Pregnant women exposed to chemical more likely to have aggressive girls: study

Pregnant women exposed to chemical more likely to have aggressive girls: study
Provided by: The Canadian Press
Written by: Camille Bains, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Oct. 6, 2009

VANCOUVER, B.C. - Pregnant women exposed to a common chemical found in plastics are more likely to have daughters with aggressive and hyperactive behaviours, suggests a new study that tested two-year-olds.

The University of North Carolina study, which included a senior scientist from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, is the first to examine the link between exposure to bisphenol A during pregnancy and behaviour problems in kids.

The results are consistent with other studies showing the impact of the chemical on juvenile female animals.

Bisphenol A, also known as BPA, has also been linked to reproductive problems and diabetes.

It's used to make hard, clear reusable water bottles, baby bottles and resins that line the inside of metal food and beverage cans.

Last October, Canada became the first country in the world to ban BPA-containing baby bottles. Some U.S. jurisdictions, including Cincinnati, have legislation that bans or limits the use of the chemical in consumer products.

Bruce Lanphear, a Simon Fraser University professor of children's environmental health, said the study suggests pregnant women start thinking about the effects of bisphenol A long before they lug home baby bottles.

The study, published Tuesday in the journal "Environmental Health Perspectives," measured the BPA levels in urine samples taken from 249 pregnant women in Cincinnati at 16 and 26 weeks pregnancy and again when they gave birth.

Lanphear said the women were followed from early pregnancy until their children were two years old.

He said the chemical concentrations between 13 and 16 weeks of pregnancy were most strongly associated with behaviour problems in girls, but the study found no significant effect on boys.

The girls will be tested again when they're five, at an age children's behaviours tend to be more stable, said Lanphear, who is also senior scientist at the Child and Family Research Institute at B.C. Children's Hospital.

He noted that industry initially fought results of various studies that suggested there were only inconsequential links between lead-based paint and children's behaviour and that pattern appears to be repeating itself for companies producing plastics using bisphenol A.

"What we found over the past 10 or more years is that the kinds of subtle shifts in behaviours or cognition in very young kids oftentimes become manifest as (psychological issues) in older kids and adolescents," Lanphear said.

"At a minimum, we should ask industries to begin to label their products as to whether they contain bisphenol A so we give families a choice when they make purchases."

"Environmental chemicals should be tested for their safety or their toxicity before they're marketed."

Rick Smith, executive director of Toronto-based Environmental Defence, called the study significant, saying the chemical industry can no longer point to animal studies as not being applicable to human health.

"Not only does this underline the importance of getting the chemical out of baby bottles but we now need to take the next step and get it out of other areas where kids are exposed, most notably infant formula containers," Smith said.

However, the American Chemistry Council expressed its reservations about the research pointing out what it called "significant limitations" in the study design and its inability to establish cause-effect relationships.

"The results of this preliminary, and severely limited study cannot be considered meaningful for human health unless the findings are replicated in a more robust study," the group representing the industry said in a statement Tuesday.

In February, researchers at the University of Guelph warned that parents should get rid of anything containing bisphenol A that will be used by babies or pregnant women.

A study by a toxicologist and a graduate of the southern Ontario university found that the chemical lingers in the bodies of newborns and infants.

How to Detoxify Your Home

How to Detoxify Your Home
The products you use every day could be impacting your family's health.
By TVOParents.com

We’ve talked a lot about taking care of our external environment, but there are things you can do for your internal environment as well.

Take a closer look at the chemicals you use every day to make your life hassle-free. The recent decision to pull plastic baby bottles off the shelves frightened many parents and showed all of us that the products we rely on to make our lives easier may not be healthy for our families.

If they're available on the market, don’t assume they’re safe:

What’s the big deal, we wouldn’t be allowed to use these if the government didn’t think they were safe, right? Wrong.

The Toronto-based group Environmental Defence tested five families across the country for 68 chemicals. They found 46 known toxic chemicals in the blood of these families. In many cases, the toxins were higher in children than in adults.

They found 38 carcinogens, 23 hormone disruptors, 12 respiratory toxins, 38 reproductive/developmental toxins, and 19 neurotoxins in their volunteers. Read the report.

Fe de Leon from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says, “We don’t know what’s in the various products that we are being exposed to on a daily basis. We’re getting evidence that there are problems and certainly the way that the regulations are implemented doesn’t adequately deal with toxic chemicals that we already know about.”

