Healing Modalities: Just Don't Get Sick

The best healing modality is to avoid getting sick in the first place! For many reading this newsletter, it's too late. For our friends, families, and others, there may still be time. In the event illness is already present, practicing the same tips may result in improved health. There are many environmental toxicants that are correlated with various illnesses in our society. While it is not yet possible to avoid them all, there are things we can do to limit our exposures.

Diet, that nasty 4 letter word, is one of the most crucial aspects of our health. Our diet provides the very nutrients we need for normal function, detoxification, rebuilding, and healing. Eating a widely varying diet with fresh produce, whole grains, essential fats, and lean proteins is beneficial. Using as many organic foods as possible serves to limit intake of dangerous pesticides. Avoiding fast foods, restaurants, and taking to the kitchen ensures knowing exactly what is going into the foods you eat.

Exercise is also beneficial, as it improves fitness, increases caloric need to ensure adequate nutrition and satiation, and encourages sweating to removes toxicants.

Supplementation with needed vitamins and minerals is also essential, as many of the minerals we require are depleted from the soil we grow our food in. Many naturopaths, and some doctors, will order blood tests to determine what, if any, vitamins and minerals are lacking or in overabundance. It is important to remember that too much can be as bad as too little. Those suffering high iron levels become sick and the practice of blood letting is still used to reduce iron levels. Balance and testing is essential.

It is given that alcohol and cigarettes should be avoided, though some studies show a glass of wine with dinner is beneficial.

Enough sleep is absolutely essential to give the body time to repair and rebuild itself. Sleep deprivation is common and can cause accidents, lost productivity at work, and increase susceptibility to environmental contaminants.

Finally, avoidance of any and all chemical exposures is essential to avoiding the negative affects many toxicants have on reproduction, energy, metabolism, blood pressure, and general health. This can be the hardest step we take to improve our health as chemicals are everywhere and we are often not in control of what our neighbors or employers are using in our airspace. It takes diligence, effort, and constant follow-up to ensure we are taking care of ourselves. However, if we don't take care of ourselves, no one will!

To Good Health!

-LS

Natural Laundry Solutions

As society became industrialized manufacturers seeking a bigger share of profit began to add scents to products to attract buyers and ensure sales. The cost of adding natural scents was high and manufacturers soon turned to synthetic fragrances and additives to keep costs down. The advent of the synthetic fragrance has changed the health of many unknowing and trusting buyers.

Laundry products produce a large toxic release into the air of neighborhoods. Exposure occurs through inhalation form dyer vents, skin contact from clothing, and handling/use of products such as laundry soap, bleach, and fabric softener. Many harmful chemicals are contained in these products making pets, children, and adult ill. These chemicals do not wash out in the rinse cycle and remain in our clothes, on our skin, and in the air.

However, it is possible to completely eliminate these toxins from our neighborhoods without additional cost or compromising the cleanliness of clothes. Mother Nature provided us with washing soda, a safe and natural product for washing clothes. Thankfully there are alternatives… just ask grandma!

Health Effects of the Many Chemicals in Laundry Products

BENZALDEHYDE

"CNS depressant. Irritation to the mouth, throat, eyes, skin, lungs, and GI tract, causing nausea and abdominal pain. May cause kidney damage" (Kendall, 2006).

BENZYL ACETATE

"Carcinogenic… irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough" (Kendall, 2006).

BENZYL ALCOHOL
"Irritating to the upper respiratory tract... headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drop in blood pressure, CNS depression, and death in severe cases due to respiratory failure" (Kendall, 2006).

CAMPHOR

"Local irritant and CNS stimulant... readily absorbed through body tissues..."irritation of eyes, nose and throat… dizziness, confusion, nausea, twitching muscles and convulsions" (Kendall, 2006).

ETHYL ACETATE

"On EPA Hazardous Waste list... irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract... may cause headache and narcosis (stupor)... may cause anemia with leukocytosis and damage to liver and kidneys" (Kendall, 2006).

ETHANOL

"On EPA Hazardous Waste list; fatigue; irritating to eyes and upper respiratory tract even in low concentrations... initial stimulatory effect followed by drowsiness, impaired vision, ataxia, stupor..." (Kendall, 2006).

