The Toones hired Bugman Pest and Lawn, Inc. to take care of voles, which had established themselves in the family’s lawn at their Layton, UT home. Bugman employee Cole Nocks buried poisonous Fumitoxin pellets, a phosphide-based rodent killer, in the yard. Within a day, Rebecca, age 4, and Rachel, 15 months, fell ill.

A carbon monoxide alarm went off in the family’s home on Friday, February 5, 2010. The fire department found only trace amounts of carbon monoxide and cleared the family to go inside. By Saturday, Rebecca’s symptoms worsened, she developed breathing problems, then cardiac arrest at a local hospital. Rachel was in critical condition in a children’s hospital by Monday night. Rachel passed away Tuesday, February 9, 2010.

Autopsy results showed the girls had lung damage caused by inhaling a dangerous substance with elevated phosphorus levels in their blood. A Hazmat team found dangerous levels of phosphine gas in the family’s home.

Article source – http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e8591c12-f3db-4633-aec7-77faf04eef17

Now, a new University of Missouri study out this week even connects pesticides to Parkinson’s. And the problem with pesticides is that it’s hard to track their impact on our health since none of us live in a bubble.

“Like with drug development, it’s a process of continuous improvement,” stated Penelope Fenner-Crisp, who worked in the EPA’s office of pesticide programs and serves on Virginia’s Pesticide Control Board.

More than 20,000 pesticides are registered with the feds for food, bugs, and weeds.

“There are certain kinds of pesticides that meet the definition of the law that can be used in organic gardening.” she explained.

Fenner-Crisp continued, “There’s a very strong effort going forward to find new products that are more tailored to the pest and less tailored to general impacts on human beings.”

Some studies show only 5 percent of pesticides actually reach their target. The rest drifts into the air or seeps into the soil and water. Exposures to the chemicals have been connected to cancer and damaged immune systems. Fenner-Crisp says the label is the law and safely using pesticides can reduce some of your risk.

“You want to be sure you’re handling it in such a way that you don’t endanger yourself, your family, your pets, or those things you don’t want to have erased,” she explained.

Paige Mattson works at the Blue Ridge Eco Shop and she believes alternatives pesticides work just as well.

She sells pesticide alternatives at the shop in Charlottesville and says gardeners can use natural fertilizers like bat guano or plant-based insecticides like pyrethrum. “It’s literally a juice from a flower that will actually kill insects, but it’s not toxic to us, pets, babies, etc,” said Mattson.

But it’s nearly impossible to not track pesticides inside your home. So, Mattson recommends kicking off your shoes at the door to keep those toxins outside. “The inside air quality in your home is usually worse than it is outside – and one of the largest components of that is pesticides that we literally track into our house,” she stated.

In addition, oxygenated bleaches or homemade cleaning products can cut back on the chemicals your body absorbs on a daily basis.

Article source – http://www.nbc29.com/story/15016349/toxins-meant-to-kill-pests-can-put-human-health-in-danger

Whatever fad diet books tell you, the single most important factor affecting weight gain is the ratio of calories consumed to calories burned. Eat more than you work off, and you’ll gain weight.

But in recent years we’ve witnessed a flurry of research showing that there’s more at work than this simple formula. We all know (and loathe) them: Those people who seem to eat and eat and eat, but never gain weight. Why do some people pack on pounds, while others subject themselves to rigorous diets and workout regimens only to struggle with stubborn belly fat?

The answer has a lot to do with that mystery of mysteries, the metabolism, which like everything is influenced both by one’s genetics and one’s environment. The environment, in this case, includes more than just nutrition and exercise; it includes sleep habits, stress and chemical exposures. Here’s a look at some of the factors scientists believe may be affecting whether or not we put on weight. (Oh, and while this may sound like an article ripped from a women’s health magazine, don’t be fooled: You won’t find miracle pills or quick-fix workouts as solutions to these causes of weight-gain. As with eating well and getting enough exercise, there is neither a great mystery, nor an easy solution to finding good health.)

1. Stress

While research hasn’t yet determined all the factors in the stress-weight gain feedback loop, there appears to be evidence that stress leads to weight gain — just as putting on a few pounds can lead to stress.

