EWG Feed

U.S. Toxics Registry Should Set Exposure Limit For Chemicals in "Teflon" Family

Environmental Working Group — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 30th, 2009

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls Draft for Public Comment Comments of Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Environmental Working Group “ATSDR needs to protect people and the environment from contamination with perfluoroalkyls” October 30, 2009 Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a non-profit public health and environmental research and advocacy organization based in Washington, DC. We focus much of our research on potential health risks from chemical contamination of food, water, consumer products, and the environment. EWG appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) draft toxicological profile for perfluoroalkyl compounds. We are very concerned, however, with several significant shortcomings of the proposal, most notably that the Agency has decided not to develop minimal risk levels (MRLs) for this entire class of extraordinarily problematic chemicals. For several critical perfluoroalkyl compounds, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), there is a rich scientific literature that both supports the need and provides the basis for establishing an MRL. Several states, including New Jersey, North Carolina and Minnesota, have developed risk-based levels for PFOA in drinking water (MDH 2007; NCDENP 2008; NCSAB 2009; NJDEP 2007). The Agency’s decision not to publish an MRL forces state agencies and public health officials across the country to employ their limited resources on developing their own guidance levels for PFOA and PFOS. Perfluoroalkyls contaminate food, water, wildlife, consumer products, and have been detected in every corner of the globe. They have been found in the blood of virtually all Americans tested over the last decade (Calafat 2007). In the human body, these chemicals are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to numerous organs. PFOA and PFOS are associated with a broad range of developmental effects, including developmental delays, and organ abnormalities (Lau 2007); liver toxicity (Guruge 2006); suppression of the immune system and predisposition to allergies (DeWitt 2008; Fairley 2007; Peden-Adams 2008; Yang 2002; Yang 2000); behavioral effects (Johansson 2008); altered hormonal function (Biegel 1992; Bookstaff 1990; Cook 1992; Liu 2007) as well as liver, pancreatic, testicular, and mammary cancers (Sibinski 1987). EPA researchers have recently developed provisional drinking water guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS (U.S. EPA 2009c), and the agency is currently engaged in developing drinking water standards for both chemicals (Hegstad 2009). EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently announced that perfluorinated chemicals are one of the six chemicals or chemical classes of concern that EPA is considering for “action plan development” for targeted risk management (U.S. EPA 2009b). It makes no sense for ATSDR to claim that it is currently impossible to estimate minimal risk levels for people while the EPA is engaged in that very task – and both agencies are looking at the same basic set of data. Perfluoroalkyl chemicals present a significant, well-characterized risk to human health. There is no reason to delay setting MRLs for both PFOS and PFOA. With this letter, we make three key points regarding the Agency’s proposal: • The latest science points to the health risks associated with the PFOA and PFOS levels found in the general population; • Determining minimal risk levels for two perfluoroalkyls, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), is scientifically feasible; • The Agency must develop minimal risk levels in order to protect human health from multiple sources of PFOA and PFOS exposure. Details and rationale for these recommendations are provided below. 1. Latest science points to the health risks associated with the PFOA and PFOS levels found in the general population. In its draft, ATSDR states (p. 22): “ It could be proposed that measured serum levels of perfluoroalkyls in the populations for whom health data are available be considered body burdens corresponding to no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) or perhaps lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) if the alterations reported in workers are considered adverse.” EWG strongly disagrees with this statement. Instead, the Agency should determine NOAELs and LOAELs using standard scientific practice that incorporates safety margins to account for uncertainties and variable susceptibility in the population and that are based on the most recent scientific findings, which, in this case, have found evidence of adverse health effects at the levels of PFOA and PFOS that are found in the general population. Key studies are listed below: • A recent study found an association between PFOA and PFOS levels in the blood and delayed time to pregnancy, a well-established indicator of fertility problems. Analyzing data from a cohort of 1,240 women enrolled in a Danish longitudinal study, a team of scientists based at the University of California-Los Angeles found that women with elevated blood levels of PFOA experienced more difficulties in conceiving and were twice as likely to be diagnosed with infertility as women with lower PFOA body burdens. For women with more than 3.9 parts per billion (ppb) of PFOA in their bodies, the risk of infertility increased by 60 to 150 % (Fei 2009). • Study by Danish scientists associated PFOA and PFOS with lower sperm quality in otherwise healthy young men (Joensen 2009). This study included 105 Danish men (median age 19 years) from the general population; the median levels of PFOA in this population were 4.9 ppb; the median levels of PFOS were at 24.5 ppb. Researchers observed that men with high combined levels of PFOS and PFOA had a median of 6.2 million normal spermatozoa in their ejaculate compared to 15.5 million normal spermatozoa counts among men with low PFOS-PFOA. The authors of the study hypothesized that “high levels of PFAAs may contribute to the otherwise unexplained low semen quality seen in many young men” (Joensen 2009). • An association of the PFOA and PFOS with serum lipids was reported in a multi-year study of 69,000 West Virginians and Ohioans whose drinking water was contaminated by a fluorochemical manufacturing plant in Washington, W.Va., along the Ohio River (Steenland, Tinker, Frisbee 2009; West Virginia University School of Medicine 2008). These findings of elevated cholesterol and other lipids in people exposed to PFOA in drinking water are in agreement with the increased lipid levels in PFOA-exposed workers in fluorochemical plants (Costa 2009; Sakr, Kreckmann 2007; Sakr, Leonard 2007). The authors of the study concluded: “If a causal relation between perfluorinated compound levels and cholesterol exists, there could be potentially serious consequences in the form of increased risk of cardiovascular disease” (Steenland, Tinker, Frisbee 2009). • In the same study, known as the C8 Health Project, greatly decreased concentrations of estradiol were observed in women and in girls with higher serum levels of PFOA (West Virginia University School of Medicine 2008). Adverse effects on the immune system have also been noted (Frisbee 2008). The immune system changes included a significant decrease in serum levels of two immune defense proteins, immunoglobulins IgA and IgE, that correlated with increasing PFOA serum levels (C8 Science Panel 2009). • The latest publication from the C8 Health Project found that both PFOA and PFOS were significantly associated with elevated levels of uric acid in serum (Steenland, Tinker, Shankar 2009); similar results have been reported in cross-sectional studies of PFOA-exposed workers (Costa 2009; Sakr, Kreckmann 2007). Increased uric acid is a risk factor for hypertension; it may also be associated with stroke and diabetes (Heinig 2006; Steenland, Tinker, Shankar 2009). These studies are only the latest addition to the rapidly growing body of data indicating that the levels of PFOA and PFOS in the general population cannot be considered LOAELs or NOAELs. On the contrary, present levels of contamination are associated with a range of adverse health effects. To declare current body burden of perfluoroalkyls as either LOAEL or NOAEL would be irresponsible and indefensible from the scientific perspective. We strongly urge the Agency to re-consider this important point and make the final decision that will protect the health of the American public and help in setting standards for these contaminants rather than condone the persistent perfluoroalkyl pollution in people and the environment. 2. Determination of the minimal risk levels for two perfluoroalkyls, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), is scientifically feasible. In its draft, the Agency decided not to derive the minimal risk levels (MRLs) for perfluoroalkyls (p. 21), citing insufficient human data and large differences in the metabolism of perfluoroalkyls in humans and various laboratory species as the reasons for not developing the MRLs. This decision seems to be in contradiction with another, very clear, statement in the ATSDR draft that “inspection of the animal database would suggest that there are studies, particularly by the oral route, of PFOS and PFOA in animals that established dose-response relationships that could be used for MRL derivation.” (p. 23) Currently, EPA is engaged in developing drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS; both chemicals have been listed in the final Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL3) of water contaminants that may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (U.S. EPA 2009a). Furthermore, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently announced that perfluorinated chemicals are one of the six chemicals or chemical classes of concern that EPA is considering for “action plan development” for targeted risk management (U.S. EPA 2009b). In light of these simultaneous developments at EPA, EWG finds it incomprehensible that ATSDR refuses to acknowledge that robust and sufficient data are available to develop MRLs for PFOA and PFOS. The recommendation to develop NOAELs and LOAELs was also given to ATSDR by one of the four peer reviewers of the initial draft, Dr. Edward Emmett, a recognized expert in this field and the author of several studies of perfluoroalkyls in people (Emmett 2006). EWG is very concerned that ATSDR’s decision leaves public health at risk and would slow down rather than facilitate human and environmental health protection. Below we highlight several studies that jointly provide sufficient toxicological data for determining minimal risk exposure levels for people. The list below primarily addresses the case of PFOA; however, a similar dataset is available for PFOS (see item 6) and we urge the Agency to take a focused look at both of these highly toxic chemicals. 1. Research by EPA scientists demonstrating developmental toxicity at low doses of PFOA exposure in mouse developmental studies (Lau 2007; Lau, Butenhoff 2004). These developmental effects include full litter resorptions, postnatal mortality, decreased birth weight, delayed growth and development, effects on mammary gland development; increased pup liver weight, structural changes in the uterus and metabolic effects in adulthood after prenatal exposures (reviewed in (Post 2009)). Some of these developmental changes are observed at doses as low as 0.1 mg PFOA/kg body weight/day (LOAEL) (Abbott 2007). 2. In follow up studies, EPA scientists observed that in mice, developmental exposure to even lower doses of PFOA, 0.01 mg/kg/day, lead to significant increases in body weight and levels of serum insulin and leptin hormones in mid-life (Hines 2009). These results indicate that fetal exposure to PFOA, similar to fetal exposure to other toxic chemicals, may predispose towards obesity in adulthood (Hines 2009). 3. Chronic dietary exposure to PFOA has been associated with liver, pancreatic, testicular, and mammary cancers in laboratory animals (Sibinski 1987). These results prompted the U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board to classify PFOA as a “likely human carcinogen” (SAB 2006). 4. Chronic dietary exposure to PFOA in adult female rats was associated with decreased body weight and blood changes; this study reported NOAEL at 1.6 mg/kg/day dose of PFOA (U.S. EPA 2005). 5. A study in Cynomolgus monkeys linked oral PFOA exposure with sudden mortality; this study reported a LOAEL of 3 mg/kg/day of PFOA (U.S. EPA 2005). 6. For PFOS, U.S. EPA scientists recently identified the subchronic toxicity study in Cynomolgus monkeys (Seacat 2003) as acceptable and “critical” for the derivation of the Provisional Health Advisory value for PFOS contamination of drinking water (U.S. EPA 2009c). In this study, effects of PFOS on liver, thyroid hormones and serum lipids have been observed, with a NOAEL of 0.03 mg/kg/day (U.S. EPA 2009c). Overall, the existing data provide a strong foundation for deriving MRLs for PFOA and PFOS. EWG urges the ATSDR to recognize that this important next step is scientifically feasible and should be done to provide the necessary guidance to state agencies and public health officials across the country. 