So where should you start to detoxify your home?

Get rid of the worst offenders:

PFOA (pentadecafluorooctanoic acid), PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) have been linked to cancer and hormone disruption. Some of these chemicals do not break down at all, ever. They are in the air we breathe, our food, our homes and our workplaces. Major lawsuits have been won against the manufacturers using these chemicals in other countries and some companies in the U.S. have been forced to phase out their use in the next decade. They are found in:

* Non-stick pans (brands such as Teflon, Dupont, T-Fal, Silverstone)*
* Stain-resistant clothes
* GORE-TEX
* Microwave popcorn bags
* Fast food containers
* Fire fighting foam
* Candy wrappers
* Pizza boxes

The solution? Chuck your non-stick pans and buy stainless steel or cast iron ones that require elbow grease to keep clean. Buy cotton, hemp or bamboo fabrics that are not treated with stain-resistant chemicals.

* Many people believe that if their non-stick pan is not scratched, it’s safe. Not true. Toxic cancer-causing fumes are released into the air when the pan is heated at high temperatures.

Pitch the plastic:

Bisphenol A is the real baddy here and it’s not just found in baby bottles. Take a look at the hard plastic bottle you might use when you work out. If it has the recycling # 7 on the bottom, it may contain bisphenol A. Throw it out.

Bisphenol A is also found in the lining of metal food cans, plastic wrap and dental sealants. It is a hormone disruptor that has been linked to birth defects, reproductive problems, breast cancer and prostate cancer.

What should you do?

* Do not heat plastic if you must use it.
* Do not put plastic in the dishwasher.
* Microwave food in non-plastic, microwave-safe containers.
* When microwaving, cover food in paper towel rather than plastic wrap.
* Use glass baby bottles.

Clean green:

You may have a shiny, clean, germ-free home but the cleaners you are using to get it that way could be dangerous. Why not try some greener solutions?

Here is a list of products that you can use:

* Good old vinegar is a great all-purpose cleaner. Mix one cup with one cup of water and clean away.
* Baking soda is great for getting rid of odours. Leave an open box out and it will absorb odours.
* Castile soap is soap made with vegetable oil and can be mixed with vinegar and water to clean wood floors.
* Instead of bleach, use a ½ cup of borax in the wash to get those whites whiter
* Check out more recipes to clean green.
~~
Conclusion:

The bottom line is we need to be more aware of the products our families use every day. If you're unsure about the safety of products in your home, try greener alternatives. Also, call on the government to take action.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For a link to this article, go to:

http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/family-relationships/articles/parenting/tvo/4019


To find out more about the products that I prefer:

http://www.saferisbetter.com/formyfamily

Every Parent Should know.............

Every parent should know...

Did you know that synthetic chemicals, including the ones we commonly use around our homes, day care centers, schools, libraries, shops, and restaurants have never been tested or proven to be safe, especially when combinations of exposures occur. No one knows the danger of the combination of chemicals that the average man, woman, child and pet comes into contact with, until WE show the symptoms. And how many decades have our symptoms been ignored for the sake of selling these harmful chemicals?

Chemicals Combine in Our Bodies...
From the Center for Children's Health and the Environment (CCHE). Bookmark this site and use it for a resource if you are concerned about children's environments.


http://web.archive.org/web/20070404040038/http://www.childenvironment.org/pdfs/NYT+Ads/6-00077+FINAL_Toxics_Mult_Exp_NYT.pdf

Study Finds Pesticide Poisoning at Nation’s Schools

This study is a little bit dated but has some important points that we should all be aware of:

July 27 2005

New Study Finds Pesticide Poisoning at Nation’s Schools

(Beyond Pesticides, July 27, 2005)

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association today finds that students and school employees are being poisoned by pesticide use at schools and from drift off of neighboring farmlands. The study, “Acute Illnesses Associated With Pesticide Exposure at Schools” (Vol. 294, No. 4, pp455-465), by Walter A. Alarcon, M.D. (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) et al, analyzed 2593 poisonings from 1998 to 2002 from three surveillance systems. While the analysis finds incident rates overall of 7.4 cases per million children and 27.3 cases per million employees, the authors conclude, “[T]hese results should be considered low estimates of the magnitude of the problem because many cases of pesticide poisoning are likely not reported to surveillance systems or poisoning control centers.” The authors recommend that strategies be adopted to reduce the use of pesticides at school and reduce drift.