One recent study found that more than 56% of stressed-out adolescents were obese, versus 47% of the less-stressed. Previous research has identified a biological switch in mice that makes the body accumulate fat. Significantly, mice that were eating a healthy diet did not put on weight, even when stressed; those eating high-fat, high-sugar diets, however, were much more likely to gain weight when stressed. Another study showed that there’s a biochemical trigger in the brain that prompts mice (and possibly humans, too) to seek out comfort foods when under the kind of long-term chronic stress we all experience; not only that, but the same hormone primes the body to pack on belly fat.

What you can do:
Eat well, of course — and chill out. We can’t control every form of stress — remember the 40-hour work week? Turns out, that was good for us — we can reduce our stress levels.

Read a book. Take the afternoon to cook a (healthy, low-fat) family meal. Work in the garden. Take a walk. Watch the birds. Exercise. Get outside and play with the kids. … Do whatever you do to get perspective. It may help you slim down, too.

2. Lack of Sleep

Cutting-edge sleep researchers are learning that our round-the-clock schedules may impact our health in surprising ways. While scientists don’t yet know why, studies continue to show that those who don’t get enough deep restful sleep tend to gain weight.

Whether or not losing sleep makes you feel hungrier and eat more food (some do, some don’t) something about losing sleep changes the metabolism. Faced with a sleep deficit, we metabolize more lean muscle and less fat. Even if we burn calories during exercise, we struggle to lose weight.

The result? According to one study, people put on three pounds in less than two weeks just by having their sleep interrupted. The results of sleep deprivation show up in as few as a couple nights without deep restful sleep. And BMI, the official measure of weight, increases steadily as the sleep deficit increases.

What you can do:
We all know what makes us lose sleep — too much to do, too much coffee (or alcohol), too much late-night television or video gaming, a little too much “quality” time with our Blackberries. We can’t control everything that wakes us up or takes away our sleep — the crying baby can’t be ignored — but we can control many of them.

How much sleep do you need? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 7-9 hours for adults, while some experts have said 6.5-7.5 may be closer to the ideal.

3. Baby Formula

What could be wrong with baby formula? The point here has more to do with the benefits of breast-feeding during the first months of life than the demerits of any particular brand of baby formula.

A number of studies have shown that children who breast-feed are less likely to be overweight or obese in their early years, which is good — because an overweight child is more likely to grow into an overweight adult. According to one study, the risk of a child becoming overweight declines the longer a child is breast-fed. By age 14, those who were breast-fed at least seven months were 20% less likely to be overweight than those breast-fed for three months.

Why? That’s a mystery, though it may well have something to do with how the different nutrients and hormones alter a baby’s metabolism.

What you can do:
If you are able, give your child a good start by breastfeeding, in consultation (of course!) with your doctor. A German study found the prevalence of obesity in children aged 5-6 decreased significantly based on the length of time their mothers breast-fed them:

Obesity rate – Duration of breast-feeding
4.5% – Never
3.8% – 2 months
2.3% – 3-5 mos
1.7% – 6-12 mos
0.8% – 12+ mos

4. Obesogens

Never heard of “obesogens”? That’s because it’s a scientific term for chemicals that mess with the hormones that regulate our metabolism, and cause us to gain weight. In recent years, scientists have studied all sorts of substances — they call them “endocrine-disrupting chemicals” — that our bodies mistake for hormones. The endocrine system regulates the body’s reproduction, development and metabolism, and most research to date has focused on the reproductive and developmental effects of these chemicals. Just like hormones, they may change our bodies in ways both subtle and profound, even at minute concentrations. The timing of exposure is key, and most chemicals seem to cause the most changes when pregnant women or very young children are exposed. Several studies point to links between manmade chemicals and weight gain. Here are a few:

Bisphenol A
This common chemical, which is used in a variety of plastics and in the lining of food and drink cans, can leach into foods (or directly into the bodies of babies chewing on teethers or toys) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found it in about 9 of 10 Americans tested. The Food and Drug Administration and the chemical industry stand by its safety, but a growing body of evidence by independent scientists has persuaded several governments (Minnesota, Chicago, Suffolk County, N.Y., and Canada) that it should not be used in children’s products. Some of that research suggests that Bisphenol A — a synthetic estrogen — makes lab rats pack on extra weight, regardless of their diet. In humans, it has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and other symptoms of metabolic syndrome in humans, possibly by interfering with a beneficial hormone. To avoid Bisphenol A, avoid No. 7 plastics, use a stainless steel reusable water bottle, limit your consumption of canned foods and drinks, don’t microwave foods in plastic and look for products explicitly marked “BPA free.”