3. The Agency should develop minimal risk levels in order to protect human health from multiple sources of PFOA and PFOS exposure. Perfluoroalkyl chemicals are found in a wide range of consumer products, including water, stain and grease repellants, cookware, food wrap, carpeting, furniture and clothing. Perfluoroalkyls contaminate food because of bioaccumulation in the food supply (Martin 2004; Tittlemier 2007) and due to leaching from food packaging materials (Begley 2008; Begley 2005; Deon 2007). Furthermore, according to recently published EPA research, degradation of perfluorochemical-based polymers, like those used in grease-proof food packaging or waterproofing clothing, releases stable short-chain perfluoroalkyl compounds that are exceptionally persistent in the environment (Renner 2009; Washington 2009). Children and infants are at particular risk from widespread presence of perfluoroalkyl pollutants. Scientists have found that children tend to have elevated exposure to PFOA, PFOS, perfluorohexansulfonate (PFHxS) and related perfluoroalkyls (Emmett 2006; Olsen 2004). Moreover, PFOA and PFOS have been found in maternal and umbilical cord blood, so there is transplacental exposure whereby these pollutants cross the placenta and transfer from mother’s body to the fetus (Apelberg, Goldman 2007; Fei 2007; Inoue 2004; Midasch 2007). Perfluoroalkyls have been also found in breast milk, so infants are exposed to these chemicals via lactational transfer (Karrman 2007; Kuklenyik 2004; Tao 2008; Volkel 2008). Two large cohort studies have found an association between PFOA levels in umbilical cord or maternal blood and smaller weight and size in newborn infants, indicating the human health risks of gestational exposure to perfluoroalkyls (Apelberg, Witter 2007; Fei 2007). Low birth weight is a well-known indicator of potentially serious medical problems later in life (Lau and Rogers 2004). In addition to other sources of exposure, perfluoroalkyl contamination of drinking water is a problem that needs urgent attention from the federal agencies. EWG’s review of water quality data from both scientific literature and government dockets found that PFOA and PFOS pollute drinking water sources in at least 11 states and the District of Columbia (EWG 2009). The true number of states with PFOA- and PFOS-contaminated water is probably higher, since no nation-wide surveillance has been conducted as of now. Meanwhile, research by scientists in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates both the feasibility and the great need for developing the MRLs for PFOA in drinking water (Post 2009). It is a standard ATSDR practice to develop MRLs as an integral part of toxicological profiles for hazardous substances. EWG analyzed the existing ATSDR toxicological profiles and the list of MRLs that the Agency has developed in the past (ATSDR 2009a, b). Specifically, the latest update of ATSDR’s Toxicological Profile Information Sheet, published on October 19, 2009, includes 190 entries for Finalized Toxicological Profiles (ATSDR 2009b). For comparison, the last list of MRLs, last updated on January 14, 2009, included 173 entries (ATSDR 2009a). Based on this review, EWG confirmed that for the majority of cases, ATSDR has developed an MRL, making the present decision not to develop MRLs for perfluoroalkyls very unusual. We agree that for some perfluoroalkyls, such as six- and four- carbon fluorinated chemicals, the data are currently limited. This is, indeed, a problem that should be resolved by the manufactures who should be responsible for generating and publishing data for these chemicals as soon as possible. However, we already know enough about PFOA and PFOS to carry out comprehensive risk assessments for these chemicals on the basis of extensive toxicological data from animal studies and the growing number of human epidemiological studies. In conclusion, EWG urges ATSDR to strengthen and improve its draft toxicological profile for perfluoroalkyls by developing the minimal risk levels for PFOA and PFOS. The development of the MRLs will address a severe gap in our current public health policy and protect the health of millions of Americans who may be exposed to perfluoroalkyls from a variety of sources. References Abbott BD, Wolf CJ, Schmid JE, Das KP, Zehr RD, Helfant L, et al. 2007. Perfluorooctanoic acid induced developmental toxicity in the mouse is dependent on expression of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-alpha. Toxicol Sci 98(2): 571-81. Apelberg BJ, Goldman LR, Calafat AM, Herbstman JB, Kuklenyik Z, Heidler J, et al. 2007. Determinants of fetal exposure to polyfluoroalkyl compounds in Baltimore, Maryland. Environ Sci Technol 41(11): 3891-7. Apelberg BJ, Witter FR, Herbstman JB, Calafat AM, Halden RU, Needham L, et al. 2007. Cord Serum Concentrations of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Relation to Weight and Size at Birth. Environ Health Perspect 115(11): 1670-6. ATSDR. 2009a. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. Available: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/ [accessed October 30, 2009]. ATSDR. 2009b. Toxicological Profile Information Sheet. Available: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html [accessed October 30, 2009]. Begley TH, Hsu W, Noonan G, Diachenko G. 2008. Migration of fluorochemical paper additives from food-contact paper into foods and food simulants. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 25(3): 384-90. Begley TH, White K, Honigfort P, Twaroski ML, Neches R, Walker RA. 2005. Perfluorochemicals: potential sources of and migration from food packaging. Food Addit Contam 22(10): 1023-31. Biegel LB, Hurtt ME, Frame SR, Applegate M, O'Connor JC, Cook JC. 1992. Comparison of the effects of Wyeth-14,643 in Crl:CD BR and Fisher-344 rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol 19(4): 590-7. Bookstaff RC, Moore RW, Ingall GB, Peterson RE. 1990. Androgenic deficiency in male rats treated with perfluorodecanoic acid. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 104(2): 322-33. C8 Science Panel. 2009. Status Report: PFOA and immune biomarkers in adults exposed to PFOA in drinking water in the mid Ohio valley. March 16. C8 Science Panel (Tony Fletcher, Kyle Steenland, David Savitz) Available: http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/study_results.html [accessed April 28 2009]. Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Tully JS, Needham LL. 2007. Serum concentrations of 11 polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the U.S. population: data from the national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES). Environ Sci Technol 41(7): 2237-42. Cook JC, Murray SM, Frame SR, Hurtt ME. 1992. Induction of Leydig cell adenomas by ammonium perfluorooctanoate: a possible endocrine-related mechanism. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 113(2): 209-17. Costa G, Sartori S, Consonni D. 2009. Thirty years of medical surveillance in perfluooctanoic acid production workers. J Occup Environ Med 51(3): 364-72. Deon JC, Mabury SA. 2007. Production of perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) from the biotransformation of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate surfactants (PAPS): exploring routes of human contamination. Environ Sci Technol 41(13): 4799-805. DeWitt JC, Copeland CB, Strynar MJ, Luebke RW. 2008. Perfluorooctanoic Acid–Induced Immunomodulation in Adult C57BL/6J or C57BL/6N Female Mice. Environ Health Perspect 116(5): 644-50. Emmett EA, Shofer FS, Zhang H, Freeman D, Desai C, Shaw LM. 2006. Community exposure to perfluorooctanoate: relationships between serum concentrations and exposure sources. J Occup Environ Med 48(8): 759-70. EWG. 2009. New EWG tests find the pollutant in Washington DC tap water. Available: http://www.ewg.org/node/27529 [accessed October 25, 2009]. Fairley KJ, Purdy R, Kearns S, Anderson SE, Meade B. 2007. Exposure to the Immunosuppresant, Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Enhances the Murine IgE and Airway Hyperreactivity Response to Ovalbumin. Toxicol Sci 97(2): 375-83. Fei C, McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Olsen J. 2009. Maternal levels of perfluorinated chemicals and subfecundity. Hum Reprod 24(5): 1200-05. Fei C, McLaughlin JK, Tarone RE, Olsen J. 2007. Perfluorinated Chemicals and Fetal Growth: A Study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(11): 1677-82. Frisbee S. 2008. The C8 Health Project: How a Class Action Lawsuit Can Interact with Public Health - History of Events. Available: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/ophp/grandRoundsWebcast.asp [accessed May 12 2008]. Guruge KS, Yeung LW, Yamanaka N, Miyazaki S, Lam PK, Giesy JP, et al. 2006. Gene expression profiles in rat liver treated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Toxicol Sci 89(1): 93-107. Hegstad M. 2009. EPA Begins PFOA Risk Study Anew, Leaving Interim Measure In Place. Inside EPA -Wednesday July 29, 2009. Heinig M, Johnson RJ. 2006. Role of uric acid in hypertension, renal disease, and metabolic syndrome. Cleve Clin J Med 73(12): 1059-64. Hines EP, White SS, Stanko JP, Gibbs-Flournoy EA, Lau C, Fenton SE. 2009. 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. Mol Cell Endocrinol 304(1-2): 97-105. Inoue K, Okada F, Ito R, Kawaguchi M, Okanouchi N, Nakazawa H. 2004. Determination of perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoate and perfluorooctane sulfonylamide in human plasma by column-switching liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry coupled with solid-phase extraction. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 810(1): 49-56. Joensen UN, Bossi R, Leffers H, Jensen AA, Skakkebæk NE, Jørgensen N. 2009. Do Perfluoroalkyl Compounds Impair Human Semen Quality? Environ Health Perspec 117(6): 923-27. Johansson N, Fredriksson A, Eriksson P. 2008. Neonatal exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) causes neurobehavioural defects in adult mice. Neurotoxicology 29(1): 160-9. Karrman A, Ericson I, van Bavel B, Darnerud PO, Aune M, Glynn A, et al. 2007. Exposure of perfluorinated chemicals through lactation: levels of matched human milk and serum and a temporal trend, 1996-2004, in Sweden. Environ Health Perspect 115(2): 226-30. Kuklenyik Z, Reich JA, Tully JS, Needham LL, Calafat AM. 2004. Automated solid-phase extraction and measurement of perfluorinated organic acids and amides in human serum and milk. Environ Sci Technol 38(13): 3698-704. Lau C, Anitole K, Hodes C, Lai D, Pfahles-Hutchens A, Seed J. 2007. Perfluoroalkyl acids: a review of monitoring and toxicological findings. Toxicol Sci 99(2): 366-94. Lau C, Butenhoff JL, Rogers JM. 2004. The developmental toxicity of perfluoroalkyl acids and their derivatives. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 198(2): 231-41. Lau C, Rogers JM. 2004. Embryonic and fetal programming of physiological disorders in adulthood. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 72(4): 300-12. Liu C, Du Y, Zhou B. 2007. Evaluation of estrogenic activities and mechanism of action of perfluorinated chemicals determined by vitellogenin induction in primary cultured tilapia hepatocytes. Aquat Toxicol 85(4): 267-77. Martin JW, Whittle DM, Muir DC, Mabury SA. 2004. Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in a food web from Lake Ontario. Environ Sci Technol 38(20): 5379-85. MDH. 2007. Minnesota Department of Health: Groundwater Health Risk Levels. Available: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/groundwater/hrltable.html [accessed May 20 2008]. Midasch O, Drexler H, Hart N, Beckmann MW, Angerer J. 2007. Transplacental exposure of neonates to perfluorooctanesulfonate and perfluorooctanoate: a pilot study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 80(7): 643-8. NCDENP. 2008. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Recommended Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA or C8). Available: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/documents/IMACBasisC8.pdf [accessed May 20 2008]. NCSAB. 2009. North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality. Secretary's Science Advisory Board on Toxic Air Pollutants. One hundred-and-thirty nineth meeting of the science advisory board (NCSAB) on toxic air pollutants. Proceedings of the February 25, 2009 Teleconference. Available: http://daq.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/sab.cgi?year=2009 [accessed October 29, 2009]. NJDEP. 2007. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Guidance for PFOA in Drinking Water at Pennsgrove Water Supply Company Available: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/pfoa.htm [accessed May 20 2008]. Olsen GW, Church TR, Hansen KJ, Burris JM, Butenhoff JL, Mandel JH, et al. 2004. Quantitative Evaluation of Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and Other Fluorochemicals in the Serum of Children. Journal of Children's Health 2(1): 53-76. Peden-Adams MM, Keller JM, Eudaly JG, Berger J, Gilkeson GS, Keil DE. 2008. Suppression of Humoral Immunity in Mice Following Exposure to Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Toxicol Sci 104(1): 144-54. Post GB, Louis JB, Cooper KR, Boros-Russo BJ, Lippincott RL. 2009. Occurrence and Potential Significance of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Detected in New Jersey Public Drinking Water Systems. Environ Sci Technol 43(12): 4547-54. Renner R. 2009. Perfluoropolymer degrades in decades, study estimates. Environ Sci Technol 43: 17. SAB. 2006. US EPA Science Advisory Board Review of EPA's Draft Risk Assessment of Potential Human Health Effects Associated with PFOA and Its Salts. EPA-SAB-06-006; Washington, DC, 2006. Sakr CJ, Kreckmann KH, Green JW, Gillies PJ, Reynolds JL, Leonard RC. 2007. Cross-sectional study of lipids and liver enzymes related to a serum biomarker of exposure (ammonium perfluorooctanoate or APFO) as part of a general health survey in a cohort of occupationally exposed workers. J Occup Environ Med 49(10): 1086-96. Sakr CJ, Leonard RC, Kreckmann KH, Slade MD, Cullen MR. 2007. Longitudinal study of serum lipids and liver enzymes in workers with occupational exposure to ammonium perfluorooctanoate. J Occup Environ Med 49(8): 872-9. Seacat AM, Thomford PJ, Hansen KJ, Clemen LA, Eldridge SR, Elcombe CR, et al. 2003. Sub-chronic dietary toxicity of potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate in rats. Toxicology 183(1-3): 117-31. Sibinski LJ. 1987. Two-Year oral (diet) toxicity/carcinogenicity study of fluorochemical FC-143 (perfluorooctane ammonium carboxylate) in rats. Report prepared for 3M, St Paul, Minnesota by Riker Laboratories Inc Study No 0281CR0012; 8EHQ-1087-0394, October 16, 1987 Reviewed in US EPA "Revised Draft PFOA Hazard Assessment-Robust Study Annex" AR226-1137, (pp. 260-267; PDF pp 157-164). Steenland K, Tinker S, Frisbee S, Ducatman A, Vaccarino V. 2009. Association of Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate With Serum Lipids Among Adults Living Near a Chemical Plant. American Journal of Epidemiology: in press. Steenland K, Tinker S, Shankar A, Ducatman A. 2009. Association of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) with Uric Acid Among Adults with Elevated Community Exposure to PFOA. Environ Health Perspec: in press. Tao L, Kannan K, Wong CM, Arcard KF, Butenhoff JL. 2008. Perfluorinated Compounds in Human Milk from Massachusetts, U.S.A. Environ Sci Technol 42: 3096-101. Tittlemier SA, Pepper K, Seymour C, Moisey J, Bronson R, Cao XL, et al. 2007. Dietary exposure of Canadians to perfluorinated carboxylates and perfluorooctane sulfonate via consumption of meat, fish, fast foods, and food items prepared in their packaging. J Agric Food Chem 55(8): 3203-10. U.S. EPA. 2005. Draft Risk Assessment of Potential Human Health Effects Associated with PFOA and Its Salts. Available: http://epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/pubs/pfoarisk.htm [accessed May 20 2008]. U.S. EPA. 2009a. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List and Regulatory Determinations. Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3). Available: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/ccl/ccl3.html [accessed October 30 2009]. U.S. EPA. 2009b. Enhancing EPA’s Chemical Management Program. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/enhanchems.html [accessed October 29, 2009]. U.S. EPA. 2009c. Provisional Health Advisories for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Available: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/ [accessed October 25, 2009]. Volkel W, Genzel-Boroviczeny O, Demmelmair H, Gebauer C, Koletzko B, Twardella D, et al. 2008. Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in human breast milk: Results of a pilot study. Int J Hyg Environ Health 211(3-4): 440-6. Washington JW, Ellington J, Jenkins TM, Evans JJ, Yoo H, Hafner SC. 2009. Degradability of an acrylate-linked, fluorotelomer polymer in soil. Environ Sci Technol 43(17): 6617-23. West Virginia University School of Medicine. 2008. The C8 Health Project: WVU Data Housing Website. Available: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/c8/ [accessed May 12 2008]. Yang Q, Xie Y, Alexson SE, Nelson BD, DePierre JW. 2002. Involvement of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha in the immunomodulation caused by peroxisome proliferators in mice. Biochem Pharmacol 63(10): 1893-900. Yang Q, Xie Y, Depierre JW. 2000. Effects of peroxisome proliferators on the thymus and spleen of mice. Clin Exp Immunol 122(2): 219-26.

