Common chemicals may act together to increase cancer risk, study finds [news release]

Another reason not to use anti bacterial soaps

Common chemicals may act together to increase cancer risk, study finds
From the 20 July 2015 Oregon State University news release

In a nearly three-year investigation of the state of knowledge about environmentally influenced cancers, the scientists studied low-dose effects of 85 common chemicals not considered to be carcinogenic to humans.

The researchers reviewed the actions of these chemicals against a long list of mechanisms that are important for cancer development. Drawing on hundreds of laboratory studies, large databases of cancer information, and models that predict cancer development, they compared the chemicals’ biological activity patterns to 11 known cancer “hallmarks” – distinctive patterns of cellular and genetic disruption associated with early development of tumors.

n a nearly three-year investigation of the state of knowledge about environmentally influenced cancers, the scientists studied low-dose effects of 85 common chemicals not considered to be carcinogenic to humans.

The researchers reviewed the actions of these chemicals against a long list of mechanisms that are important for cancer development. Drawing on hundreds of laboratory studies, large databases of cancer information, and models that predict cancer development, they compared the chemicals’ biological activity patterns to 11 known cancer “hallmarks” – distinctive patterns of cellular and genetic disruption associated with early development of tumors.

The chemicals included bisphenol A (BPA), used in plastic food and beverage containers; rotenone, a broad-spectrum insecticide; paraquat, an agricultural herbicide; and triclosan, an antibacterial agent used in soaps and cosmetics.

Read the entire article here

 

snopes.com: Reuse of Plastic Bottles

snopes.com: Reuse of Plastic Bottles.

From the 13 April 2004 article

….such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen:

DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances.

In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a “possible human carcinogen.” However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ” … overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.”

Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product.

Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present.

Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water.

The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating:

In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA “cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.” Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate “is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.”

As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted:

There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place.

Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that:

Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles?

A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don’t think there are.

Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though:

There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food.

Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/plasticbottles.asp#uD3X2UPBl0L8LhsG.99

Related articles

• Positive Solutions for plastic top ten false rumors
• A Plastic Pollution Cocktail: Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Items
• The True Cost of Bottled Water
• Reduce, Reuse – is it safe?
• Is Drinking From a Water Bottle Left in the Car Dangerous?

Health and Environment: A Closer Look at Plastics

#6620 recycled plastic (PET) bottles (Photo credit: Nemo’s great uncle)

From the 23 January 2013 article at Science News Daily

 Plastics have transformed modern society, providing attractive benefits but also befouling waterways and aquifers, depleting petroleum supplies and disrupting human health…

..

In a new overview appearing in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health, Halden and his co-author, ASU student Emily North, detail the risks and societal rewards of plastics and describe strategies to mitigate their negative impacts, through reconsideration of plastic composition, use and disposal.

“We are in need of a second plastic revolution. The first one brought us the age of plastics, changing human society and enabling the birth and explosive growth of many industries. But the materials used to make plastics weren’t chosen judiciously and we see the adverse consequences in widespread environmental pollution and unnecessary human exposure to harmful substances. Smart plastics of the future will be equally versatile but also non-toxic, biodegradable and made from renewable energy sources,” says Halden….

..plastics may be manufactured at low cost using little energy and their adaptable composition allows them to be synthesized in soft, transparent or flexible forms suitable for a broad range of medical applications. Because they can be readily disposed of, items like latex gloves, dialysis tubes, intravenous bags and plastic syringes eliminate the need for repeated sterilization, which is often costly and inefficient. Such single-use items have had a marked effect on reducing blood-borne infections, including hepatitis B and HIV…

..

he benefits of global plastics use can come at a steep price in terms of both human and environmental health. Continuous contact with plastic products, from the beginning to the end of life has caused chemical ingredients — some with potentially harmful effects — to form steady-state concentrations in the human body.

In recent years, two plastic-associated compounds have been singled out for particular scrutiny, due to their endocrine-disrupting properties: Bisphenol A (BPA) and di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). Studies of bioaccumulation have shown that detectable levels of BPA in urine have been identified in 95 percent of the adult population in the U.S. and both BPA and DEHP have been associated, through epidemiological and animal studies, with adverse effects on health and reproduction. These include early sexual maturation, decreased male fertility, aggressive behavior and other effects…

…

Biodegradeable plastics may break down in the environment into smaller polymer constituents, which may still pose a risk to the environment. Incineration liberates greenhouse gases associated with climate change. Landfilling of plastics, particularly in the enormous volumes now produced, may be an impractical use of land resources and a danger exists of plastics constituents entering the ground water. Finally, recycling of plastics requires careful sorting of plastic material, which is difficult. Recycled plastics tend to be of lower quality and may not be practical for health care and other application…

Read the entire article here

From the 23 January 2013 article at The American Medical Network

Many consumer products, such as water bottles and product containers, are made from various types of plastic. The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) established a classification system in 1988 to allow consumers and recyclers to properly recycle and dispose of different types of plastic. Manufacturers follow a coding system and place an SPI code, or number, on each plastic product, which is usually molded into the bottom. Although you should always verify the plastic classification number of each product you use, this guide provides a basic outline of the different plastic types associated with each code number.

