“I feel like a total basket case. I feel so insecure about myself, like I am defective or something. It’s gotten to the point where I don’t feel like being around people anymore.”

These are the words of one of the more than seven million American women struggling to get pregnant.

It can be difficult to figure out exactly why a woman is having trouble conceiving. For one-third of couples experiencing infertility, complications can be traced to the man. In another third of cases, complications can be traced to the woman. And for the remaining cases, infertility complications can be traced to both or are simply unknown. Uncertainty adds to the frustration, and can make women and men feel inadequate or blame themselves.

Emerging research suggests that chemicals found in products we use every day may be contributing to difficulties conceiving. We use scented laundry detergent and air fresheners or handle cash register receipts without realizing we are exposing ourselves to chemicals that might interfere with our ability to have children.

Some chemicals can affect our biology even in tiny amounts

Certain chemicals can fool our bodies by mimicking natural hormones like estrogen. These chemicals can disrupt the normal function of our hormones (the endocrine system). Scientists call these hormone-mimicking chemicals “endocrine disruptors.” Research suggests that certain endocrine disruptors can throw off our hormones in ways that contribute to reproductive problems and reduced fertility.

Even if you avoid high levels of exposure to endocrine disruptors, you may still be at risk from low-level exposures. Animal studies have revealed that even very small amounts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals can seriously disrupt endocrine system function with damage equal to, and in some cases greater than, that caused by higher amounts. For example, a study in mice found that the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA)—found in water bottles, food can linings, and receipt paper—can damage the reproductive tract even when only a very small dose of BPA is administered. During critical periods of development, exposure to BPA can have serious adverse effects.

Chemicals can affect our health even before we’re born

One of the most worrisome findings from research on endocrine disruptors is that early life exposures to such chemicals can result in long-term damage.

Indeed, these chemicals can have some of their worst consequences when exposure to them occurs prenatally. Even before a baby girl is born, the chemicals she is exposed to through her mother have potential to influence whether she’ll suffer from fertility problems when she grows up. In animal studies, prenatal exposure to BPA can lead to physical defects in the uterus of the developing female fetus. Uterine damage can lead to infertility later in life.

The problem of phthalates

Endocrine disruptors are found just about everywhere. Members of the phthalates chemical group are found in medical supplies, plastic wrapping, varnishes, paints, cosmetics and more. In animal studies, certain phthalates have been shown to cause a number of male reproductive developmental effects that lead to decreased fertility. In other animal studies, certain phthalates have lead to spontaneous abortions and birth defects.

Scientists, can't, of course, intentionally expose pregnant women to these chemicals to confirm that the same effects occur in us. But when researchers look at what's already happening in the human population, they see troubling corroboration of the damage seen in controlled studies with laboratory animals.

Prenatal exposure to certain phthalates has been linked to reproductive defects in boys, such as impaired testicular descent. Exposure to the phthalate DEHP (Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate)—found in plastics used in floor coverings, furniture upholstery, and shower curtains to name a few products—is associated with greater frequency of cesarean section delivery.

If that weren’t troubling enough, everyday chemicals might also be interfering with pregnancies in their later stages. Certain phthalates have been linked to premature birth.

The law doesn’t work — toxic chemicals have become impossible to avoid

Unfortunately, it is an impossible challenge to avoid chemicals that may harm our fertility. How can you be expected to learn and know which products contain hazardous chemicals? And even if we could avoid chemicals that scientists know are problematic, we’d still run the risk of exposing ourselves to any of the thousands of chemicals that have not been adequately assessed.

Why are we in this situation?

The Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted in 1976. It’s one of our oldest and least effective environmental laws and desperately needs to be reformed. When it was passed, it grandfathered in 60,000 already-existing chemicals without requiring that they be assessed for safety. Since then, EPA has only been able to require testing of around 200 of those chemicals. TSCA lets companies introduce new chemicals — 20,000 such chemicals have entered the market since TSCA was passed — into products used by millions of people without requiring any health and safety data of them.