Toxic Cleaner Fumes Could Contaminate California Classrooms

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

Home > Press Release

Toxic Cleaner Fumes Could Contaminate California Classrooms

Widely Used Cleaning Supplies Emit More Than 450 Contaminants into the Air, Including Chemicals that Trigger Asthma

Clean and Healthy Schools Act Would Protect California Children By Promoting Environmentally Friendly Cleaning Products

CONTACT: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, November 3, 2009

Santa Monica, CA -- Air pollution testing conducted for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals that cleaning supplies used in 13 key California school districts can cloud classroom air with more than 450 distinct toxic contaminants, including chemical agents linked to asthma and cancer. EWG released its findings today in Santa Monica during a news conference where attendees, again, called on the State legislature to adopt a measure that would encourage school districts across California to use less toxic cleaning supplies.

The 13 school districts included in the study were chosen for their geographic diversity and diversity of size. Several districts have already begun moving to green cleaners, while others have pilot programs underway at various stages.

Most of the 450 chemicals identified have never been assessed for safety; six are identified with increasing the risk asthma, and eleven are known, probable or possible human carcinogens.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at present, nearly 1 in 10 children have asthma in the U.S., up from 7.5 percent in 1996, and just 3.6 percent in 1980. One in six California children will develop asthma at some point during childhood or adolescence. Asthma is a major source of absenteeism in California schools. In 2001, 136,000 children with asthma ages 12-17 missed at least one day of school per month, costing schools $40.8 million in state funds. http://caasthma.org/files/dhsASTHMAguidelinesFINAL.pdf

“Classroom cleaners can deliver harmful fumes to millions of school children each day, and parents have no way to know about it,” said Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D., an EWG senior scientist and author of the study. “Cleaning products aren’t required to list ingredients on the label, leaving school systems and everyday consumers without critical information to make the smart choices.”