PFOA and PFOS
Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate are the chemicals that makes nonstick pans, grease-resistant paper and stain-resistant clothing, carpets and furniture withstand oils. We’re exposed our entire lives, and the exposure in the womb may be the most important, according to one study. Several studies have shown that the chemicals lead to lowered birth weight, but one showed that the initial drop in birth weight is followed by a rapid gaining of weight that is associated with obesity throughout life. To avoid these chemicals, think twice before buying stain-resistant and nonstick products (cast iron is one good alternative in the kitchen) and limit your intake of fast foods, microwave popcorn and other foods that may be wrapped in grease-proof paper.

Phthalates
Another common chemical, phthalates are found in soft plastics, fragrances and many other consumer products. The U.S. recently banned the use of several phthalates in children’s products, because of evidence that early exposure affects the normal development of boys by reducing testosterone levels. One study showed that adult men with the most evidence of exposure to phthalates had fatter bellies. To avoid phthalates, avoid No. 3 plastics, and scrutinize the ingredients of products for “fragrances” or the acronyms DBP, DEP, DMP, DEHP, BxBP or DMP — all of which signal the presence of phthalates.

Dioxins
Formed as a byproduct of burning, dioxins are common and known to be harmful at minute levels. (Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency measures most pollutants in pounds, it measures dioxins in grams.) Dioxin rains down after being emitted by smokestacks, tailpipes and fires, and it contaminates farms, leaving us to be exposed when we eat meat, dairy and fish products. One study showed that those who had been exposed to the highest levels of dioxins were five times more likely to have metabolic syndrome, a collection of metabolic conditions that includes obesity, glucose intolerance and hypertension. To avoid exposure to dioxins, moderate your intake of beef, pork and dairy products, and choose lean cuts of meat to avoid dioxin stored in fats.

Pesticides
Several pesticides are known or suspected to be endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Among the suspects is tributyltin, which was used in anti-fungal boat paints and to kill pests on some food crops, and which may trigger obesity. On golf courses, workers who handled the pesticide tricholorfon had an 85%-250% greater risk of developing diabetes, depending on how frequently they handled the chemical. Children born to mothers with higher levels of the pesticide hexachlorobenzene in cord blood were “significantly more likely to be overweight and obese” by the age of 6. In a recent study, rats fed water laced with atrazine, a weed killer commonly used on U.S. corn crops (but banned in much of the world) gained 5%-10% more weight than rats that weren’t exposed to the chemical. Those fed weed killer and a high-fat diet gained the most weight, but even rats that ate a healthy diet ended up about 5% fatter if they drank the tainted water. To avoid these and other pesticides, avoid using insect and weed killers around the home, and avoid foods with the most pesticide residue.

Article source – http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/why-am-i-fat-47062204

A new study of children in the Washington, D.C., area and published in the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring links one form of childhood cancer to exposure to common organophosphate pesticides used around the home to kill bugs. Children with lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and their mothers were more likely to have higher levels of organophosphates and their metabolites in their urine than healthy pairs, and mothers who reported household use of chemicals were more likely to have children with ALL. There is no evidence that the cancer is caused directly by pesticide exposure — but it does present the first evidence of a linkage in a non-agricultural setting, according to the study’s authors, researchers from the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University.

“In our study, we compared urine samples from children with ALL and their mothers with healthy children and their moms. We found elevated levels of common household pesticides more often in the mother-child pairs affected by cancer,” said Offie Soldin, an epidemiologist and the study’s lead investigator. “We shouldn’t assume that pesticides caused these cancers, but our findings certainly support the need for more robust research in this area.”