Plastic marked with anSPI code of 1is made withPolyethylene Terephthalate, which is also known as PETE or PET. Containers made from this plastic sometimes absorb odors and flavors from foods and drinks that are stored in them. Items made from this plastic are commonly recycled. PETE plastic is used to make many common household items like beverage bottles, medicine jars, peanut butter jars, combs, bean bags, and rope. Recycled PETE is used to make tote bags, carpet, fiberfill material in winter clothing, and more.

Plastic marked with anSPI code of 2is made withHigh-Density Polyethylene, or HDPE. HDPEproducts are very safe and they are not known to transmit any chemicals into foods or drinks. HDPE products are commonly recycled. Items made from this plastic include containers for milk, motor oil, shampoos and conditioners, soap bottles, detergents, and bleaches. Many personalized toys are made from this plastic as well. (Please note: it is NEVER safe to reuse an HDPE bottle as a food or drink container if it didn’t originally contain food or drink!) Recycled HDPE is used to make plastic crates, plastic lumber, fencing, and more.

Plastic labeled with anSPI code of 3is made withPolyvinyl Chloride, or PVC. PVC is not often recycled and it can be harmful if ingested. PVC is used for all kinds of pipes and tiles, but it’s most commonly found in plumbing pipes. This kind of plastic should not come in contact with food items. Recycled PVC is used to make flooring, mobile home skirting, and more.

Plastic marked with anSPI code of 4is made withLow-Density Polyethylene, or LDPE. LDPE is not commonly recycled, but it is recyclable in certain areas. It is a very healthy plastic that tends to be both durable and flexible. Plastic cling wrap, sandwich bags, squeezable bottles, and plastic grocery bags are all made from LDPE. Recycled LDPE is used to make garbage cans, lumber, furniture, and more.

Plastic marked with anSPI code of 5is made withPolypropylene, or PP. PP is not commonly recycled, but it is accepted in many areas. This type of plastic is strong and can usually withstand higher temperatures. Among many other products, it is used to make plastic diapers, Tupperware, margarine containers, yogurt boxes, syrup bottles, prescription bottles, and some stadium cups. Plastic bottle caps are often made from PP as well. Recycled PP is used to make ice scrapers, rakes, battery cables, and more.

Plastic marked with anSPI code of 6is made withPolystyrene, also known as PSand most commonly known as Styrofoam. It is commonly recycled, but it is difficult to do so and often ends up in landfills anyway. Disposable coffee cups, plastic food boxes, plastic cutlery, packing foam, and packing peanuts are made from PS. Recycled PS is used to make insulation, license plate frames, rulers, and more.

The SPI code of 7is used to designate miscellaneous types of plastic that are not defined by the other six codes. Polycarbonate and Polylactide are included in this category. These types of plastics are difficult to recycle. Polycarbonate, or PC, is used in baby bottles, large water bottles (multiple-gallon capacity), compact discs, and medical storage containers. Recycled plastics in this category are used to make plastic lumber, among other products.

Consumers can make better plastic-purchasing decisions if they understand SPI codes and potential health hazards of each plastic, and recyclers can more effectively separate plastics into categories. Always check a product’s classification code prior to recycling it or re-using it. It’s important to stay educated about plastic classification numbers and plastic types; remember, informed consumers can demand that plastics manufacturers provide better products.

Read more:Health and environment: a closer look at plastics – Food & Nutrition -Public Health –http://www.health.am/ab/more/health-and-environment/#ixzz2ItM9aR2g

Related articles

• Plastic Cup Reduces Paper Waste at Landfills (polymersolutions.com)
• Bisphenol S, A Substitute For Bisphenol A, Could Also Spell Trouble(MedicalNewsToday)
• Concord, Mass. Becomes the First US City to Ban Single-Use Plastic Water Bottles (inhabitat.com)
• Link Between Fetal Exposure To PVC Plastic Chemical And Obesity In Offspring (medicalnewstoday.com)
• New Desktop Plastic Recycling Device Could Make 3D Printing More Planet-Friendly (thinkprogress.org)
• Do You Know How Many Types Of Plastic There Are? (recycledplasticpatiofurniture.wordpress.com)
• Biodegradable plastic: What you need to know (mnn.com)
• Ant Study Deepens Concern About Plastic Additives (green.blogs.nytimes.com)
• How Plastics Make Us Fat (homepad.wordpress.com)
• Living in a ‘chemical soup’ > A recent study indicates that eating fresh food and avoiding food packaged in plastic reduces exposure to harmful chemicals. (newsreview.com)
• Rising levels of plastic waste on Arctic seafloor alarming (eco-business.com)

Widespread Exposure to BPA Substitute Is Occurring from Cash Register Receipts, Other Paper

Widespread exposure to Bisphenol S, a BPA substitute, is occurring from cash register receipts and other paper products. (Credit: ACS)

From the 11 July 2012 article at Science News Daily

People are being exposed to higher levels of the substitute for BPA in cash register thermal paper receipts and many of the other products that engendered concerns about the health effects of bisphenol A, according to a new study. Believed to be the first analysis of occurrence of bisphenol S (BPS) in thermal and recycled paper and paper currency, the report appears in ACS’ journal Environmental Science & Technology…

…The study detected BPS in all the receipt paper they tested, 87 percent of the samples of paper currency and 52 percent of recycled paper. The researchers estimate that people may be absorbing BPS through their skin in larger doses than they absorbed BPA when it was more widely used — 19 times more BPS than BPA. People who handle thermal paper in their jobs may be absorbing much more BPS.

