Persistent, bioaccumulative toxics, commonly known as PBTs, are a group of toxic chemicals that are joined together by some common features. Common PBTs in our lives include mercury, DDT, cadmium, lead, and several groups of chemicals including PCBs, toxic flame retardants (PBDEs) and dioxins. While these chemicals have many different uses in our lives, and different effects on our health, they are joined together by the following facts:

1. PBTs are persistent. These chemicals are often used in manufacturing because of the exact features that cause great, great trouble in our environment: they don't break down, and they stay in the environment for a very long time. PCBs, for instance, are man-made mixtures of chlorinated compounds that are used in manufacturing because they are non-flammable, have a high boiling point, and are insoluble in water: all features that make them very difficult to dispose of.
2. PBTs are bioaccumulative. Once these chemicals are ingested by living creatures, they build up in fatty tissue, and move up the food chain as they are consumed by bigger creatures, eventually making their way into our diets.
3. PBTs are toxic. These chemicals have been associated with all manner of health effects: mercury affects the nervous system of developing fetuses, chronic exposure to DDT affects the liver and kidneys among other parts of the body, cadmium has been labeled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable carcinogen, lead exposure in adults results in neurological effects like seizures, PCBs pose a cancer risk, PBDEs have been found to be endocrine disruptors, and dioxins cause reproductive and developmental problems.

Perhaps as important as the above features, PBTs know no borders. DDT and PCBs have not been used widely in the United States for over thirty years, yet they persist in our water and in our animals all over the world, and thus in the bodies of many human beings.

"Persistence is a great trait if you're job hunting, learning to play the piano or potty training your child. But when it comes to toxic chemicals, persistence is a characteristic that spells trouble for people, animals and the environment."

- Nena Baker, author of "The Body Toxic".

These chemicals are the worst of the worst (see chart below for a complete description of the chemicals), and for that reason, they are receiving special attention from environmental advocates in many states. While the federal government is still determining how to handle PBT contamination on a national level, many states are taking the lead in eliminating these dangerous chemicals.

Tackling PBTs in Washington State

Much of Washington State surrounds water. Between the Puget Sound (which has 2,000 miles of coastline), and the many rivers and lakes, much of the state's economy depends on healthy water.

As a result of increasing populations in the Puget Sound area in the second half of the 20th century, many toxic chemicals are found in the Sound, including PCBs, dioxins and PBDEs. Harbor seals have been found to have levels of PCBs that were three times higher than harbor seals in other common areas¹ and orcas have high levels of PBDEs.

"The decline in some marine mammal populations is linked to the prevalence of flame retardant chemicals and other persistent organic pollutants"

- Jean-Michel Cousteau, Ocean Futures Society

Additionally, studies have found high levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in osprey eggs in the Columbia River² in concentrations which were higher than the surrounding environment – proving the bioaccumulative effect of these chemicals. It is suspected that the high levels got to the osprey eggs by way of the fish that compose their diet. The Department of Ecology has also found high levels of PBDEs in the fish of the Spokane River, and are searching for a source of the chemical which is not immediately clear.³

Due to the extreme effect of PBTs on Washington State, the state plays a leadership role in going after PBTs and developing strategies to handle these dangerous chemicals:

• In 2000, Washington State became the first state in the nation to have a mandated, long-term PBT strategy. The legislature allocated $800,000 to identify the worst-of-the-worst PBTs.
• In 2003, the state legislature banned the use of mercury in most consumer applications.
• In 2007, Washington banned PBDEs from mattresses, televisions, computers and residential upholstered furniture.

"Washington is blazing a trail that other states and the international community can watch and learn from."

- Center for International Environmental Law.

Alaskan indigenous people show high PBT exposure

Due to its location, Alaska is a hemispheric sink for PBT chemicals. Few of the chemicals are manufactured in Alaska, rather "Alaska is on the receiving end of toxic chemicals that arrive in the north via wind and ocean currents," says Pam Miller, the executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Once the contaminants arrive in the Arctic, they are trapped by the cold climate – a process known as global distillation.

"Indigenous Arctic peoples are among the most highly exposed people on earth to toxic chemicals, because these chemicals—DDT, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and perflourinated compounds, to name a few—are persistent, and drift hundreds and thousands of miles north on wind and ocean currents from where they are manufactured from more southern latitudes. These chemicals contaminate our traditional foods and affect our health and the health of our children,"

- Vi Waghiyi (Yupik Eskimo) Tribal Member.⁴

Alaska's wildlife tests high for contamination—there are high levels of DDT in bald eagles, sea otters and Steller sea lions, and some orcas have tested at levels which show them to be among the most contaminated mammals on earth.⁵

In Alaska, more than other places, PBTs make their way into the bodies of its citizens—namely the Alaskan tribal communities – via food. Alaskan tribal communities are closely dependent on traditional foods that include fish and marine mammals. "This is a physical, spiritual, and cultural dependence on the land and ocean," says Miller. Native peoples are eating foods at the top of the food chain that are oil and fat based, where the toxic chemicals are the most highly concentrated.