She added: “We know pesticides – sprays, strips, or ‘bombs,’ are found in at least 85 percent of households, but obviously not all the children in these homes develop cancer. What this study suggests is an association between pesticide exposure and the development of childhood ALL, but this isn’t a cause-and-effect finding. Future research would help us understand the exact role of pesticides in the development of cancer. We hypothesize that pre-natal exposure coupled with genetic susceptibility or an additional environmental insult after birth could be to blame.”

It’s well known that children are more susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical exposure than adults. For one, their bodies are still developing rapidly, so chemicals can interfere with the normal growth of their brains and other organs, or disrupt their hormones at key developmental periods. For another, doses are likely to be disproportionately large, because their bodies are so much smaller than adults’ and because their breathing rates are so much more rapid. Finally, their habits — crawling on the floor, testing the world with their mouths and frequently putting their hands into their mouths dirty — mean they are exposed to more toxic chemicals on the ground.

Another recent study found that children are more susceptible to exposure to organophosphates because they lack an enzyme that helps adults break down the chemical.

Organophosphate pesticides are insecticides that attack bugs’ nervous systems. They are used on farms, and some are labeled for home use to kill or repel mosquitoes, ants, cockroaches and other household and garden pests. Dozens of brands (pdf) use organophosphates in insecticides, according to the National Pesticide Information Center.

Like many harsh chemicals, they may cause serious health problems with humans, as well. Related chemicals were originally developed as nerve gases during World War I, and may affect normal brain, reproductive and other body development (some chemicals may even make you fat). Further, the EPA can often be slow to remove profitable pesticides from the market.

4 Ways to Protect Your Child from Pesticide Exposure

1. Avoid the use of pesticides at home or in the garden, and look to Beyond Pesticides for the least-toxic method of dealing with common household pests.
2. Avoid pesticide residue on foods by learning the Dirty Dozen foods most likely to have pesticides, and by investigating a great new resource from the Pesticide Action Network at whatsonmyfood.org. Choosing organic foods, which are grown without chemical pesticides, as often as possible will reduce the chance of your child being exposed to pesticides inadvertently at the dinner table.
3. Talk to your school administrators, neighbors and friends about their pesticide usage. In most cases, when faced with a pest problem, nontoxic “integrated pest management” can achieve the same or better results.
4. To ward off ticks and mosquitoes, look for natural insect repellents that shun the use of harsher manmade chemicals, whenever possible. Check back to The Daily Green later this summer for recommendations about natural mosquito repellents that really work.

Article source – http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/home-pesticides-cancer-47072904

The new study, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a branch of the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several private foundations, found that children exposed to high levels of PAHs in New York City had full scale and verbal IQ scores that were 4.31 and 4.67 points lower than those of less exposed children. High PAH levels were defined as above the median of 2.26 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3). A difference of four points, which was the average seen in this study, could be educationally meaningful in terms of school success, as reflected, for example, in standardized testing and other measures of academic performance. However, the researchers point out that the effects may vary among individual children.

“This research clearly shows that environmental PAHs at levels encountered in an urban setting can adversely affect a child’s IQ,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of NIEHS. “This is the first study to report an association between PAH exposure and IQ, and it should serve as a warning bell to us all. We need to do more to prevent environmental exposures from harming our children.”

The study was conducted by scientists from the Columbia University Center for Children’s Environmental Health. It included children who were born to non-smoking black and Dominican-American women age 18 to 35 who resided in Washington Heights, Harlem or the South Bronx in New York. The children were followed from utero to 5 years of age. The mothers wore personal air monitors during pregnancy to measure exposure to PAHs and they responded to questionnaires.

At 5 years of age, 249 children were given an intelligence test known as the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of the Intelligence, which provides verbal, performance and full-scale IQ scores. The test is regarded as a validated, reliable and sensitive instrument for assessing intelligence. The researchers developed models to calculate the associations between prenatal PAH exposure and IQ. They accounted for other factors such as second-hand smoke exposure, lead, mother’s education and the quality of the home caretaking environment. Study participants exposed to air pollution levels below the average were designated as having low exposure, while those exposed to pollution levels above the median were identified as high exposure.

