In a recent Boston Globe article, Dr. Perry E. Sheffield, an assistant professor of preventive medicine and pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, was quoted as saying “Effectively, we’re conducting experiments on our population.”

In our homes, every day, we are exposed to all kinds of chemicals. And, as the article states, it’s nearly impossible to prove “scientifically that certain diseases are caused by household chemicals, such as bisphenol-A, phthalates, and flame retardants.” But the three scientists that were interviewed for the article have changed their own habits at home, based on their own research and therefore their understanding of the risks we are exposed to.

The “Big Three” that are the focus of the article are: Bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and fire retardants.

The first, BPA, is one that I have written about numerous times. It seems that every few months there is a new study linking it to some issue. The Globe summarized recent studies, saying:

I guess I had kind of considered parabens a “girl thing”. Not in a good way – but I had really viewed their danger as more of a threat to women (with regards to breast cancer) than to men. But sadly, it appears that men are at risk as well – but for different reasons. A recent study published by the Environmental Health Perspectives revealed that there is a likely link between one particular type of paraben – Butyl Paraben (or BP – not to be confused with bisphenol A/BPA which is a different chemical) – and damaged DNA in human sperm.

Butyl Paraben is a preservative found in many creams, lotions, gels, cosmetics, deodorants and even some food. If you aren’t already in the habit of reading labels for everything you buy, now is a good time to start. Look for parabens on the label – typically at the end of the ingredients list. Many products even have many of the paraben types: ethyl-, butyl-, methyl- and propylparaben.

This study examined the relationship between paraben levels in men and sperm health, something that had not been done previously. The findings were quite disturbing. They found that the higher the levels of BP in men’s urine, the more more sperm damage they had.  When combined with higher Bisphenol A levels, the sperm damage was even worse. And when there is DNA damage to the sperm, the chances of infertility issues increases.

Of course, this was a relatively small study and it was preliminary so there are many out there that will disregard it or poke holes into it. But there is clearly something here that is concerning. Not good. For anyone.

I’m beating the BPA drum again, but this is something I really believe is going to become a bigger and bigger issue. And this week there’s more evidence pointing to the need to ban the chemical BPA (Bisphenol A). A study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, was released that suggests that our exposure to the chemical BPA is more than 8 times greater than previously thought. Not good news, but also, quite honestly, not surprising.

The thing is, we can’t even estimate our exposure to this hormone-mimicking chemical that is found in things made from polycarbonate plastics. According to the National Institutes of Environmental Health, “polycarbonate plastics have many applications including use in some food and drink packaging, e.g., water and infant bottles, compact discs, impact-resistant safety equipment, and medical devices. Epoxy resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some dental sealants and composites may also contribute to BPA exposure.” Want to avoid BPA on your own? Good luck. It’s pretty much impossible.

The primary way we are exposed to BPA is through our diet. Again, according to the National Institutes of Environmental Health, “The primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through the diet. While air, dust, and water are other possible sources of exposure, BPA in food and beverages accounts for the majority of daily human exposure.”

The NIEH go on to say that “Bisphenol A can leach into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers, water bottles, and baby bottles. The degree to which BPA leaches from polycarbonate bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of the liquid or bottle, than the age of the container. BPA can also be found in breast milk.”

BPA has been shown to be in the blood of more than 90% of Americans. Just THAT fact should be eye opening.  The EPA had stated that BPA exposure up to 50 micrograms per kilogram of weight per day is safe. But guess what? This Environmental Health Perspectives study is suggesting that we are exposed actually to at least 8 times that amount. Oh boy.

I don’t know about you, but I find this highly disturbing. According to a New York Times article covering this study, they state that BPA  “was first synthesized as a man-made estrogen substitute before being used widely in the linings of canned goods and polycarbonate plastics.”  Because it mimics hormones, key to development and determination of things like gender, it has been of great concern to many environmental health scholars as well as concerned citizens. In the New York Times article Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst is quoted saying that “BPA, since it mimics estrogen, is an ‘endocrine disrupter.’… And amazingly, BPA has the ability to bind to not one, but three receptors — the estrogen, the male hormone and the thyroid hormone receptors, Zoeller said.”

