Last year, 150 tons of plastic pellets spilled off the coast of Hong Kong. The BBC reported, “the plastic balls are not toxic on their own, but could absorb toxins that would be lethal to any species that might be tempted to eat them.” According to researchers, this highlights a common misperception regarding small plastic debris in aquatic habitats—the material itself is not considered a hazard to aquatic animals.

In a new study, researchers describe how plastic debris in our oceans introduces toxic chemicals from three different sources.

1. Monomers – The building blocks of plastic polymers are monomers which are linked together during polymerization. However polymerization is never complete leaving some monomers unattached and free to migrate out into whatever the plastic comes in contact—like a sea creature or, in the case of a plastic beverage container – your body.

Examples of harmful monomers are the carcinogen vinyl chloride that makes up polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics, or the endocrine disruptor bisphenol-A (BPA) that makes up polycarbonate plastics.

2. Plastic Additives – manufacturers mix in other chemicals to give plastics desired properties. Additives can have toxic properties of their own and they are also free to leach out.

Typical additives include softening agents like phthalates and flame retardants such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Adding to the concern is that consumers are often left in the dark as to what’s been added to plastics as manufacturers are not required to disclose additives considered proprietary trade secrets.

3. Pollution magnets – Because plastics are oily substances, they attract other oily chemicals floating about. In one study plastic pellets accumulated toxins at concentrations up to a million times that found in the surrounding seawater—and that was only after six days in the water. Therefore plastics in marine environments become even more toxic as they break down and are ingested by marine life.

The new study compared how readily the five most common mass-produced plastic polymers accumulate hazardous chemicals from local seawater. At intervals of 6 to 12 months, samples were recovered for analysis of two families of persistent toxins: PCBs and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – byproducts of burning fossil fuels or forest fires).

What They Found

All five polymers accumulated increasing amounts over time of both PCBs and PAHs. However, three types (HDPE, LDPE and PP) soaked up the pollutants at concentrations higher than the other two (PVC and PET). Concentrations of toxins topped out for PVC and PET at six months, but the other three types continued to rise through 12 months. The researchers believe that the higher levels of toxins on some plastics is due to their being subject to weathering which produces surface pitting, increasing the surface area to which toxins can stick.

Implications:

Plastic debris in the oceans has a multiplying effect that is potentially more harmful than disposal of plastics on land. Ingestion of marine plastic debris is commonplace at all levels of the food chain, whether passively by filter feeders, like krill and many fish, or actively when mistaken for food by animals as diverse as sea birds, turtles and whales. All such creatures represent entry points into the ocean food web for toxins either manufactured into plastics or accumulated later from seawater.

This study also dispels the notion that developing marine biodegradable plastics will automatically eliminate chemical threats stemming from conventional plastics which are non-biodegradable.

Earth Day Challenge

Today, Earth Day, we are reminded to do our part to help preserve the planet as our health and well-being ultimately depend on it.

One of the single most important things you can do is to limit your use of plastics. By doing so, you’ll help:

• reduce consumption of non-sustainable petroleum products used in plastics manufacturing.
• cut your exposure to numerous toxic compounds such as the carcinogen vinyl chloride and bisphenol-A (BPA).
• keep plastics out of landfills and ocean dumping grounds where they pollute the land, water and ultimately--our food supply.

It’s important to note that most plastics are not safely biodegradeable or recyclable without adding additional toxic load to the environment.

Sources:

The Environmental Magazine

Environmental Science and Technology

Scientific American

Last week the news headlines warned of a “new health threat” -- arsenic in rice. While we applaud the media for covering research that confirmed what many have known for years, there is a much bigger story here. And that is the overwhelming, pervasive presence of toxins in our food supply to the point that they are nearly unavoidable—even by eating organic.

It may sound trite, but it’s true--we live in a toxic world. The air, soil and water, including the world’s oceans are filled with increasing amounts of chemicals and heavy metals from a variety of sources. From industrial waste and pollution to “modern” farming techniques that employ a chemical cocktail of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, the sources of harmful contaminants are all around us.