“The decrease in full-scale IQ score among the more exposed children is similar to that seen with low-level lead exposure,” said lead author Frederica P. Perera, Dr.P.H., professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health and director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health.

A 1999 study found that PAHs that are abundant in house dusts increase the toxicity of chlorpyrifos in vitro, particularly at low levels (i.e., 2-50 FM PAHs with 1-180 nM chlorpyrifos-oxon, a metabolite of chlorpyrifos that inhibits acetyl cholinesterase.

According to Beyond Pesticides’ wood preservatives campaign research, PAHs are one of the three classes of chemicals found in coal-tar creosote that are known to cause harmful health effects. Many of the components of the creosote mixture, such as PAHs, are rapidly absorbed through the lungs, stomach and intestines. Creosote is made up of about 75-85 percent PAHs. PAHs can attach to soil particles and may move with sediments into streams or remain part of a tarlike mass, but they may also move into groundwater in sandy soils low in organic matter. The remaining PAHs are bioaccumulative and carcinogenic. According to ATSDR’s Toxicological Profile on PAHs, “Studies of people show that individuals exposed by breathing or skin contact for long periods to mixtures that contain PAHs and other compounds can also develop cancer.” Creosote contains several carcinogenic PAHs, including benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, and dibenz[a,h]anthracene. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that these three PAHs are known animal carcinogens. The EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined they are probable human carcinogens.

“IQ is an important predictor of future academic performance,” said Dr. Perera. “Fortunately, airborne PAH concentrations can be reduced through currently available controls, alternative energy sources and policy interventions.”

This study adds to the body of scienific literature that links toxic chemical exposure to intellectual impairment in children. Joseph L. Jacobson, Ph.D., and Sandra W. Jacobson, Ph.D., in “Intellectual Impairment in Children Exposed to Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Utero” (1996), conclude that infants and young children whose mothers had eaten a diet of Great Lakes fish contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) suffer adverse neurologic and intellectual function.

Article source – http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=2155

A new study suggests yet more reason kids are more susceptible to the harmful effects of harsh chemicals: Their bodies have yet to produce significant quantities of a detoxifying enzyme that helps adults rid their bodies of organophosphate chemicals, a class of chemicals that includes many pesticides.

The research, by University of California-Berkeley scientists, published in Environmental Health Perspectives and publicized by Beyond Pesticides, didn’t discover the importance of this enzyme. But it showed that children have low levels of paraoxonase 1 — one-third or less that of their mothers — far longer into childhood than previously thought. Whereas it was thought the levels of enzyme approached adult levels by age 2, the new research suggests children remain uniquely susceptible until age 7. (The enzyme may also be important in warding off other types of disease, from asthma to obesity and cardiovascular disease, the study’s authors said.)

The study’s authors said that the Environmental Protection Agency should take heed and adjust its calculations for childhood health risk to pesticide exposure. The EPA has only in the past decade or so even considered the unique vulnerabilities of children when approving chemicals for use.

“Current EPA standards of exposure for some pesticides assume children are three to five times more susceptible than adults, and for other pesticides the standards assume no difference,” Nina Holland, a lead author of the paper, was quoted as saying by ScienceDaily and others. “Our study is the first to show quantitatively that young children may be more susceptible to certain organophosphate pesticides up to age seven. Our results suggest that the EPA standards need to be re-examined to determine if they are adequately protecting the most vulnerable members of the population.”

Organophosphate pesticides are insecticides that attack bugs’ nervous systems. They are used on farms, and some are labeled for home use to kill or repel mosquitoes, ants, cockroaches and other household and garden pests. Dozens of brands (pdf) use organophosphates in insecticides, according to the National Pesticide Information Center.

Like many harsh chemicals, they may cause serious health problems with humans, as well. Related chemicals were originally developed as nerve gases during World War I, and may affect normal brain, reproductive and other body development (some chemicals may even make you fat). Further, the EPA can often be slow to remove profitable pesticides from the market.