Though Alaska is a perfect argument for the need for federal legislation—its citizens are receiving many more chemicals than they are manufacturing – the state is still tackling toxic chemical legislation on the state level.

Environmental advocates this year introduced a State Senate bill which would phase out the sale of PBDE chemicals from consumer products in order to protect Alaskans from developmental effects, thyroid disruption, and adverse reproductive effects.

Even in far-afield Alaska, some of the well-known dissidents of flame retardant bans have been showing up at hearings for this bill. Under the guise of protecting people from fires, representatives from the Citizens for Fire Safety – an industry group with a goal of protecting the $4 billion-a-year global market for flame retardants⁶—show up at nearly all hearings regarding flame retardants. This front group takes their playbook from the tobacco industry who worked to fight all Clean Indoor acts and other anti-smoking legislative initiatives.⁷

The truth is the phase-out of toxic PBDEs is supported by many citizens, physicians and even firefighter groups. Those who fight fires are among the people who are in the most danger from high PBDE exposure.

The Great Lakes' Toxic Legacy: Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Click image to view larger.
Credit: Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

The Great Lakes: A melting pot for PBTs

The Great Lakes cover over 10,000 miles of coast line, and are the largest surface area of freshwater in the world. They are bordered by two countries and eight U.S. states, and they provide drinking water for 40 million people. Unfortunately, they also have a history of pollution and contamination.⁸

The EPA has identified 43 Areas of Concern around the Great Lakes (26 in the United States). – areas that have undergone a significant change in its chemical, physical, or biological integrity. These changes can include things like changes in algae growth, tainted fish, or a problem with drinking water.

Due to the fact that the Great Lakes are also bordered by Canada, a special agreement was entered into between the U.S. and Canada in 1972. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement⁹ shows the intention of both countries to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." The agreement has served to reduce many of the pollutants in the lakes; however they do not address the contaminants that the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) does not recognize.

Therefore, many PBTs are still found in the lakes. For instance, in Lake Superior the levels of PBDEs doubled every 3-4 years between 1980 and 2000, Lake Erie has extremely high levels of mercury, lead and PCBs, and there have been over 1500 advisories against eating fish in the Great Lakes due to the presence of many PBT chemicals.¹⁰

Environmental advocates in the states around the Great Lakes have been doing what they can to protect the lakes via state legislation:

• In 2008, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was signed by the legislatures of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and the President of the United States. It is a binding interstate compact that provides a framework to enact protective laws, including environmental protection standards.
• The state of Michigan tried to pass a PBDE ban last year that is similar to the bans in Vermont, Oregon, Washington and Maine.
• New York, which borders Lake Ontario, has several pieces of PBT legislation this session, including a ban on cadmium in consumer products, a limit on lead in jewelry, a limit on PBDE flame retardants, and a comprehensive bill which would establish a list of chemicals of concern, presumably including many PBT toxins.
• Last year, the state of Illinois became the third state in the nation to restrict cadmium in children's jewelry. Illinois joins another Great Lake state—Minnesota—in this groundbreaking ban.

The Safe Chemicals Act: taking PBT cues from the states

This month, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 was introduced into the U.S. Senate, sponsored by Senators Lautenberg (NJ), Boxer (CA), Klobuchar (MN), and Schumer (NY). This law will overhaul the antiquated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has not been updated since first passed in the 1970's, and is so weak, it makes true regulation of toxic chemicals in this country nearly impossible.

If there's one thing we know about PBT chemicals, it's that they don't respect state borders – which is why it is critical that the federal government's policies work hand-in-hand with state legislation to keep Americans safe from these harmful toxins which risk the health of our families.

"We need a fix at the federal level so that we don't have to do this in the states," said Ted Sturdevant, Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. "States have limited resources and lack the tools of federal agencies to drive a national program. However, until we have a national solution, we will continue to act on chemical safety concerns in our states."

The 2011 Safe Chemicals Act gives special priority to PBT chemicals, classifying them as particularly harmful and will hopefully give the EPA the support it needs to move swiftly against the use of PBTs when safer alternatives are available. The states have begun the hard process of eliminating PBTs, and in the case of the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, they've even banded together to create regional regulations. But without the backup of the federal government, future generations will still be dealing with the consequences of ubiquitous PBT use.

"I'm pleased that the 2011 version of the Safe Chemicals Act directly targets persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and requires actions to quickly achieve the 'greatest practicable reductions in exposure' to them. Some state legislatures have also identified PBTs as chemicals of high concern and are acting as best they can to restrict their use, but it's time for the federal government to ensure all Americans are protected. These chemicals know no borders, and a national approach is essential."

- Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund.

