Breast Cancer Fund - State of the Evidence Executive Summary
Category: News and Politics

For the full report in pdf format go to State of the Evidence 2006

Breast cancer rates have been climbing steadily in the United States and other industrialized countries since the 1940s, amounting to more than one million cases per year worldwide.¹ In the United States, a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer has nearly tripled during the past four decades. In 2005, an estimated 211,240 U.S. women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and more than 58,000 women were expected to be diagnosed with one type of in situ breast cancer, meaning the tumor is confined to its original location in the breast. In 2005, breast cancer was expected to kill more than 40,000 American women² and more than 410,000 women worldwide.³ The rate of new cases per year continues to inch upward in the United States even though billions of dollars have been spent on breast cancer research.

Less than one out of every 10 cases occurs in women born with a genetic predisposition for the disease, and as many as half of all breast cancers occur in women who have no known risk factors for the disease. Recent research has made it more and more clear that breast cancer arises from a complicated mix of multiple factors, which may include inherited or acquired genetic mutations, altered gene expression and/or exposures to external agents that affect genes or the production of estrogen or other hormones. More than one exposure or event is usually required before cancer will develop, but the same set of genetic and environmental circumstances will not produce cancer in every individual.

Two decades of research on laboratory animals, wildlife and cell behavior⁴ have shown the inadequacy of the long-held belief that "the dose makes the poison." Scientists now know that the timing, duration and pattern of exposure are at least as important as the dose. Low-dose exposure to chemicals in the environment—parts per billion or even per trillion—during a critical window of an organism's development can cause permanent damage to organs and systems.

We are all exposed to radiation and to hundreds, if not thousands, of chemicals every day of our lives, yet we know very little about the likely synergistic effects of these multiple exposures.⁵ Testing one exposure at a time for its effects ignores this reality.

An estimated 100,000 synthetic chemicals are believed to be in use today in the United States. Another 1,000 or more are added each year.⁶ More than 90 percent have never been tested for their effects on human health.⁷ Many of these chemicals persist in the environment, accumulate in body fat and remain in breast tissue for decades. Studies by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that Americans of all ages carry a body burden of at least 148 chemicals that have been measured, some of them banned for more than two decades because of toxicity.⁸ These studies alone cannot establish cause but can reveal the internal contamination of our bodies by chemicals with known carcinogenic activity.

Patterns of breast cancer incidence indicate the importance of environmental exposures. Women who move from countries with low breast cancer rates to industrialized countries soon acquire the higher risk of their new country. The largest study ever conducted among twins found that environmental exposures unique to those with breast cancer made the most significant contribution to the development of the disease.

This State of the Evidence report demonstrates that a significant body of scientific evidence links exposure to radiation and synthetic chemicals to an increased risk of breast cancer. It summarizes the findings of more than 350 experimental, epidemiologic and ecological studies and describes some of the ongoing controversies in breast cancer research. The report recommends new directions for future research and includes a 10-point plan to act on the evidence and reduce human exposure to radiation and synthetic chemicals. This plan is based primarily on the precautionary principle, which in part states that indication of harm, not just proof of harm, is grounds for action.⁹

Evidence That Environmental Factors Cause Breast Cancer

Ionizing radiation is the longest-established environmental cause of human breast cancer. In 2005, the National Toxicology Program classified X-radiation and gamma radiation as known human carcinogens.¹⁰ Radiation is a mutagen as well as a carcinogen; the same is true of some chemicals. Radiation may even enhance the ability of hormones or other chemicals to cause cancer.^11,12

Compelling scientific evidence points to some of the 100,000 synthetic chemicals¹³ in use today as contributing to the development of breast cancer, either by altering hormone function or gene expression.

• There is broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens in the body increases the risk of breast cancer. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT)¹⁴ and hormones in oral contraceptives^{15,16,17,18,19} and some other pharmaceuticals also increase this risk. The National Toxicology Program now lists steroidal estrogens (the natural chemical form of estrogen) as known human carcinogens.²⁰ The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has listed both steroidal and nonsteroidal estrogens as known human carcinogens since 1987.

• Synthetic agents that mimic the actions of estrogens are known as xenoestrogens and are one type of endocrine-(hormone-) disrupting compound. They are present in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, detergents and prescription drugs.²¹ Chronic exposure to widespread and persistent xenoestrogens may help explain the increase in breast cancer in industrialized countries around the world. Xenoestrogens known to increase the risk of breast cancer include:

– Bisphenol-A (BPA), one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life, used to make polycarbonate plastic;
– Diethylstilbestrol (DES), prescribed for three decades to millions of women to prevent miscarriage, the drug was banned in 1971 because it caused cancer in their daughters;
– Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), used extensively in plastics including food packaging, medical products, appliances, cars, toys, credit cards and rainwear;
– Dieldrin, a pesticide banned from all uses in 1987; and
– Ingredients in many household products, especially cleaning agents, solvents and pesticides.

• Elevated rates of breast cancer have been found among workers exposed to a variety of solvents in the electronics, fabricated metal, lumber, furniture, printing, chemical, textile and clothing industries.

• Aromatic amines are a class of chemicals found in the plastic and chemical industries, in air and water pollution, diesel exhaust, tobacco smoke and in grilled meats and fish.²² One type of aromatic amine, o-toluidine, is known to cause mammary tumors in rodents.^23,24

• The Environmental Protection Agency determined that 1,3-butadiene is carcinogenic to humans by inhalation and the National Toxicology Program classifies 1,3-butadiene as a known human carcinogen.²⁵ 1,3-butadiene is an air pollutant created by internal combustion engines and petroleum refineries. It is also used in some manufacturing processes and is found in tobacco smoke.

Evidence Indicating Probable Environmental Links To Breast Cancer

• Various studies have shown that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) appear to play a role in the development of breast cancer. PAHs are compounds found in soot and fumes from combustion of diesel and other fuels, and from grilling meat.

• Two types of chemicals known to disrupt hormone function are the organochlorine pesticide DDT and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), which were used to manufacture electrical equipment and numerous other industrial and consumer products. Both DDT and PCBs have been banned in the United States for three decades, yet both are still found in the body fat of humans and animals, as well as in human breast milk.^26,27

• Of all toxic chemicals, dioxin may be the most ubiquitous—and the most toxic. Dioxin is formed by the incineration or combustion of products containing chlorinated compounds, including PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and PCBs. The body fat of every human being, including every newborn, contains dioxin.

• Ethylene oxide is a known human carcinogen; the National Toxicology Program identifies it as a mammary carcinogen in animals. Ethylene oxide is a fumigant used to sterilize surgical instruments and is also used in some cosmetics products.²⁸

Evidence Indicating Possible Environmental Links To Breast Cancer

• The insecticide heptachlor was used widely in the United States throughout the 1980s, especially for termite control. It still contaminates both soil and humans. Heptachlor's breakdown product (heptachlor epoxide) is known to accumulate in body fat, including breast tissue. It affects the way the liver processes estrogen, thus allowing levels of circulating estrogens to rise. Heptachlor epoxide may also increase breast cancer risk by disrupting cell growth regulation.²⁹

• Triazine herbicides are the most heavily used agricultural chemicals in the United States. Triazines include atrazine, simazine and cyanazine. All three have been shown to cause mammary cancer in animals.

• Growing concern about exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun and the risk of skin cancer has led to widespread use of sunscreens. Research has found that some sunscreens contain chemicals (also used in other cosmetics) that are not only estrogenic but also lipophilic (fat-seeking).

• Phthalates are a group of endocrine-disrupting compounds commonly used to render plastics soft and flexible. They are found in soft plastic "chew toys" marketed for infants and also in some varieties of nail polish, perfumes, skin moisturizers, flavorings and solvents. Disruption of hormonal processes can increase breast cancer risk.