We need better legal protection

New legislation is under consideration that will protect against endocrine disruptors and other toxic chemicals: The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. If passed, this legislation would require manufacturers to submit a minimum data set on all chemicals, including new chemicals before they show up in the market and our homes.

Six million American women are having difficulty conceiving a child. It is too late to protect current generations of women (and men) from endocrine disruptors or other exposures they may have experienced before they were born, but there’s still time to protect the children they hope to have.

Some industry lobbyists are working hard to weaken or stop the Safe Chemicals Act, but if enough voters speak up, we can still get it passed.

Tell your Senators now to support the Safe Chemicals Act and help eliminate harmful chemicals that show up in products we buy.

Sources

Adibi, Hauser, Williams, Whyatt, Calafat, Nelson, Herrick, Swan. “Maternal urinary metabolites of Di-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate in relation to the timing of labor in a US multicenter pregnancy cohort study.” American Journal of Epidemiology, April 2009. 169(8): 1015-24.

Davis, Maronpot, and Heindel. “Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate suppresses estradiol and ovulation in cycling rats.” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 1994. Volume 128, pages 216–223

Jerrold J. Heindel “Role of Exposure to Environmental Chemicals in the Developmental Basis of Reproductive Disease and Dysfunction.” Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. New York, 2006.

Heindel, Gulati, Mounce, Russell, and Lamb IV. “Reproductive Toxicity of Three Phthalic Acid Esters in a Continuous Breeding Protocol.” Toxicological Sciences, Vol 12 (3) pages 508-518.

Meeker, John et al. "Urinary phthalate metabolites in relation to preterm birth in Mexico City." Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (10), October 2009.

Sharara, Seifer, Flaws. “Environmental toxicants and female reproduction.” Fertility and Sterility, Volume 70 (4) October 1998, pages 613-622.

Signorile, Spugnini, Mita, Mellone, D’Avino, Bianco, Diano, Caputo, Rea,
Viceconte, Portaccio, Viggiano, Citro, Pieratoni, Sica, Vincenzi, Mita, F Baldi,
and A Baldi. “Pre-natal exposure of mice to bisphenol A elicits an
endometriosis-like phenotype in female offspring.” General and Comparative
Endocrinology. Volume 168, Issue 3, September 2010, pages 318-325.

Swan, Main, Stewart, Kruse, Calafat, Mao, Redmon, Ternand, Sullivan, Teague. "Study for Future Families Research Team. Decrease in Anogenital Distance among Male Infants with Prenatal Phthalate Exposure." Environmental Health Perspectives, August 2005. 113(8) 1056-61.

“This might be the first generation where kids are dying at a younger age than their parents and it’s related primarily to the obesity problem.” – Actress Judy Davis

Celebrities like Judy Davis aren’t the only ones worried about the obesity epidemic. It is on the minds of millions of Americans. It is also worrying — even frightening — public health officials.

Obesity is the fastest-growing cause of disease and death in the United States according to the U.S. Surgeon General. A full third of Americans suffer from obesity, and another third are overweight. That means two-thirds of the American public are either obese or overweight!

Why is this so worrying? Obesity is associated with diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure.

Puzzling trend: Obesity in the babies

The growth of fast food chains and our dependency on cars seem to be among the obvious explanations for our society’s collective weight gain. So why would scientists look beyond poor diet and lack of exercise for answers?

Epidemiologists find obesity trends very puzzling. Not only are more adults becoming obese, but so are very young children and even infants. One third of babies nine months or younger are overweight or obese, compared to just 18% twenty years ago. That’s nearly double.

These infants aren’t eating fast food or developing bad exercise habits. They’re on a milk-only diet and can’t walk.

What’s going on here?

“Obesogens”: Chemicals that can contribute to obesity

As scientists search for answers, they’re finding disturbing links between obesity and certain chemical exposures. Researcher Bruce Blumberg has coined a new term for chemicals that can disrupt normal metabolism and contribute to obesity: “obesogens.”