You can read more about the Safe Chemicals Act, and keep abreast of its progress at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Worst-of-the-Worst PBT Chemicals

PBTs that are marked with an asterisk (*) are considered to be persistent organic pollutants (POPs) by the Stockholm Convention, a treaty that has been signed by over 100 countries (but not the United States) to eliminate the most harmful contaminants that are persistent in the environment and cross borders.

Resources

¹U.S. States and the Global POPs Treaty. Center for International Environmental Law, May 2005.
²Study affirms state's aim to reduce perfluorinated compounds. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 08/10/2010.
³Toxic flame retardants may be decreasing in Spokane River fish. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 03/22/11.
⁴Chemical Reform Urgent for People of Color and Low Income Communities. Native American Times, 04/11/11
⁵Contaminants in Alaska: is America's Arctic at Risk? An Interagency Collaborative Paper (US Department of Interior, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, et al.link, 2000.
⁶ACC announces the North American Flame Retardant Alliance.American Chemistry Council, 03/31/11.
⁷Citizens for Fire Safety Exposed: A chemical industry front group for manufacturers of toxic flame retardants (PBDEs). Environmental Health Fund.
⁸Great Lakes Basin Facts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
⁹Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Environmental Protection Agency.
¹⁰Toxic Substances Control Act: Failing the Great Lakes. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Dear Mr. President:

Though overall cancer incidence and mortality have continued to decline in recent years, the disease continues to devastate the lives of far too many Americans.

In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action.

The Administration’s commitment to the cancer community and recent focus on critically needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is praiseworthy.

However, our Nation still has much work ahead to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our workplaces, schools, and homes.

- Cover letter to President Obama from the President's Cancer Panel, May 2010.

When the President's Cancer Panel released a report in May 2010 advising Americans to take specific steps to reduce environmental toxins in their lives and thus reduce cancer risk, it was a watershed moment. The report recommended that Americans drink filtered water, avoid bisphenol-A (BPA), eat food grown without pesticides, and carefully choose the household products they use.

In an interview with the Breast Cancer Fund, Dr. Margaret Kripke, member of the President's Cancer Panel, commented on the creation of the report: "This was an enormously eye-opening experience for me." The panel decided to focus on cancer-causing environmental toxins because they are of concern to many Americans, and because 6% of cancers are thought to be caused by environmental carcinogens – this means that about 20,000 Americans are dying each year due to cancer caused by their environment.

Speaking further on the issue, Dr. Kripke talked about the United States' stance on the regulation of chemicals in commerce today: over 80,000 chemicals are approved for use in every day products, and only a few of them have been tested. Rather than proactively require testing of these chemicals, the federal government allows their use until the chemical is proven to be harmful.

"I always assumed that if something was a known human carcinogen that it would be regulated and this is clearly not the case.

Also, there are carcinogens in our environment that have been banned in Europe, banned in Canada that we are still using and that remain unregulated to this day, and I always assumed that, before things were put on the market, that they would be tested.

And that, too, is absolutely not the case -- we test very few things for cancer-causing properties."

—Dr. Margaret Kripke

In the absence of an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on the federal level, it is up to the states to control toxic chemical use to the best of their ability. And advocates are working hard on the ground to protect as many people as possible from the risk of cancer due to environmental factors.

White Lake, Michigan: From contamination to community activism.

Doug Schlaff was a healthy, active guidance counselor when he was diagnosed with Ewing's Sarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer that is found in only 200 Americans a year. The father of three passed away a short two years later, leaving his family with a lot of questions.

From the outset, the doctors had said that Doug's cancer was not genetic and was due to something in his environment during his short life. Doug's wife Polly Schlaff was left wondering what of the many potential toxins had contributed to Doug's cancer.

"At first, I wondered, 'Why Doug?' Now two years after his death knowing what I do about the many exposures that we all have every day to known or suspected carcinogens, I think, 'Why not Doug? Why not any of us?'"

The Schlaffs grew up in the White Lake area of Michigan, in the western part of the state. In the first part of the 20th century, White Lake was a pristine, placid, clean lake. In 1952, Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation built a plant near White Lake. Hooker is a chemical company now owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation that was associated with contamination at Love Canal. Unknown to area residents, Hooker was dumping large quantities of C-56 – a chemical that was rejected by the U.S. Army for use as a nerve gas because it was too harmful.

After twenty years of contamination, White Lake was considered a dying lake, and the EPA declared it to be an "Area of Concern". The area is now being cleaned up, and due to the tenacity of an active group of citizens, the public is informed and corporations are being held accountable. Polly Schlaff is clear to say that she doesn’t expect to ever know the exact cause of Doug’s cancer, but she wonders about a connection between White Lake’s past contamination and his illness.

Schlaff and her mother-in-law Claire Schlaff are now working with the health department on a mapping project which may help to identify whether a cancer cluster exists in the White Lake area. The area has been identified in a new issue paper released by the National Resources Defense Council, which is identifying 42 areas that need to be studied for high incidences of similar diseases.