• Modern food production methods have created avenues for exposure to environmental carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds in food and food additives. These exposures include pesticides sprayed on crops, antibiotics used on poultry and hormones injected into cattle, sheep and hogs. Consumption of animal products may present inherent risks because pesticides and other environmental toxicants can accumulate in fatty tissue of animals, just as they do in humans. Two examples of agricultural practices that may increase breast cancer risk include:

– Monsanto's genetically engineered hormone product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which increases milk production in dairy cows and which was subsequently renamed recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rBST).
– Zeranol (Ralgro), a nonsteroidal growth promoter with estrogenic activity and one of the most widely-used hormones in U.S. beef cattle.

• A growing body of evidence implicates nonionizing radiation (electromagnetic fields and radio-frequency radiation [EMF]) as possible contributors to the development of breast cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified EMF as a possible human carcinogen. Microwaves, radio waves, radar and lights are examples of nonionizing radiation. Everyone in the industrialized world is exposed to electromagnetic fields every day.

New Research Included In This 2006 Edition

• A major study by Tufts University scientists demonstrated the critical importance of early life exposure to chemicals and the profound effects that can occur from very low doses. The scientists found that exposing pregnant mice to extremely low levels of bisphenol-A altered the development of the mammary gland in their offspring at puberty.³⁰

• Re-analysis of a large study of Nordic twins published in 2000³¹ concluded that "genetic susceptibility makes only a small to moderate contribution" to the incidence of breast cancer.³²

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals revealed that the bodies of Americans of all ages contain 148 synthetic chemicals, some of which are known or suspected carcinogens.³³ Many of these chemicals were also found in the umbilical cord blood of newborn babies.³⁴

• Two new articles that reviewed evidence linking breast cancer with environmental factors found that environmental exposures, in combination with genetic predisposition, age at exposure and hormonal factors, have a cumulative impact on breast cancer risk.^35,36

• A new report from the National Research Council confirms there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation—even the smallest dose has the potential to cause an increased cancer risk in humans.³⁷

• A number of new studies implicate exposure to ionizing radiation, particularly before age 20 or during pregnancy, as increasing breast cancer risk.^{38,39,40,41,42,43} Additional studies implicate radiotherapy for breast cancer in increasing the risk of additional breast and other cancers.^44,45

• Research on the structure of genes shows that exposure to ionizing radiation can induce genomic instability and other neoplastic heritable changes, not only in directly-irradiated cells but also in cells not directly exposed to radiation.^46,47,48,49

• An interdisciplinary analysis of the history of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) revealed that scientists were aware of the cancer risk of HRT in the 1930s. The team of experts asked the question: Why, for four decades, since the mid-1960s, were millions of women prescribed powerful pharmacological agents already demonstrated, three decades earlier, to be carcinogenic? In answering this question, the experts identified five missing elements in the process: the invisible industrialist, regulatory agencies and public interest compared with private interests, beliefs regarding individual risk compared with collective risk, the growth of individualized "preventive medicine" and the gendering of hormones and regulation of women's sexuality. They stated that understanding HRT use in the 20th century demands engaging "with core issues of accountability, complexity, fear of mortality and the conduct of socially responsible science."⁵⁰

• Progestin was linked to increased risk of breast cancer recurrence in two large trials: the Hormone Replacement Therapy After Breast Cancer—Is It Safe? (HABITS)⁵¹ and the Stockholm trial.⁵²

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were associated with increased breast cancer risk in a study from Belgium.⁵³

• Researchers found an increased breast cancer risk among Long Island, NY, women residing within one mile of hazardous waste sites containing organochlorine pesticides.⁵⁴ A separate study measured levels of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in the adipose tissue of 224 Long Island women with non-metastatic breast cancer and found that those with the highest level of PCBs had an increased risk of recurrence.⁵⁵

• Pesticide use and breast cancer risk among farmers' wives was examined in a large prospective cohort study in Iowa and North Carolina. Researchers found an increased risk of breast cancer among the wives of farmers using certain chlorinated pesticides and among those living closest to areas of pesticide application.⁵⁶

• An ecological study in 82 Mississippi counties showed a significant association between breast cancer incidence and maximum emissions of environmental chemicals.⁵⁷

• Longer residence on Cape Cod, Mass., is associated with elevated breast cancer risk.⁵⁸ Suspected environmental exposures include pesticides and drinking water contaminated by industrial, agricultural and residential land use.

• Researchers in Spain studied the combined effects of environmental estrogens, measured as the total effective xenoestrogen (estrogenmimicking) burden, and found increased risk among postmenopausal women with the highest levels. The pesticides aldrin and lindane were also individually associated with elevated risk.⁵⁹

• Clustering patterns of breast cancer cases among premenopausal women in western New York state were found to be more related to residence at birth and menarche than residence in any time period of adult life.⁶⁰

• Prenatal and early life exposure to genistein (a phytoestrogen—found in plants) and a mixture of organochlorine chemicals induced marked changes in mammary glands of adult female rats, indicating that phytoestrogens influence the toxicologic effects of mixtures.⁶¹

• Early life exposure to high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), present in tobacco smoke and other air pollution, increased the risk of premenopausal breast cancer in a case-control study of more than 3,200 women.⁶²

• A study of 21,000 Japanese women concluded that smoking, both active and passive, increases the risk of developing breast cancer in premenopausal women.⁶³

• Methyl mercury can significantly alter growth-related signaling in human breast cancer cells and, therefore, should be considered a potential endocrine-disrupting compound.⁶⁴

• Phthalates, which are ingredients ubiquitous in cosmetics and personal care products, were shown to significantly increase cell proliferation in human breast cancer cells. Scientists also found that certain phthalates inhibited the cell-killing capacity of tamoxifen (a drug with antiestrogen activity) in MCF-7 breast cancer cells.⁶⁵

• German scientists reported that Eusolex 6300, a sunscreen, showed estrogenic effects similar to 17-beta-estradiol (the most common form of natural estrogen) on mammalian and amphibian cells.⁶⁶

• Studies showed that zeranol, the nonsteroidal growth promoter used in beef cattle, and 17-beta-estradiol have a similar potential to induce neoplastic changes in human breast epithelial cells.⁶⁷

• Three new studies link insulin-like growth factors with increased breast cancer risk. This suggests that rBST, the genetically engineered hormone product found in many dairy products, which stimulates production of IGF-1, may be associated with increased risk of breast cancer.^68,69,70

• Three pesticides—chlordane, malathion and 2,4-D—were associated with increased risk of breast cancer in Latina agricultural workers in California.⁷¹

• A study of female autoworkers linked exposure to metalworking fluids with increased risk of breast cancer, particularly when the exposure occurred within 10 years of diagnosis.⁷²

• Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields was shown to increase breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women, especially when exposure occurred before age 35.⁷³

• A cluster of male breast cancers was reported among a small group of men occupationally exposed to high electromagnetic fields.⁷⁴

• An Italian study found that truck driving was the most frequent occupation of male breast cancer patients with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, possibly implicating exposure to PAHs.⁷⁵ A review of the epidemiologic literature on male breast cancer also identifies exposure to EMFs and PAHs as risk factors.⁷⁶

Advance The Research Agenda

To reduce the burden of breast cancer in our society, public officials and the scientific and corporate communities must act based on what is already known about agents that increase the risk of this disease. At the same time, major gaps exist in our current knowledge and we need more studies asking tough questions about the underlying causes of breast cancer. While we need further research on screening, diagnosis and treatment, decades of paying little attention to true prevention of breast cancer have resulted in needless sickness and death. Research efforts should seek information that will compel public policies aimed to prevent breast cancer. The types of research most likely to support such policies are those examining:

• The interplay between timing of exposures, multiple exposures, low-dose exposures, chronic exposures (including occupational exposures) and cumulative exposures;

• Exposures of women at home and in the paid workplace;

• Disparities in health outcomes and environmental exposures; and

• Development of less invasive, more effective breast cancer screening methods.