The authors of the study work for a range of federal and state agencies, including theNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and state health and environmental agencies in California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The surveillance data comes from three sources: California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR), and Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS).

The study finds that the incidence rates among children increased significantly from 1998 to 2002. Illness of high severity is found in three cases, moderate severity in 275 cases, and low severity in 2315 cases. Most illness is associated with insecticides (35%), disinfectants (32%), repellents (13%), and herbicides (11%). Among 406 cases with detailed information on the source of pesticide exposure, 281 (69%) are associated with pesticides used at schools and 125 (31%) are associated with pesticide drift exposure from farmland.

The authors cite that the study misses incidents for which medical attention is not sought or reported to a surveillance system or a poison control center. “Even when individuals seek medical care, their illness may not be recognized as pesticide-related, because of the nonpathogomonic nature of the signs and symptoms and because clinicians receive little training on these illnesses.”

Overall, insecticides are associated with 895 illnesses and most often involve the following: pyrethrins (13%), chlorpyrifos (13%), malathion (9%), and pyrethroids (5%); Disinfectants are associated with 830 cases and most often involve the following: sodium hypochlorite (21%), phenol compounds (21%), pine oil (13%), and quaternary ammonium compounds (10%). Repellents are associated with 335 illnesses and most often involve the following: naphthalene (41%), and diethyl toluamide (DEET) (19%). Herbicides are associated with 279 illnesses and most often involve: glyphosate (36%), 2,4-D (19%), and pendimethalin (14%).

The analysis can be further refined by looking at specific surveillance data sources. For example, when combining the data from the CDPR and SENSOR, which predominantly report incidents involving adults, the most common active ingredients associated with poisonings from school pesticide use include diazinon (insecticide, 23%), sodium hypochlorite (disinfectant, 17%), chlorpyrifos (now withdraw for use by schools, 14%), quaternary ammonium compound (disinfectant, 14%), and malathion (insecticide, 5%). The most common active ingredients associated with poisoning from pesticide drift include insecticides, fungicides and herbicides: chlorpyrifos (22%), methamidophos combined with chlorothalonil and propargite (20%), mancozeb combined with glyphosate (16%), cyfluthrin combined with dicofol (13%), and malathion (10%).

While the study looks at acute, or short-term, effects, the study authors note that, “Repeated pesticide applications on school grounds raise concerns about persistent low level exposures to pesticides at schools.” Continuing, the authors state, “The chronic long-term impacts of pesticide exposures have not been comprehensively evaluated; therefore, the potential for chronic health effects from pesticide exposures at schools should not be dismissed. Unfortunately, the surveillance methods used in our report are inadequate for assessing chronic effects.” In addition, the authors note that pesticides on school grounds can be tracked inside school buildings.

The authors note the lack of protection for school children and employees under federal law. Citing Beyond Pesticides studies, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws and Are Schools Making the Grade?, the authors point out that state laws provide some protection but are varied, leaving large gaps.

TAKE ACTION: Join the School Pesticide Reform Coalition, sign on to the School Pesticide Reform Protocol, and ask your U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators to support the School Environmental Protection Act. For more information, contact Michele Roberts at Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450. The corresponding author of the report can be contacted: Walter A. Alarcon, MD, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Pkway, Mail Stop R-17, Cincinnatie, OH 45226.

New Risks Linked to Asthma Rise

Many, Many thanks to Heidi Hart-Gorman for sharing this with us

February 12, 2009, 1:44 pm
New Risks Linked to Asthma Rise - New York Times - Tanya Parker

A decline in aspirin use, exposure to household sprays and cleaners and lack of vitamin D may all help explain surging asthma rates in the past few decades.

For years the hygiene hypothesis has been used to explain stark differences in asthma rates around the world. In Western countries, asthma rates are about 50 times higher than in rural Africa, for instance. The hygiene hypothesis suggests that Westerners have less exposure to bacteria, viruses and parasites, altering the immune response and increasing risk for allergic diseases.

But Dr. Harold S. Nelson, professor of medicine at the asthma and allergy specialty hospital National Jewish Health in Denver, says the hygiene hypothesis doesn’t fully explain rising asthma rates in the United States and industrialized countries. The incidence of asthma has doubled in the United States since the 1980s.