Early life: Obesogens make stem cells develop into fat cells

Epidemiological studies have shown associations between certain chemicals and obesity in adults, but perhaps the most disturbing finding so far is that obesogens appear to have the greatest effects during early stages of development. This is a striking example of how toxic chemical exposures before birth or in the first few years of childhood can cause negative effects that last for the rest of our lives.

Every cell in our body starts out as a stem cell before it becomes a specific cell type, such as a muscle cell or skin cell. Experiments show the chemical tributyltin (TBT), a paint additive, predisposes stem cells to become fat cells rather than bone cells.

Another potential obesogen is bisphenol A (BPA), used in food can linings, polycarbonate plastics, and even paper receipts. A study published in the journal Endocrinology showed that exposure to BPA both prenatally and just after birth led to metabolic deficiencies and body weight increases.

Can taking a shower make you fat?

Phthalates are a large class of chemicals found in everything from fragrances to medical devices. Human epidemiological studies have correlated exposure to certain phthalates with increased fat mass and larger waist circumferences.

People use an estimated four million tons of phthalates every year. They’re used heavily in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products like vinyl shower curtains and flooring, and can also be found in paints, lubricants, and nail polish, to name just a few of many uses.

Can cooking a healthy meal make you fat?

Next time you try to cook a healthy meal, make sure your pan isn’t undoing your efforts. The surfaces of many non-stick pans are made using the chemical PFOA, and if overheated, chipped, or scratched, the chemical may be released.

In animal studies, in utero exposure to PFOA was shown to alter the levels of hormones involved in metabolism and cause excess weight gain in offspring. These observations add to PFOA’s list of toxic effects — it is already known for its developmental and systemic toxicity.

Obesogens are very hard to avoid

These few chemicals, already enough to make us worry, aren't the whole story. Research continues on others suspects too, such as the flame retardants known as PBDEs, and as more studies are done, even more chemicals may be found to have obesogenic effects. The prevalence of obesogens in our lives works against any of us who are trying to be healthy, and threatens to undermine our public health officials' best efforts.

We can try to avoid obesogens and other toxic chemicals. We can spend hours researching products and chemicals on our own. We can scour the Internet for safe alternatives. But that’s a lot to ask. How many of us have the time or expertise to sort through all the options, or the luxury of avoiding certain products or foods? In a recent blog post, José Bravo, Executive Director of the Just Transitions Alliance, calls this issue a matter of environmental justice.

Even if we could dedicate all the time in the world to avoiding obesogens, at best we’d only be able to avoid those that scientists have identified. Thousands of other chemicals haven't been evaluated, so we have no clue whether or not they may be obesogenic. There has to be a better way.

Let’s fix the law

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted in 1976, is one of our oldest and least effective environmental laws. It desperately needs to be reformed. TSCA allows companies to use chemicals in products sold to millions of people, without requiring their safety to be shown first. This law grandfathered in 60,000 already existing chemicals without requiring them to be tested. Unfortunately, persistent deficiencies in TSCA have resulted in EPA being able to require testing on only around 200 of them. There are now over 80,000 chemicals on EPA’s chemical inventory.

Even if chemicals are shown to be dangerous, TSCA makes it nearly impossible for the EPA to restrict their use in consumer products. Because TSCA is so weak, even asbestos hasn’t been banned.

We need a stronger law to help us identify obesogens and other harmful chemicals before millions of us are exposed to them.

New legislation is under consideration that will help eliminate obesogens and other toxic chemicals: The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. If passed, this legislation would require manufacturers to submit safety data on new chemicals—which would be made publicly available—before they are sold in products destined for consumers.

Some industry lobbyists are working to weaken or even kill the Safe Chemicals Act, but if enough voters speak up we can get it passed.

Tell your Senators now to support the Safe Chemicals Act to make sure that chemicals in the products we buy don't undermine our best efforts to stay healthy.