Implement Policy Changes

While research proceeds, fundamental changes are needed in both the public and private sectors regarding exposure to radiation and the production, use and disposal of chemicals found to increase the risk of breast cancer or suspected of doing so. Considerable resources continue to be spent to encourage women to make changes in their personal lives that might reduce their risk of breast cancer. But many factors that contribute to the disease lie far beyond an individual's personal control and can only be addressed by government policy and private sector changes. Breast cancer is not just a personal tragedy; it is a public health crisis that requires political will to change the status quo.

This crisis must be addressed by adopting the precautionary principle as a public policy. Under this principle, indication of harm, rather than definitive proof of harm, triggers policy actions. In addition, the precautionary principle obligates producers of chemicals and radiological products to assess the health, safety and environmental impacts of their products before introducing or releasing them. It also requires industry to make the results of their assessments publicly available. Industry is further obliged to examine a full range of alternatives to toxic ingredients and to select the alternative with the least potential impact on human health and the environment, including the possibility of not introducing a questionable product at all. The precautionary principle rests on the democratic principle that government officials are obligated to serve the public interest by protecting human health and the environment. Decision-making under the precautionary principle must be transparent, participatory and informed by the best available data.

We ignore at our peril evidence that radiation and chemicals are contributing to the growing human and economic cost of breast cancer. Halting the scourge of this disease requires that we take action based on existing evidence to protect the health of people and the planet. Waiting for absolute proof brings more needless suffering and loss of lives. It is in our power to change the course we are on. It is time to act on the evidence.

A 10-Point Plan For Reducing The Risk Of Breast Cancer And Ultimately Ending The Epidemic:

1. Establish environmental health tracking (EHT) programs at state and federal levels.
2. Practice "healthy purchasing" by adopting precautionary purchasing laws at the local, state and federal levels.
3. Protect workers from hazardous exposures.
4. Educate the public about the health effects of radiation and how to reduce exposure to both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
5. Hold corporations accountable for hazardous practices.
6. Offer local, state and federal incentives for clean, green practices.
7. Strengthen right-to-know legislation and public participation in decisions about toxic exposures.
8. Enforce existing environmental protection laws.
9. Require greater transparency in funding of scientific and medical training, research and publications.
10. Create a comprehensive chemicals policy based on the precautionary principle.