Chemicals found in school cleaning products included:

6 that can lead to asthma: formaldehyde, styrene, methyl methacrylate, ethanolamine, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC), didecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride. Childhood asthma prevalence has more than doubled since 1980, and today nearly 10 percent of children have asthma.

11 that have been tied to increased cancer risk: formaldehyde, styrene, chloroform, trichloroethylene, benzene, 1-chloro-2, 3-epoxypropane, acetaldehyde, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-ethanamine, 2-butoxyethanol, ethylbenzene, quartz. Incidence of childhood cancer rose 28 percent from 1974 to 1998, with especially significant increases in leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and several brain and nervous system cancers.

What about H1N1?

School and health officials are rightly concerned about controlling the spread of the H1N1 virus. This report analyzed air contamination from school cleaning products and does not make any specific recommendations in relation to H1N1 except to follow the advice of the government health officials.

“The H1N1 virus presents a unique situation that requires special precautions. We recommend that all schools follow the official guidance of the CDC and their local health authorities,” said Sutton.

http://www.flu.gov/professional/school/schoolguidancepdf.pdf

Popular Household Brands are also a Big Problem:

The 20-plus cleaning products EWG tested included a handful of popular brands such as Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser, which produced 143 air contaminants when used as directed, more than any other product tested. Comet fumes included formaldehyde, benzene, chloroform, and four other chemicals identified by the state of California as causing cancer or reproductive harm.

Among the others tested were the general purpose cleaner Simple Green and the air freshener Febreze Air Effects, which produced 92 and 88 air contaminants, respectively.

Tests that compared cleaning a model classroom using three ordinary cleansers with three “certified green” products showed that "green” cleaning supplies released less than one-sixth of the air pollution produced by conventional cleaning. Tests did find low levels of chemicals tied to cancer and asthma in some of the green products. But overall, certified green cleaning supplies produce lower pollution levels and fewer chemicals than conventional products.

“Green cleaners could be greener,” said Sutton, “but our test show that they are consistently more environmentally friendly than their conventional counterparts.

Last spring, California Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-41st District) introduced legislation that would require public schools to adopt the use of certified green cleaning products if they could do so at the same cost. The Clean and Healthy Schools Act (AB 821) is currently before the Assembly’s appropriations committee for consideration.

Several California school districts have already adopted green cleaning policies and they have seen no increase in costs.

"Keeping children healthy, in school and ready to learn is the most important thing parents, schools and industry can do to brighten their future and revitalize the state's economy," said Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, chairwoman of the Assembly Education Committee. "Hazardous chemicals have been linked to a variety of serious illnesses including asthma, the leading cause of absenteeism from a chronic illness among California's six million school children. Switching to safer cleaning products will create a healthier environment."

“Green cleaning has proven to be one of the easiest and cost-effective ways for schools to make their facilities healthier and safer for students, teachers and staff while also making a positive impact on the environment,” said Dean Kubani – Director, City of Santa Monica Office of Sustainability and the Environment.

“The Santa Monica Malibu USD is pleased to be partnering with the City of Santa Monica and the Green Schools Initiative to pilot test “green “cleaning products and practices in selected SMMUSD schools,” said Tim Cuneo, Superintendent of the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District. “The training that our staff will be receiving will assist us in continually improving the environment in which children learn and employees work. This is another example of the collaborative efforts between our two agencies that benefit the community.”

“This is another effort on the part of the District to reduce health and environmental effects by incorporating the use of “green “cleaning products and practices in the District,” said Ralph Mechur, Board of Education President of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. “The pilot test results will help SMMUSD make informed decisions about the most cost-effective, safest, and highest performing products appropriate for use in district schools.”

“The alarming truth is that we know far too little about what’s in the cleaning supplies used in schools -- and in our homes,” wrote EWG in its report. “Legally, nearly any chemical can be used as an ingredient, and cleaning product labels are not required to list ingredients. Lacking a legal definition of words like "non-toxic," manufacturers can make misleading claims. As a result, school staff and consumers do not have the information they need to select products made with safer ingredients.”

EWG’s tests underscore the need for disclosure of all ingredients in cleaning supplies used in schools, offices, and at home. New York Representative Steve Israel (D) and Minnesota Senator Al Franken (D) recently introduced federal legislation to require household cleaning products to list the ingredients on the labels of all items, from laundry detergent to countertop cleaners.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org

