News of the Consumer Reports study moved quickly through the food community, as it affects nearly household. According to the study, "Consumers eating just one serving of the canned vegetable soup we tested would get about double what the FDA now considers typical average dietary daily exposure."

It is possible to change from BPA-tainted containers — Japan did it in 1997 because the government was concerned about the health effects of BPA.

The U.S. federal government has not taken action against BPA yet, and is under extreme industry pressure to continue to allow BPA in the consumer stream. In the meantime, studies such as this one from Consumer Reports continue to make headlines. As Tom Philpott of Grist said:

"While FDA bureaucrats play bump-and-tickle with industry chiefs to form policy on BPA regulations, NGOs have been testing consumer food products and finding significant levels of the damaging substance. The Consumer Union study was only the latest. Back in 2007, Environmental Working Group tested 97 canned products. Over half contained significant levels of BPA."

This is why it is critical that we continue to look to the states for leadership in the BPA ban. Minnesota and Connecticut have already taken the step by banning BPA from certain children’s products.

Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times examines the BPA evidence and decides that he will stay away from it as much as possible.

"While the evidence isn’t conclusive, it justifies precautions. In my family, we're cutting down on the use of those plastic containers that contain BPA to store or microwave food, and I’m drinking water out of a metal bottle now. In my reporting around the world, I've come to terms with the threats from warlords, bandits and tarantulas. But endocrine disrupting chemicals — they give me the willies."

The study recommends the following steps that you can take immediately:

• choose fresh over canned when possible, 
• do not heat food in the packaging it comes in -- instead transfer to a glass container,
• and look for alternatives to cans or plastic packaging.

To protect your family, you can participate with your state and federal government to restrict and label use of harmful chemicals such as BPA. Nationally, you can get active with the Safer Chemicals website and ask Congress to create common sense limits on toxic chemicals.

The study was conducted by testing BPA levels in the urine of pregnant women. The behavioral abnormalities seem to be affected by BPA level (the higher the mother’s BPA count, the larger deviation from norm was found in the children), and are most pronounced in children of women with high BPA levels during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy.

Many questions still remain about the effects of bisphenol-A, and this study is the first to tie behavioral impacts with BPA.

In the meantime, bisphenol-A is being found in more and more products that are in the marketplace. Most cash registers that we encounter in day-to-day errands use “thermal imaging papers.” This month, it was reported that those receipts contain BPA. In ScienceNews, John Warner, Co-Founder of WarnerBabcock, the Institute for Green Chemistry says:

“When people talk about polycarbonate bottles, they talk about nanogram quantities of BPA [leaching out] ... The average cash register receipt that’s out there and uses the BPA technology will have 60 to 100 milligrams of free BPA.” By free, he explains, it’s not bound into a polymer, like the BPA in polycarbonates. It’s just the individual molecules loose and ready for uptake. Obviously, this is a risk for shoppers and store employees alike.

Bisphenol-A is a hormone disrupting chemical which has health effects including impaired brain and reproductive development in unborn babies, miscarriage in pregnant women, diabetes, obesity and cancer.

And bisphenol-A is everywhere. Discover Magazine this month reminds us that 93% of us have detectable amounts of BPA in our urine, and four million tons of BPA are produced each year.

The Safer States Coalition is working on a state-by-state basis to protect the most at-risk populations are protected from bisphenol-A and other harmful chemicals. Minnesota and Connecticut have already banned BPA from certain children's products, and we are working toward bans in states throughout the nation.

To protect your family, you can participate with your state and federal government to restrict and label use of harmful chemicals such as BPA. Nationally, you can get active with the Safer Chemicals website and ask Congress to create common sense limits on toxic chemicals.

Children’s face paints were regularly found to have toxins such as lead, nickel, cobalt and chromium. Lead is a neurotoxin that should be kept away from children at any level.

The Healthy Legacy Coalition, a Minnesota-based Safer State organization, commented on the study saying:

Because these metals are not listed on product labels, parents shopping for Halloween make-up have no way of knowing which products are safe. While this is particularly concerning for parents at this time of year, these products are used year-round for dress-up and play, and the lack of cosmetic safety standards is a problem that extends to all cosmetics sold in the United States.

You can read more about the study here. This year, how about ensuring your children’s safety by making food-based paints or working with your children to find costumes that don’t require make-up?

Here’s wishing your family has a safe and happy Halloween!