Endnotes
1 Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005). Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 55:74-108.
2 American Cancer Society (2005). Cancer Facts and Figures 2005.
3 Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005). Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 55:74-108.
4 Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003). Toxicology rethinks its central belief: Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed. Nature 421:691-692.
5 Carpenter DO, Arcaro K Bush B, Niemi WD, Pang S, Vakharia DD (1998). Human health and chemical mixtures: An overview. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(S6):1263-1270.
6 National Cancer Institute (2003). Cancer and the Environment: What you need to know, what you can do. National Institutes of Health.
7 Bennett M, Davis BJ (2002). The identification of mammary carcinogens in rodent bioassays. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 39(2-3): 150-157.
8 CDC (2005). Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
9 Horton R (1998). The new public health of risk and radical engagement. Lancet 352:251-252.
10 National Toxicology Program (2005). Eleventh Report on Carcinogens. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health.
11 Calaf GM, Hei TK (2000). Establishment of a radiation and estrogen-induced breast cancer model. Carcinogenesis 21:769-776.
12 Segaloff A, Maxfield WS (1971). The synergism between radiation and estrogen in the production of mammary cancer in the rat. Cancer Research 31:166-168.
13 National Cancer Institute (2003). Cancer and the Environment: What you need to know, what you can do. National Institutes of Health.
14 Krieger N, Löwy I, Aronowitz, Bigby J, Dickersin K, Garner E, et al (2005). Hormone replacement therapy, cancer, controversies, and women's health: historical, epidemiological, biological, clinical, and advocacy perspectives. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59:740-748.
15 Kumle M, Weiderpass E, Braaten T, Persson I, Adami HO, Lund E (2002). Use of oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk: The Norwegian-Swedish Women's Lifestyle and Health Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 11:1375-1381.
16 Althuis MD, Brogan DD, Coates RJ, Daling JR, Gammon MD, Malone KE, Schoenberg JB, Brinton LA (2003). Breast cancers among very young premenopausal women (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 14:151-160.
17 Deligeroroglou E, Michailidis E, Creatsas G (2003). Oral contraceptives and reproductive system cancer. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 997:199-208.
18 Newcomer LM, Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A, Longnecker MP, Greenberg ER (2003). Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast cancer by histologic type. International Journal of Cancer 106:961-964.
19 Grabrick DM, Hartmann LC, Cerhan RJ, et al (2000). Risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptive use in women with a family history of breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 284:1791-1798.
20 National Toxicology Program (2005). Eleventh Report on Carcinogens. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health.
21 National Academy Press (1999). Hormonally active agents in the environment. ISBN-0309-06419-8.
22 DeBruin LS, Josephy PD (2002). Perspectives on the chemical etiology of breast cancer. Environmental Health Perspectives 110:S1:119-128.
23 National Toxicology Program (2003). Chemicals associated with site-specific tumor induction in mammary gland. http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/sites/MAMM.html.
24 Layton DW, Bogen KT, Knize MG, Hatch FT, Johnson VM, Felton JS (1995). Cancer risk of heterocyclic amines in cooked foods: An analysis and implications for research. Carcinogenesis 16:39-52.
25 National Toxicology Program (2005). Eleventh Report on Carcinogens. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health. http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov.
26 Zheng T, Holford T, Mayne S, Ward B, Carter D, Owens P, Dubrow R, Zahm S, Boyle P, Archibeque S, Tessari J (1999). DDE and DDT in breast adipose tissue and risk of female breast cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 150:453-458.
27 Rogan WJ (1996). Pollutants in breast milk. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 150:81-90.
28 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 1990. Toxicological Profile for Ethylene Oxide. U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. 1990.
29 Dich J, Zahm SH, Hanberg A, Adami HO (1997). Pesticides (heptachlor) and cancer. Cancer Causes and Control 8, 420-443.
30 Munoz de Toro M, Markey C, Perinaaz R W, Luque EH, Rubin BS, Sonnenschein C, Soto A (2005). Perinatal exposure to bisphenol A alters peripubertal mammary gland development in mice. Endocrinology online doi:10.1210/en.2005-0340.
31 Lichtenstein P, Niels V, Pia K (2000). Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer-Analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark and Finland. New England Journal of Medicine 343(2):78-85.
32 Baker SG, Lichtenstein P, Kaprio J, Holm N (2005). Genetic susceptibility to prostate, breast, and colorectal cancer among Nordic twins. Biometrics 61: 55-63.
33 CDC (2005). Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
34 Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. http://www.ewg.reports/bodyburden2.
35 Coyle YM (2004). The effect of environment on breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 84:273-288.
36 Mitra AK, Faruque FS, Avis AL (2004). Breast cancer and environmental risks: Where is the link? Journal of Environmental Health 66:24-32.
37 National Research Council (2005). Biologic effects of ionizing radiation VII: Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. National Academy of Science, Washington DC. http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html.
38 Ronckers CM, Erdmann CA, Land CE (2005). Radiation and breast cancer: A review of current evidence. Breast Cancer Research 7:21-32.
39 Guibout C, Adjadj E, Rubino C, Shamsaldin A, Grimaud E, Hawkins M, Mathieu MC, Oberlin O, Zucker JM, Panis X, Lagrange JL, Daly-Schveitzer N, Chavaudra J, deVathaire F (2005). Malignant breast tumors after radiotherapy for a first cancer during childhood. Journal of Clinical Oncology 23:197-204.
40 Wahner-Roedler DL, Petersen IA (2004). Risk of breast cancer and breast cancer characteristics in women after treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma. Drugs Today 40:865-79.
41 Horwich A, Swerdlow AJ (2004). Secondary primary breast cancer after Hodgkin's disease. British Journal of Cancer 90:294-298.
42 Kenny LB, Yasui Y, Inskip PD, Hammond S, Neglia JP, Mertens AC, Meadows AT, Friedman D, Robison LL, Diller L (2004). Breast cancer after childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Annals of Internal Medicine 141:590-597.
43 Patlas M, McCready D, Kullkarni S, Dill-Macky MJ (2004). Synchronous development of breast cancer and chest wall fibrosarcoma after previous mantle radiation for Hodgkin's disease. European Radiology E-Pub: DOI:10.1007/s00330-004-2437-7 Online First.
44 Roychoudhuri R, Evans H, Robinson D, Moller H (2004). Radiation-induced malignancies following radiotherapy for breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 91:868-872.
45 West JG, Qureshi A, West JE, Chacon M, Sutherland ML, Haghighi B, Harrison J (2005). Risk of angiosarcoma following breast conservation: A clinical alert. The Breast Journal 11:115-123.
46 Little JB (2003). Genomic instability and radiation. Journal of Radiological Protection 23:173-181.
47 Goldberg Z, Lehnert BE (2003). Radiation-induced effects in unirradiated cells: A review and implications in cancer. International Journal of Oncology 21:337-349.
48 Morgan WF (2003). Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: II. Radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects in vivo, clastogenic factors and transgenerational effects. Radiation Research 159:581-596.
49 Wright EG (2004). Radiation-induced genomic instability: Manifestations and mechanisms. International Journal of Low Radiation 1:231-241.
50 Krieger N, Löwy I, Aronowitz, Bigby J, Dickersin K, Garner E, et al (2005). Hormone replacement therapy, cancer, controversies, and women's health: historical, epidemiological, biological, clinical, and advocacy perspectives. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59:740-748.
51 Holmberg L, Anderson H (2004) HABITS (hormonal replacement therapy after breast cancer-is it safe?), a randomized comparison stopped. Lancet 363:453-455.
52 Von Schoultz E, Rutqvist LE (2005). Menopausal hormone therapy after breast cancer: The Stockholm Randomized Trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97:533-555.
53 Charlier CJ, Albert AI, Zhang L, Dubois NG, Plomteux GJ (2004). Polychlorinated biphenyls contamination in women with breast cancer. Clinica Chimica Acta 347:177-181.
54 O'Leary ES, Vena JE, Freudenheim JL, Brasure J (2004). Pesticide exposure and risk of breast cancer: A nested case-control study of residentially stable women living on Long Island. Environmental Research 94:134-144.
55 Muscat JE, Britton JA, Djordjevic MV, Citron ML, Kemeny M, Busch-Devereau E, Pittman B, Stellman SD (2003). Adipose concentrations of organochlorine compounds and breast cancer recurrence in Long Island, New York. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 12:1474-1478.
56 Engel LS, Hill DA, Hoppin JA, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Pierce J, Samanic C, Sandler DP, Blair A, Alavanja MC (2005). Pesticide use and breast cancer risk among farmers' wives in the Agricultural Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 161:121-135.
57 Mitra AK, Faruque FS (2004). Breast cancer incidence and exposure to environmental chemicals in 82 counties in Mississippi. Southern Medical Journal 97:259-263.
58 McKelvy W, Brody JG, Aschengrau A, Swartz CH (2004). Association between residence on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and breast cancer. Annals of Epidemiology 14:89-94.
59 Ibarluzea Jm J, Fernandez MF, Santa-Marina L, Olea-Serrano MF, Rivas AM, Aurrekoetxea JJ, Exposito J, Lorenzo M, Torne P, Villalobos M, Pedraza V, Sasco AJ, Olea N (2004). Breast cancer risk and the combined effect of environmental estrogens. Cancer Causes and Control 16:591-600.
60 Han D, Rogerson PA, Nie J, Bonner MR, Vena JE, Vito D, Muti P, Trevisan M, Edge SB, Freudenheim JL (2004). Geographic clustering of residence in early life and subsequent risk of breast cancer (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 15:921-929.
61 Foster WG, Younglai EV, Boutross-Tadross O, Hughes CL, Wade MG (2004). Mammary gland morphology in Sprague-Dawley rats following treatment with an organochlorine mixture in utero and neonatal genestein. Toxicological Science 77:91-100.
62 Bonner MR, Han D, Nie J, Rogerson P, Vena JE, Muti P, Trevisan M, Edge SB, Freudenheim JL (2005). Breast cancer risk and exposure in early life to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using total suspended particulates as a proxy measure. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 14:53-60.
63 Hanaoka T, Yamamoto S, Sobue T, Sasaki S, Tsugane S (2005) Japan Public Health Center-Based Prospective Study on Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. Active and passive smoking and breast cancer risk in middle-aged Japanese women. International Journal of Cancer 114:317-322.
64 Sukocheva OA, Yang Y, Gierthy JF, Seegal RF (2005). Methyl mercury influences growth-related signaling in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Environmental Toxicology 20:32-44.
65 Kim IY, Han SY, Moon A (2004). Phthalates inhibit tamoxifen-induced apoptosis in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 67:2025-2035.
66 Klann A Levy G, Lutz I, Muller C, Kloas W, Hildebrandt JP (2005). Estrogen-like effects of ultraviolet screen 3-(4methylbenzylidene)-camphor (Eusolex 6300) on cell proliferation and gene induction in mammalian and amphibian cells. Environmental Research 97:274-281.
67 Liu S, Lin YC (2004). Transformation of MCF-10A human breast epithelial cells by zeranol and estradiol-17beta. The Breast Journal 10:514-521.
68 Allen NE, Roddam AW, Allen DS, Fentiman IS, Dos Santos Silva I, Peto J, Holly JM, Key TJ (2005). A prospective study of serum insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-1), IIBF-II, IBG-binding protein-3 and breast cancer risk. British Journal of Cancer 92:1283-1287.
69 Schernhammer ES, Holly JM, Pollak MN, Hankinson SE (2005). Circulating levels of insulin-like growth factors, their binding proteins, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 14:699-704.
70 Jernstrom H, Sandberg T, Bageman E, Borg A, Olsson H (2005). Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-1) genotype predicts breast volume after pregnancy and hormonal contraception and is associated with circulating IGF-1 levels: implications for risk of early-onset breast cancer in young women from hereditary breast cancer families. British Journal of Cancer 92:857-866.
71 Mills PK, Yang R (2005). Breast cancer risk in Hispanic agricultural workers in California. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11:123-131.
72 Thompson D, Kriebel D, Quinn MM, Wegman DH, Eisen EA (2005). Occupational exposure to metalworking fluids and risk of breast cancer among female autoworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 47:153-160.
73 Labreche F, Goldberg MS, Valois M, Nadon L, Richardson L, Lakhani R, Latreille B (2003). Occupational exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and postmenopausal breast cancer. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 44:643-652.
74 Milham S (2004). A cluster of male breast cancer in office workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 46:86-87.
75 Palli D, Masala G, Mariani-Constantini R, Zanna I, Saieva C, Sera F, Decarli A, Ottini L (2004). A gene-environment interaction between occupation and BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in male breast cancer? European Journal of Cancer 40:2474-2479.
76 Weiss JR, Moysich KB, Swede H (2005). Epidemiology of male breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 14:20-26.

Publishers:
BREAST CANCER FUND
1388 Sutter St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94109
Toll-free: 866-760-TBCF
or 415-346-8223
415-346-2975 fax
info@breastcancerfund.org
www.breastcancerfund.org

BREAST CANCER ACTION
55 New Montgomery St., Suite 323
San Francisco, CA 94105
Toll-free: 877-2STOPBC
or 415-243-9301
415-243-3996 fax
info@bcaction.org
www.bcaction.org

8:43 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Cosmetic Companies and Breast Cancer
Category: News and Politics

It sounds noble: a cosmetics company promises that if you buy one of its products, a portion of the sale will go toward "the fight against breast cancer."

But what if that cosmetic contains chemicals that might actually increase your risk of developing the disease?

Many cosmetics contain chemicals known as parabens and phthalates, which recent studies indicate may be linked to cancer development.