In a recent talk at National Jewish Health’s annual Pulmonary and Allergy Update conference, Dr. Nelson noted that lower levels of vitamin D, exposure to spray cleaning compounds, and a wider use of acetaminophen in place of aspirin have contributed to the asthma epidemic.

The concern with household cleaners is that the spray mist can be inhaled and irritate the lungs, increasing risk for asthma. The biggest culprits appear to be glass cleaners and air fresheners. A major European study of cleaning product use in 10 countries found that people who used the cleaners four days a week faced double the risk of adult asthma. Weekly use increased risk by 50 percent. Australian researchers have also found a link with household cleaning sprays and asthma in children.

In a November 2007 article in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston reviewed the evidence showing a link between low vitamin D levels in mothers and childhood asthma. The authors wrote:

We hypothesize that as populations grow more prosperous, more time is spent indoors, and there is less exposure to sunlight, leading to decreased cutaneous vitamin D production. Coupled with inadequate intake from foods and supplements, this then leads to vitamin D deficiency, particularly in pregnant women, resulting in more asthma and allergy in their offspring.

Declining aspirin use may also help explain rising asthma rates. Young children should not be given aspirin because it increases risk for Reye’s syndrome. But a common alternative, acetaminophen, the ingredient in Tylenol, may increase a child’s risk for asthma when used in very young children or in high doses. The drug lowers levels of the antioxidant glutathione, which can help protect against lung damage caused by oxidants. In a study of more than 200,000 6- and 7-year-olds, use of acetaminophen in the first year of life was associated with a 46 percent increase in prevalence of asthma symptoms. Children using higher doses of acetaminophen had three times the risk of asthma.

Dr. Nelson notes that the research isn’t conclusive, but that people can take simple measures to lower their exposure to these new risk factors. Use liquid cleaners or pump sprays that don’t generate a fine mist. Eliminate use of spray air fresheners. Pregnant women and mothers should talk to their obstetricians and pediatricians about whether they should consider vitamin D supplements. And parents should discuss pain relievers with the pediatrician. Every pain reliever carries risks, and alternatives to Tylenol like ibuprofen can increase risk for gastrointestinal complaints. However, doctors may recommend switching between pain relievers or limiting exposure to acetaminophen in certain cases.

“There is a lot of supporting evidence for all three of these new risk factors,” Dr. Nelson said.

Why We Need The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act

"Please don't tell me a pre-polluted baby is just fine."
--Julie Deardorf, Chicago Tribune, 2005
Why We Need The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act

The nation's toxic chemical regulatory law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, is in drastic need of reform. Passed in 1976 and never amended since, TSCA is widely regarded as the weakest of all major environmental laws on the books today.

When passed, the Act declared safe some 62,000 chemicals already on the market, even though there were little or no data to support this policy. Since that time another 20,000 chemicals have been put into commerce in the United States, also with little or no data to support their safety.

The human race is now polluted with hundreds of industrial chemicals with little or no understanding of the consequences. Babies are born pre-polluted with as many as 300 industrial chemicals in their bodies when they enter the world. Testing by Environmental Working Group has identified 455 chemicals in people, and again, no one has any idea if these exposures are safe.

We are at a tipping point, where the pollution in people is increasingly associated with a range of serious diseases and conditions from childhood cancer, to autism, ADHD, learning deficits, infertility, and birth defects. Yet even as our knowledge about the link between chemical exposure and human disease grows, the government has almost no authority to protect people from even the most hazardous chemicals on the market.
The Campaign: Pass the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act

This pollution in people is the direct result of a statute that does not require chemicals to be proven safe to get on the market, or stay on the market. Under federal law EPA does not have the authority to demand the information it needs to evaluate a chemical's risk, and neither manufacturers nor the EPA are required to prove a chemical's safety as a condition of use.

The Kid-Safe Chemical Act will change all this through a fundamental overhaul of our nation's chemical regulatory law. Specifically, the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act:

* requires that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, kids and other vulnerable groups;
* requires that new chemicals be safety tested before they are sold;
* requires chemical manufacturers to test and prove that the 62,000 chemicals already on the market that have never been tested are safe in order for them to remain in commerce;
* requires EPA to review "priority" chemicals, those which are found in people, on an expedited schedule;
* requires regular biomonitoring to determine what chemicals are in people and in what amounts;
* requires regular updates of health and safety data and provides EPA with clear authority to request additional information and tests;
* provides incentives for manufacturers to further reduce health hazards;
* requires EPA to promote safer alternatives and alternatives to animal testing;
* protects state and local rights; and
* requires that this information be publicly available.