I know there are many many people including well respected and brilliant scientists, who will try to convince us all that we should not be worried. It’s all fine. But based on what we DO know about BPA, I think it is clear that it is just bad news. Do we really want to wait around for more evidence to prove what we really already know? BPA is just not safe. And there’s no need to keep it around.

BPA and Phthalates. I swear I could blog continually about new tests showing the dangers of these two chemicals. So this week, a report called  No Silver Lining, was released reviewing a study conducted by The National Workgroup for Safe Markets, a coalition of U.S. public health- and environmental health-focused non-governmental organizations. The study reported on the presence of BPA in canned foods, and the results were reviewed by research scientists in cellular biology from Tufts University Medical School and a professor of environmental health and chemicals policy from the University of Lowell School of Health & Environment.

The methodology for this study was carefully planned. According to the report:

“We enlisted 20 people from 19 U.S. states and Ontario, Canada to donate 50 food and beverage containers from their home pantry shelves and local groceries. Cans were collected from Alaska, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada.

In most cases, two cans per location were submitted: one can from a home pantry or kitchen cupboard, and a matching or similar product purchased from a chain grocery store specifically for this project. The double sampling allowed us to investigate the possible correlation between the amount of BPA in the canned food and the age of canned products.

We selected a wide variety of products, including fish, fruits, vegetables, beans, soups, tomato products, sodas, and milks, which are common ingredients and meal options for a wide range of North American consumers.”

So basically they took all of these cans of food and had them sent to an independent testing lab. Here’s where it get icky. Of the 50 cans of food that they tested, 46 were found to have detectable levels of BPA. Yep – 46 of 50. A whopping 93%.  And what I found to be disturbing was the fact that  they discovered that BPA levels in canned food cannot be predicted by the price of the product, the quality, or relative nutrition value of the product, or where it was purchased. So that means more expensive, organic canned products purchased at Whole Foods were just as likely to have BPA as cheaper, lower quality products purchased at a discount store.

Why all the fuss? Well here’s the thing. BPA has been shown (despite what chemical companies want you to think) to have an impact on health that has been documented in numerous studies. On the EWG.org website, you can see a complete chart of these studies. The cumulative impact of eating foods that are packaged in BPA-lined cans can add up quickly in a day – which is especially worrisome for pregnant women, particularly during their first trimester.  No Silver Lining shows an example of a hypothetical diet for a woman in her 20’s. According to the study, “these hypothetical diets show that a pregnant woman may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of BPA that have been shown to alter fetal development in laboratory animals.” Oh. Not good.

And you know what? Canned foods is only ONE way we are exposed to BPA – it’s in many other products as well. Polycarbonate water bottles (unless they say BPA-free), plastic baby bottles and sippy cups (again, unless they say BPA free) and even those big 5 gallon water coolers at your office. BPA was found in the urine of 93% of adults tested in the US by the CDC, and it has been found in the cord blood of newborn babies by the Environmental Working Group BEFORE they have even been exposed to the “real world”. Yikes.

Some states are working to ban BPA in baby products (currently Massachusetts is developing legistlation). But it needs to go further. There are alternatives that are notably safer for can linings. These are outlined in the report as well. So why should we stop at baby bottles – shouldn’t it be banned in all food/beverage products? And shouldn’t it be happening in all states? Seriously. What ARE we waiting for?

In my Yubo Lunchbox review posting, I wrote about this very cool new lunchbox system. And they are actually giving one away for FREE in celebration of Earth Day! But hurry – you must submit your entry by 4/22.

Celebrate the planet with yubo’s Mother Earth Photo Contest. In honor of Earth Day, yubo is holding a contest asking eco-conscious kids to submit their favorite/best “Mother Earth” photos. yubo will collect photo submissions and choose a winner based on the guidelines below. yubo will then create faceplates from the winning photos and offer them for sale as Mother Earth faceplate designs (as seen below). Net profits from the sale of the Mother Earth faceplates will go to the Earth Day Network. Each entrant will receive $10 off a yubo purchase and the winner will receive $50!

Who: Entrants must be under the age of 11 in order to qualify to win.

