In 2008, Maine’s Governor John Baldacci signed into law an Act to Protect Children's Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products. This law is aimed at protecting children’s health from unnecessary and dangerous chemicals in everyday consumer products. It is also an important step toward protecting Maine’s natural environment, as well as women of childbearing age, from the toxic effects of chemicals.

The law requires Maine to adopt a list of priority chemicals of high concern, forces manufacturers to disclose the toxic chemicals they add to products, and authorizes the state to require safer alternatives whenever they are available.  This point is so critical because it finally places the responsibility on the manufacturer, not the consumer.

The first list of chemicals has been released and is available on the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s website.  Reporter Meg Haskell with the Bangor Daily News recently wrote about the list.

 “At 83 pages, the list includes many compounds whose names would be unfamiliar to most people. But some, such as lead, mercury and formaldehyde, are widely recognized for their toxic effects on babies and young children.

Others, such as phthalates, bisphenol-A and deca, have become more familiar in recent years as public health and environmental groups have sounded the alarm about their presence in household goods.

Infant formula, plastic shower curtains, toys, cosmetics, furniture and home electronics are among the products that can contain and emit the toxic chemicals.”

This list reinforces the concern and need for national reform, don’t you think?

Why do we wear seatbelts? Why do we bring a surplus of diapers and multiple changes of clothes when we take our babies on a single outing?  Why do we wear helmets while biking and skiing? Why – because by golly, we’re smart kids and we have learned to intrinsically employ the precautionary principle…now if only our law and policy makers could do the same.

According to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, “there are 82,000 chemicals available for use in the U.S. yet only about 200 chemicals have been assessed for safety.  Only 5 chemicals have been removed from use based on health and safety concerns.”  Currently, in the United Sates, law makers require strong, and in many cases, conclusive evidence that a contaminant has adverse human health effects before preventative actions are taken.  In other words, the burden is on people to prove a chemical is unsafe before lawmakers will take action. The problem with this policy, however, is “serous, evident effects such as endocrine disruption, climate change, [and] cancer…can seldom be linked to a single cause.  Scientific standards of certainty may be impossible to attain when causes and outcomes are multiple; latent periods are long; timing of exposure is crucial; unexposed, “control” populations do not exist; or cofounding factors are unidentified (www.sehn.org ). 

So, if definitively linking specific contaminants to specific adverse health outcomes is sometimes a nearly impossible task, how could our government better protect us?  The U.S. should borrow a page from the European Union’s playbook and begin to adopt the Precautionary Principle – that’s how.  (more…)

I have been committed to slathering on suntan lotion for some time now.  In my 20s I foolishly sought a sun-kissed glow to add to my appeal, but I usually ended up looking like a giant red-lobster. Now, in my 30s, I am trying to “make-up” for all of my blistering burns, so I have been applying copious amounts of high SPF sunscreen.  My husband tells me I am the easiest person to spot on a beach – he simply looks around for the palest (we’re talking white) body and there I am.  While the ingredients in the sunscreen have been working to block out the UV rays that cause my skin to burn red, the ingredients have not necessarily been working to shield my health.

UVA and UVB rays both contribute to skin cancer, wrinkling, and skin aging.  I was always under the belief that a higher SPF meant greater protection from UV rays.  However, according to Environmental Working Group, SPF, Sun Protection Factor, “is only a measurement of the how well a sunscreen will protect skin from UVB rays, the kind of radiation that causes sunburn.”  SPF does not measure a product’s protection from UVA rays.  Look for products labeled UVA/UVB or broad spectrum for protection against both types of UV radiation.

(more…)

Ever since Al Gore started promoting his film “An Inconvenient Truth,” much of what we’ve seen or heard about the environment has been bad news. Whether it’s environmental links to cancer, widespread drought, or rising sea levels and melting polar ice caps, all this information can make you feel pretty hopeless. While there is plenty to be aware of -- and concerned about -- there's no need to despair.

On my way home from work the other day, I was lucky enough to catch an NPR story about the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH.
 

 
For those of you who don’t know, an oil slick and debris in the Cuyahoga River caught fire on June 22, 1969, drawing national attention to environmental problems in that state. Now, forty years later, the river is making a comeback and has gone from “fire to fish-friendly,” proving that when we set our minds to it, we CAN make a difference. 

Want to know more about what YOU can do? Register for PPNNE's “Critical Link” conference on September 10, where a panel of experts will address how all of us can protect ourselves and our families and exercise greater power as consumers and citizens in a discussion titled, “We ARE Part of the Solution.”