Seventh Generation, a company known for a focus on safe, non-toxic cleaning products, is sponsoring the Million Baby Crawl to to demand toxic chemical policy reform from Congress.

The Crawl consists of a virtual baby march. On the site, you can create a baby avatar to add to the march as fun way to show your support for a new law to protect us from health-harming chemicals.

Seventh Generation created the Million Baby Crawl to lends its support for a new law that discloses toxic chemicals and protects babies, children, and women from the chemicals that can harm them the most.

Current federal chemical laws have not kept up with science, and tighter regulation of potentially harmful chemicals is needed in order to keep our families safe. Since 1976, the EPA has required testing on only 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals on the market.

Joining the crawl is a way to send a message to Washington, DC that you support of reform. Every name that is added to the Million Baby Crawl – either by creating a crawler or supporting a crawler – will be delivered to Washington, DC in an event to support legislative change.

Seventh Generation has partnered with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the national campaign for federal reform. Safer States is a member of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign.

To show your support of the Million Baby Crawl and reforming the federal law, you can:

• Join the Million Baby Crawl,
• Learn more about the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign and email Congress to let them you know it’s time to update the law governing toxic chemicals,
• Encourage your blog readers to do so as well, and
• Spread the word via Facebook, Twitter or Email.

Health care professionals are exposed to different, and more, chemicals due to their work environment, and the study confirmed this:

• Eighteen of the same chemicals were detected in every single participant,
• All twenty participants had at least five of the six major types of chemicals tested,

• Thirteen participants tested positive for all six of these major chemical types,
• All participants had bisphenol A, phthalates, PBDEs and PFCs, which are priority chemicals for regulation by the EPA and associated with chronic illness such as cancer and endocrine malfunction.

Deborah Lerner, a study participant and doctor from California said,

"What's most disturbing about my results is the apparent randomness: I expected high levels of Teflon-related chemicals, but instead I had higher levels of flame retardants and I don’t know why. How can I prevent exposure? Now I have far more worries about my kids’ contamination levels of the whole gamut of chemicals we tested for."

Studies like this underline the need for stricter laws against toxic chemicals in all states. Charlotte Brody, RN, National Field Director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families says, "Stronger laws are necessary to keep us safe from toxic chemicals. In 33 years, the EPA has tested for safety only 200 and banned only five of the more than 80,000 chemicals in commerce. We need to do better to protect public health."

Reaction throughout the Safer States

Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut: "As a registered nurse, I recognize the impact biohazards such as the chemicals being tested in this project can have on the health of individuals and communities," said Timothy Squires RN-BC, MS, who works as a Clinical Professional Development Consultant at the MidState Medical Center. "As our nation experiences a growing epidemic of chronic health problems, some of which have clear links to chemicals in our environment, reducing exposure is an important primary prevention measure."

The Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, MA: Is calling for the passage of the Safer Alternatives Bill which will systematically replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives when feasible, targeting those that are significant hazards in the workplace or for children.

Ecology Center, MI: Is working with the Michigan legislature to back more control of toxic chemicals including HB 4763-69, the Children's Safe Products Act, which will give parents information about toxic chemicals in children's products. That bill is currently awaiting committee hearing in the State Senate.

Clean Water Action, MN: Deanna White, Healthy Legacy Co-Director and Clean Water Action program director says, "Toxic chemicals are threatening our health and the health of our water. We see these effects all around us; from rising rates of cancer to intersex fish in our waters. This report provides an important snapshot of the exposure and risk chemicals pose to all of us and is another arrow pointing to the need to fix our broken national system for dealing with chemicals."

Can chemicals make us fat? Many scientists are starting to connect the dots that chemicals that mess with the delicate hormonal balance in the human body are indeed to blame for exploding rates of obesity, particularly in children and even babies.

Making the connection between the increased use of these chemicals and obesity is difficult since there are so many factors that contribute to obesity, including individuals’ diet and exercise. But one control group may be babies.

According to an article in Newsweek, Born to be Big:

[T]hese [other] causes cannot explain the ballooning of one particular segment of the population, a segment that doesn’t go to movies, can’t chew, and was never that much into exercise: babies. In 2006 scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health reported that the prevalence of obesity in infants under 6 months had risen 73 percent since 1980. “This epidemic of obese 6-month-olds,” as endocrinologist Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco, calls it, poses a problem for conventional explanations of the fattening of America. “Since they’re eating only formula or breast milk, and never exactly got a lot of exercise, the obvious explanations for obesity don’t work for babies,” he points out. “You have to look beyond the obvious.”

