Having just read and reviewed Slow Death By Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things, I had a few questions for co-author Rick Smith, head of Environmental Defence Canada.

And since his book was costing me — some $120 for a new set of stainless steel cookware to replace my stick-free, Teflon-coated set — I thought he owed me some answers.

We chatted earlier this week, while he took advantage of Family Day in Canada, visiting a playground with his young boys, a strong impetus behind his work to educate the public about harmful environmental and household toxic chemicals. The younger generation, he worried, has an even higher ‘body burden’ of chemicals than we adults grew up with.

In the book, he and co-author Bruce Lourie, an environmental consultant, test common toxics to find out how they get from consumer goods and food into our bodies. In fact, they ingest or expose themselves to these chemicals to chart the effects.

The basic idea: Since many of these toxic ingredients have been shown in lab experiments to act as endocrine disruptors and cancer triggers figuring out how to limit or reduce our exposure could have positive health effects, for kids and adults.

The chemicals the two examined included:

• Phthalates, used as plasticizers and preservatives or binders in many things, notably, body products, toys and pliable plastic good. Phthalates are endocrine disruptors suspected of interfering with the sexual development of boys, in particular.

• Bisphenol A – A plastic-making chemical found in clear, hard polycarbonate plastic. Once nearly ubiquitous in baby and water bottles, a huge campaign by angry mothers in Canada (and led by EDC) and protests in the U.S. and elsewhere has persuaded manufacturers to make alternatives out of safer plastic; glass and stainless steel bottles also serve as safer options. Studies have shown BPA interferes with the endocrine system, even in tiny doses, and could pre-dispose people to cancers, particularly of reproductive organs.

• PFOAs, classified as “likely carcinogens” and present in the “Teflon family of chemicals” which includes stick-resistant pans and Stainmaster treatments.

• PBDEs and other flame retardants, linked to cancers in studies.

• Triclosan, an antibacterial agent that has proliferated in hand soaps and crept into many other consumer items, and is implicated in the rise of “super-bugs” in the environment, and prompting health agencies to advise the public to return to plain old soap and water for hand hygiene.

• Mercury, a natural compound whose presence has been magnified in the world by industrial pollution, such as emissions from coal plants. Mercury can turn to super toxic methyl mercury in fish. That aside, even the regular mercury contamination of freshwater and ocean fish has governments concerned enough to warn people, particularly child-bearing women and children, to limit their exposure by tempering their consumption of seafood.

• Pesticides, in particular, 2,4-Dioxane, a chemical used in lawn treatments, that has been linked to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,  neurological impairment, birth defects, asthma and reproductive problems, according to the authors.

Onward with the interview, starting with me (in bold) followed by Dr. Smith’s answers.

It seems that your book aims to make the connections between all these toxic chemicals in everyday items get into and affect our bodies. Was that the idea behind polluting yourselves?

The point of the book was to demonstrate number one how easily these chemicals are absorbed by our bodies, and then how predictable the levels are, depending on the product that you use. Quite often enviros will say avoid this product or avoid that product because this will increase your pollution level. We wanted to demonstrate that cause and effect in real time. The results of our experimentation was quite disturbing and quite dramatic.”

Tell me how the idea of polluting yourselves evolved?

It started off as a joke between Bruce and I. We were talking about how we could illustrate the problem of toxic chemicals in consumer products. One of us said well, if we were really serious about this we would experiment on ourselves, and it sort of went from there, much to our family’s alarm.

We did expect to see some increases in these chemicals (internally). But the rapidity and the scale of the increases really surprised us. Nobody had really done this work before, maybe because nobody had been stupid enough. Nobody had tried before to manipulate their internal levels of  pollution in this way.

What was the effect on your personally of seeing the effect of some of those chemicals, the mercury and others, that you absorbed?

It reinforced, it very dramatically underlined for us how important it is in our own lives and the lives of others to avoid these chemicals if you can. I mean over a 48 hour period my levels of tricosan, this common antibacterial chemical  increased by 2,900 times. That’s just just a mind boggling experiment in a 48 hour period. That experiment really reinforced for me how important it is to avoid antibacterial products, something I was trying to do anyway, but I now avoid them like the plague.

Antibacterial chemicals have gotten a lot of attention for what they can do to the outside environment (fostering superbugs), but what’s your understanding of what they can do internally?
The direct harmful health effects.