EWG Warns of Drilling Threat to NYC Drinking Water

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 28th, 2009

Statement of Dusty Horwitt, JD Senior Counsel, Environmental Working Group Oversight Hearing on the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement Relating to Drilling for Natural Gas in New York State Using Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing Before the New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection Friday, October 23, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Submitted for the Record Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee: My name is Dusty Horwitt, and I am Senior Counsel at Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, Oakland, California and Ames, Iowa. I thank the members of the Committee for this opportunity to testify. For the last several years, Environmental Working Group has used government and industry records to track a virtually unprecedented increase in oil and gas drilling in the Western United States. We have found that much of this drilling has been completed with exemptions under most major federal environmental laws. As part of our work, we have investigated the practice pioneered by Halliburton known as hydraulic fracturing that is the subject of today’s hearing. Last year, we worked with Theo Colborn, a distinguished scientist in Colorado who has identified dozens of chemicals used by the natural gas industry. We found that at least 65 chemicals used by the natural gas industry in Colorado – many of them used in hydraulic fracturing – were listed or regulated as hazardous substances under six federal statutes including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Superfund but are largely exempt from these laws when used in oil and gas drilling. We have continued to investigate hydraulic fracturing this year and have uncovered some troubling information about chemicals used in this process. I’d like to add to the testimony I presented to the committee last year by making a few comments about New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation’s Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program, Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. We have reviewed much of the document and believe that the state is still not taking seriously the threat that hydraulic fracturing and natural gas drilling poses to New York City’s drinking water. Nor is the state taking seriously the risk of water contamination in other parts of New York. Our analysis confirms our belief that New York State should not allow drilling in the watershed for New York City’s drinking water supply nor should it allow drilling in other areas where drinking water supplies might be compromised. Given the seriousness of this issue and the 800-page length of the draft EIS, the state should give citizens more than 60 days to comment. Petroleum Distillates are a Major Concern Perhaps the leading reason to prevent natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing near drinking water supplies is the use of petroleum distillates. The DEC notes that “diesel-based fracturing fluid is not proposed or reviewed by this Supplement….” However, Environmental Working Group has recently conducted an analysis which found that diesel – like any substance distilled from crude oil – is a petroleum distillate. And the DEC has identified at least 14 different petroleum distillates that are used or proposed for use in the Marcellus Shale formation in New York. The DEC has also identified as chemicals that are used or are likely to be used in New York’s Marcellus Shale formation aromatic hydrocarbons that are likely to be found in petroleum distillates. Environmental Working Group will release its complete analysis of petroleum distillates within the next few weeks, but I will share a few of our findings today. Our research shows that petroleum distillates are likely to contain benzene, one of the aromatic hydrocarbons identified by the state. The EPA has found benzene to be a known human carcinogen that is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion. Petroleum distillates are also likely to contain all of the so-called BTEX chemicals – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. The EPA has concluded that all of these substances are toxic in water at very low levels. Diesel has received much of the attention when it comes to dangerous fracturing fluids. But when companies say that they will not use diesel and then use petroleum distillates, the data shows that it’s a bit like promising not to smoke Marlboros and then smoking Camels, Kools, Virginia Slims and every other type of cigarette. As far as the toxic components, the products are roughly the same. A major concern with petroleum distillates is benzene. To put the toxicity of benzene in perspective, and to demonstrate the risks to water supplies for New York City and other towns, consider these facts from the DEC’s draft EIS. The DEC estimates that the amount of water used to hydraulically fracture a single well in the Marcellus Shale will range from about one million gallons to eight million gallons. The DEC estimates that the amount of friction reducer mixed with the water will comprise about 0.08 percent of the total fracturing solution. Petroleum distillates are commonly used as friction reducers and are also used in other components of fracturing solutions. Therefore, the amount of petroleum distillate used for fracturing a well in New York is likely to range from 800 gallons to 6,400 gallons (0.08 percent of between one and eight million gallons of water). Published levels of benzene in petroleum distillates with names similar to those used or likely to be used in New York range from 700 parts per million for 140˚ flash aliphatic solvent, to 1,000 parts per million for Stoddard Solvent to 4,000 parts per million for kerosene to 93,000 parts per million in naphtha solvents. In other words, these levels of benzene range from 140,000 times the EPA’s safe level to 18.6 million times the EPA’s safe level. These figures mean that if 800 gallons of petroleum distillate were to contaminate a water supply, depending on the benzene concentration, it would likely take somewhere between 112 million gallons (800 X 140,000) and 14.9 billion gallons (800 X 18.6 million) of water to dilute the benzene to EPA’s safe level. If 6,400 gallons of petroleum distillate were to contaminate a water supply, it would likely take somewhere between 896 million and 119 billion gallons of water to dilute the benzene to EPA’s safe levels. For comparison, the total amount of water used daily by New York City according to the DEC is 650 million gallons, or less than the amount of water that would be needed to dilute the benzene in a spill of petroleum distillates in many scenarios. In some cases, even the total amount of water used each day by the entire state of New York (9-10 billion gallons per day) would not be enough. To be sure, it is possible that all or part of the petroleum distillate used to fracture a well would not contaminate water supplies. Some or all could be trapped underground. Petroleum distillate that is spilled prior to fracturing or after fracturing in drilling wastewater might be absorbed by soil or otherwise contained before it reaches water supplies. But the amounts of petroleum distillate likely to be used are significant and petroleum distillate in the form of diesel will be used to power drilling equipment even if diesel is not used in hydraulic fracturing. The DEC reports that an average of 29,000 gallons of diesel fuel was required to complete fracturing jobs in the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This diesel used to run equipment will likely add to the total amount of petroleum distillate used for the fracturing fluid. The result is an increased likelihood that, somewhere in the process, some quantity of petroleum distillate will spill or leak, threatening water supplies with benzene contamination. It is also important to note that there may be thousands of wells drilled in New York, each of which could cause benzene contamination. And, as we have seen, a little bit of benzene goes a long way. Recent Cases of Contamination Linked to Fracturing, Drilling Contamination from benzene or related chemicals associated with drilling is not just a hypothetical scenario. In the summer of 2008, in one of the few government tests ever conducted on water contamination near natural gas fields, the Bureau of Land Management found benzene in drinking water wells in Sublette County, Wyoming. Although researchers did not identify the source of the contamination, the only likely source in the otherwise rural area is intensive natural gas drilling involving hydraulic fracturing. In May 2008, Colorado outfitter Ned Prather drank water from the tap in his rural cabin. The water was contaminated with all of the BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), including 100 parts per billion benzene. Natural gas companies have drilled 18 wells within 3,000 feet of the spring that supplies his water, there is a pit of production water on a hill overlooking his cabin, a second pit was reclaimed shortly after Prather took his toxic drink, and in the winter of 2007, a company spilled nearly 8,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a nearby hill when a spigot was accidentally left open. The Denver Post reported that “bad water has decimated his outfitting business. Hunters don't want to stay in a cabin with suspect water or to harvest deer and elk they fear could be drinking contaminated water.” Thus far, medical tests have found no damage to Prather, but he has suffered unexplained health problems that predate his toxic drink. His hands and head shake and the tremors have grown worse recently. “Not that many people have turned up a glass and drank that much benzene at one time,” he said. In March and April 2004, the natural gas company EnCana fractured an improperly cemented well in Garfield County, Colorado. Gas escaped from about 7,000 feet underground, entered a natural fracture about 3,000 feet below the surface, and traveled laterally about 3,500 feet from the well where it contaminated Divide Creek, forcing local residents to drink bottled water. Inspectors found high levels of benzene in the water (99 parts per billion) the day after residents noticed unusual bubbles in the creek. One nearby resident, Lisa Bracken, described the creek as having so many bubbles that it looked like a “popped can of soda.” Another nearby resident, Steve Thompson, said that "I came down with a funnel and scooped some of the biggest bubbles with it….I lit the bubbles with a match, and they burned like gas. It even melted my funnel." A report prepared for Garfield County found that the contamination also included methane gas and toluene, ethylbenzene and xyleneithin. In August 2004, the COGCC fined EnCana a record $371,200 and imposed a moratorium on drilling within a two-mile radius of the seep. EnCana has operated an air sparge system for the past four years to reduce benzene levels in the creek. This system involves the injection of air into the creek to dissipate benzene into the atmosphere. In the spring of this year, Pennsylvania officials fined Cabot Oil and Gas for an 800-gallon diesel spill from a truck that overturned. It is unclear whether benzene contamination resulted from the spill, but diesel typically contains benzene. Recently, state officials ordered Cabot Oil and Gas to stop hydraulic fracturing operations in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania after the company was involved in three spills in nine days. The DEC has noted that many states have reported no contamination from hydraulic fracturing, but we are not aware that any states have even looked for contamination from fracturing, including New York. Late last year, we sent a Freedom of Information Law request to the DEC asking for any tests that the agency had conducted on water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The DEC said that it had conducted none, nor did it have tests conducted by others. In addition to the recent discovery of benzene in water wells in Sublette County, Wyoming by the Bureau of Land Management, the EPA this spring found that 11 of 39 water wells near Pavillion, Wyoming were contaminated with substances that may be linked to nearby gas drilling. More tests are planned. And Garfield County, Colorado officials released a study last year that linked methane contamination in water wells to methane in the same rock layer a mile and a half underground where gas companies are drilling. The scientists who conducted the study did not determine how the gas reached the water, but their results provide evidence that gas or other contaminants from drilling could work their way to the surface from deep underground. "It challenges the view that natural gas, and the suite of hydrocarbons that exist around it, is isolated from water supplies by its extreme depth," Judith Jordan, the oil and gas liaison for Garfield County told ProPublica. Disclosure Needed: Nurse’s Near-Death Experience Could be Repeated The DEC has proposed that companies be required to disclose their fracturing chemicals before fracturing begins. While this requirement is a step in the right direction, it is unclear whether this disclosure would be to the DEC or to the general public. It is critical that the public know what chemicals companies are injecting into each well including Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) numbers so that the public and first responders can easily know what chemicals are being used. The DEC deserves credit for including CAS numbers in the DSGEIS. Public disclosure is especially important because one of the companies that supplied information to the DEC about chemicals proposed for use in fracturing shale formations in New York is perhaps the most infamous fracturing company in terms of public disclosure. In Durango, Colorado, in 2008, a valve broke on a tank carrying 300 gallons of a fracturing fluid called ZetaFlow manufactured by Weatherford, the Houston-based company that supplied chemical information to DEC. About half of the ZetaFlow spilled out. According to Clinton Marshall, who was one of the workers transporting the chemical, most of the spill was captured by a spill container, implying that some of the spill escaped. Cathy Behr, a nurse who later treated Marshall came in contact with the ZetaFlow that had spilled on him. As a result, Behr became gravely ill, suffering respiratory failure, heart failure and liver failure. As Behr’s doctor worked to save her life, Weatherford refused to disclose the chemical’s contents, citing trade secrets. Behr later recovered (Slowthower 2008, Hanel 2008a, Hanel 2008b). ZetaFlow is still advertised on Weatherford’s website. “This ZetaFlow system can be used on all types of formations, including a variety of sandstones, carbonates, coals and shales,” the company says. ZetaFlow is not mentioned in the DSGEIS, but the DEC must ensure that before ZetaFlow or other chemicals are used in the state, their names and constituents are made publicly available. And the state should prohibit the use of any chemicals, such as ZetaFlow, that are not proven safe. Recommendations The DEC deserves credit for proposing tougher standards for high-volume hydraulic fracturing such as water well testing before drilling and limits on the volume of wastewater that can be stored in pits and the duration that such water can remain in pits. However, the risks from drilling, particularly with benzene, are so great that Environmental Working Group continues to recommend that the DEC prohibit drilling in the watershed for New York City’s drinking water supply and in all other areas where drinking water supplies might be compromised. These risks are compounded by the fact the DEC likely lacks adequate staff to enforce proposed or existing standards as Speaker Quinn demonstrated in her questioning of the DEC last September. Our upcoming investigation of petroleum distillates indicates that staffing shortages also exist for state and federal agencies charged with enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act. EWG also urges the DEC to adopt our recommendations made at previous city council hearings. These recommendations include: 1) Requiring public disclosure of chemicals used to drill each well prior to drilling including chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and 2) Prohibiting the use of chemicals that could compromise the quality of water supplies and that are not demonstrated to be safe for humans and the environment. The state should apply our recommended standards to all oil and natural gas drilling even if such drilling does not include “high-volume hydraulic fracturing” or horizontal drilling. Drilling for oil and natural gas involves extremely toxic chemicals that are harmful at microscopic levels. Just because drilling uses a lower volume of fracturing fluid or is strictly vertical does not mean that it is safer. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

EWG Testimony before NYC City Council on Natural Gas Drilling

Environmental Working Group — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 27th, 2009

Testing for pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the New York City drinking water supply

Environmental Working Group — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 26th, 2009

Comments of Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist

Before the
Committee on Environmental Protection
The New York City Council

Hearing on the testing by the Department of Environmental Protection for the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the NYC drinking water supply

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee: My name is Olga Naidenko, and I am a Senior Scientist at Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, DC; Ames, Iowa; and Oakland, California. We focus much of our research on potential health risks from chemical contamination of food, water, consumer products and the environment.

With this testimony, we express our strong support for the proposed law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York that would require testing by the Department of Environmental Protection for the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the New York City drinking water supply and the effluent from wastewater treatment plants. We commend the Council for considering this important measure that will serve as an essential step toward protecting public health from potential adverse effects of life-long, cumulative exposure to mixtures of multiple pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting chemicals in drinking water.

The presence of hundreds of unregulated pharmaceuticals and other synthetic chemicals in the nation’s surface, ground, waste and drinking water has been documented in studies done by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and water utilities. Research demonstrates that although individual pharmaceuticals occur at relatively low levels, conventional wastewater treatment does not effectively remove them. This is cause for concern and a call for timely action.

Below, we highlight three key areas of concern around pharmaceuticals in drinking water:

The full spectrum of pharmaceuticals and related contaminants in the New York City drinking water supply is currently unknown; this gap must be urgently addressed by systematic, long-term water quality monitoring;
The results of the testing must be fully disclosed in order to maintain the public’s confidence in the health and safety of their drinking water;
The development of appropriate, economically feasible plans for the protection of drinking water and for ensuring the healthy survival of aquatic life requires a robust dataset on the occurrence of pharmaceutical contaminants in water sources.

Below we address these points in detail.

1. The full spectrum of pharmaceuticals and related contaminants in the New York City drinking water supply is currently unknown; this gap must be urgently addressed by annual water quality monitoring.

The Associated Press investigation ("AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water," March 9, 2008) brought to the attention of the public what the scientific literature has been documenting for a decade – our waters are polluted with a mixture of synthetic chemicals that have been designed to have powerful effects at very low concentrations. Of especial concern are human and veterinary medicines such as steroids, antibiotics, anti-depressants and hormones, which find their way into wastewater due to pharmaceuticals excreted by the body; disposal of unused drugs; farm fields treated with biosolids (sewage sludge); manure from animals fed antibiotics that is used as fertilizer; and industrial discharge from pharmaceutical manufacturing (AP (Associated Press) 2008).