Through the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act we can give our children a safer and healthier future

http://www.ewg.org/kidsafe.

Asthma-friendly products: Do they help reduce symptoms?

Original Article:http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/asthma-friendly/AS00033
Asthma-friendly products: Do they help reduce symptoms?

If you're like most people with asthma, your asthma symptoms can be triggered by things in your home. Purchasing "asthma-friendly" products — products that claim to reduce asthma triggers — may seem like a good step, but you may be wondering if they're worth it. While there's no sure way to tell how much a particular product will reduce your asthma triggers, here are some tips to keep in mind when evaluating asthma-friendly products.
Carefully evaluate claims

There are many products on the market which claim to benefit people with asthma, ranging from plush toys to vacuum cleaners. While some may help with your symptoms, these so-called asthma-friendly products can be costly — and most haven't been medically tested. When considering an "asthma-friendly" purchase, don't just rely on claims from the manufacturer. Look for objective evaluations and make your own judgment. Some places that may have useful information include:

* Online consumer-product reviews or discussions
* Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization that evaluates and rates products and services
* Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, an industry trade organization that tests and rates room air conditioners, dehumidifiers and room air cleaners

Asthma-friendly certified products

Created in 2006, the Asthma & Allergy Friendly Certification Program conducts tests to determine which products are most suitable for people with asthma. The program is run by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group. After testing, the program endorses the products they feel work best. Products evaluated for certification include:

* Vacuum cleaners
* Air-cleaning devices
* Washing machines
* Bedding and mattresses
* Toys
* Flooring
* Paint

Certification seems like a good idea, but there's some controversy about the program because there aren't any outside studies that show that using an asthma-friendly certified product is any better than using a product that hasn't been certified. While Asthma & Allergy Friendly Certification endorsement lets you know a product has been tested, it isn't a guarantee that it's any better than a product that isn't certified.
Choose products that target your triggers

Using a product that claims to reduce allergens will only help you if it reduces your particular triggers. Asthma is triggered by different things in different people, so a product that helps one person may not be any use for someone else with asthma. For example, if dust mites trigger your symptoms, you may benefit from a mattress cover that helps contain or eliminate them. But buying paint that releases lower amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) might not be as important for you. It all depends on what triggers your asthma. Certain products, such as vacuum cleaners or air cleaners, can reduce multiple asthma triggers.

Common household asthma triggers include:

* Dust mites, which are common in carpet, upholstery and mattresses
* Dander from pets such as cats
* Cockroaches
* Indoor molds
* VOCs, released by paints, carpet and other household products

Asthma-friendly products: Just part of the solution

Unfortunately, eliminating asthma and allergy triggers isn't as easy as buying an air filter or a mattress cover, although both these measures can help. You'll never completely get rid of all allergens, especially dust mites. Here are the main ways you can help reduce your exposure:

* Identify your specific asthma or allergy triggers so that you can target them — you may need allergy testing to be sure what they are.
* Try to eliminate or reduce potential sources of allergens and irritants, which can include pets, rodents, cockroaches and cigarette smoke.
* Minimize places allergens can accumulate. One step that can help is to replace carpeting with laminate or hardwood flooring.
* Use an air filter to control allergens that remain airborne, such as pet dander

Have allergies but not asthma? This advice may still apply

As with asthma, household allergens may trigger itchy, watery eyes, a runny nose, sneezing or other symptoms in people who have allergies. But unlike with asthma, these reactions don't involve the lower airways. But taking steps to avoid triggers can still help, since the same environmental allergens that trigger asthma can trigger allergies. As with asthma, the key to deciding whether a product may help is to evaluate whether it's likely to reduce exposure to your particular triggers.
Weigh the benefits before you spend your money

Controlling allergens in your home environment can help reduce asthma and allergies, but it takes some work to determine which products are likely to help you most. When considering asthma-friendly products, weigh the potential benefits with the cost in light of your specific triggers and environment. Don't rely on manufacturer claims. Get advice from your doctor, and do research on your own to find out which products seem worth trying.

By Mayo Clinic Staff
Nov. 19, 2008