, but pleasant!

Calcium-magnesium: These essential minerals are often referred to as natural nerve tranquilizers and muscle relaxants. Pediatric Allergist Dr. Doris Rapp and other authorities feel many learning and behavioral problems are related to allergies and brain sensitivities. Therefore, many recommend limiting milk and dairy products as well as artificial dyes, flavorings, preservatives, etc.

Zinc: In addition to its reputation for improving our immune systems, especially viruses and sore throats, zinc is essential for the brain and helps protect the eyes from aging.

Bifidus and Acidophilus (Probiotics): Essential friendly bacteria that ideally live in our lower intestines. These good bacteria help prevent over growth of bad bacteria and Candida yeast – often associated with attention deficit disorder.

Probiotics are especially important for a child who has ever been on an antibiotic or steroid-based medications (common with asthma). These medications kill off much of these essential “friendly microbes” that live in the lower intestine. Without adequate amounts of these microbes, research now shows the body is more susceptible to infection (especially sinus and upper respiratory) because 70% of the immune system resides in the intestines.

It is very difficult to find an acidophilus/bifidus product that guarantees live delivery of microflora to the intestine. Tests show that many of them do not make it live to your door, much less to your colon. 90% of the microflora alive in these products at the time of manufacture are killed off long before they reach the intestine. So please choose wisely—I know of only one product that guarantees delivery of 500,000 live microorganisms to the intestines without being destroyed by the highly acidic environment of the stomach.

In addition to the above recommendations, for hyper activity, allergies or asthma consider replacing your cleaning and laundry products with non-toxic alternatives. Here’s an excerpt from a powerful testimony: “In your homes, laundry soap stays in the fabric, cleaning chemicals under the sink give off fumes in the air (remember the smell of the cleaning isle in the store!!)…. I wanted to get "as much as possible" out of our environment...so we went completely Shaklee!! BIG difference !!!! After we cleared out the chemicals and started to clean and do laundry with Shaklee, his rash on his face cleared, all of our sinus infections cleared up, my husband now comments on the smell of homemade bread!!!”

The best and most affordable health insurance is a diet based on 6 to 9 servings of fruits and vegetables, whole grains and a basic supplementation program combined with regular exercise… and lots of love and laughter.

Feel free to contact me to request information on nutritional programs for ADD/ADHD. 

Do Toxic Homes Cause Asthma?

Note: Today’s blog entry was written by Dr. Stephen Chaney. Dr. Chaney is a professor of biochemistry, biophysics and nutrition at UNC Medical School in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He is also a prominent cancer researcher with a well established research lab he directs at UNC.

Everybody is going green. Biodegradable cleaners are finally in fashion.

But did you realize that many of the cleaners that you buy in the supermarket - and some of the biodegradable cleaners that you buy in the health food store - release toxic fumes in your home that can adversely affect the health of you and your children?

I'm going to focus on just one aspect of this topic - household chemical exposure and childhood asthma.  But first a bit of background information: The prevalence of childhood asthma increased 74% between 1980 and 1994 and has continued to increase in the years since.

The causes of this rapid increase in asthma prevalence are likely to be complex, but evidence has accumulated in recent years that some of the increase may be caused by early exposure to toxic chemical fumes in the home.

Why is that?

The American consumer keeps demanding cleaners that work better (It's considered a big plus if they require no effort) and are easy to use (Don't bother with messy liquids and pastes - just spray it on).  And manufacturers have been willing to oblige by adding ever more exotic chemicals to household cleaners and putting them in aerosol spray cans.

And of course no one opens their windows any more. That would be wasting energy and contributing to global warming.

The result is that these toxic chemicals accumulate in the air that we breathe in our own homes. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the air inside our homes is often more polluted than in Los Angeles or New York on a smoggy day.

A number of studies have pointed to an association between these toxic household fumes and childhood asthma, but I'd like to focus on one particularly good study on this topic that was published recently in the European Respiratory Journal (31: 54-57, 2008).

This study measured the household chemical exposure of 7,162 pregnant women in England and looked at the incidence of asthma in their children at age 8.5 years.

A maternal composite household chemical exposure (CHCE) score was derived by measuring the pregnant mother's exposure to a number of common household products known to contain toxic chemicals.

The household products used most frequently were disinfectants (87.4%), bleach (84.8%), aerosols (71.7%), air fresheners (68%), window cleaners (60.5%), carpet cleaners (35.3%) and pesticides/insecticides (21.2%). (For information on the toxic chemicals in these and other common household products visit:  http://www.householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/products.htm)

Asthma was quantified based on persistent wheezing (reported by the parents) and several lung function tests that were administered at age 8.5 years.

To make sure that the asthma was not caused by simple allergies the children were also given a skin prick test against a panel of 6 common childhood allergens (house dust mites, cats, mixed grass, mixed nuts, peanuts and milk).  The study also controlled for confounding variables such as exposure to tobacco smoke, damp housing, pets in the home and maternal history of asthma.

In short, this was a very large and particularly well controlled study.

And the results were clear.  Higher household chemical exposure during pregnancy was associated with a 41% increase in childhood asthma in children with no known allergies.

What does that mean to you and me? It means that it is not enough to select household products that are safe for the environment.  We also need to select products that we use in our homes on the basis of their safety for us and our family - not just on the basis of cost and convenience.

To Your Health!

Dr. Stephen G Chaney

P.S. Shaklee, the company that brought us one of the very first biodegradable cleaners and the very first company in the world to be certified as climate neutral, makes a "Get Clean" line of household cleaners that are not only biodegradable but also contain no toxic fumes that could be harmful for your health.