Where are these chemicals and how can we avoid them? They are everywhere and in everything.

An article in Childrens Health Magazine called Your Big Fat House highlights just some of the sources in the typical home:

BEDROOM  Carpet (PBDEs), vinyl flooring (PVC), mattress (PBDEs), toys, (BPA), waterproof clothing  (Phthalates, PFOA)

FOYER Raincoats (phthalates), rain boots (phthalates), faux leather coats, shoes, purses, and briefcases (phthalates)

LAUNDRY ROOM PVC pipes, detergents, and dryer sheets (phthalates)

LIVING ROOM Carpet (PBDEs), air fresheners (phthalates), furniture (PBDEs), electronics (PBDEs)

BATHROOM Toothbrush (BPA), toothpaste, vinyl shower curtain, water from the shower comes through PVC pipes, soaps, shampoos, deodorants, creams, powders, and makeup (Phthalates), nail polish (Phthalates, PFOA)

KITCHEN Produce in the fridge (pesticides), meat in the freezer (PBDEs, PCBs, pesticides), canned food in the pantry (BPA), jars of peanut butter (phthalates), jars of tomato sauce (phthalates), jarred baby food (BPA), plastic cups, baby bottles, plates, and utensils (BPA)

Of course, it is impossible to avoid all these products. Avoiding these toxic chemicals just can’t be accomplished by adjusting a few habits, or buying a couple of different products. And the prospect of regulating these chemicals will be met with major resistance from big business. According to Grist:

These chemicals are in EVERYTHING. Truly everything. The “disruption” to manufacturers at every level is mind-numbing. We’re not talking about phasing out Freon here. This is about reformulating some of the fundamental ingredients to just about every major consumer item.

This isn’t a problem consumers can solve for themselves. Government regulation of these toxic chemicals is going to be critical.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Obama administration are setting out to reform the nation’s decades-old approach to chemical regulation, according to an announcement made Tuesday by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Jackson said in a speech that chemical regulation is broken and in need of major reform, pointing to upcoming legislation that will reform the grossly outdated 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Recently the public has become more aware of toxic chemicals which are pervasive in the food chain, common household products, cosmetics, toys and more. The reality is the EPA currently has very little authority to regulate these toxic chemicals.

Jackson remarked:

“...as more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused. Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored.

“Our oversight of the 21st century chemical industry is based on the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act....over the years, not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate - it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.”

The principles Jackson outlined to guide Congress in creating new legislation include:

• Chemicals must pass muster under a safety standard that protects human health and the environment;
• Responsibility for providing data rests with the chemical industry, not taxpayers;
• EPA must have clear authority to take quick action to restrict use of chemicals that violate the safety standard;
• Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner
• Vulnerable populations, especially children, must be given special consideration when setting safety standards;
• Green chemistry, which will lead to safer chemicals, should be encouraged and the public’s right to know about chemicals must be ensured;
• The EPA should be given a sustained source of funding for implementation and the chemical industry must pay its fair share to implement the new standards.

These principles represent a drastic shift in the EPA’s approach to chemical regulation. The EPA hasn’t attempted to regulate a single chemical since it tried and failed to restrict asbestos 18 years ago.

Jackson was also clear that the legislation must give the EPA authority to take action quickly. Since TSCA was passed 33 years ago, the EPA has only required testing on about 200 chemicals. Currently more than 80,000 chemicals are used and produced in commerce.

Jackson’s remarks were met with praise from organizations that have been pushing for this reform.

“The Obama Administration is in sync with a public demanding safer chemicals and better information they can use to protect their families from toxic chemicals,” said Andy Igrejas, National Campaign Director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Steve Owens said the EPA has plans to ban chemicals and other toxic substances under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The EPA hasn’t gone after a toxic chemical since it attempted regulating asbestos in 1991 when a federal court said it had overstepped its authority. Owens also said the EPA may expand rules, which currently only apply to new chemicals, to halt or limit the production of existing chemicals.

According to a story from InsideEPA.com:

Owens said officials are already in the process of developing a “list of chemicals that will be on our initial list of items that we want to address going forward.” The agency is also “coming up with strategies for using the authority we do have under [TSCA] to go as far as we think we can toward not only getting information and making information public but also taking steps to restrict and in some cases even banning substances that may be presenting unreasonable risk of harm to people in this country.”