First of all, the use of this chemical has dramatically increased in the last few years. You can find it in a huge number of products, whether its antibacterial chopsticks or if you’re renovating your kitchen you can now buy a countertop that’s impregnated with Tricolsan and you can buy cutting boards with TRiclosan. You can buy hot tubs with Triclosan in the sides. There’s just a ludicrous number of applications for this product now. And it’s very strongly linked to thyroid problems, and doctors are now very concerned aboiut how commonplace it’s become because of the evidence that it’s leading to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. So these superbugs are becoming more and more common and causing serious illness. It’s out of that concern that the American Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association have both called for a ban on the use of Triclosan antibacterial products.

I should point out that there are a lot of hand sanitizers on the market now and the ones that are alcohol-based…are safe to use.

Didn’t you worry that you were going to get sick doing these experiments?

The one cardinal rule of our experiments was that our tests had to mimic everyday life. Because obviously it would be very easy to dramatically increase your levels of Teflon if you were willing to go to the nearest hardware store and buy a jug of Teflon, which you can do, and paint yourself with Teflon, or it would be easy to increase yr levels of mercury if you were willing to swallow a few drops of mercury from your thermometer. But nobody does that. So those extreme tests wouldn’t have any applicability to everyday life….

We weren’t really doing anything that millions of people aren’t already doing every dayWe were just extremely deliberate about sampling the levels of these chemicals in our blood and urine for about a week. So thought it felt strange to be deliberately poisoning ourselves, that anxiety was kind of offset by the fact that our tests were so mundane. The actions we were undertaking were so mundane and commonplace.

When you sat in the room that had been treated with the Stainmaster chemicals…I don’t think I could have done that.

Ironically that was the one experiment where we didn’t see a dramatic increase in our pollution levels. But it was certainly the experiment that was the most unpleasant to conduct. So even though  we followed the directions of the guy who stain-mastered our carpet and opened the windows to let it air out, the off-gassing was quite nauseating. And that was the one experiment where we didn’t see any discernable increase in our pollution levels. We went back to talk to the scientist who helped us design the experiment to look at why it hadn’t worked, and his conclusion was that, perversely, Teflon chemicals are so ubiquitous that we all start off with such elevated levels anyway that it would be very difficult to see a discernable increase in a two day period.

That was ironic.

Why do you think consumers and governments tolerate all this toxicity in products?

Until recently here’s been a real lack of information for consumers. I think that has changed dramatically, especially in the last year or two. It’s very difficult now if you are a company manufacturing chemically intensive consumer products to hide what is in your product. There’s an amazing amount of information online now. People are trading information about the stuff they’re buying. So if you’re a manufacturer today, the name of the game is transparency and getting toxic chemicals out of your product. And if you’re not doing that then you’re liable to lose market share.

I think until now there’s been a real lack of awareness and that is changing fast.

But I think for the last several years people would look at having Microban in pillows and nanosilvers in socks and they would think, Yippee, Something positive has been done here to protect me from germs. I mean the marketing claims seemed good, if you didn’t know any more about it.

I think that’s entirely right. You can see the indication of how quickly things are changing in like the new Clorox line of Greenworks products or FP? Johnson,  a very old family company producing chemically intensive cleaning products – all of a sudden they’re disclosing all the ingredients in their products and they’re trying to get toxic chemicals out of their products. That’s a very interating development.

You see that in other areas too, like toys. I’m talking with you from this park and I’m surrounded by literally 200 kids under the age of 5 and I bet if I went around and talked to the parents around me and I mentioned names like Bisphenol A (BPA) and Triclosan and other chemicals, they would know what they are and they’ve already been making choices to shield their children from them.

We’re in the middle of a very profound market shift away from these toxic chemicals.

But don’t you think people doubt that these chemicals are really harmful? I mean isn’t it hard to prove that exposure to a certain chemical, say PFOA’s, caused a cancer, when we’re all exposed to a tank full of chemicals?

I think that’s right. But I think many people have a deep sense that something is wrong with the way things are made. I don’t know anybody who hasn’t had a brush with cancer themselves, or had a family member that’s had cancer. People you know who have breast or prostate cancer seems to grow every day. Illnesses like childhood asthma are at an all-time high.

I think most people, certainly parents, have a strong sense that there must be a link. And they have a sort of commonsense better safe than sorry approach and it’s changing their buying habits. You can see this with baby bottles for instance where over the last two years millions of young parents decided that given the choice between buying (those containing) Bisphenol A or nontoxic glass, they would err on the side of caution.

That’s the good news about a lot of these toxic chemicals – they’re not necessary. There are competitive products on the market right now that parents can choose other than these toxic products.

You dealt with flame retardants, non-stick coatings, phthalates and parabens, mercury, synthetic antibacterial products and to some extent nanoparticles. What scares you the most? What really worried you in going throught this exercise.