• Parabens are chemical preservatives that have been identified as estrogenic and disruptive of normal hormone function. (Estrogenic chemicals mimic the function of the naturally occurring hormone estrogen, and exposure to external estrogens has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer.)
• Phthalates are known to cause a broad range of birth defects and lifelong reproductive impairments in laboratory animals that are exposed to these chemicals during pregnancy and after birth. Phthalates are also known to be hormone-mimicking chemicals, many of which disrupt normal hormonal processes, raising concern about their implications for increased breast cancer risk.

There are numerous other chemicals of concern in personal care products. BCA is particularly concerned about lutein (progesterone), formaldehyde and coal tar due to their links to cancer. The Environmental Working Group recently released Skin Deep, a report on the safety of cosmetics and personal care products. Astonishingly, 1/3 of products tested contain on or more ingredients that are known, probable or possible human carcinogens.

Cosmetic companies will argue that we don't need to worry about harmful chemicals in their products because they are only used on our skin and hair. For example, the cosmetics industry has long stated that their widespread use of parabens and phthalates is not harmful because they remain on our skin and are not absorbed into our body. However, a recent study found parabens in human breast cancer tissue, raising obvious questions about the ability of parabens to accumulate in our bodies (Darbre et al. 2004). In September 2000 scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found phthalates at surprisingly high levels in every one of 289 people tested, especially in women of reproductive age. The authors concluded that "from a public health perspective, these data provide evidence that phthalate exposure is both higher and more common than previously suspected" (Blount et al. 2000).

Many cosmetic companies will also argue that the level of a harmful chemical in any one product is not enough to harm you, based on studies of chemical exposure in adults. However, science is finding the timing of exposure is crucial, and that even a very small dose of some chemicals can have serious consequences in children and young women who are still developing. Also, we are rarely exposed to a chemical just one time. We may use the same product every day, several days a week, for months or years. In addition, we use dozens of personal care products daily, not just one. So while exposure from one product on one day may be small, the fact is we use numerous products a day for extended periods of time. As a result, scientists are finding chemicals such as parabens and phthalates accumulating in our bodies.

Many diseases like cancer, asthma, birth defects and learning disabilities are on the rise, and there is growing evidence that these health problems are linked to the chemicals we are exposed to in our air, water, food, and everyday products. It's time we start acting to protect human health. The Precautionary Principle, a common sense approach to chemical use, says "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It guides us to take action to prevent exposure to chemicals we know or suspect are harmful to our health. In the case of cosmetics, when a product ingredient is known or strongly suspected of being harmful to our healthy, our top priority should be eliminating the use of this chemical and finding a safe substitute to replace it. In many cases, we know safe alternatives do exist and are already being used by some cosmetic companies. The notion of "safe" or "acceptable" levels of hazardous chemicals in our products should only be introduced when we cannot find alternatives. We are entitled to products that won't hurt us.

We can't let companies have it both ways.

• Avon markets itself as "the company for women," claiming to be the largest corporate supporter of the breast cancer cause in the U.S. But many Avon products contain parabens, according to its own website (including Soy Milk Hand & Foot Therapy, Asian Pear with Ginseng Body Cream, Skin-So-Soft Moisturizing Hand Cream, and many others). Evidence suggests that young females with developing breast tissue are particularly vulnerable to the increased breast cancer risk associated with exposure to external estrogens. Last year, Avon launched a new cosmetics line called "mark," aimed at young women ages 16 to 24. The company is recruiting teenagers as sales representatives in this program. For more information on Breast Cancer Action's campaign, see the Follow the Money campaign.
  
  UPDATE: Avon will be removing dibutyl phthalates from its product lines. This is a small but important step by a corporate giant. It's important for the people Avon markets to, many of who are women of childbearing age, and it's important for future generations. BCA applauds this first step, and will continue to push Avon to remove other harmful ingredients from their products.
  
  
• Revlon sponsors an annual 5K Run/Walk for Women that in part funds the Revlon/UCLA Women's Cancer Research Program—which, according to www.revlonrunwalk.com, works toward "the control and consequent elimination of women's cancers." Meanwhile, The Safe Shopper's Bible warns against carcinogenic ingredients in several Revlon products, including Revlon Powder Crème Blush, Revlon Powder Crème Make-Up Pressed Powder Full Matte, and Revlon Colorsilk Salon Formula Ammonia-Free Haircolor.
  
  UPDATE: in EWG's Skin Deep report, products were assigned scores from 0–10 based on the health concerns associated with their ingredients, with 10 being of highest health concern. Over 80% of the Revlon products tested were rated 7.2 or higher. Revlon High Dimension 10 Minute Permanent Haircolor scored 9.6 and contains both known and suspected carcinogens.
  
  
• Estée Lauder's Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), which states its mission as "prevention and a cure in our lifetime," sponsors breast cancer efforts such as the Global Landmarks Illumination Initiative, in which national landmarks such as the Mall of America are spotlighted in pink lights—an effort that is far more likely to generate positive publicity for Estée Lauder than it is to prevent any woman from developing breast cancer. Their products containing parabens include Polished Performance Liquid Makeup and Precision Lash Mascara, according to The Safe Shopper's Bible.
  
  UPDATE: Estée Lauder has announced it will reformulate its Clinique and MAC nail polishes to remove phthalates. BCA applauds this step, and will continue to push Estée Lauder to remove other harmful ingredients from their products.
  
  
• Mary Kay, whose web site proclaims that the company's charitable foundation is "committed to eliminating cancers affecting women," does not make it easy for consumers to find out if its products contain potentially harmful ingredients. It's extremely difficult for a consumer to identify what is in Mary Kay products: the cosmetics are not available in stores, their product descriptions on the web site do not list ingredients, and repeated attempts to get information about product content from a sales representative were unsuccessful.
  
  UPDATE: After BCA began this project, Mary Kay representatives contacted us to let us know about an ingredient guide that is available on request. Call 1-800-MARYKAY for more information. Also, a concerned consumer sent us a web link to their product, which is housed on a part of their web site restricted to Mary Kay sellers only. The web link has since been made inactive, and the public and consumer part of their web site does not list this product guide. Lastly, in 2004, BCA co-sponsored important California legislation (AB 2012) regarding the public's right to know about carcinogenic and reproductive toxins in cosmetics and personal care products. Mary Kay was a vocal opponent of the bill.

What Can You Do? Take Action!

www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org

8:05 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Bayer to Face Peruvian Families at Court-Ordered Settlement Hearing for 24 Children Killed by..
Category: News and Politics

Bayer to Face Peruvian Families at Court-Ordered Settlement Hearing for 24 Children Killed by Pesticide

April 11, 2007

Lima, Peru: On October 22, 1999 in the remote Andean village of Tauccamarca, 24 children were poisoned and killed when they drank a powdered milk substitute as part of their school lunch that had been contaminated by the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion. Eighteen other children at the school were poisoned but survived, and today suffer the developmental consequences typical of organophosphate poisoning.

In 2001, the families brought a civil action against Bayer S.A., the wholly-owned subsidiary of the German chemical giant which imported, formulated and registered methyl parathion in Peru. For six years the families have been fighting for their right to their day in court against Bayer's maneuvers to have the case dismissed on procedural grounds. In July 2006, in a victory for Peru's modern civil code as well as the families, the appellate court in Lima dismissed Bayer's claims and set a date for a settlement hearing prior to a full trail. The hearing will take place April 12, in Lima.
 
Bayer sold methyl parathion, a white powdered pesticide with no strong chemical odor, in one-kilogram plastic bags with pictures of healthy vegetables on the label. The plastic bag -- common packaging for many foodstuffs including powdered milk -- gave users no practical warning of toxicity of the product. The product label, printed in Spanish, similarly provided no useful warning of the extreme toxicity of the product to the many Peruvians, including the Tauccamarca villagers, who don't speak Spanish or are illiterate.
 