There are no federal or state standards or monitoring requirements for the vast majority of these contaminants in drinking water or wastewater. While the health effects of these pharmaceuticals at therapeutic doses are relatively well-known, their ecological and public health impacts, especially their side effects and potential for synergism with other pollutants, remain to be addressed and cannot be dismissed (Jones 2003; Pringle 2008).

Some studies have suggested that for individual pharmaceuticals, a person would have to drink hundreds of gallons of water to get anywhere near a medical dose (Caldwell 2009; Snyder 2008). However, no study has so far addressed the cumulative human health risk posed by the mixtures of pharmaceuticals that we may ingest on a daily basis (Benotti M.J. 2009; Focazio 2008; Kingsbury 2008; Kolpin 2002). Meanwhile, according to the U.S. EPA, many drug classes of concern are found in the nation’s water sources, including (U.S. EPA 2009b):

Antibiotics and antimicrobials that may lead to the development of drug-resistant bacteria;
Estrogenic steroids that may affect the reproductive system in wildlife and people;
Antidepressants and calcium-channel blockers, which have been associated with effects on spawning in shellfish and "dramatic inhibition of sperm activity in certain aquatic organisms" (U.S. EPA 2009b);
Antiepileptic drugs such as phenytoin, valproate, carbamazepine that may act as human neuroteratogens and trigger cell death in the developing brain, which leads to neurodegeneration.
Genotoxic drugs that are primarily used at hospitals and have a high acute toxicity.

Scientists do not yet understand what impact all of these water pollutants will have on human and environmental health.

The presence of pharmaceuticals in the nation’s waters highlights the challenges we face from severe flaws in the nation’s current regulatory framework for water protection. The first step to address these challenges is to find out what pharmaceuticals and personal care products are actually found in the New York City drinking water supply. We strongly support the proposed law that would mandate annual water quality monitoring for the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in treated wastewater discharged from the city’s wastewater treatment plants and in drinking water, including sampling at drinking water treatment plants serving the city, at monitoring wells for underground aquifers and at distribution sites of drinking water.

With this law, New York will be able to devise a science-based policy by collecting real data on the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water sources and developing the necessary information for any mitigation steps that may be needed to avoid the risks to people and the environment.

2. The results of the testing must be fully disclosed in order to maintain the public’s confidence in the health and safety of their drinking water.

Up to now, New York City residents have been fortunate to enjoy some of the best drinking water in the world, well known for its purity and good taste. Yet, both water quality and public trust in the water that comes from the tap cannot be taken for granted. In addition to a pro-active testing program, protecting public confidence in the health and safety of drinking water requires transparency about the findings, particularly with respect to pharmaceutical contaminants that usually cannot be seen, tasted or smelled, yet may exert powerful effects on health. Infants and others who are vulnerable may be especially at risk from these involuntary exposures.

Members of the public do not want to wake up in the morning and read about anti-convulsive medication in their tap water. Hundreds of news stories around the country on pharmaceutical contaminants in drinking water clearly indicate the intense interest that all Americans feel about this issue. Snippets of data will not be sufficient to allay these concerns; instead, full disclosure is needed.

Drinking water utilities are supportive of this disclosure. The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, an organization of metropolitan drinking water suppliers had made the following statement in March 2008:

"Water utilities should take steps to keep their consumers informed of their efforts to monitor and remove pharmaceuticals from water sources. Just as water utilities need data to make informed decisions, we believe that consumers should have the information they need to make personal health decisions" (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008).

Because utilities often do not disclose the presence of unregulated contaminants in tap water, and because there is no national, centralized source of information on tap water contamination, Environmental Working Group maintains a National Tap Water Quality database where people can find out what urban, industrial, or agricultural pollutants may be present in their drinking water (EWG 2005). The water quality testing data in our database have been obtained from records that state health and environmental departments obtain from drinking water utilities and include tests conducted by utilities for more than 44,000 communities nationwide. The drug residues in tap water join hundreds of other synthetic chemicals Americans are exposed to daily, as contaminants in food, water, air and in common consumer products.

Yet, we only have data on chemicals that are tested for by utilities. Only limited information is available about pharmaceuticals because very few tests are performed and even fewer are disclosed to the public. All of the pharmaceuticals reported in drinking water supplies are unregulated in treated tap water -- any level is legal. Not only have the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to set standards for pharmaceuticals in water, but also they have failed to require mandatory testing for these chemicals. This situation needs to be remedied on the federal level (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008).

According to the research articles published on the subject, there is a large range of concentrations at which pharmaceuticals, personal care product chemicals and endocrine disrupting compounds are present in water; there is also significant variation in the combinations of chemicals that are found at specific locations. Arguments are sometimes made that pharmaceuticals in drinking water pose little human or environmental health risk because they get diluted over the entire water supply (Grumbles 2008). This may be true for the majority of people; yet, people are exposed not to generalized risks but to specific, local risks and this information must be provided to the public.

We strongly support the provision of the proposed law that would require the mayor to submit to the council an annual report on the results of water quality testing. We also urge the city to make these data publicly available via the Department of Environment Protection website. This degree of transparency is essential in order to maintain public confidence in the quality of drinking water.

3. The development of appropriate, economically feasible plans for the protection of the drinking water and for ensuring the survival and thriving of aquatic life requires a robust dataset on the occurrence of pharmaceutical contaminants in water sources.

The occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the nation’s waters is a complex problem and requires a comprehensive multi-faceted response by policy makers, drinking water- and wastewater utilities, pharmaceutical industry, scientists and individual citizens. No individual group can solve the problem single-handedly. Moreover, they are all united by one common need: need for data.

Traditional wastewater systems are designed to treat microorganisms and nutrients, not pharmaceuticals and other synthetic compounds found in the studies across the country. Advanced treatments such as ozonation, granulated activated carbon, UV treatment and advance oxidation process can remove significant amounts of pharmaceuticals but are expensive (Benotti M. J. 2009; Gerrity 2009; Rossner 2009). Ozonation can remove many pharmaceuticals (Broseus 2009) but it is associated with the production of toxic byproducts (Stalter 2009). Activated carbon filtration and other absorbents may be a good alternative treatment (Rossner 2009), although the costs tend to be higher (Joss 2008).

To resolve these challenges, several water utilities in the US and a number of groups in Europe are actively involved in researching wastewater treatments that can remove pharmaceuticals (Gunnarsson 2009; Joss 2008; Radjenovic 2008; Southern Nevada Water Authority 2008). In order to make the treatment process as cost-effective as possible, we have to know what pharmaceuticals are most commonly found in water sources; which ones of them pose the greatest health risks; where they primarily released; how they are transported through the water supply; and what treatments are most effective in removing individual contaminants. There is a great need for research on treatment technology upgrades that industrial dischargers, large urban dischargers such as hospitals and nursing homes, wastewater systems and drinking water utilities can use to remove drugs from water (Pringle 2008).

It is also important to look at the risks posed by pharmaceutical pollutants to the aquatic life and thus, indirectly, to people. Studies by the U.S. EPA and academic scientists found that pharmaceuticals and personal care product chemicals can and do accumulate in fish and other aquatic animals (Brooks 2005; Chu 2007; U.S. EPA 2009c). In a recently published study, EPA researchers detected a range of pollutants in fish: diphenylhydramine (antihistamine); norfluoxetine and sertraline (antidepressants); other pharmaceuticals as well as galaxolide and tonalide, synthetic fragrances frequently added to personal care products (Ramirez 2009). These studies were of sufficient concern to the EPA, prompting the Agency to embark on a national survey of pharmaceuticals in 150 randomly-selected urban river sites across the country (U.S. EPA 2009a).

We do not know what would be the human health outcome of cumulative exposure to pharmaceuticals in water and in fish for people who are active in recreational fishing, a common pastime for many people who live in New York City and its suburbs. Exposure to toxic levels of water contaminants that accumulate in fish is a well-recognized public health problem for pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury (Fitzgerald 2007)

In order to forestall any potential human health problems due to pharmaceuticals in fish, it would be highly desirable to monitor the potential effects of pharmaceutical pollution on aquatic life and to ensure that these contaminants would not pose an adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems (Batt 2008; Molander 2009; Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) 2009). Aquatic species often serve as sentinels for human health (Kostich 2008). For example, it would take a lot of estrogen to cause an acute health effect. In contrast, low-level, chronic exposure to estrogenic pollutants in water has been associated with health effects as severe as gender change, such as feminization of male fish (Caldwell 2008; Tyler 2009). Clearly, this is not the type of severe change that we would be willing to accept with respect to human health.

By ensuring that the levels of pharmaceutical pollutants are safe for aquatic life, we will make a significant investment in the protection of human health as well, a key decision that will be greatly appreciated by our own children.

Ultimately, we would need to capture as much pollution as we can at the source by implementing pollution prevention and protection of water supplies (American Water Works Association (AWWA) 2008; Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008). The options may include environmentally friendly design of the waste stream, labeling of pharmaceuticals according to their proper disposal strategies, support for proper pharmaceutical disposal programs and treatment of significant point sources of pharmaceutical discharge into the wastewater (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008; Joss 2008; Pringle 2008; Snyder 2008). These programs should be implemented in parallel with water quality testing and development of additional treatment infrastructure at wastewater plants.

We all know that bottled water is not a solution to concerns about pharmaceuticals in tap water: bottled water is much more expensive; it is drawn largely from the same sources as public tap water supplies; and it is associated with immense amounts of plastic waste (EWG 2008). Yet, for the public to not turn to bottled water, we need to focus on pollution prevention, data collection and disclosure and developing appropriate mitigation treatments.

Environmental Working Group congratulates the City Council for moving forward with this important legislation and we are glad to be of any assistance in accomplishing this task.