Generally the effects on my kids worry me. There’s no question that for a lot of these chemicals our children are growing up with a greater burden than we did.”

As for the specific chemicals that really freaked me out, I have to say the Teflon family of chemicals concern me greatly. These are chemicals that scientists now say may never break down. Every molecule of Teflon that was ever created still exists, is floating around in the atmosphere or is lodged in someone’s body somewhere or in the tissue of a killer whale or a polar bear or  a penguin, and no amount of stomach acid or time will break these chemicals down. That’s freaky and concerning. We need to not only discontinue the use of thse chemicals but address how we get rid of the tons of chemicals that have already been produced.

The section of your book on Parkersburg, Ohio (where residents have been harmed by pollution from a Teflon factory) was alarming to me also.

That’s a very troubling story and those folks have really suffered.

How do we get companies to reduce this pollution? You seem to be focusing on education of consumers and transparency.
People need to be smarter as consumers, and as citizens demand more from our government. I’m not saying we can shop our way to safety. But the good news from our experiments, that was shown conclusively, is that if you’re careful with what you buy; if you’re careful reading the ingredients list, you casn dramatically decrease your levels of personal pollution, sometimes within hours.

So while we are pushing governments to better protect us, to regulate, in the interim, making different choices as consumers can have a very positive impact on our and our children’s levels of pollution.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Illinois’ PIRG, a non-profit public interest group, released results of recent testing for toxic chemicals on toys this week, finding that three items intended for children exceeded current safety standards, and two products contact phthalates in violation of federal law.

The tested toys and products can be seen at HealthyToys.org, where they will be incorporated into a much larger list. Researchers at HealthyToys.org are readying a long list of items that will be available on Dec. 2, in time for the winter holidays.

“After the wave of record recalls of dangerous toys just two years ago, we’re glad to see that most of the toys we tested are in compliance with the law,” said Brian Imus, director of Illinois PIRG and an author of the report. “But not all toys are safe and we must do more to prevent toxic toys from ending up on store shelves.”

For more specifics, the PIRG referred people to the list at HealthyStuff.org.

HealthyStuff.org research director Jeff Gearhart said that it was “disappointing” that the early testing still found “significant problems in jewelry.”

Based on that, he said the group would maintain its standing cautionary position on kids costume jewelry, which has been found to contain lead in previous studies, as did two pieces vetted in this latest round of tests. HealthyStuff advises parents to forego the glitzy, inexpensive jewelry, for now.

But, he added, “the initial snapshot (of toys tested in Illinois) shows we’re seeing some overall improvement in toys this year, and we’ll know more once we get a larger sample.”

For the past three years, the group has tested thousands of toys, typically more than 700 before the holidays.

On the preview list of 87 toys released by the PIRG, at least three toys exceed the safe and allowable level of lead, which is set at 300 parts per million, down from the previously allowed 600 parts per million. (Pictures of the toys were not available.)

Two of the offending items are sold at Claire’s, a costume jewelry store that targets tweens and teens

The first is a Halloween item described as a LOVE Pink Block cell phone accessory. The other is a pair of clip-on dangling “diamond” earrings that registered a high reading of lead of 26,692 parts per million.

Another  item that tested above safe limits for lead is a toy car by Marvel Hot Rodz with a Spiderman head that tests showed contained more than six times the allowable levels.

Lead exposure has long been known to cause health problems in developing children, even causing cognitive issues. HealthyStuff.org, however, warns that just because a chemical is detected in a toy, doesn’t mean there’s been direct exposure to it. For more info on why HealthyStuff tests for certain chemicals and how they can affect childrens’ bodies when there is direct contact, see the Chemicals of Concern introduction on their website.

In a news release, PIRG also called out the problem of products that contain phthalates, which turn up in plastics and cosmetics are known to cause “a wide array of harm to the human body; from reproductive defects in men and women, premature birth, early onset puberty for young girls, and lower sperm counts in men.”

However, because HealthyStuff.org does not list phthalates among the toxic components it tests for, people cannot currently reference these products.

The Illinois PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), part of a federation of PIRGs nationally, called for better regulation to catch violators before they make it to market.

The good news? Most of the toys tested are being rated as having a “low” level of hazardous chemical content.

Lead in toys is scary enough, but that’s only the start. Now, you might need to take a second look at your handbag, your car, your pet’s bed and even your clothes. The non-profit group Healthy Stuff reports that their recent tests of 900 everyday consumer products turned up some toxic results.

Let’s start with man’s best friend or your purring pal.