Sources

Hines EP, White SS, STanko JP, Gibbs-Flournoy EA, Lau C, Fenton SE. “Phenotypic dichotomy following developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in female CD-1 mice: Low doses induce elevated serum leptin and insulin, and overweight in mid-life.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology. 2009 May 25;304(1-2):97-105.

Jie Wei, Yi Lin, Yuanyuan Li, Chenjiang Ying, Jun Chen, Liquiong Song, Zhao Zou, Ziquan Lv, Wei Xia, Xi Chen, and Shunquing Xu. “Perinatal Exposure to Bisphenol A at Reference Dose Predisposes Offspring to Metabolic Syndrome in Adult Rats on a High-Fat Diet” Endocrinology May 17, 2011

Kirchner S, Kieu T, Chow C, Casey S, Blumberg B. “Prenatal exposure to the environmental obesogens tributyltin predisposes multipotent stem cells to become adipocytes.” Molecular Endocrinology. February 2010; 24(3) 526-539.

La Merrill, M. and Birnbaum, L. S., "Childhood Obesity and Environmental Chemicals." Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine, 2011. 78: 22–48.

Moss, Yeaton. “Young Children's Weight Trajectories and Associated Risk Factors: Results From the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort.” American Journal of Health Promotion: January/February 2011, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 190-198.

Stahlhut RW, van Wjingaarden E, Dye TD, Cook S, Swan SH. “Concentrations of urinary phthalate metabolites are associated with increased waist circumference and insulin resistance in adult US males.” Environmental Health Perspectives. September 2007; 115(9): A443.

You’ve probably heard some anxiety over whether radiation from cell phones and laptops is lowering sperm count, making men infertile.

While the jury is still out on that one, what you might not have heard is that scientists are discovering that chemicals used in everyday products may contribute to reduced male fertility. Years of research have unveiled a number of chemicals linked to infertility in men.

Epidemiological and laboratory studies have associated certain chemicals, including BPA, certain phthalates, nonylphenol, and the flame retardants tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP), triphenyl phosphate (TPP), and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), with male infertility. These chemicals can be found in everything from furniture to laundry detergent to cash register receipts.

Studies on these chemicals reveal that they affect hormonal systems in ways that may lead to reduced sperm count, motility, or quality; result in undescended testicles and deformities of the penis; and contribute to testicular cancer. Other research has shown that such chemicals can cause “feminization” of fish.

A young man's attempt to avoid chemical exposure

Andrew, a 19-year-old college student, read an article about ways to reduce exposure to these toxic chemicals. Not wanting to jeopardize his ability to reproduce, he took the advice to heart. Here’s what he did:

Certain members within the class of chemicals called phthalates can be found in many products, including most products with “fragrance” listed as an ingredient. Andrew decided to stop using air fresheners in his home and in his car. He also asked his mom to switch the household over to unscented laundry detergent.

BPA, a chemical shown to decrease male fertility rates, is often found in the thermal paper used for cash register receipts. Andrew tried to handle sales receipts as little as possible when making store purchases or signing for meals at restaurants. He even used napkins to transfer receipts into his wallet.

Is this really what we're asking of our young men?

Watching Andrew try to sign and put receipts in his wallet without touching them may be slightly humorous, but is this really what we’ve come to?

Andrew made valiant efforts to minimize his contact with chemicals. Sadly, he can’t truly avoid them on his own. When he placed receipts in his wallet using napkins, BPA likely rubbed off the receipts and onto the cash inside. Studies have found that paper money has detectable amounts of BPA on it. Beyond paper receipts, BPA is prevalent in food can linings and polycarbonate plastics. The ubiquity of this chemical is evidenced by its presence in the bodies of over 90% of Americans. Even if Andrew decided never to handle another receipt in his life, he wouldn’t be able to prevent his exposure to BPA.

And his exposure to harmful chemicals doesn’t stop with BPA. Andrew also has to worry about risky substances he might encounter while sitting on the couch at his school’s student center or while walking through air-freshened department stores.