Methyl parathion is classified by the World Health Organization as a Ia, or "extremely hazardous," pesticide. Two years before the poisonings in Tauccamarca, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in response to poisonings and deaths caused by illegal indoor use of methyl parathion, had required that significant protective measures be taken by sellers, including adding a stenching agent to warn users of the extreme toxicity of the product, and packaging that requires special equipment to open the containers and apply the pesticide. Methyl parathion was banned in Germany in 1989.

The cost to Bayer of packaging methyl parathion in child resistant packaging, and adding a stenching agent, as the EPA required in 1997, would have been minimal. Yet -- knowing the risks of foreseeable misuse and danger to users under the socio-economic conditions that are prevalent in Peru -- Bayer chose to do nothing.
 
The Tauccamarca families have persevered in an effort to win medical monitoring and special education for the eighteen children who survived the poisoning as well compensation for the tragedy that befell their community. Most importantly. families want pesticide manufacturers and the Peruvian government to ensure that all other extremely hazardous WHO Ia and Ib pesticides are withdrawn from the market, so that similar, preventable tragedies don't befall other communities like theirs.  

For more information contact

• Luis Gomero, Pesticide Action Network Peru/RAAA, E-mail: lgomero@raaa.org Telephone in Lima: +1 511.425.7955
• Erika Rosenthal, PAN North America, E-mail: erosenthal@igc.org
  

6:07 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

New Study Reveals Higher Rates of Autism When Mothers Are Exposed to Pesticides
Category: News and Politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 30, 2007

Contact:
Stephenie Hendricks 415 981-6205 ext. 355 , stephenie@panna.org
Pesticide Action Network North America

New Study Reveals Higher Rates of Autism When Mothers Are Exposed to Pesticides

New research suggests that children whose mothers lived near applications of the organochlorine pesticides endosulfan and dicofol during the first trimester of pregnancy are at significantly greater risk for developing Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The new study, Maternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders Among Children in the California Central Valley was conducted by researchers from the California Department of Health Services and the Public Health Institute in Oakland, California and funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The research is being made public Monday, July 30th, on the website of Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer reviewed scientific journal that is sponsored by the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

The study found that the closer an expectant mother lived to applications of organochlorine pesticides, the greater the risk that her child would develop ASD. The timing of exposure was also found to be critical, with the exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy—when critical structures are developing in the brain—carrying the greatest risk of ASD.

Researchers found the incidence of ASD among children born to mothers living near the locations of highest use of organochlorine insecticides during the first trimester of preganancy to be 6.1 times the incidence for mothers not exposed to these chemicals.

"This is a very large effect," said Susan Kegley, Senior Scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). "While it's just a single study, there are not many environmental exposures with such a high correlation to incidence of disease."

Although this is a preliminary study, and the researchers caution that more research is needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn, several aspects of the work are especially noteworthy:

• The size of the increase in autism risk—a six-fold increase—is much larger than scientists are accustomed to seeing in studies of this kind;
• The relationship of the risk of developing ASD to the timing of pesticide applications is striking—the period of maximum risk coincides with the development of key brain structures during pregnancy;
• The relative risk decreases with distance from the pesticide application site, an observation that lends additional credence to the finding;
• The compounds have known effects on parts of the brain that other scientists have hypothesized might play a role in autism.

The organochlorine insecticides found to be associated with the increased risk of ASD, endosulfan and dicofol, are used on cotton, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, alfalfa, citrus, beans, and other fruit, nut and vegetable crops. In California, endosulfan is used most extensively in Fresno, Kings, and Imperial counties. Dicofol, a pesticide similar to DDT in its structure, is most used in Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties. Endosulfan and dicofol are both PAN "Bad Actor" chemicals and suspected endocrine disruptors. Endosulfan is highly acutely toxic, and dicofol is considered to be a possible carcinogen by the US EPA. California's Department of Pesticide Regulation is currently considering listing endosulfan as a toxic air contaminant.

"Our community air monitoring has shown that one likely source of exposure is through the air, " said PANNA staff scientist Karl Tupper, head of the organization's environmental monitoring program. PANNA and their community partners have measured endosulfan in the air near homes adjacent to apple orchards in Washington State and near an elementary school next to a cabbage field in Hastings, Florida.

Tupper said, "Many countries in Europe and around the world have already banned the use of these two chemicals because of their high toxicity to workers and the environment. This study suggests that there may be additional reasons to question the continued use of these pesticides." 

Endosulfan is up for inclusion in the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty requiring special import notifications for a list of problematic chemicals, and was recently nominated for global phase-out under the international Stockholm Convention. While once popular, little dicofol or endosulfan are used today, relative to other insecticides. "If use of these old organochlorine pesticides were totally eliminated, the effect on growers would be minimal, while significant numbers of children might be spared from autism," said Tupper.

Available for Interviews

• Rudy Rull, Research Scientist, Northern California Cancer Center,
  rrull@nccc.org, 510-608-5181

• Karl Tupper, staff scientist, director of environmental monitoring for Pesticide Action Network North America, 415 981-1771 ext 314 karl@panna.org

• Susan Kegley PhD, study advisory group member and Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America, 415 981-1771 skegley@panna.org

• Pablo Rodriquez, study advisory group member and Director, Dolores Huerta Community Organizing Institute Dolores Huerta Foundation  (510) 862-7371

• Dr. Isaac Pessah, a molecular biologist with the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute, expert on  autism and other childhood neurodevelopmental disorders.
  
  Contact through Karen Finney, Senior Public Information Representative,
  UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute, Public Affairs Office, UC Davis Health System
  (916) 734-9064 office, (916) 505-2601 mobile, (916) 762-7787 pager

Resources

• The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's risk characterization document on endosulfan: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/pubs/tac/draftrcd.htm

• EHP link:
  http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10168/abstract.html

• PANNA endosulfan fact sheet
  http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/endosulfanFactSheet200703.pdf

• PANNA Pesticides and Autism Resource Page
  http://www.panna.org/resources/autism.html

• PAN PesticideInfo pages
  Endosulfan: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35085
  Dicofol: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33427

• PAN Florida Drift Catcher Air Monitoring Study in which endosulfan was found near an elementary school
  http://panna.org/campaigns/driftCatcherResults.htmlFL06

• Use of dicofol in California: Top Crops, Top Counties
  http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_ChemUse.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33427

• Use of endosulfan in California: Top Crops, Top Counties
  http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_ChemUse.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35085

Additional Information

ASD is a family of developmental and behavioral disorders characterized by impaired social interaction, restricted communication, and repetitive stereotypic behaviors. Scientists are only beginning to understand the causes of ASD, and many experts suspect that both genetics and exposure to chemicals (while in the womb or early in life) play a role in the disorder. The objective of this study was to determine whether living close to pesticide applications during pregnancy is a risk factor for ASD.

To determine whether there were links between in utero pesticide exposure and incidence of ASD, the researchers analyzed data collected by several California state health agencies to pinpoint where the mothers of autistic children were living when they were pregnant. The researchers also combined pesticide application records from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and land use data from the Department of Water Resources to determine exactly where and when pesticide applications took place. By combining these data sets, the authors where able to look for associations between the incidence of ASD and proximity to pesticide applications during pregnancy. Because they had data showing which pesticide active ingredients were used where, the researchers could test association between specific pesticides and ASD. Since they also
had information about when the pesticides where applied, they were able to examine how the timing of exposure during pregnancy affected ASD rates.

Endosulfan is banned in Bahrain, Belize, Cambodia, Columbia, Germany, Kuwait, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, St Lucia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Tonga, United Arab Emirates and Malaysia.

Dicofol is banned in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Belize, and is not registered for use in at least 12 additional countries.

www.theorganictouch.mionegroup.com for certified organic skin care and cosmetics.

5:24 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Organic Cosmetics and Natural Beauty - Very Informative
Category: News and Politics

As the number of people who are concerned about toxins in our environment grows, more and more cosmetic companies are seen to be jumping on the natural and organic bandwagon. But what does natural and organic mean when we see it on a product label? How do we know what we are buying is really natural and organic? What are the natural alternatives to chemicals? And is natural really better for us?