Related articles

• Widespread exposure to BPA substitute is occurring from cash register receipts, other paper (sciencedaily.com)
• Widespread exposure to BPA substitute is occurring from cash register receipts, other paper (medicalxpress.com)
• Widespread exposure to BPA substitute is occurring from cash register receipts, other paper (eurekalert.org)
• Watch The Paper You Handle? Widespread Exposure To BPA Substitute From Cash Register Receipts (eurasiareview.com)
• Widespread Exposure to BPA Substitute Is Occurring from Cash Register Receipts, Other Paper (jflahiff.wordpress.com)

Exposure To Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Can Be Reduced By Living A Simpler Lifestyle

From the 27 June 2012 article at Medical News Today

A lifestyle that features fresh foods and limited use of products likely to contain environmental chemicals has been shown to reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), such as BPA and phthalates, in a small population study. EDCs are linked to a number of adverse health complications including neuro-developmental delays, behavioral issues and fertility problems. They are produced by the millions of pounds per year and found extensively in a range of products that contain certain plastics. …

Related articles

• Simpler lifestyle found to reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (medicalxpress.com)
• Simpler lifestyle found to reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (eurekalert.org)
• Experts say protocols for identifying endocrine-disrupting chemicals inadequate (eurekalert.org)
• Researchers: Chemical testing is ‘inadequate’ (thechart.blogs.cnn.com)
• US scientist: ‘Many routes of exposure’ to endocrine disruptors (Interview) (euractiv.com)
• Household chemicals’ ‘cocktail effect’ raises cancer concerns for watchdog (guardian.co.uk)
• Common household chemicals ’cause cancer and reduced fertility’ (todayonline.com)
• Downloads Endocrine Disruption: Biological Bases for Health Effects in Wildlife and Humans ebook (osqoouv.typepad.com)

Interacting Risks – endocrine effects of a compound used in many antibacterial bar soaps

Related articles

• Relative Risk, One Result at a Time -Evidence mounts for endocrine effects of a compound used in many antibacterial bar soaps by Anna Lena Phillips at American ScientistWhy are endocrine-disrupting antibacterials still on the shelves?(sfgate.com)
• Phthalates and BPA: Of Mice and Men (sciencebasedmedicine.org)
• TOXMAP: Learn about toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (jflahiff.wordpress.com)
• New Way to Assess Risk from Chemicals (InnovationToronto.com)
• Environmental Toxins (education.com)

Related Resources

As the article notes, there are studies of the effects and hazards of single chemicals, but not many on chemical interactions

Here are a few free reputable resources on chemical hazards
— All (and more!) available at Toxnet (US National Library of Medicine)

• Household Products – This database links over 8,000 consumer brands to health effects from Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided by the manufacturers and allows scientists and consumers to research products based on chemical ingredients.
• Toxline – Extensive array of references to literature on biochemical, pharmacological, physiological, and toxicological effects of drugs and other chemicals.
• LactMed – A peer-reviewed and fully referenced database of drugs to which breastfeeding mothers may be exposed. Among the data included are maternal and infant levels of drugs, possible effects on breastfed infants and on lactation, and alternate drugs to consider.
• TOXMAP – Environmental Health e-Maps. Geographic representation of TRI data with links to other TOXNET resources.

Upstream

From American Scientist:

When research suggests that a single chemical may cause harm, public concern rises, as it has for the plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) in recent years. But many more of the 83,000 or so humanmade chemicals used in the United States receive little attention. The possible effects of chemicals in combination get still less scrutiny, even though the potential that some chemicals will interact is high, given their numbers.

This may be due in part to the staggering amount of work required to discern those effects. It would be a very difficult task to keep up with research on all of these substances, much less evaluate their relative risk as new results appear. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put considerable effort into this under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the Act has not been updated since its passage in 1976 and excludes many substances…

View original post 731 more words

Too Much Hygiene May Affect Immune System, Study Suggest

 

Antimicrobial used in many products such as soaps, toothpaste tied to raised allergy risks in kids

Excerpts from a November 29, 2010 Health Day news item by Robert Priedt

MONDAY, Nov. 29 (HealthDay News) — Children and teens who are overexposed to antibacterial soaps that contain the chemical triclosan may be at increased risk for hay fever and other allergies, a finding that suggests that being too clean can actually make people sick, researchers say.

The study also found that exposure to higher levels of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) may weaken an adult’s immune system.

Triclosan is an antimicrobial agent widely used in products such as antibacterial soaps, toothpaste, medical devices and diaper bags. BPA, which is used to make many types of plastics and other consumer products, is believed to affect human hormones….

…The study findings are published in the Nov. 30 online edition of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.