Article source – http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/pesticide-childrens-health-47062503#ixzz1h8DTB100

The risk of Parkinson’s disease increases in people who live near farm fields sprayed with a combination of pesticides.

A recent study conducted in California’s Central Valley found that people who lived near fields sprayed with a combination of pesticides used on crops such as potatoes, dry beans and tomatoes had an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. (See list of foods most likely to contain pesticide residue.)

This is the first study to evaluate associations between exposure to a combination of pesticides and the risk of Parkinson’s disease. (But not the first to link Parkinson’s with pesticide exposure.)

These results add to the growing literature suggesting that exposure to multiple chemicals may be more harmful than exposure to individual chemicals and contribute to the debate of evaluating chemical safety one at a time rather than in combination.

The cause of Parkinson’s disease is still a mystery to scientists but reports of higher risks of this ailment in farmers and in rural populations have lead some to hypothesize that exposure to pesticide mixtures may be a contributor.

The scientists found that people who live within 500 meters of a field sprayed with the pesticides maneb and paraquat in combination, but not individually, had a 75 percent higher risk of Parkinson’s disease relative to controls. Being exposed to the mixture at a younger age resulted in an even higher risk. Individuals potentially exposed to these pesticides when they were 60 years old or younger were 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

These results are predicted by studies which showed that exposing rodents to maneb and paraquat together resulted in reduced motor activity, nerve cell loss and decreased levels the neurotransmitter dopamine in certain areas of the brain as observed in Parkinson’s patients. Animal studies also predicted Costello’s finding that effects of these pesticides would be more important when exposure occurred at a younger age. (See trade names and other information about maneb and paraquat. Maneb is sold as Manzate among other brand names. Paraquat is sold to consumers as Ortho Weed Killer among other brand names; its use is banned in several Scandinavian countries.)

Researchers obtained these results after comparing potential exposure to pesticides in 368 people with Parkinson’s diseases and 341 people without living in an agricultural area. Exposure was estimated using land-use maps and data from the California Pesticide Use Report, a program which requires that the precise date, chemical and location of spraying be reported to the State.

However, biological markers, such as pesticide concentrations in urine and blood, were not measured. Other factors associated with living close to certain fields may explain the reported association.

- Jonathan Chevrier, Ph.D.
Study: Costello, S, M Cockburn, J Bronstein, X Zhang and B Ritz. 2009. Parkinson’s disease and residential exposure to maneb and paraquat from agricultural applications in the Central Valley of California. American Journal of Epidemiology 169: 919-926.

Article source – http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/pesticides-parkinsons-47042704

Pregnant women living in a migrant, farmworker community in California participated in the study. Although all women were pregnant, women who worked in agriculture, lived within 200 feet of agriculture fields or used pesticides in their home took significantly longer to conceive than those who did not have these pesticide exposures.

The findings agree with past studies and add more evidence to this sometimes confusing mix of research outcomes. Many studies have found a relationship between pesticides and male fertility, including effects on sperm health and longer time to pregnancy. However, few studies have examined how pesticide exposure might affect women’s ability to get pregnant.

In this study, researchers looked at two types of pesticides: those like DDT that were banned in the 1970s and those currently used in agriculture today.

DDT was measured in the women’s blood, but was not associated with women’s ability to conceive. DDT levels were quite high because most of the women were Mexican immigrants and DDT was used in Mexico until the year 2000.
However, women who reported occupational exposure to currently-used pesticides were 30 percent less likely to conceive in any given month than women without occupational exposure. Women who reported that pesticides were used in their homes were also less likely to conceive each month compared to those who did not use pesticides.

The predominantly low-income, Latina women participating in the study were very similar except for their pesticide exposures. Nonetheless, the study controlled for other factors that might contribute to these differences in conception, including maternal age, immigration status and history of gynecologic condition.

The researchers asked 402 women about their and their partner’s home and work pesticide exposure. They also reported how long it took them to get pregnant — as measured by the number of menstrual cycles before conception.

Only maternal pesticide exposure was associated with longer time to pregnancy; paternal occupational exposure was not associated with fertility. The authors point out that they only interviewed women who were already pregnant. If infertile couples were included in the study, an even stronger effect of pesticides might be seen.