What: Photos will be judged based on originality, creativity, photo composition and how well the pictures answer the question: ‘What does Earth Day mean to you?’.

When: Deadline for entry is 4/16/10. The winner will be chosen and announced on 4/22/10, the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day.

How: Each entrant MUST submit 2 corresponding original photos (MUST be taken by person entering contest). Become a yubo Facebook Fan and upload the 2 images to the yubo Facebook Fan Page.

Good luck!!

The people at GetYubo.com sent me a very cool Yubo lunchbox to check out. I was intrigued by the lunchbox when I read about it online. It can be customized with different faceplates (you can even have your child’s drawing or photo used for a faceplate). Plus, it is made of recyclable plastic (very nice!) that’s anti-microbial and it’s BPA free. Even more handy, is that it comes with its own food containers that are BPA-free, and a perfectly-shaped-for-the-lunchbox, flat (yea!) ice pack. And not only that, they are giving a lunchbox away for FREE in celebration of Earth Day. (see Yubo Giveaway posting for details)

When I received the lunchbox, I immediately loved it. It’s adorable, bright and is incredibly easy to clean up. I find that the “soft” cooler-bag type lunchboxes get kinda stinky and icky after awhile and they are so hard to get clean. This lunchbox comes completely apart and you can wash each section (personally, even though it’s BPA-free and they say it’s dishwasher safe, I would still wash it by hand).

It really is a very clever design, and I’m impressed with the concept. As with so many cool products out there, this was designed by a mom and dad, Cyndi and Paul Pedrazzi, who were getting tired of the endless plastic baggies they used for their two daughter’s lunches each day. Not to mention the foul odors that accumulate in the typical lunch boxes. So they literally approached an award-winning design company, Whipsaw, in Silicon Valley (they also designed LeapFrog’s LeapPad). And they have gotten tons of press coverage – check out all of chatter on the Press page of their website.

I will say, there were a few things that I think could be improved:

• The design is really best for smaller children – maybe 5 and under? My 7 year old thought it was very cool but said he wouldn’t bring it to school. He does think it would be fun for bringing snacks on short trips.
• On the same note, the food containers are too small for bigger kids. My boys have to bring a snack and a lunch to school each day and these containers wouldn’t fit all the food they need. There also isn’t a place for a sports bottle or other reusable water bottle for drinks.
• The food containers are very cute and I love that  they are BPA free, but I did think that the tops seemed a little loose and they were a little leaky for liquidy foods (like yogurt). That said, I do appreciate the fact that the lids come off easily. My boys complain about some of the containers where the lids are so hard to pull off. So I’m on both sides of that one, I guess!

But definitely check this site out for your little ones. Perfect for “lunch bunch” at preschool or lunches for daycare. The kids will love picking out the faceplate. And who knows, maybe someday they’ll have a bigger version for bigger kids!

Of course they’re not going to come right out and say that the current lining of their cans is bad, but major food manufacturers are getting the message that consumers don’t want BPA leeching into their food and so they are slowly and quietly testing out alternatives that hopefully will soon become the norm.

It’s not easy to find cans that don’t have BPA linings in them. Pretty much all cans (soda, food, baby formula etc) have linings that are laden with the chemical BPA (or Bisphenol A). For those of you who haven’t heard, BPA has been linked to a whole host of issues including cancer and reproductive issues. The FDA announced last month that they have reversed their previous position that BPA was “safe” and now have requested further studies to determine the real impact of this chemical that is used in so many things.

But according to an article in the Washington Post this week , a number of major manufacturers are investigating alternatives and new can liners. Of course, it is not going to be an easy – or a cheap – fix. The reason that the can linings have been so ubiquitous is that they are excellent at protecting food from spoiling  and protecting consumers from food borne illness. Of course, we are only now beginning to see the toll it is taking on health in other ways.

The new liners that are being tested are not foolproof – nor are they cheap. Food touted to be packed in “BPA Free” cans are still showing levels of BPA after being tested by the Consumers Union. Why? Maybe some of the products used in the production of the end product were already contaminated by the cans they came from (think canned tomatoes used in a tomato sauce) – or perhaps they are getting exposed at some point during the production. The Washington Post article details a couple of companies that area trying to do the right thing but are getting frustrated along the way with continued BPA presence in their food. But at least they are trying!