Our skin is the largest eliminatory organ in the body. It is a two-way membrane. Toxins are eliminated through the skin via perspiration and absorbed through the skin, into the body's systemic circulation, through hair follicles and sebaceous glands (not through sweat glands). One square inch of skin contains 65 hairs, 100 sebaceous glands, and 650 sweat glands.

Cosmetic manufacturers are not supposed to claim that their products penetrate our skin. If they did (the products would then be labeled a 'drug' and henceforth be governed by much stricter regulations. This is both good and bad. Good because it means your skin can be nourished from the outside with some wonderful ingredients. Bad because it means some cosmetic manufacturer can put into their products that would never be allowed to be taken orally, but are still absorbed into our system, through our skin.

WHAT DOES "NATURAL" AND "ORGANIC"

MEAN ON PRODUCT LABELS?

Nowhere does the idea of "natural" or "organic" take a more gratuitous bruising than the cosmetics industry. If we look at the term "natural" we probably define it as "existing in, or formed by nature;

not artificial". Many labels have long lists of chemical names, some followed by the phrase "derived from . . ." (some natural substance). This is misleading to consumers. When chemicals such as Cocamide DEA or Sodium Hydroxysultaine are followed by the term "derived from coconut oil" the consumer is led to believe that these synthetic chemicals must be natural. While this may be true in some cases; it is ultimately irrelevant because what you end up with after the chemical processing is usually anything but natural or pure. For example, to create Cocamide DEA, a foaming agent in some shampoos, requires the addition of a synthetic chemical and known carcinogen, Diethanolamine – DEA, to the coconut oil. It is therefore no longer natural, or safe! If we look at the term "organic," we usually think it means 'grown and cultivated without the use of chemicals'. That is the conclusion most cosmetics companies would like us to make when we see the term "organic" on a label.

Some of those companies are cynically using the chemistry definition of "organic" - meaning a compound that contains a carbon atom. Carbon is found in anything that has ever lived. By using this definition of organic, they are saying that a petrochemical preservative called Methyl Paraben is

"organic" because it was formed from leaves that rotted over thousands of years to become crude oil, which was then used to make this preservative. An increasing number of companies are now claiming to use "organic" herbs in their products. But what about the rest of the ingredients? Are they safe? Isn't there an authority that governs the use of the term "organic" on labels? The simple answer is NO.

However, the term "certified organic" IS governed by a number of internationally recognised bodies. In Australia, Australian Certified Organic (ACO) is the largest. Searching for products with the logo of a certifying body on the label is the only way you can guarantee the organic authenticity and integrity of every ingredient in the product. Without this, the organic claim means nothing, as it cannot be verified. Here are some examples of internationally recognised certifying bodies:

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE BUYING

IS REALLY "NATURAL" AND "ORGANIC"?

Fortunately, there is a very simple way to differentiate between hype and truth in cosmetics - and that is to read the ingredient list on the label. It is a legal requirement that all skin care products must be labeled with the ingredients in descending order of their quantity in the product. A good rule of thumb is to divide the ingredients list into thirds: the top third usually contains 90-95% of the product, the middle third usually contains 5-8% and the bottom third, 1-3%.

Here is the ingredient list of a "natural" and "organic" body moisturiser from a well known "natural" skin care company.

APRICOT CREAM

Natural or Organic ingredients include:

1. Water (Deionised),

2. Isopropyl Palmitate (Palm Oil Derivative),

3. Apricot Kernel Oil,

4. Bis-Diglyceryl Caprylate/Caprate/Isostearate/

Stearate/Hydroxystearate Adipate (Vegetable

Triglyceride),

5. Glyceryl Stearate SE (Vegetable Derived),

6. Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride (Glycerin-derived

emollient),

7. Ceteareth - 12 (Organic Emulsifier),

8. Tocopherol Oil (Vitamin E),

9. Chamomile Extract,

10. Sage Extract,

11. Linden Extract (Lime Blossom Extract),

12. Balm Mint Extract,

13. Shea Butter (From Karite),

14. Wheat Germ Oil,

15. Carrot Oil,

16. Cetyl Alcohol (Organic Co-emulsifier),

17. Sodium Hydroxide (pH Adjuster),

18. Sorbic Acid (Organic Compound),

19. Tocopherol Acetate (Vitamin E Derivative),

20. Methylparaben (Organic Compound),

21. Propylparaben (Organic Compound),

22. Imidazolidinyl Urea (Organic Compound),

23. Fragrance,

24. FD&C Yellow No. 5, D&C Red No. 33.

Content: Apricot Oil (2.5%)

Take note of the last point that says "Content: Apricot Oil (2.5%)". Notice that Apricot Oil is number 3 on the list. Because skin care manufacturers are required to list the ingredients in descending order this means everything AFTER Apricot oil makes up LESS than 2.5% by volume. This means that about 90% of that product is water and Isopropyl Palmitate. Isopropyl Palmitate, is derived from Isopropyl Alcohol, synthetic alcohol, and Palmitic Acid, a fatty acid from palm oil. It is known to cause skin irritations and dermatitis in rabbits and has been shown to have comedogenic (acne promoting) properties. No's 4, 5 and 6 are all produced by chemical reactions between various fatty acids and glycerol (synthetic glycerine). They are largely synthetic and have been shown to cause allergies and

dermatitis.

No. 7 is a synthetic emulsifier that may contain dangerous levels of ethylene oxide and dioxane,

both known carcinogens.

Nos 8-15 are natural ingredients used in very small amounts that may have been grown using

pesticides and herbicides.

No. 16 may be natural or synthetic and has been shown to cause contact eczema.

No. 17 is otherwise known as Caustic Soda and is extremely alkaline and corrosive.

No. 18. Sorbic acid was once isolated from the mountain ash berry, but is now chemically

synthesised and is a toxic preservative.

No. 19 is synthetic Vitamin E.

No's 20-22 are toxic and allergenic preservatives.

No. 23. Probably synthetic, may contain phthalates that have been linked to birth defects.

No. 24. Synthetic colours that could be potentially carcinogenic.

Now let's look at an ingredient list of a certified

organic body moisturiser. This ingredient list says:

CERTIFIED ORGANIC BODY INTENSIVE

1. Organic Aloe Vera,

2. Organic Safflower oil,

3. Purified Water,

4. Organic Avocado oil,

5. Organic Shea butter,

6. Non-GMO Lecithin,

7. Organic Sugar-Cane Ethanol,

8. D-Panthenol (pro-vit b5),

9. Organic Olive juice extract,

10. Organic Grapefruit Seed extract,

11. Natural gum,

12. Organic vanilla extract,

No. 1. from organic aloe vera plants with potent healing properties to regenerate the skin.

No. 2 is cold-pressed from organic safflower seeds, with emollient and skin softening properties.

No. 3. Purified Water.

No. 4 is cold-pressed from organic avocado fruit, very nourishing for dry skin.

No. 5 is from organic shea nut beans, fantastic at preventing stretchmarks and contains a natural

sunscreen.

No. 6 is from non-genetically modified soybean oil, a natural moisturising factor contained in healthy skin.

No. 7 is from organic sugar, helps emulsify the oils, butters and aloe together.

No. 8 is a precursor to vitamin B5, healing and moisturising.

No. 9 is from olive juice, a natural antioxidant that protects the skin from UV damage.

No. 10 is from grapefruit seeds, a natural antibacterial.

No. 11 is a natural gum to soften the skin and thicken the product.

No. 12 is from organic vanilla beans and smells divine.

WHAT ARE THE NATURAL ALTERNATIVES TO

CHEMICALS?