In order to regulate a chemical, the EPA has to prove that it poses an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment.

The EPA recently announced that 104 chemicals may require regulation to keep them out of the drinking water supply, according to the New York Times. The agency is required to evaluate such chemicals every five years and this round was the longest list yet, including pesticides, commercial chemicals, disinfectant byproducts and pharmaceuticals. The list was formed after the EPA evaluated 7,500 contaminants.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson plans to detail the vision for the EPA’s plans for chemical regulation on Sept. 29 in a speech in San Francisco.

A recent British study is building on the case many scientists are making that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are responsible for a growing number of genital deformities and reproductive problems in men.

These chemicals, which include bisphenol A, phthalates and many pesticides, are suspected of blocking testosterone in pregnant women and activating estrogen in developing boys and grown men.

This disruption of the delicate balance of hormones is leading to birth defects in baby boys’ reproductive systems and is harming male sperm counts.

According to an article on miller-mccune.com:

Results of a study released in May 2009 by the British nongovernmental organization CHEMTrust show:

• as many as 1 in 17 boys in the United Kingdom have undescended testicles, a congenital birth defect;

• malformation of the penis (where the opening is not at the end) has increased in recent decades in several European countries, the United States, Australia and China;

• U.K. and French data show a decline in sperm count in young men as compared to their fathers; in some European countries, 1 in 5 young men has sperm counts so low that it is likely to affect their ability to father a child; and

• Testicular cancer is the most common cancer of young men, doubling in incidence in many Western countries every 25 years over the past 60 years.

The author of the report, Richard Sharpe, of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council wrote that many scientists are tying a lack of testosterone at critical times of fetal development to "testicular dysgenesis syndrome," encompassing defects of boys' genitals, low sperm counts and testicular cancer. He sees a link between hormone-disrupting chemicals and TDS, saying animal studies "have established beyond a doubt that certain hormone-disrupting chemicals, in particular testosterone-disrupting chemicals, can cause TDS-like disorders."

There is very little regulation of hormone-disrupting chemicals and the analysis that is done by government looks at each chemical independently. This is a big mistake, according to Elizabeth Salter Green of the CHEM Trust, and can give consumers a false sense of security.

"Chemicals that have been shown to act together to affect male reproductive health should have their risks assessed together," said Elizabeth Salter Green. "Currently that is not the case, and unfortunately chemicals are looked at on an individual basis. Therefore, government assurances that exposures are too low to have any effect just do not hold water because regulators do not take into account the additive actions of hormone disrupting chemicals."

"It is high time that public health policy is based on good science and that regulatory authorities have health protection, rather than industry protection, uppermost in mind," she said.

The release of healthystuff.org last week had newspapers, bloggers, TV news and radio buzzing. The new site is a resource that rates a variety of products based on the presence of toxic chemicals.

Healthystuff.org focuses on toxics in pet products, women’s handbags, toys, car interiors, car seats and back to school items.

The New York Times wrote about the site’s release in its article Environmental Group Reveals Toxic Chemicals in a Range of Consumer Items.

The Times interviewed Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center, which developed healthystuff.org.

Mr. Gearhart said the center’s announcement was timed to give a lift to current efforts in Congress to introduce legislation to more closely regulate toxic chemicals that end up in so many household products.

“Current laws that regulate individual products are stopgap measures,” he said, “Ultimately we need to move to a system that doesn’t regulate the end product but regulates the chemicals themselves.”

The Times also interviewed Charlotte Brody, the national field director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which lobbies for better regulation of toxic chemicals

“The honest answer to this report is we do not know how big a deal it is,” she said. “Every year we learn that what we had learned was a safe level of a chemical turns out not to be that safe.

“If people are telling you lead is safe, even in small amounts, it isn’t science. It is hubris.”

Other coverage of the healthystuff.org release includes:

Public News Service: Time to Perform a Health Check on Your “Stuff”

Healthy Child Healthy World: New Database on Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products Reveals Hazardous Substances

KTLA: Study Finds Toxic Chemicals in Pet Toys

Consumeraffairs.com: Report Finds Toxins Common in Products for Children, Pets

Talk Radio News: Internet Startup Seeks to Reveal Safest and Most Dangerous Consumer Products