So is it any wonder that rice—or any food for that matter--contains high amounts of arsenic or other harmful substances?

Still, the news leaves many wondering what amount of rice is safe to eat.

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement. “Our advice right now is that consumers should continue to eat a balanced diet that includes a wide variety of grains – not only for good nutrition but also to minimize any potential consequences from consuming any one particular food.”

For infants who are often weaned on rice, the recommendation is to limit rice to once a week or consider other alternatives such as barley or oatmeal. It is best to speak with your pediatrician if you have any questions or concerns.

The type of rice and growing region can also affect your risk. In resent tests, brown rice, which retains the outer bran, carried higher levels of arsenic. Also rice from Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and Texas generally showed higher levels of arsenic than rice samples from India, Thailand and California.

More to the Story

Frankly, we are saddened every time we write yet another post about the latest toxic food scare. It wasn’t that long ago that we reported on high levels of arsenic found in apple juice or mercury and PCBs in fish.

But perhaps even more worrisome is what we don’t yet know. Only a fraction of the food we eat is even tested for known toxins like arsenic. And, in many cases, as with rice, there are no set limits or agreement on what is a “safe” amount in food.

This means that we could be just scratching the surface of a much bigger health problem.

Sources:

NPR

Chicago Tribune

When it comes to reducing your exposure to toxic chemicals, household products are a good place to start. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to make informed choices when manufacturers are not required to disclose all of the product ingredients.

So consumers are pretty much left in the dark hoping that the products they use in their home are safe.

Full Disclosure on Safety of Household Cleaners

In an effort to help consumers find safer products, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has created the first online guide that rates more than 2,000 household cleaners with grades A through F for safety of ingredients and disclosure of contents.

To uncover what is in common household cleaners, EWG’s staff scientists spent 14 months scouring product labels and digging through company websites and technical documents. EWG staff reviewed each ingredient against 15 U.S. and international toxicity databases and numerous scientific and medical journals.

EWG senior scientist Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D, said, “Quite a few cleaning products that line store shelves are packed with toxic chemicals that can wreak havoc with your health, including many that harm the lungs. The good news is, there are plenty of cleaning products that will get the job done without exposing you to hazardous substances.”

Safer Cleaning Alternatives

If you are concerned about chemical-laden cleaners, you might be interested in our guide to How to Deep Clean Your Home Naturally.

Source:

Environmental Working Group

Three new studies released in as many months add to increasing evidence that exposure to certain toxic metals can increase the risk and spread of breast cancer and infertility in women and men.

Cadmium and Breast Cancer

A Swedish study of over 56,000 women found that consuming the toxic metal cadmium in the foods you eat may raise your risk for breast cancer by as much as 27%. Researchers believe that cadmium may mimic the effects of the female hormone estrogen, which can fuel the growth of certain breast cancers.

The 12-year study had women fill out food intake questionnaires that researchers used to estimate how much cadmium they consumed in their diets. There were 2,112 cases of breast cancer reported during the follow-up period of which 1,626 were estrogen receptor-positive and 290 estrogen receptor-negative cancers. Women with the highest amounts of cadmium in their diets were 21% more likely to develop breast cancer than women who had the least. The risk increased to 27% among women who were also lean or normal-weight.

Interestingly, the cadmium source was a contributing factor in increasing cancer risk. Women who consumed higher amounts of whole grain and vegetables had a lower risk of breast cancer compared to women that consumed dietary cadmium through other foods.

"It's possible that this healthy diet to some extent can counteract the negative effect of cadmium, but our findings need to be confirmed with further studies," study author Agneta Akesson, an associate professor at Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

Another study found that exposure to low levels of cadmium over your lifetime may spur the growth and spread of some breast cancer cells.

According to their research, breast cancer cells can pass through the outer barrier of the breast after prolonged cadmium exposure. It appears that cadmium may affect levels of SDF-1, a protein associated with tumor invasion and cancer spread.

Cadmium, Lead and Fertility

Researchers studying the effects of serum levels of heavy metals on fertility in couples trying to conceive found that, in the women, the probability of pregnancy was reduced by 22 percent with each increase in the blood cadmium concentration. In men, the probability of conceiving was reduced by 15 percent for each increase in their blood lead concentration.