There has to be a better way.

A broken law exposes us all to a chemical free-for-all

Why does Andrew have to worry about all these chemicals he encounters, anyway?

This year marks the 35^th anniversary of one of our most inefficient and ineffective laws: The Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Enacted in 1976, this law grandfathered in 60,000 existing chemicals without requiring any assessment of their potential health effects. There are now 80,000 chemicals available for use, and new chemicals continue to enter the marketplace without any requirement for basic health and safety data. Of these 80,000 chemicals, the EPA has only been able to require adequate testing of about 200.

We’re putting ourselves and future generations at risk by not requiring chemicals to be properly assessed for safety. How can we stand by and allow more and more potentially unsafe chemicals into everyday products?

Better legislation: The Safe Chemicals Act

The best way to fix this situation is to pass new legislation that reforms TSCA. The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 would do just that. This fall, Congress is poised to take up the Safe Chemicals Act.

The Safe Chemicals Act would give us much stronger protection against toxic chemicals. Manufacturers would have to show their chemicals are safe in order to stay on or enter the market. The act would require that a chemical’s safety be assessed before it is used in the products you buy.

Andrew’s efforts to change the products his mother uses and pick up receipts with napkins were commendable, but asking anyone to undertake such measures is unreasonable – and they won’t stop his exposure to harmful chemicals. The truth is, he shouldn’t have to worry about toxic exposures in the first place.

Certain industry lobbyists are working hard against the Safe Chemicals Act, but with enough support from concerned voters, it can pass. We need to make sure that only safe chemicals are used in the products we buy.

You can protect your and your loved ones’ health — ask your Senators now to support the Safe Chemicals Act.

Sources

Akutsu K, Takatori S, Nozawa S, Yoshiike M, NAkazawa H, Hayakawa K, Makino T, Iwamoto T. “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in human serum and sperm quality.” Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. April 2008; 80(4):345-50.

Aoki KA, Harris CA, Katsiadaki I, Sumpter JP. "Evidence suggesting that di-n-butyl phthalate has antiandrogenic effects in fish." Environmental toxicology and chemistry." Volume 30, Issue 6, June 2011. Pages 1338-1345.

Committee on the health risks of phthalates, National Research Council of the National Academies. “Phthalates and cumulative risk assessment.” The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2008

Maffini, Rubin, Sonnenschein, and Soto. “Endocrine Disruptors and Reproductive Health: the case of Bisphenol A.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinolgy. Bolumes 254-255. 25 July 2006, pages 179-186.

Salian, Doshi, and Vanage. “Perinatal exposure of rats to Bisphenol A affects the fertility of male offspring.” Life Sciences Volume 85, Issues 21-22. 18 November 2009, Pages 742-752

Meeker, Stapleton. “House dust concentrations of organophosphate flame retardants in relation to hormone levels and semen quality parameters.” Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2010, 118(3): 318-323.

“Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates Action Plan.” US Environmental Protection Agency. 18 August 2010.

Schreder, Erika. “On the Money: BPA on dollar bills and receipts.” Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.

Wong E, Cheng C. "Impacts of environmental toxicants on male reproductive dysfunction." Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. Vol 32, Issue 5, May 2011. Pages 290-299.

Xiao GB, Wang RY, Cai YZ, He GH, Zhou ZJ. “Effect of bisphenol A on semen quality of exposed workers: a pilot study.” Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 27 Dec 2009 (12):741-3.

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetimes. Of the women who get it, one out of five will die from it.

Understandably, given these statistics, many women worry about their chances of getting breast cancer. Some women with high risk factors, such as having close relatives who have had breast cancer, go through extra screenings. Some even consider preventative removal of their breasts.

We know that more cases of breast cancer are occurring than fifty years ago. Unfortunately, a whopping 70% of these breast cancer cases are not associated with any known breast cancer risk factors. Scientists are searching for answers.