Polly Schlaff believes that the key to protecting families from cancer-causing toxic chemical exposure is disclosure of chemicals used in products.

"I would like to live in a country where families are protected from known harm and given the tools to make good decisions about their health. Had Doug never gotten sick, I would have known nothing about the total lack of regulation of the chemical industry. I would have assumed that someone was looking out for us. "

Michigan is taking steps toward this with a proposed law that will require disclosure of harmful chemicals in children's products. Nearly 60 prominent health professionals support this bill and have stated, "Providing families with the right to know about toxic chemicals in children's products is a first step to address a subset of childhood exposures to environmental toxicants so that families can make more informed choices."

You can follow the progress of the children's products bill on the sites of Michigan coalition partners Michigan Network for Children's Environmental Health and The Ecology Center.

Connecticut: protecting its residents while the federal government founders.

Beka Apostolidis is a resident of Cromwell, Connecticut who was diagnosed with breast cancer over three years ago. She's also been a nurse for 15 years, and teaches nursing students in the oncology unit at Hartford Hospital. "I have a family history of cancer, on a personal level it has affected me," says Apostolidis. Her father died from leukemia, and her mother is a breast cancer survivor.

In her job, Apostolidis sees firsthand the effects of cancer on society. As the age of patients with cancer gets younger and younger, Apostolidis often finds herself thinking about the links between environment and cancer. Her father was diagnosed with leukemia, and before that, she says "I didn't really understand the link. Then I began to learn about pesticides and BPA and their connections to cancer."

In February, she spoke in front of the Connecticut General Assembly in support of a proposed bill which would remove BPA from register receipts in the state. "In nursing, we are taught to use the precautionary principle when there is risk of harm," she said. "I applaud Connecticut lawmakers for their leadership on the issue but we must do more."

Connecticut is a leader when it comes to regulation of toxic chemicals. They've passed the most comprehensive bill protecting their children from BPA and last year, they passed a law which sets up a Chemical Innovations Institute – a University of Connecticut institution which will promote safer chemical practices for Connecticut businesses, workers and the community.

Connecticut's proposed register receipts law would be the first in the nation if it passes. The BPA that is found in thermal register receipts is of special concern because receipts are so ubiquitous, and because the BPA that is found on the receipts easily transfers to skin and other surfaces. As of this publication, Senate Bill 210 banning BPA from receipts has passed through committee and is on its way to a full Senate vote.

Last year, legislators passed a ban on the use of cadmium in jewelry intended for children. Cadmium is a toxic metal that is sometimes used on inexpensive children's jewelry that has been tied to many health effects including cancer.

With just the laws mentioned here, Connecticut has managed to make the state safer than the federal government has. While Congress is still unable to take action against harmful, chemicals suspected of causing cancer like BPA and cadmium, the leadership in Connecticut has taken matters into their own hands and gotten rid of the chemicals in children's products.

Our partner coalitions in Connecticut are working hard to protect the residents of the state, and you can read about their progress on the sites Clean Water Action Connecticut and Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut.

Women's Cancer Action: Leading the charge in Minnesota.

Women's Cancer Action is an organization that is committed to preventing cancer and supporting people affected by cancer.

Based in Minnesota, Women's Cancer Action works to shed light on the link between environmental toxins and cancer and also works to support those living with cancer. They host a yearly conference which results in increased environmental activism in Minnesota, and discussions about environmental causes of cancer.

In December, the Minnesota Department of Health released a study which surveyed Minnesotans between the years 2000 and 2006 and looked into cancer incidences. The report found:

• While heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States at large, cancer has been the leading cause of death in Minnesota since 2000.
• In Minnesota, American Indians were 13% more likely to develop cancer than non-Hispanic white Minnesotans and 40% more likely to die of those diseases. Most of the incidences of cancer among American Indians were lung cancer.
• Based on current rates, about one in two Minnesotans will be diagnosed with a potentially serious cancer during their lifetime, and one in four will die of cancer. In 2006, lung cancer killed the most Minnesotans by a large percentage. The lung cancer incidences track regionally with smoking behavior in the region.

In 2009, the Minnesota legislature was the first in the nation to ban BPA from baby bottles and children's sippy cups. They also passed the Toxic Free Kids Act – part of that law enabled the creation of a list of priority chemicals of high concern. In January, the priority chemical list was published and included the toxic chemicals BPA, cadmium, formaldehyde, the toxic flame retardants deca-BDE and HBCD, lead and some phthalates. While the act was passed that allowed for the creation of the list of the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, the regulatory piece of the law was defeated by the opposition.

The passing of the Toxic Free Kids Act in Minnesota is a great example of the tough fight that the states face. While creating a priority chemical list is a positive step in the right direction, without the regulatory or policy back-up to get those chemicals out of the marketplace, families will continue to face the same environmental threats.