Based on their findings, the researches recommended that men and women planning to have children should minimize their exposure to lead and cadmium.

Avoiding Cadmium

Cadmium is released into the environment from mining and metal processing operations, burning fuels, making and using phosphate fertilizers, and disposing of metal products. Cadmium can enter the body from eating and drinking food and water containing cadmium, and inhaling it from the air. The skin does not easily absorb cadmium.

• Smoking is the most important single source of cadmium exposure so not smoking and avoiding second- and third-hand smoke is a good place to start.
• As most dietary exposure to cadmium is due to soil contamination from fertilizers, choose organic foods whenever possible.
• Some of the main sources of cadmium in the diet are bread and other cereals, potatoes, root crops and vegetables.
• Avoid shellfish and organ meats like liver or kidney which also contain more cadmium than other foods.
• Cadmium is also used in batteries, metal coatings, paints and plastics. People living near plants that manufacture these products may be exposed to cadmium in the air, water and soil.
• If your drinking water comes from a private well near a source of cadmium, you may want to have the water tested. Public water systems test for cadmium on a regular basis. If you live near a source of cadmium, you may want to have your garden soil tested for cadmium before eating home-grown produce.
• Cadmium and other toxic substances are often found in cosmetics and personal products.

Avoiding Lead

Common sources of exposure to lead in the United States include lead-based paints in older homes, lead-glazed pottery, and contaminated soil and water. Learn how protect your family in our post about the continuing problem of lead exposure.

Sources:

Health Finder

Health Day News

Health Finder

Illinois Department of Health

Considering the uproar and hand-wringing over the President's Cancer Panel's report that concluded a lack of research may have grossly underestimated the toxic reach of environmental toxins, no doubt, this latest report from the University of California-San Francisco about the chemicals discovered in pregnant women -- two dating back almost 40 years -- won't make you feel any better…

Researchers at the University of California-San Francisco learned the 268 pregnant women they studied had similar or lower levels of chemicals than their non-pregnant peers. That was the extent of the good news, however.

Ninety-nine percent of the women studied had detectable levels of many harmful chemicals, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates and organochlorine pesticides.

What's more, bisphenol A (BPA), a substance still used to coat baby bottles and cash register receipts, was detected in 96 percent of the women studied. Probably the most alarming discoveries: DDT and PCBs, chemicals that were banned in the 70s.

Yes, your body is bombarded by so many untold toxins every day, but you can lessen your exposure to some of them just by paying closer attention, for example, to the cosmetics you use.

Environmental Health Perspectives January 14, 2011

USA Today January 17, 2011

ScienceDaily January 16, 2011

You've probably heard a good deal about the President's Cancer Panel's most recent report (review the full 240-page tome at the link below) and its most debated conclusions: A lack of research may have blinded experts into "grossly underestimating" the amount of cancers and "grievous harm" caused by our unknown exposure to environmental toxins.

Controversial, according to the American Cancer Society, because the report re-ignites a subject that's been vigorously debated for some 30 years, restating "hypotheses as if they were established facts." Heated, because the ACS estimates only 6 percent of all cancer deaths (34,000) can be blamed on environmental toxins versus smoking that's responsible for about five times more deaths (some 170,000). What's more, the ACS worries the report deemphasizes all the good lifestyle changes can have on an average American's cancer risks.

On the other hand, some cancer specialists regard the report as a welcome shift in emphasis that may shed more light on the importance of and better control over environmental exposures. This is a very compelling argument, considering the actual number of potentially toxic chemicals under the EPA's jurisdiction is murky at best due to the Toxic Substances Act that shields information about some 20 percent of chemicals from big business and the public.

There's no doubting the positive effect lifestyle changes can have on lowering your odds of cancer. Still, we have a great deal to learn as a society about the myriad of ways chemicals help and harm us.

USA Today May 6, 2010

ABC News May 6, 2010

Environmental Health News May 6, 2010

New York Times May 6, 2010

National Cancer Institute/ President's Cancer Panel Free Full Report