All skin care products, both synthetic and natural, contain items from the following categories in

some combination or other:

EMOLLIENTS

Emollients serve two functions; they prevent dryness and protect the skin, acting as a barrier and healing agent. Water is the best emollient, but because it evaporates quickly it is ineffective. It needs to be held on the skin by emollient oils in what is called an emulsion. Synthetic emollients are occlusive i.e. they coat the skin and do not allow it to respire (much like plastic wrap), which can cause skin irritation. Some synthetic emollients can accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes. They are also non biodegradable, causing a negative environmental impact. Natural emollients actually nourish the skin. They are metabolised by the skin's own enzymes and absorbed into it. They are readily biodegradable and are of edible quality.

Some Synthetic Emollients

PEG compounds (eg PEG- 45 Almond Glyceride) may contain the toxic by-product dioxane

Synthetic alcohols (anything that contains the phrase benzyl –, butyl-, cetearyl-, cetyl -,

glyceryl-, isopropyl-, myristyl propyl-, propylene-, or stearyl-) eg Isopropyl Palmitate, Diglyceryl Caprylate) have been shown to cause allergies and dermatitis.

Hydrocarbons (eg mineral oil, petrolatum, paraffin) contain carcinogenic and mutagenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and can cause chemically induced acne.

Silicone Oils (eg dimethicone, cyclomethicone, copolyol) can clog the skin like plastic wrap

and cause tumours when painted on lab animals (according to the Material Safety Data

Sheet supplied by the manufacturer).

Some Natural Emollients

Plant Oils (eg. Jojoba, Avocado, Rosehip)

Shea, Cocoa and Jojoba Butters

HUMECTANTS

The main purpose of any cream is to keep the skin moist. Many conventional creams form a

suffocating film on the skin to prevent moisture loss.

Even a natural humectant, glycerin, actually attracts water from the air and surrounding tissue.

It keeps the skin moist as long as there is sufficient moisture in the air. In a dry climate it actually draws moisture from the skin.

Collagen, elastin and keratin enjoy some popularity as humectants. Whilst they are compatible with the skin and deposit a protective film, they are usually sourced from animals and therefore cannot be termed "cruelty free". Some skin care companies would like you to believe that your skin can use special animal proteins to rejuvenate and replace aging cells. This is nonsense! The size of the molecules, even when broken down (hydrolysed), are far too large to penetrate the skin. Even if they could get in, they would be immediately rejected as foreign matter and attacked by the immune system.

Natural phospholipids, from lecithin, are fantastic humectants. An important benefit of phospholipids is that they are hygroscopic (attract water from the surrounding air) and hold water where an increased level of hydration is needed. Therefore, phospholipids increase the hydration levels of the skin without being occlusive (forming a film to prevent water loss, and preventing normal cellular function).

A recent study proved the value of topically applied phospholipids in skin care. It found that environmental factors (sun, wind, pollution) and the detergents and solvents, found in most skin cleansers, actually stripped the natural phospholipid content from the top layer of skin. This loss resulted in a rough feel and a pitted appearance under a microscope. Importantly, the phospholipids in the uppermost skin layers cannot be replaced by natural cell function, as the top layer of cells no longer metabolise; they serve only as a protective barrier.

Remarkably, the study showed that topically applied plant phospholipids restore the barrier function of the skin, protecting it from substances such as bacteria and harmful chemicals.

Some Synthetic Humectants

Propylene Glycol – causes irritation and contact dermatitis

Ethylene/Diethylene Glycol – causes irritation and contact dermatitis

PEG compounds (eg Polyethylene Glycol) – may contain the toxic by-product dioxane

Ethoxylated surfactants (eg "- laureth-") – may contain the toxic by-product – dioxane

Synthetic alcohols (eg Glyceryl Coconate, Hydroxystearate, Myristate, Oleate) have been

shown to cause allergies and dermatitis.

Some Natural Humectants

Lecithin

Panthenol (pro-vitamin B5)

Glycerin

EMULSIFIERS

Emulsifiers hold two ingredients together that normally don't mix. This can either be a physical

substance (like a wax) or a physical action (shake well before use!). Synthetic emulsifiers are

usually petroleum/hydrocarbon derivatives and can be allergens. Natural emulsifiers are obtained

from various nuts, berries and leaves.

Some Synthetic Emulsifiers

Alkoxykated Amides (eg TEA, DEA, MEA, MIPA compounds) can undergo nitrosation to

form nitrosamines, which are known carcinogens

PEG compounds – may contain the toxic byproduct

Dioxane, Sorbitan Stearate, Laurate, Palmitate, Oleate etc Ozokerite, Ceresin, Silicone and Montan Waxes Isopropyl Stearate, Laurate, Palmitate, Oleate etc.

Some Natural Emulsifiers

Plant Waxes (eg. Candelilla, Carnauba, Jojoba,

Rice Bran)

Xanthan Gum

Quince Seed

SURFACTANTS

Surface-active-agents are substances capable of dissolving oils and holding dirt in suspension so it can be rinsed away with water. They are used in skin cleansers and shampoos. A serious problem with ethoxylated surfactants (those that utilise ethylene or propylene oxide in the chemical reaction) is that they can be contaminated with dioxane, a potent carcinogen.

These surfactants are listed on labels as ingredients ending with –eth, (like laureth) or containing the phrase PEG (PolyEthylene Glycol), or PPG (PolyPropylene Glycol).

Another dangerous class of surfactants are amides. These are listed on labels containing the term TEA – TriEthanolAmine, DEA – DiEthanolAmine and MEA, MonoEthanolAmine.  All compounds containing TEA, DEA and MEA can undergo nitrosation with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic. One study has found that over 40% of products containing triethanolamine (TEA) were contaminated with these potent carcinogens.

Natural saponins (foaming agents) are a much better choice for shampoos. They gently cleanse the hair and scalp without stripping the natural oils.

Some Synthetic Surfactants-

Sodium or Ammonium Lauryl or Laureth Sulphate

Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate

Sodium Lauroyl or Cocoyl Sarcosinate

Cocomidopropyl Betaine

TEA (Triethanolamine) compounds

DEA (Diethanolamine) compounds

MEA (Monethanolamine) compounds

PEG (Polyethylene Glycol) compounds

Quaternium -7, 15, 31, 60 etc

Lauryl or Cocoyl Sarcosine

Disodium Oleamide or Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate

etc.

Some Natural Surfactants

Castile Soap

Yucca Extract

Soapwort

Quillaja Bark Extract

PRESERVATIVES

The decaying process is natural and happens with or without preservatives. Skin care products do not (and should not) last for ever. Just like food, all natural skin care products will eventually deteriorate and go rancid. The effectiveness, not safety, of synthetic chemical preservatives has only been "proven" by animal testing. Chemical preservatives are generally used because they are much cheaper than, and extend the shelf life of the product more than natural alternatives. Storing natural products in the fridge will help extend their life.

Some Synthetic Preservatives-<O:P>

Imidiazolidinyl Urea (Germall 115) and Diazolidinyl Urea (Germall II) Causes contact dermatitis. Germall 115 releases formaldehyde over 10°C.

DMDM Hydantoin Highly toxic, causes contact dermatitis, contains formaldehyde. Used in shampoos and deodorants.

Methyl, Propyl, Butyl and Ethyl Paraben Toxic, Causes allergic reactions and skin rashes. Used in almost everything!

2-Bromo-2-Nitro-Propane-1, 3-diol. (Bronopol) Toxic, causes allergic contact dermatitis. Used in face creams, shampoos, mascaras and bath oils.

Benzalkonium Chloride Highly toxic, primary skin irritant. Used in shampoos, conditioner and deodorants.

Quarternium-15 Toxic, causes skin rashes and allergic reactions

Chloromethylisothiazolinone and Isothiazolinone Causes contact dermatitis.

Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone Both cause allergies.

Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) and Butylated hudroxyanisole (BHA) Both cause allergic contact dermatitis. BHT is carcinogenic.

Some Natural Preservatives-

Tea Tree Essential Oil

Thyme Essential Oil

Grapefruit Seed Extract

Bitter Orange Extract

IS "NATURAL" REALLY BETTER?