More than 400 pet products, such as beds, chew toys, stuffed toys, collars, leashes and even tennis balls were tested. The results are unsettling. Healthy Stuff says that 45 percent of all the pet products they examined had at least one and frequently more toxins. A good one-quarter of the items had detectable levels of lead and of those, 7 percent exceeded the current limit the government has said are acceptable in children’s toys.

About half of the pet collars tested had detectable lead, and more than 25 percent of those exceeded the 330 ppm (parts per million) level that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has said is dangerous for children.

And if throwing the ball is fun for Fido, you might want to reconsider. Almost half of the tennis balls made for pets contained lead (interestingly, no lead turned up in tennis balls for the court).

That’s just the tip of the chemical iceberg.

If you’re driving a 2004 or older car, there is a greater chance of heavy metals (such as lead) in it. Also, the groups said, the level of chemicals in cars can be five to 10 times higher than your home or office.

The group tested 700 new and used vehicles, from some ‘80s models to 2010s. The two with the least chemicals – the 2009 Pontiac G5 and the Chevy Cobalt. The worst offenders — at the bottom of the chemical-heavy car list — were Mitsubishis, Audis and VWs.

Just what is HealthyStuff.org, anyway? They say their ratings are based on information from environmental health groups and researchers. The website was created by the Ecology Center, a non-profit environmental group in Michigan born after the first Earth Day in 1970. Its goal, according to its website, is to advocate for safe environments in all walks of life.

Healthy Stuff calls out the government and EPA for what they say are lax, outdated and incomplete research of potentially harmful toxins.  In 2005, the nation’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report criticizing the government agencies for  failing to expand regulation and testing of potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products.

With this latest round of tests, the Healthy Stuff group says it has conducted more than 15,000 tests on more than 5,000 everyday items.

Their most recent research also scrutinized the chemicals found in children’s car seats. Almost 60 percent of car seats had potentially harmful additives, they say, such as PVC, chemical flame retardants and heavy metals.

A substantial list of various kid car seats lets you find the variety you’re using, and a click on the “model” link reveals an overall score, the testing method, manufacturer code and which parts of the seat contain chemicals.

The group repeatedly reminds visitors that their results are not meant to imply that a specific chemical found in a product necessarily means it is dangerous. Their testing is meant to inform the public of the presence of certain chemicals in an item, not to tell consumers what they should and shouldn’t buy.

They test using a portable X-ray fluorescence analyzer, or XRF, to search for lead, cadmium, mercury, bromine, chlorine (PVC) and arsenic.

XRFs are used by manufacturers and government regulators to screen products for potentially harmful chemicals, Healthy Stuff says on their Web site. They also state that their testing has limitations: product choices were based in part on consumer interest. They did not randomly sample the items they tested, and want people to know that the items they test are not representative of all products in the market.

Now that the kids are safely back to school, you might want to peruse Healthy Stuff’s screening of more than 60 school supplies. A look at backpacks, pencil cases, binders and even lunchboxes had plenty of PVC and more than 20 percent had lead.

Of all the kids’ school products, almost 90 percent had one of more of the chemicals on Healthy Stuff’s concern list.

Before you rush out to buy replacements, you’d best check out their new research on women’s purses. Healthy Stuff tested more than 100 handbags, and found detectable lead in more than 75 percent of them. Of those, they said, 64 percent had more lead than the level the government has deemed safe.

The current law that governs chemical content is decades old. The Healthy Stuff site says that impending legislation demanding closer scrutiny of consumer goods chemical makeup is in the works.

Look over these lists for more detailed information:  toys, cars and trucks, clothing and accessories, products for children or pet products.

More questions? Check their list of frequently asked ones.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The EPA earlier this week issued a partial list of toxic chemicals released in the United States between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2008. The preliminary data, part of the Toxics Release Inventory, is now available to the public. It includes nearly 650 chemicals that have been emitted by more than 23,000 industrial facilities. The chemicals came from metal and coal mining, electric utilities and commercial hazardous waste treatment, among others.

The initial list accounts for about 80 to 85 percent of the data to be collected. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson says that once the EPA has completed gathering the data, a national analysis will be released. By publishing the preliminary data, the EPA wants to demonstrate that the agency has open communication with the American public.

“While we are still analyzing this information,” says Jackson, “we hope this raw data will be reviewed and used responsibly by stakeholders and the public to help them make informed decisions.”

Following several toxic chemical disasters in the early ’80s, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) became law in 1986. Its mission is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. As part of EPCRA, the EPA and individual states are required to annually collect data on the releases of toxic chemicals from industrial facilities, and then make that information available to the public in the Toxic Release Inventory.

Residents may find details about toxic chemical releases in their area, by going to the TRI site and typing in their zipcode.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media