Everyday chemicals can act like hormones

Over the last decade, scientists have established that some of the chemicals women exposed to can affect their chances of getting breast cancer. For example, certain chemicals called endocrine disruptors can interact with our biology by mimicking the hormones our bodies normally produce (the technical term is the endocrine system). Some of these interactions are thought to increase the chances of getting breast cancer.

How much should we worry about endocrine disruptors? Well, exposure data indicates that we ought to be fairly concerned.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are all around us. They are used in everyday products like detergents, antibacterial soaps, plastic containers, air freshener sprays and flame-resistant furniture. We take in these chemicals through our skin, through the air we breathe, and even through chemically contaminated food.

Everyday chemicals are affecting young girls

Phthalates are a group of chemicals produced in huge amounts, exceeding 470 million pounds per year. Phthalates can be found in products made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, like shower curtains and flooring. They are also found in varnishes, paints, medical devices like IV tubing and blood bags, and more.

Certain phthalates are endocrine disruptors and have been linked to early puberty and breast development in girls. Research has shown an association between early puberty and breast cancer.

Everyday chemicals can affect our health even before we’re born

Scientists have found that it's especially problematic when a developing fetus is exposed to certain chemicals. In studies on mice, prenatal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) led to harmful effects that persisted over a lifetime. Specifically, mice exposed to BPA while still in the womb and in the earliest stages after birth had greater sensitivity to the hormone estrogen during puberty.

The authors of this study note that changes in estrogen levels are a known, central risk factor for breast cancer and that increased sensitivity to estrogen may be of concern.

Everyday chemicals can make it harder to fight cancer

For women already diagnosed with breast cancer, toxic chemicals can do further damage. For example, a number of alkylphenols, chemicals found in detergents and cleaners, and BPA have been shown to stimulate faster division and growth of mammalian breast cancer cells.

BPA may also confer “chemoresistance,” which can make cancer treatments like chemotherapy and other anti-cancer drugs less effective. Scientists have found that breast cancer cells respond less well to chemotherapy treatments after having been exposed to BPA. This has serious implications for the chemotherapy treatment of breast cancer patients who have been exposed to BPA.

Unfortunately, almost everyone is regularly exposed to BPA. The Centers for Disease Control’s biomonitoring data reveals that BPA is present in more than 90% of Americans.

Why are all these chemicals in our bodies?

If we know these chemicals can cause us harm, why isn’t the government protecting us from them?

This year marks the 35^th anniversary of one of our most inefficient and ineffective laws: The Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Enacted in 1976, this law grandfathered in 60,000 already existing chemicals without requiring any assessment of their safety. There are now over 80,000 chemicals on EPA’s chemical inventory. Unfortunately, persistent deficiencies in TSCA have resulted in EPA being able to require testing on only around 200 of them.

For the great majority of chemicals available for use, then, we are left in the dark as to how they’re being used, who’s being exposed, and what harm they might be causing—whether we're talking about breast cancer or other conditions, such as obesity, infertility and Alzheimer’s, for which evidence is also mounting that links them to chemical exposures.

We need a better law: the Safe Chemicals Act

This fall, Congress is likely to take up the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. This legislation would vastly improve TSCA, giving us much stronger protection against toxic chemicals. Chemical manufacturers would have to provide basic safety data on their chemicals. New chemicals would be assessed for safety before they are allowed onto the market and into the products we buy.

Unfortunately, effective chemicals policies weren’t available for the 40,000 women who died of breast cancer in the past year. But for those of us lucky enough to be free of it or fighting it, for the babies not yet born and the young girls who haven’t made it to puberty yet—we can and need to do better.

Tell your Senators now how important it is to support the Safe Chemicals Act.

Sources

I Colon, D Caro, C J Bourdony, and O Rosario. “Identification of phthalate esters in the serum of young Peurto Rican girls with premature breast development.” Environmental Health Perspectives. September, 2000; 108 (9): 895-900.