Kathleen Schuler, co-director of Healthy Legacy says, "We'd like government agencies to take a step further and that is actually require manufacturers to tell us if these chemicals are in their products and to move on to some restrictions … So that consumers can know that when they go out and they buy products for their kids that they don't have some of these priority toxic chemicals in them."

Healthy Legacy and Women's Cancer Action are working together to protect Minnesotans from toxic chemicals.

Taking action at the federal level.

While the release of the President's Cancer Panel report was a huge step forward in the environmental health community, advocates are now anxious to ask the federal government to abide by the recommendations that the President's own panel suggested, and to create regulatory reform that will help to protect Americans from cancer-causing chemicals.

News to watch on the federal level includes:

1. The hopeful overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This law, which oversees the regulation of chemicals in our country, has not been changed since the 1970's. Last year, bills were proposed which would help to overhaul the system and would require proactive testing of some of the 80,000 chemicals that are in the consumer chain. Those bills died before they saw the floor, but this spring should see the re-introduction of bills which will address TSCA. You can keep an eye on this bill's path via partner organization Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
2. A proposed BPA ban. Last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed a BPA ban as an amendment to the Food Safety Bill which would have banned BPA from children's products. While the bill passed, the amendment was struck. At the time, Senator Feinstein vowed to try again. In January, she introduced a stand-alone bill to regulate BPA.
3. "Trevor's Law." Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Mike Crapo (R-ID) have introduced legislation to target disease clusters and provide coordination between federal and state agencies to bring help to communities like White Lake, Michigan, which may have incidences of disease due to environmental factors.

Until the federal government steps in and passes strong toxic chemicals laws, the states will continue to do the hard work of protecting our citizens from cancer and passing policies that prevent cancer.

As Massachusetts State Senator Steven Tolman said, "Dozens of states around the country are coming together to update our chemical safety laws so that hazardous chemicals are replaced with safer alternatives … If Congress is not going to act quickly enough to protect families in Massachusetts, we're going to move forward at the state level."

References

President's Cancer Panel Report (PDF)
White Lake Cancer Mapping Project
Minnesota Department of Health Study (PDF)

It's election season. And you know what that means: phone calls, door knocks, commercials and pieces of mail requesting your support for a particular candidate. How do you know which candidate should receive your vote?

Our candidates need to hear that toxics legislation is important, and that you will be taking that into consideration when you cast your ballot. One of the most important things that a candidate can do is commit to protecting our families from harmful chemicals.

And here's a great secret: new research has shown that there is overwhelming support for toxic chemical reform across the aisle. In a Mellman Group study shows that 74% of the public supports stronger controls on toxic chemicals. This issue clearly crosses political party lines.

Here are a few questions to consider asking this fall.

Ask your local candidates: What will you do on the city level to help protect our families from toxic chemicals?

City and municipal governments have leverage with local budgets, city buildings, and local bans that can make huge differences in our lives.

The city of Phoenix, Arizona has a "Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Policy" which means that city-owned facilities strive to use cleaning products, materials and equipment that meet green standards. Long before many states passed Bisphenol-A (BPA) bans, the city of Chicago passed a ban on BPA. San Francisco became the first city to ban plastic shopping bags which contain toxic chemicals and pollute the environment. 

Strong leadership on the local level makes an enormous difference to toxic chemical use in our lives.

Ask your state candidates: Will you help our state take action against the worst of the worst chemicals?

Many states are moving toward a system which identifies the worst of the worst chemicals (like BPA, lead, mercury and some flame retardants) and works to ban them or identify safer alternatives. However, there are many states to go.

This year, legislators in Michigan worked with their colleagues to pass an important flame retardant ban. We need leadership in every state who will stand up to the influential chemical lobby and pass laws that will protect our children.

Ask your federal candidates: How will you help move toxics legislation along in Washington so that we are not depending on a decades-old toxics law?

Washington DC is doing a poor job of protecting our families from toxic chemicals.

Health advocates and sympathetic elected officials have been pushing for an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and have introduced bills into the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Unfortunately, those bills are stalled and we need strong leadership in Washington. We need elected officials who acknowledge the harmful effects of toxic chemicals to keep these important laws at the top of the priority list.

Want to take it a little further? Washington Toxics Coalition is encouraging you to set up a meeting with your legislative candidates to be sure that protecting kids from toxic chemicals is at the top of their agenda. You don't need to be a policy expert. Candidates enjoy talking to real people who live in their district.

The Michigan Network for Children's Environmental Health (MNCEH) and the Ecology Center this week released a report (PDF) estimating the cost of environment-related childhood disease in Michigan called "The Price of Pollution."

The report finds that the state of Michigan could save up to 1.5% of its Gross Domestic Product each year by protecting children from environmental exposures. The report estimated the cost of asthma, lead poisoning, pediatric cancer and neurodevelopmental disorders in the state of Michigan to be $5.85 billion annually.