References
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2008. Available: http://www.awwa.org/publications/breakingnewsdetail.cfm?itemnumber=34374 [accessed October 23 2009].
AP (Associated Press). 2008. An AP investigation: Pharmaceuticals Found in Drinking Water. PHARMAWATER-METROS-BY RESULTS. . Available: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day1_05.html [accessed July 29 2008].
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. 2008. AMWA Discusses Pharmaceuticals in Water Supplies. Available: http://www.amwa.net/cs/news_releases/March11 [accessed October 23 2009].
Batt AL, Kostich MS, Lazorchak JM. 2008. Analysis of ecologically relevant pharmaceuticals in wastewater and surface water using selective solid-phase extraction and UPLC-MS/MS. Anal Chem 80(13): 5021-30.
Benotti MJ, Stanford BD, Wert EC, Snyder SA. 2009. Evaluation of a photocatalytic reactor membrane pilot system for the removal of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds from water. Water Res 43(6): 1513-22.
Benotti MJ, Trenholm RA, Vanderford BJ, Holady JC, Stanford BD, Snyder SA. 2009. Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in U.S. Drinking Water. Environ Sci Technol 43(3): 597-603.
Brooks BW, Chambliss CK, Stanley JK, Ramirez A, Banks KE, Johnson RD, et al. 2005. Determination of select antidepressants in fish from an effluent-dominated stream. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(2): 464-9.
Broseus R, Vincent S, Aboulfadl K, Daneshvar A, Sauve S, Barbeau B, et al. 2009. Ozone oxidation of pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and pesticides during drinking water treatment. Water Res 43(18): 4707-17.
Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Hutchinson TH, Lange R, Heijerick D, Janssen C, et al. 2008. Derivation of an aquatic predicted no-effect concentration for the synthetic hormone, 17 alpha-ethinyl estradiol. Environ Sci Technol 42(19): 7046-54.
Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Nowak E, Johnston J, Yekel H, Pfeiffer D, et al. 2009. An Assessment of Exposure to Prescribed Estrogens in Drinking Water. Environ Health Perspec: in press.
Chu S, Metcalfe CD. 2007. Analysis of paroxetine, fluoxetine and norfluoxetine in fish tissues using pressurized liquid extraction, mixed mode solid phase extraction cleanup and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1163(1-2): 112-8.
EWG. 2005. Environmental Working Group: National Tap Water Quality Database. Available: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater [accessed May 21 2008].
EWG. 2008. Bottled Water Quality Investigation: 10 Major Brands, 38 Pollutants. Available: http://www.ewg.org/reports/bottledwater [accessed November 10 2008].
Fitzgerald EF, Belanger EE, Gomez MI, Hwang SA, Jansing RL, Hicks HE. 2007. Environmental exposures to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) among older residents of upper Hudson River communities. Environ Res 104(3): 352-60.
Focazio MJ, Kolpin DW, Barnes KK, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Zaugg SD, et al. 2008. A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States - II) Untreated drinking water sources. Sci Total Environ 402(2-3): 201-16.
Gerrity D, Stanford BD, Trenholm RA, Snyder SA. 2009. An evaluation of a pilot-scale nonthermal plasma advanced oxidation process for trace organic compound degradation. Water Res: in press.
Grumbles BH. 2008. Testimony of Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmnetal Protection Agency, before the Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, United States Senate, April 15, 2008 Available: www.epa.gov/ocirpage/hearings/testimony/110_2007_2008/2008_0415_bhg.pdf [accessed August 26 2008].
Gunnarsson L, Adolfsson-Erici M, Bjorlenius B, Rutgersson C, Forlin L, Larsson DG. 2009. Comparison of six different sewage treatment processes--reduction of estrogenic substances and effects on gene expression in exposed male fish. Sci Total Environ 407(19): 5235-42.
Jones OA, Voulvoulis N, Lester JN. 2003. Potential impact of pharmaceuticals on environmental health. Bull World Health Organ 81(10): 768-9.
Joss A, Siegrist H, Ternes TA. 2008. Are we about to upgrade wastewater treatment for removing organic micropollutants? Water Sci Technol 57(2): 251-5.
Kingsbury JA, Delzer GC, Hopple JA. 2008. Anthropogenic Organic Compounds in Source Water of Nine Community Water Systems that Withdraw from Streams, 2002–05. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5208. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5208/ [accessed December 10 2008].
Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD, Barber LB, et al. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Technol 36(6): 1202-11.
Kostich MS, Lazorchak JM. 2008. Risks to aquatic organisms posed by human pharmaceutical use. Sci Total Environ 389(2-3): 329-39.
Molander L, Gerstrand M, Ruden C. 2009. WikiPharma - A freely available, easily accessible, interactive and comprehensive database for environmental effect data for pharmaceuticals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol.
Pringle D. 2008. Testimony of David Pringle, Campaign Director, New Jersey Environmental Federation on Behalf of:
New Jersey Environmental Federation and Clean Water Action before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality "Pharmaceuticals in the Nation’s Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue". Available: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=30641a14-802a-23ad-4b51-a10dd439793f [accessed October 23, 2009].
Radjenovic J, Petrovic M, Ventura F, Barcelo D. 2008. Rejection of pharmaceuticals in nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane drinking water treatment. Water Res 42(14): 3601-10.
Ramirez AJ, Brain RA, Usenko S, Mottaleb MA, O'Donnell JG, Stahl LL, et al. 2009. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in fish: Results of a national pilot study in the U.S. Environ Toxicol Chem: in press.
Rossner A, Snyder SA, Knappe DR. 2009. Removal of emerging contaminants of concern by alternative adsorbents. Water Res 43(15): 3787-96.
Snyder SA. 2008. Statement of Dr. Shane Snyder, Southern Nevada Water Authority before the Senate Subcommittee on Transportaion Safety, Infrastructure Secury, and Water Quality on Pharmaceuticals in the Nation's Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue. Available: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=30641a14-802a-23ad-4b51-a10dd439793f [accessed October 23, 2009].
Southern Nevada Water Authority. 2008. Water Quality Research. Available: http://www.snwa.com/html/wq_research.html [accessed October 23 2009].
Stalter D, Magdeburg A, Weil M, Knacker T, Oehlmann J. 2009. Toxication or detoxication? In vivo toxicity assessment of ozonation as advanced wastewater treatment with the rainbow trout. Water Res.
Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra). 2009. MistraPharma Wiki Database. Identification and Reduction of Environmental Risks Caused by the Use of Human Pharmaceuticals. Available: http://www.wikipharma.org/welcome.asp [accessed October 23 2009].
Tyler CR, Filby AL, Bickley LK, Cumming RI, Gibson R, Labadie P, et al. 2009. Environmental health impacts of equine estrogens derived from hormone replacement therapy. Environ Sci Technol 43(10): 3897-904.
U.S. EPA. 2009a. Expanded Investigations of Pharmaceuticals in Fish Tissue. Available: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ppcp/studies/fish-expand.html [accessed October 23 2009].
U.S. EPA. 2009b. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs). Frequently Asked Questions. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/faq.html [accessed October 23 2009].
U.S. EPA. 2009c. Pilot Study of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Fish Tissue. Available: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ppcp/studies/fish-tissue.html [accessed October 23 2009].

Cardin Offers Hope for the Chesapeake Bay

Environmental Working Group — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON – Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced legislation today aimed at reducing pollution that has endangered the Chesapeake Bay watershed for over 25 years. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act will give state and federal governments more power and funding to clean up pollution from agriculture sources and metropolitan storm run-off. “The voluntary approach to Chesapeake Bay clean-up has hampered efforts to stop pollution from agriculture and urban sources,” said Environmental Working Group vice-president Craig Cox. “Senator Cardin’s bill, however, is another positive step in the process to bring real regulatory and enforcement tools to bear on polluters. If the Bay states step up as equal partners in this new process, then there is hope for the Chesapeake Bay’s future,” Cox concluded. The Environmental Working Group recently released a report on the Chesapeake Bay entitled, Facing Facts in the Chesapeake Bay. http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2009/09/chesapeake-bay-pollution-reduction-recommendations/ # # # EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. EWG’s farm subsidy database and related reports and analysis on the impact modern agriculture has on the environment can be found at www.ewg.org/agmag/

Cleaning Supplies Can Contaminate Classroom Air

Environmental Working Group — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Greener School Cleaners = Healthier Kids

Consumers like you have the right to know what's in your cleaning supplies. As like as $5 can help EWG continue important research just like this.

Home

Cleaning Supplies Can Contaminate Classroom Air

Ordinary school cleaning supplies can expose children to multiple chemicals linked to asthma, cancer, and other documented health problems and to hundreds of other air contaminants that have never been tested for safety, a study by the Environmental Working Group shows. Laboratory tests done for EWG found that a typical assortment of cleaning products released 457 distinct chemicals into the air.

EWG’s findings come at a time when childhood asthma and many childhood cancers are on the rise.

Lax labeling requirements mean that schools often don't know what they're purchasing. Many would be alarmed to learn that when used as directed, Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser, a product commonly used in both schools and private homes, released more than100 air contaminants, including chloroform, benzene, and formaldehyde.

In response to these concerns, many schools have turned to safer cleaning supplies that have been independently certified to meet protective health and safety standards. Eight states have passed legislation requiring or encouraging use of these green cleaning products in schools. Many other forward-thinking school districts have adopted green cleaning policies, replacing toxic products with safer, effective alternatives with no increase in costs.

Check out our report on health risks tied to school cleaning supplies, and learn about safer cleaning at school and at home.

Climate Change Will Cost Farmers Far More Than a Climate Bill

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 7th, 2009

Download the full report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Farm industry leaders and their supporters in Congress are trying to derail climate change legislation by insisting that the House-passed bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), will cause ruinous increases in the costs of production for farmers. This threat is so potentially devastating, they claim, that climate change legislation should be shelved or loaded up with concessions that send more money to their agricultural constituents.