Labat, Vaillant, Sheridan, Pal, Wu, Simpson, Yasuda, Smyth, Martin, Lindeman and Visvader. “Control of mammary stem cell function by steroid hormone signaling.” Nature 2010.

LaPensee, Tuttle, Fox, and Ben-Jonathan. “Bisphenol A at Low Nanomolar Doses Confers Chemoresistance in Estrogen Receptor-α–Positive and –Negative Breast Cancer Cells.” Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2009. 117(2): 175–180.

White R, Jobling S, Hoard S A, Sumpter J P, Parker M G. “Environmentally Persistent Alkylphenolic Compounds Are Estrogenic.” Endocrinology Volume 135 No 1

Wadia, Vanderberg, Schaeberle, Rubin, Sonnenschein, Soto. “Perinatal Bisphenol A exposure Increases Estrogen Sensitivity of the Mammary Gland in Diverse Mouse Strains.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 17 January 2007.

More than five million Americans have Alzheimer’s. This devastating illness has no cure. ABC reporter Terry Moran shares his experience of watching his mother struggle with Alzheimer’s:

"The worst thing for me, I think, was that I could tell my mother knew what was happening to her; she had watched it happen to her mother. She was terrified as the disease tore apart her mind. I remember sitting with her one morning, for hours, as she said over and over to me, ‘I want to kill myself. I am going to kill myself. I wish I could kill myself.’ For hours. My mom."

Mr. Moran watched his mother lose the ability to keep track of her belongings, schedule, and forget the names of people she loved. At the same time, he grappled with a big decision: should he undergo genetic testing for Alzheimer’s? He wondered if it was really worth knowing that he might be predisposed to suffer the way his mom did.

Genes aren’t the whole story

People in situations like Mr. Moran’s can spend hours agonizing over their family history. What many might not realize is that factors in addition to our genes can also affect whether we develop Alzheimer’s. Scientists are beginning to find links between exposure to certain commonly found chemicals and Alzheimer’s.

We have no control over our genetic make-up, but effective laws and regulations can control our exposure to harmful chemicals.

Why worry about chemicals and Alzheimer’s?

Scientists don’t yet know exactly how Alzheimer’s develops, but research is turning up important clues. For instance, researchers know that a protein called amyloid-beta is very important in Alzheimer’s prognosis. People with higher levels of this protein appear more likely to develop Alzheimer’s.

While specific genes do influence how much amyloid-beta is in the brain, they aren’t the only factor. Studies show that certain chemicals, such as lead, can increase amyloid-beta accumulation in the brain. This frightening effect is worse when the exposure to lead happens early in life because the brain is less developed and thus more influenced by changes in the environment.

But wasn't lead banned?

You might think that lead isn’t used anymore, given broad awareness of its hazards. Sadly, that’s not so.

In the U.S., lead is restricted in specific uses, but not banned. In paints, the most notorious use of this toxin, up to .06% lead is still allowed. Even after the public outcry about the alarming levels of lead in children’s toys and jewelry, the law guiding the US Consumer Products Safety Commission still allows products for children under the age of 12 to contain up to 100 ppm (parts per million) of lead–or 300 ppm lead when it is deemed not technologically "feasible" to attain the 100 ppm limit in a product.

Some may think that lead in small amounts is not harmful. But we know that’s not the case. Even very small amounts of lead have been shown to cause detrimental effects on the brain and nervous system. The Center for Disease Control’s chemical profile of lead cites numerous studies demonstrating that low levels of lead can cause harm. Further, several studies like this one, performed by the director of the Children’s Environmental Health Center, indicate that there is no “safe” level of lead exposure.

PCBs: Another story of how regulations failed us

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are another group of toxic chemicals that increase the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s. PCBs were once used in television sets, fluorescent lighting, and electrical insulators. We know now how dangerous they are, and since 1976 PCBs have been banned from commercial production and most uses in the United States.