Studies like this continue to point out a direct correlation between health costs and toxic chemicals in our society. In January, we reported on the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Health Report which made a clear connection between toxic chemicals and their health effects -- which include cancer, learning and developmental disabilities, asthma and other diseases and conditions -- which have an economic impact on our communities. The results found in Michigan can be extrapolated out to the rest of the country to show significant economic impact when we are constantly in contact with toxic chemicals -- in our cosmetics, our food vessels and in our children's toys.

In releasing the Michigan report this week, Aviva Glaser, lead author of the report said, "While the report offers only an estimation of Michigan’s annual costs of diseases due to environmental exposures, it shows the magnitude of how much these toxicants cost every year ... By removing toxic exposures in our community, we not only improve children’s health, but we can also improve Michigan's economic health."

Michigan health advocates continue to work hard to protect their most vulnerable residents from toxic chemical exposure. This year, they passed a ban against the toxic flame retardant deca-BDE (PDF) in all uses other than transportation and military. They have been working hard on the Healthy Michigan, Healthy Kids effort which is looking to protect children by identifying a list of chemicals of concern, phase out the worst of the worst chemicals, and providing economic incentives to corporations which foster a safe product environment.

There has been a lot of toxics news coming from the states lately. The Safer States organizations have been doing an amazing job of protecting their state's citizens through legislation restricting toxic chemicals. Moreover, elected officials have been hearing the message from their voters: we deserve to be protected from toxic chemicals in our lives.

Here's what's happening, state by state:

Alaska

This year's legislative calendar included a ban on Deca-BDE in mattresses and electronics. The bill ultimately failed, but the momentum for the bill was encouraging.

California

The California State Senate has approved a ban on Bisphenol-A (BPA) in baby bottles, sippy cups and food containers. It will now move to the State Assembly. The bill faces strong opposition by the US chemical industry. This bill has been in the California legislature for over a year and was introduced by Senator Fran Pavley.

“Every day, children nationwide are being fed a chemical that alters brain and behavioral function in ways we still don’t fully understand. This mass chemical experiment on our children’s bodies must stop.”

Senator Pavley is also the sponsor of a bill to ban the dangerous metal cadmium from children's jewelry. This bill has passed the State Senate and is headed toward the Assembly. Cadmium is a persistent chemical that builds up in the body. It is associated with birth defects and central nervous system damage in animals, and there is concern that children ingest cadmium by putting jewelry in their mouths which could cause health problems including kidney and bone damage.

Connecticut

A cadmium ban has passed in Connecticut! Upon signing the bill, Governor Rell said “I want to keep Connecticut at the forefront of chemical policy reforms. This law builds on our successes in phasing out toxic chemicals from children’s products – products like lead and Bisphenol-A."

Illinois

Our colleagues at Environment Illinois are working hard to support the passage of a BPA ban and a cadmium ban in Illinois. Illinois residents can ensure passage of the BPA ban in children's food containers by taking action and emailing your legislator.

Maine

Today, the Governor of Maine is signing a law called the Toxics Use Reduction Program. This bill will modernize the 20-year old Toxics Use Reduction Program, and will help to protect Maine's citizens froom the worst-of-the-worst chemicals. It will prioritize chemicals of high concern and will move toward planning and goal-setting to reduce the use of those chemicals.

Maryland

In addition to the passage of their new BPA law, the state of Maryland has passed a law against the harmful chemical Deca-BDE from many consumer applications. Passage of the Deca Bill means that children will be protected from this toxic flame retardant, as well as firefighters who are exposed to the toxic gases while on the job.

Massachusetts

Advocates in Massachusetts are focused on strengthening the BPA regulation that is pending in the Massachusetts Public Health Council.

Michigan

On June 24 & 25, supporters of the PVC-Free schools campaign will be gathering in Detroit to rally at the US Social Forum. If you're attending the forum, please stop by Hart Plaza to meet Betty the Besafe Ducky!

Minnesota

An Omnibus Workforce Development Bill was recently passed in Minnesota which includes a prohibition on cadmium. As you can see, state by state citizens are being protected from this toxic metal. The same law also contains a definition of "green chemistry." We first mentioned this in a post in February. Basically, it means that economic incentives can now be created around green chemistry. It sets the state up for an entire push toward developing products with the least amount of hazardous substances and energy consumption during the development process.

New York

In addition to their hard work on the Child Safe Products Act, advocates in New York have been hard at work on other laws. A law has been passed which prohibits the use of pesticides on school and daycare playgrounds, turf, athletic and playing fields.

Oregon

Oregon's attempt to ban BPA this year failed with a vote of 15 to 15 in the State Senate. Even though the bill didn't pass, it marked great work by a strong cadre of coalition partners who will be ready to fight for BPA another day.

Vermont

Vermont's BPA bill has been signed. It bans the manufacture, sale or distribution of canned infant formula, bottled infant formula, plastic baby containers, and reusable food and beverage containers containing BPA.

Washington

Washington's BPA bill has been signed, which wraps up this update on a positive note. The bill bans bisphenol-A from baby bottles, sippy cups, children's dish ware and sports bottles.