So while it may be awhile before our food sources are all BPA-free, it is good to know that there are finally steps being taken to get the process moving forward.

In the news last week was an announcement from the FDA that they acknowledge that the chemical bisphenol A (or BPA) causes “some concern” and they are going to investigate it further. According to an article in the Boston Globe, while the FDA did say that there is not yet any evidence to further regulate the use of BPA , the Department of Health and Human Services did suggest that people throw away scratched plastic cups and baby bottles with BPA to avoid the ingestion of small amounts of the chemical that can seep out into drinks. It looks like the governmental agencies are showing potential to give this the attention it deserves.

The Health and Human Services has a great posting on their website at :http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/. They give some good explanations of what is being investigated further, and they also list other helpful suggestions – in addition to the one above – to avoid exposing your children to BPA. One interesting fact is that powdered infant formula is generally free of BPA, it’s the liquid version that can be contaminated.

The only tip they offer that I disagree with is the one that says it is generally OK for infants to suck on soft plastic toys. They may be safe from BPA but they are often packed with phthalates (a whole different concern) – so always find out as much as you can about the safety of plastic toys before you allow your infant to suck on them. Wish I’d know about all of this before I had kids. Ugh. It’s scary to think about all that they may have been exposed to!

Today two friends forwarded me this link from an Op-Ed columnist in the NYT (thanks Melissa and David!). It’s right up my alley – and I thought it would be good to share.

Nicholas Kristoff’s column poses the very interesting questions: “What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air — or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves?”

Giving the health care system an overhaul does sound like a good time to deeply evaluate our society’s exposure to chemicals and investigate all possible connections to health issues that are nearing epidemic levels – like breast cancer, asthma and food allergies, to name only a few. It’s time we give these issues the attention they deserve, and that we stop succumbing to the pressures of the incredibly powerful and even more dangerous chemical companies.

Wow – great news! The EPA has recognized that there are some major issues with our current system of regulating chemicals that can pose threats to people and the environment. The top ranking environmental administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, stated that the existing antiquated regulatory system (which was put into place in 1976) is “cumbersome” and “time consuming”. She expects that a new chemical law will be promoted in Congress in coming months.

In a speech on September 29th in San Francisco, Jackson stated that the 1976 law has “been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.”

She gave a great background and history of chemicals in the US, saying “After World War II, the chemical industry in this country grew by leaps and bounds, earning the US an enviable reputation for innovation but also making chemicals pervasive in our lives. Everything from our cars, to the cell phones we all have in our pockets are constructed with plastics and chemical additives. The technological revolution that my two sons take for granted has done more than change the way we interact with each other – it’s made chemicals ubiquitous in our economy and products – as well as our environment and our bodies.”

“A child born in America today will grow up exposed to more chemicals than a child from any other generation in our history. A 2005 study found 287 different chemicals in the cord blood of 10 newborn babies – chemicals from pesticides, fast food packaging, coal and gasoline emissions, and trash incineration. They were found in children in their most vulnerable stage. Our kids are getting steady infusions of industrial chemicals before we even give them solid food. Now, some chemicals may be risk-free at the levels we are seeing. I repeat: some chemical may be risk-free. But as more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused.”

Jackson stated clearly that there is no incentive for the manufacturers of chemicals to supply any new safety data, just any data that may already exist. She said that “today, advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are revealing new pathways of exposure. There are subtle and troubling effects of chemicals on hormone systems, human reproduction, intellectual development and cognition. Every few weeks, we read about new potential threats: Bisphenol A, or BPA – a chemical that can affect brain development and has been linked to obesity and cancer – is in baby bottles; phthalate esters – which have been said to affect reproductive development – are in our medical devices; we see lead in toys; dioxins in fish; and the list goes on.”

Jackson concluded by saying that she will give Congress clear Administrative principals to help guide them in developing a new law that will address the current inadequecies. She also stated that she plans to address key chemicals in the near term – including Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates.

To read her complete speech, go to the transcript at the EPA website.