Article source – http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/pesticide-exposure-may-impact-female-fertility

This fall, EPA approved re-registration of antibacterial soap ingredient triclosan for yet another five years of use in consumer products, potentially leaving human and environmental health at great risk.

Throughout 2008, EWG and many other health advocacy groups brought public and media attention to triclosan, a potent pesticide that has found its way into most Americans’ homes. EWG research identified triclosan in more than 140 types of consumer products, ranging from HVAC systems and cutting boards to toothbrushes, hand soaps and anti-perspirants. However, due to lack of ingredient disclosure by the manufacturers, most consumers are not aware how frequently they may be exposed to triclosan.

Triclosan production is estimated to be between 1 and 10 million pounds per year in the U.S. alone, and a study by the Centers for Disease Control found that 75% of Americans have detectable concentrations of triclosan in their body, indicating daily contact with this chemical. In a recent EWG study of cosmetics use by teenage girls, 100% of study participants, young girls aged 14 to 19, had triclosan in their bodies. Triclosan has also been detected in breast milk, indicating that a mother exposed to triclosan in personal care products can pass this chemical on to her newborn child. These findings are very worrisome because triclosan can potentially disrupt thyroid function and affect reproductive hormones.

Equally disconcerting is the fact that EPA’s assessment of triclosan has completely failed to fullfill the Agency’s mission to protect the environment. Due to wastewater effluent pollution, triclosan contaminates 57.6% of streams sampled by the US Geological Survey nationwide; it has been already detected in drinking water sources in 10 different states. Triclosan-containing household cleaners and personal care products are the main source of environmental triclosan contamination, posing dangers to algae, invertebrates and fish who live downstream. EPA review completely disregarded these major sources of environmental triclosan exposure, created an illusion of safety that is simply not there.

Why couldn’t EPA do a better job in reviewing environmental impact of triclosan? Regulatory separation between EPA- and FDA-regulated uses of triclosan is the key problem that, if left unaddressed, would continue undermining EPA’s efforts to protect the health of humans and the environment from this potent antimicrobial pesticide. No scientific rationale exists that would justify this separation. The current jurisdictional distinction between the two Agencies has made EPA, the primary regulator of triclosan manufacturing, unable to do anything about the widespread triclosan contamination of water and possibly soils and wildlife.

This week, EWG wrote to EPA, indicating numerous shortcomings in EPA’s risk assessment for triclosan and urging the Agency to do a comprehensive review of the effects of triclosan exposure on human and environmental health, taking into account the latest scientific research. To see EWG letter to EPA, click here.

One certainly hopes that this glaring problem would be addressed under the new administration and the new leadership at EPA. Meanwhile, what can consumers do? First and foremost – skip antibacterial hand soaps and detergents. They are absolutely unnecessary, they do not provide any additional health protection, and they pose grave risks to aquatic life. Sounds like a good New Year resolution – starting 2009 in an environmentally-friendly fashion!

Article source – http://www.enviroblog.org/2008/12/toxic-to-children-and-fish.html

Risk assessment tests determine how dangerous chemicals are and if they should be regulated. They are usually done one compound at a time. However, most pesticide exposures in the natural world involve multiple chemicals that interact with each other and with living things.

In this study, scientists in Washington state looked at the effects of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides on juvenile coho salmon.
The fish were treated with several different combinations of the two pesticides. The activity of a brain enzyme called acetylcholine esterase (AChE) was measured to assess the total toxic effect. Pesticides target this enzyme to cause neurological damage.

Many of the combinations caused greater toxicity than was predicted mathematically using data generated from individual chemical exposure tests. Results like these with phthalates have just led the National Resesarch Council to recommend to the EPA that it change its risk assessment methods to reflect cumulative exposure to chemicals.

Agencies that develop regulations for pesticide use generally rely on data from studies using single chemicals. The new data provide more evidence that standards that rely on results from single chemical tests may greatly underestimate the actual risk of exposure to multiple pesticide pollutants.

Article source – http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/pesticide-mixtures-when-1-1-does-not-equal-2