Michigan is starting the new year with an aggressive agenda for protecting residents—adults and children alike—from toxic chemicals in the state. The toxics policy approach going into the 2010 legislative session will focus on 1) protecting children from toxic toys and 2) protecting all residents from toxic flame retardants.

The Children’s Safe Products Act

This law would require manufacturers to disclose the ingredients used in toys. As an editorial in The Oakland Press states,

“It sounds like a simple request. And while we’re not excited about more legislative regulations, these seem to be needed."

"We understand bottom lines are critical these days, but there shouldn’t be much extra cost involved, and we’re talking about the safety of our children.”

This law has been passed by the Michigan house, but is now sitting in the Senate Health Policy Committee.

An editorial by William Weil, MD, and Mike Shriberg, policy director for the Ecology Center and the Michigan Network for Children’s Environmental Health, in the Detroit Free Press discusses the long-term benefits of the Children’s Safe Products Act:

“These bills are preventive medicine. By helping parents protect the most vulnerable population—our children—from toxic chemicals, we would reduce unnecessary exposures that can lead to consequences such as increased costs of health care and special education, and long-term losses in work productivity.”

Are you a resident of Michigan? You can urge the passage of the Children’s Safe Products Act by writing a note to your state Senator and Health Policy Committee Chairman Senator George by using this tool.

Phasing out Flame Retardants

House Bill 4699 has been introduced in Michigan to phase out decaBDE (deca) in residential furniture, mattresses, TVs and computers. Deca is a flame retardant that it used in insulation, electronics and home furnishings and there is concern about its health effects in wildlife and humans.

Last month, the EPA announced a negotiated agreement with three large manufacturers who have agreed to phase out deca in the United States. However, many SAFER states are moving to require tighter restrictions on deca on the state level.

“It’s gratifying to see the EPA take strong action on this unnecessary, dangerous chemical,” stated State Representative Deb Kennedy, sponsor of HB 4699. “While this voluntary agreement is a major step forward, we still need to assure that no deca-laden products could be imported, leading to releases into our homes and ultimately the Great Lakes.”

If you live in Michigan, you can urge your representative to support HB 4699 by using this tool.

Further Reading:

Editorial: Children’s toys still contain toxic chemicals. Muskegon Opinion, 12/1/2009.

Editorial: Senate should act on toxic toy bills. The Oakland Press, 12/4/2009.

The Obama Administration and Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the EPA, recently acknowledged that a major overhaul of this decades-old law is imperative for public safety.

There is concern, however, about the way that the Administration is setting out to reform TSCA. As Laurie Valeriano, policy director of the Washington Toxics Coalition wrote recently, "the changes are modeled after an approach that will result in endless government studies and gridlock when what we really need is action."

Thirteen states -- California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington -- came together to outline principles which will help avoid gridlock and efficiently move to protect the public from known toxic chemicals.

"Once again states are leading the call to fix our badly broken chemical safety system," praised Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center.

"New state laws are helping to set the pace, but states can’t go it alone. We need Congressional action to pass federal legislation to protect family health by requiring safer chemicals."

Advocates from the states feel they are a natural choice to provide the principles as they have been fighting the fight -- protecting their citizens from harmful chemicals which can cause hormone imbalances, cancer, brain damage, obesity, miscarriage and diabetes -- for many years, and are leading the charge in chemical reform.

Linda Adams, California Secretary for Environmental Protection stated,

"We need a more innovative approach to chemical policy, to apply our best scientific solutions to today’s real-world environmental challenges, and these principles help define the important changes needed."

The principles outlined by the states include:

• Require chemical data reporting.
• Demonstrate chemicals and products are safe.
• Prioritize chemicals of concern.
• Protect the most vulnerable.
• Promote safer chemicals and products.
• Address emerging contaminants.
• Strengthen federal law and preserve states' rights.
• Fund state programs.

Dear fellow parents and other concerned citizens:

I am the mother of two wonderful girls, a 2 year-old and a 3 1/2 year-old. The girls love playing in the play kitchen and preparing recipes for me. One dish that has been served many times is corn on the cob. I would order a corn on the cob and the girls would get it for me. They would of course try some themselves first.  Being young children their mouths were always on the play corn even though I urged them to "just pretend."

Imagine my absolute horror when after taking the corn along with some of their other toys to a toy testing done by the Ecology Center, the play corn tested many times the legal limit of lead. It also had significant levels of barium, chromium, arsenic, and mercury! It was such a bizarre reading that the testers retested it twice to make sure the machine was calibrated correctly. As a mother I am frightened to know that there are so many hazards to my children's health and outraged that many of them are products like toys that are marketed directly for children.

As a citizen and a parent, I am motivated to get the word out and raise the consciousness of our community. We need to help all of our children grow up in a safe and healthy environment. In the next few weeks, our state legislators will have the chance to vote on a bill that would protect children from the threat of toxic toys by giving parents the information we need to make responsible choices as to which toys are safe for their children.