But we learned of the danger too late. PCBs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs). They remain in the environment for a very long time and are still found today in dangerous quantities in the in soil, water, and air. Some uses that were allowed have turned out to be a continuing source of release to the environment. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control's biomonitoring data, which measures the presence of chemicals in people's bodies, indicate our continued exposure to PCBs despite their not having been used in 35 years. If PCBs had been adequately tested for safety decades ago before their widespread use, maybe their lingering presence might not be still threatening our health today.

We need to worry about other chemicals, too

Lead and PCBs aren’t the only chemicals that may increase our risks of developing Alzheimers.

Many chemicals on the market, like BPA (found in food cans and paper receipts) and certain phthalates (found in certain plastics, varnishes, paints, and fragrances) have been shown to lower testosterone levels. Lowered testosterone levels are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s. While studies have not yet linked these chemicals directly to Alzheimer’s, what we do know raises troubling questions.

There may be even more chemical contributors to Alzheimer’s risk. Identification of toxic chemicals, such as those associated with Alzheimer’s, is difficult because of weak chemical safety laws that don’t require adequate testing of the thousands of chemicals in use.

The main chemical safety law isn’t protecting us

Why are potentially dangerous chemicals used in consumer products at all? The main reason is an ineffective and outdated law called the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). When TSCA was enacted in 1976, it grandfathered in the 60,000 chemicals already on the market–with no questions asked about their safety and no testing required.

And even today, TSCA does not require that new chemicals be tested before being used in everyday items. There are now over 80,000 chemicals available for use, and EPA has managed to require testing of about 2% of them. Given what we know about the potential dangers of chemicals, these numbers are frightening and unacceptable.

We can fix the law—support the Safe Chemicals Act

A lot of damage has been done. We can’t change the history of PCBs and lead. Widespread use of risky chemicals like BPA and phthalates continue in the market today.

But we have an opportunity to make things better now and for the future. The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 would require that existing and new chemicals be found safe in order to remain on, or be introduced into, the market. Chemical manufacturers would have the burden to provide data that demonstrate their chemicals are safe, rather than government – and the public – having the burden of showing they’re not.

Some industry lobbyists are hard at work against the Safe Chemicals Act, but with support from enough concerned voters, it can pass.

Tell your Senators now how important it is to support the Safe Chemicals Act.

We can’t change our genetic risk of Alzheimer’s, or keep people like Mr. Moran and his mom from facing awful choices. But through common-sense chemical safety policies, we can make big steps toward reducing preventable risks that stack the deck against our health.

Sources

Basha Mr, Wei W, Bakheet Sa, et al. "The fetal basis of amyloidogenesis: exposure to lead and latent overexpression of amyloid precursor protein and beta-amyloid in the aging brain." Journal of Neuroscience. 2005;25(4):823-829.

Holland, J, Bandelow S, Hogervorst E. “Testosterone levels and cognition in elderly men: a review.” Applied Cognitive Research, 21 June 2011.

Jill Stein, Ted Schettler, Ben Rohrer, Maria Valenti. “Environmental Threats to Healthy Aging.” Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility and Environmental Health Network. 2008.

Kyle Steenland, Misty J. Hein, Rick Cassinelli, et al, “Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Neurodegenerative Disease Mortality in an Occupational Cohort,” Epidemiology, 17, no. 1 (2006): 8–13

Maricel V. Maffini, Beverly S. Rubin, Carlos Sonnenschein and Ana M. Soto. “Endocrine Disruptors and Reproductive Health: the case of Bisphenol A.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, Volums 254-255, 25 July 2006, Pages 179-186.

Pant N, Pant A, Shukla M, Mathur N, Gupta Y, Saxena D. "Environmental and experimental exposure of phthalate esters: the toxicological consequence on human sperm." Human & Experimental Toxicology, June 2011, Vol. 30 Issue 6, pages 507-514.

Wu J, Basha Mr, Brock B, et al."Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-like pathology in aged monkeys after infantile exposure to environmental metal lead (pb): evidence for a developmental origin and environmental link for AD." Journal of Neuroscience. 2008;28(1):3-