I read a review today for the movie "Food, Inc." and it got me thinking about genetically modified organisms (aka GMOs).  We talk a lot about environmental contaminants in cosmetic products, plastics, soaps, etc. and how they affect our bodies and fertility. But what about what we eat and where our food comes from?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently issued a position paper calling for a moratorium on GMOs until long-term, independent studies can prove their safety.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM.

The report goes on to say: “several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

It's time to learn more about the food we eat and it can affect our reproductive health.  Have you seen the movie yet?  Let us know what you think!

Do you want in depth information on the links between human health & the environment? Are you  just looking for a good book to read on the beach?  Do you doubt the existence of one book that fits both of these criteria? Please, allow Dr. Sandra Steingraber to prove you wrong!

Steingraber is a scientist and a storyteller. She weaves biographical information, history, and scientific data into a coherent picture of how “Lifestyle and environment are not independent categories that can be untwisted from each other: to talk about one is to talk about the other” (Steingraber, 1997).

Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment examines the link between chemicals and cancer, challenging the heavy emphasis we place on genetics and lifestyle as causes for cancer.  Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood discusses the ecology of pregnancy. Both books are a strong argument for the precautionary principle: that chemicals should not be released into the environment until we know they are “almost certainly not going to hurt anyone” and that least toxic alternatives should always be used (Steingraber, 1997).

Dr. Steingraber is the key note speaker at PPNNE’s upcoming Critical Link conference. She is as compelling a speaker as she is a writer. We hope you will come see her in person.

Read any good environmental health books lately? Let me know. I am looking for more summer reading.

I’ve known for a while that conventional deodorants — which often contain triclosan and/or aluminum — do more than stop sweat in its tracks. Unfortunately, many of the deodorants and antiperspirants on the market are also linked to adverse health effects, such as problems with sweat glands after years of use, discoloration in the skin, and possibly even Alzheimer's and breast cancer.

Whether or not the research is conclusive, there’s enough evidence to warrant a switch. But at what cost?

I recently traveled to Ames, IA, with eight kids between the ages of 8 1/2 and 12. (It’s a long story, but only two of them “belonged” to me...) Long before reaching our final destination, my all-natural deodorant up and died. While the preteens I was traveling with didn’t seem to notice, I was mortified every time I had to raise my arms to stow luggage in the overhead bins. So, what’s a girl to do?

Given my sweat-inducing situation, I opted for an antiperspirant/ deodorant with a natural-sounding cucumber and green tea scent for the return trip. Knowing that you can’t judge a book by its cover — or MOST personal care products by their label — I visited Skin Deep, an online safety guide created by the Environmental Working Group. WORRIERS BEWARE: You’ll never be able to look at those benign-looking tubes, jars, and bottles the same way! According to their database, the product I’d chosen earned a “hazard score” of 5 (with 10 corresponding to highest concern). Not horrible, but 61% of antiperspirant/deodorants have lower concerns. With so much to choose from, I’m hopeful that I can find an effective, healthier alternative — without breaking a sweat. Please feel free to send suggestions!

I’ll admit it – I’m a compulsive label reader. Lately I've noticed plenty of shampoos, cosmetics and personal care products boasting labels stating they are "Paraben Free." Why are some companies going out of there way to get rid of these parabens? There are many parabens: methyl paraben, propyl paraben, butyl paraben and ethyl paraben. Should we care when a product is Paraben Free?

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), “parabens are widely used synthetic preservatives found in most of the 25,000 cosmetics and personal care products in the Skin Deep” database. Parabens extend the shelf life of moisturizers and your shampoos and other products.

Parabens have chemicals that mimic estrogen in female bodies-- they mimic women's hormones and disrupt women's endocrine system. When the endocrine system is disrupted, the body’s ability to communicate with itself is thrown off. Some endocrine disruptors, such as parabens, have been linked to breast cancer. EWG reports “parabens were found in the breast cancer tumors of 19 of 20 women studied." According to the Breast Cancer Fund , “measurable concentrations of six different parabens have been identified in biopsy samples from breast tumors.”

So, should we care if a product is Paraben Free? At the expense of quoting a certain someone, I’m going to answer with an enthusiastic “You Betcha’!” If possible, choose a Paraben Free product.

To learn more about estrogenic chemicals in cosmetics and how they can affect a woman’s body, check out this video made by Cornell University. MAKE-UP: Breast Cancer and the Estrogen Connection

As women, we are not only the gatekeepers of our own health and fertility, but also the health of our families.
This blog aims to serve as a resource for you to gather information about a host of environmental information that can impact your fertility, the health of your children, and your own health.