A more careful examination of the facts shows that climate change itself, not climate legislation, is the real threat to American agriculture, and that climate-induced crop losses will cost US taxpayers and farmers far more than could ever be caused by the ACES bill.

Economists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently concluded that the costs of the climate bill are so small that they cannot credibly be characterized as a threat to farm income. Between 2012 and 2018 they project that costs will increase on average by a meager $0.45 per acre for soybeans, $0.66 per acre for wheat, and $1.19 per acre for corn, well under one half of one percent of current per acre production costs for these crops.

Looked at another way, per acre cost increases from the climate bill will be far less than the predicted price farmers will receive for a bushel of soybeans ($8.72), wheat ($5.41), or corn ($3.72) between 2012 and 2018. Cotton farmers are predicted to see an increase of $1.46 per acre and rice farmers $3.09 per acre. That is only 0.3 percent per acre for cotton producers and 0.6 percent for rice producers.

The projected cost increases caused by the climate bill are so small they would be lost in the background noise caused by annual swings in farm income from yield variation, crop prices, and the cost of seed and chemicals. A fertilizer spreader or herbicide sprayer that is out of adjustment would cost farmers more.

In addition, the subsidies farmers get from federal taxpayers every year will be far larger than any potential cost increase from a climate bill. Corn producers, for example, will get more than $2 billion a year in subsidies, 19 times the estimated additional cost they might face because of the climate bill. Wheat producers will get 26 times more, soybean producers 18 times more, rice producers 45 times more, and cotton producers 76 times more in subsidies than the additional costs USDA economists predict the climate bill will create.

Instead of wringing our hands about the negligible costs of a climate bill, Congress should be very worried about how much climate change will cost farmers, our food supply, and the environment.

Unless action is taken now to slow global warming, farmers can expect to see an acceleration of the extreme weather patterns¾heavy rains, flooding, droughts and higher temperatures¾that have already taken a heavy toll on US agriculture over the past two decades. According to 2007 testimony to Congress by the Government Accountability Office, farmers suffered at least $44 billion in total weather-related crop and livestock losses between 1980 and 2005. Payments for crop losses just to states represented on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee averaged $ 3.0 billion a year. A new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicts that yields of corn and soybeans will decrease by between 30 percent and 63 percent by the end of the century because of the damaging effects of higher temperatures.

Agriculture's habit of crying wolf is getting in the way of what should be a serious discussion about the real costs that farmers will face from climate change and what needs to be done right now to prepare to meet the challenge.

To protect American farmers and the American public from the social, financial, and environmental impacts of global warming, the leadership of the US Senate must ensure that their version of the climate bill:

Sets us on a path that slows global warming and reduces our dependence on fossil fuels soon enough to avoid the most damaging consequences for agriculture and our environment
Creates an effective and credible agricultural offset program that actually reduces the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by creating incentives for farmers to do more to reduce their own emissions and sequester carbon
Funds an aggressive climate conservation initiative, using the programs already in the conservation title of the farm bill, to spur cooperative projects at the local level that would simultaneously reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, protect soil, water, and wildlife, and help farmers armor their farms and ranches against damage farmers from climate change.

Climate Change Far Greater Threat to Farmers Than Climate Legislation

Environmental Working Group — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs 202-667-6982

WASHINGTON October 7 - Farm industry leaders and their supporters in Congress are trying to derail climate change legislation by insisting that the House-passed bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), will cause ruinous increases in the costs of production for farmers. They claim this threat is so potentially devastating that climate change legislation should be shelved or loaded up with concessions that send more money to their agricultural constituents.

But a new analysis by the Environmental Working Group of US Department of Agriculture cost estimates finds that the projected increased costs of production due to the climate bill will be so small - $0.45 per acre for soybeans, $0.66 per acre for wheat, and $1.19 per acre for corn, for example - that they amount to well under one half of one percent of current production costs.

The EWG report, Crying Wolf, concludes that a fertilizer spreader or chemical sprayer that is a bit out of adjustment would cost farmers more. Moreover, the added costs pale compared to the federal government's taxpayer-funded, multi-billion-dollar commodity subsidies.

"Climate change will cost farmers far more in lower yields and greater expense to protect their crops than the climate bill," said EWG Midwest vice-president Craig Cox, co-author of the report. "Farm groups should be working for a bill that protects agriculture's productivity, our food supply, and our environment instead of 'crying wolf' about the cost of the climate bill."

"The costs of legislation to protect farmers against crippling drought, volatile weather and increased pest and disease outbreaks are so small that they would be lost in the background noise caused by annual swings in farm income from yield variation, crop prices, and the cost of seed and chemicals," Cox said. "Congress must pass a climate bill that slows climate change and puts money on the table to help farmers cope with threats they will face from a warmer and more unpredictable climate."

Crying Wolf is the inaugural report on EWG's new agriculture- and environment-themed web property, AgMag.

"AgMag is EWG's online chronicle of agriculture and the environment. We'll bring bulletproof analysis and in-depth investigations into the science and politics of food, water, farming and the environment -- and the money and politics that make them go," Cox said of the new site. "AgMag will deliver a clear-eyed and new look at our increasingly complex, and global, 21st century food system."

Go here for the full Crying Wolf report: www.ewg.org/agmag/

# # #

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. EWG's farm subsidy database and related reports and analysis can be found at www.ewg.org/agmag/

Seasoned Environmental Attorney and Pulitzer Journalist Join EWG As Chief of Staff and Executive Editor

Environmental Working Group — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON, DC—Heather White, a lawyer and former director of education advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation, has been named chief of staff and general counsel of the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Joining White is former Washington Post science editor and Pulitzer Prize winner, Nils Bruzelius. In addition to her extensive management and legal responsibilities as the group’s new General Counsel, White oversees EWG’s government relations department. Before her time with the National Wildlife Federation, White served as counsel to U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) on energy and environmental issues from 2003 to 2005. She also served as EWG’s General Counsel for from 2001 to 2003. In 2000, White was a Recount attorney during the contested Presidential election and the deputy director of women’s outreach for Vice President Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign. White also was an associate at the law firm of Bass, Berry & Sims in Nashville, Tennessee. “Heather’s leadership, political experience and solid grasp of the issues are just what’s needed as EWG moves forward with the largest policy campaign in our history,” said Ken Cook EWG’s co-founder and president. “The organization is currently spearheading environmentalists’ efforts to overhaul federal toxic chemicals law and policy, create a national energy policy based on sustainable resources and protect the nation’s natural resources." White has appeared as an authority on environmental issues for a range of news organizations, among them CBS Morning News, National Public Radio, and The New York Times. “I'm thrilled to be part of the most effective environmental health team in the country," White said of EWG. "I look forward to expanding EWG's roster of supporters and maintaining EWG’s strong and respected voice on Capitol Hill.” White graduated magna cum laude from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1999. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 1995 from the University of Virginia in environmental science. Nils Bruzelius comes to EWG as its new Executive Editor, joining Editor-in-Chief Elaine Shannon, a 30-year veteran investigative journalist with Time and a best-selling author for her book Desperados: Latin Drug Lords, U.S. Lawmen, and the War America Can't Win. Bruzelius, who retired from the Washington Post as its Deputy National Editor for Science earlier this year, began his career in journalism in 1968 with The Framingham News before joining The Associated Press in Boston. Nils went on to be a reporter, Health/Science editor and Foreign Editor at The Boston Globe. He left The Globe in 2001 for a stint as a Senior Editor on NPR’s Science Desk before joining the staff of the Washington Post in 2002. “Bringing Nils on rounds out an editing and writing team with over 60 years of combined experience at the highest levels of journalism,” said Ken Cook. “I’m just delighted to have landed here,” Bruzelius said. “EWG has an important story to tell and it bases that story on solid, original science. I hope and believe I can make a real contribution to getting that message out the largest possible audience of consumers and policy-makers.” During his time at The Boston Globe, Nils received a Pulitzer as part of an investigative team for a 10-part series on corruption and waste in Boston’s public transit system. White is married to David Diamond of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The couple has two daughters and lives in Takoma Park, MD. Nils, an avid sailor, has completed two trans-Atlantic crossings and numerous shorter ocean voyages. He’s an enthusiastic cycler and cross-country skier who has competed in various amateur races and long-distance events. He has a grown daughter and is married to Lynne Weil, Director of Communications for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. They live on Capitol Hill. ###

EWG Feed

U.S. Toxics Registry Should Set Exposure Limit For Chemicals in "Teflon" Family

Toxic Cleaner Fumes Could Contaminate California Classrooms

Toxic Cleaner Fumes Could Contaminate California Classrooms

Widely Used Cleaning Supplies Emit More Than 450 Contaminants into the Air, Including Chemicals that Trigger Asthma

Chemicals found in school cleaning products included:

What about H1N1?

Popular Household Brands are also a Big Problem:

EWG Warns of Drilling Threat to NYC Drinking Water

EWG Testimony before NYC City Council on Natural Gas Drilling

Testing for pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the New York City drinking water supply

Comments of Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D.Senior Scientist

Before theCommittee on Environmental ProtectionThe New York City Council

Hearing on the testing by the Department of Environmental Protection for the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the NYC drinking water supply

Cardin Offers Hope for the Chesapeake Bay

Cleaning Supplies Can Contaminate Classroom Air

Cleaning Supplies Can Contaminate Classroom Air

Climate Change Will Cost Farmers Far More Than a Climate Bill

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Climate Change Far Greater Threat to Farmers Than Climate Legislation

Seasoned Environmental Attorney and Pulitzer Journalist Join EWG As Chief of Staff and Executive Editor

Comments of Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist

Before the
Committee on Environmental Protection
The New York City Council