As parents, we have a responsibility to speak out regarding threats to the health of our children. Please join me in taking the following two simple actions to help protect children from toxic toys.

Sincerely,

Sarah Barba
Harper Woods, MI

Here are two simple things you can do to help.

• Ask your state representatives and state senators to support the Safe Children's Products Act. Click here to take action.
• Share your personal stories and photos: An image is worth a thousand words.

The Michigan Network for Children's Environmental Health (MNCEH) is creating a photo collage of photos of parents, children and their toys asking the important question "Is this toy toxic?" and demanding a "right to know." We will use these photos in a collage at public events in support of this bill and in electronic communications.  Only with your help, can we make sure parents have a right to know what dangers lurk in their child's toys!

Here's how:

• Compose an email to rob@ecocenter.org with the subject line: "Am I Toxic?
• In the body of the e-mail, please include the following: First name, last name, and zip code. Also, please add a personalized comment/caption for the photo expressing why this issue is of concern for you and your family
• Attach the image of your children, yourself, your family, or your friends with toys, "Are these toys toxic?" signs, etc. - and send!

A giant 25 foot inflatable duck was at the public launch event in Lansing, which featured a number of state representatives who support the legislation and members of the Michigan Network for Children's Environmental Health.

The bills would require the state's health department to identify a list of chemicals of concern and would require manufacturers to report harmful substances found in products, according to an article in the Detroit News. The state attorney general would administer the new rules and would be empowered to issue fines for non-compliance from $5,000 to $150,000.

Groundbreaking work to catalog toxic chemicals in toys spearheaded by the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor largely informed the legislation.  Mike Shriberg of the Ecology Center said that about one-third of 3,000 toys tested were found to have high levels of chemicals.  A report in the Oakland Press noted that Shriberg showed a plastic ear of corn that had five times the legal limit of lead as an example of the toxic chemicals found in toys.

Comments from Michigan representatives illuminate the need for the proposed legislation, which is based on green chemistry bills enacted in California and Maine. 

"We're finding arsenic, mercury, lead and a lot of things in toys that don't belong in children's bodies."  said state Representative Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, who is sponsoring the package.  "We want to know how much is in the product, and why it's in the product." (Detroit News)

"As a parent, you always worry. But we shouldn't have to worry about the products we purchase for our children. Those products should be safe." Representative Barb Byrum  (Lansing State Journal)

Representative Harold Haugh said national legislation doesn't cover toy safety completely.  "Our national laws are not adequate," said Haugh. (Macomb Daily)

Two new studies released this week raise concerns about the widespread contamination of the environment and human health from brominated flame retardants.  Flame retardants are found in every day items from sofas to televisions and computers to mattresses. 

Yet the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), an industry front group spawned by PR firm Burson Marsteller, insists flame retardants are safe, despite growing scientific evidence to the contrary.  MSNBC's Rachel Maddow nailed it when she said on a recent show "When evil needs public relations, evil has Burson Marsteller on speed dial."

One study reported in the Los Angeles Times found high levels of flame retardants in sediment and shellfish off coastal areas from the Pacific Northwest to Lake Michigan, Maine and Florida. Government officials were quoted that action was needed to "reduce the threats posed to aquatic resources and human health." A second study found that flame retardants in household dust may alter men's hormone levels.  It was found that adult men with high levels of flame retardants had lower levels of testosterone. Researchers tested men who had been recruited to the study from infertility clinics.

Another study released in March found that exposure to dust contaminated with deca, a type of brominated flame retardant, alters behavior and brain development in mice, causing hyperactivity that worsened with age, according to a synopsis created by Environmental Health News.

The findings indicate that very early life exposure to the chemical -- called deca-BDE -- has lasting effects on the brain.

Dust has emerged as a major pathway for exposure to flame retardants, which may account for the very high levels found in children, who play on the floor and place objects from the floor into their mouths.  An Environmental Working Group investigation of chemical flame retardants in children and their parents found toddlers typically had 3 times more of the neurotoxic compounds in their blood than their mothers.  

The high levels of flame retardants in dust may be related to stringent furniture flammability standards in the US, particularly in California, which has the strongest standards in the country. Americans have much higher levels of flame retardants in their bodies - between 10 and 100 times higher than Europeans and Japanese. Residents of California have twice as much flame retardants in their bodies as other Americans. 

And the breast milk of American women contains the highest levels of brominated flame retardants in human breast milk found anywhere in the world.  

The Los Angeles Times reported 11 states have banned certain chemical combinations of flame retardants and some manufacturers have agreed to a voluntary ban.  Flame retardant chemicals are targeted in California’s green chemistry initiative. In March, Environment Canada announced it would join the European Union to put limits on deca, a chemical that is also targeted for phase out in legislation in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and  Vermont. Maine and Washington have already passed bans on deca.