FRAGRANCE

Contains "petroleum distillates, which may cause cancer (it they contain benzene) and damage the skin and eyes… may provoke asthma attacks and irritate the air passages" (Environmental Justice Action in Southern Africa, 2006).

NAPHTHALENE

Linked to cancer and may also damage the eyes, liver, kidneys, skin, and the central nervous system. Children may get brain damage from breathing naphthalene fumes (Environmental Justice Action in Southern Africa, 2006).

LIMONENE

"Carcinogenic… irritant and sensitizerDo not inhale limonene vapor." (Kendall, 2006).

LINALOOL

"Narcotic... respiratory disturbances... attracts bees. In animal tests: ataxic gait, reduced spontaneous motor activity and depression... development of respiratory disturbances leading to death... depressed frog-heart activity. Causes CNS disorder" (Kendall, 2006).

a-TERPINEOL

"Highly irritating to mucous membranes... aspiration into the lungs can produce pneumonitis or even fatal edema. Can also cause excitement, ataxia (loss of muscular coordination), hypothermia, CNS and respiratory depression, and headache. Prevent repeated or prolonged skin contact" (Kendall, 2006).

Nature's Laundry Soaps

Baking Soda

1 cup at the start of the w3ash cycle.

Add 1 cup of white distilled vinegar with the baking soda for extra dirty loads.

Baking soda contains Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3)

Borax

1 cup at the start of wash cycle.

Borax and baking soda can be mixed for tough loads.

Borax contains Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate (Na2B4O7*10H2O)

Arm & Hammer Washing Soda

1 cup at the start of wash cycle.

NOT baking soda

Washing soda contains Sodium Carbonate (Na2CO3).

Unscented Natural Food Store or Name Brand Laundry Soaps

A bit less effective.

A better alternative to traditional name brand products.

Use as little as possible to clean clothes.

*Not MCS safe.

To Remove Fragrance

Vinegar Soak

Soak in 100% vinegar overnight, wash.

Keep the bucket / jar in a dark place.

Nature's Fabric Softeners

White Distilled Vinegar

¼ to 1 cup at the start of the rinse cycle.

Deodorizes & softens clothes.

Removes soap scum.

Leaves no vinegar odor when dry.

Do not hang colors in direct sunlight.

Glycerin

Mix 1 cup of glycerin per gallon of water and add ½ cup to rinse cycle.

Baking Soda

1 cup at the start of the wash cycle.

Tennis Ball or Tennis Shoe

Put a clean, old tennis ball/shoe in the dryer to soften & reduce static cling.

3% Hydrogen Peroxide Solution

Soak a washcloth in peroxide and put it in the dryer to reduce static cling.

Nature's Bleach

3% Hydrogen Peroxide Solution

1 cup per load at the start of wash cycle.

If there is blood on clothing, pour directly on the soiled spot. Let it sit for a minute, then rub and rinse. Repeat.

Borax

1/2 cup at the start of wash cycle along with detergent.

Sunshine

Hang linens in the sun to dry. The sun is a natural bleaching agent..

Ensure even exposure to the sun and/or reposition as needed.

References

Gibson, P. (2005). Understanding & Accommodating People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Everyday Living. Independent Living Research Utilization.

Environmental Justice Action in Southern Africa, (2006). The Household Toxic Tour: The Laundry & Cleaning Cupboards. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from: Ground Work Web site: http://www.groundwork.org.za/Resources/laundry.htm

Kendal, J. (2006. The Health Risks of Twenty Most Common Chemicals Found in Thirty-One Fragrance Products. Citizens for a Toxic-Free Marin. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from: http://www.herc.org/news/perfume/risks.htm

Disclaimer

This information is for informational purposes and is not intended to replace the examination, diagnosis and treatment of a licensed physician and no such claims are inferred. Neither MCS America, Lourdes Salvador, nor any members of MCS America will be responsible for misuse of this information.

Chelation Reverses Free Radicals

Chelation often gets a bad rap and this author opines that the bad rap often comes from practitioners who use risky chelation methods, such as intravenous dosing. Chelation not only removes toxicant metals, but also minerals such as calcium and magnesium. Too large a dose all at once could strip the body of these minerals required for heart function and cause death. Sadly, these cases have received bad publicity and tainted the benefits and relative safety of oral chelation.

However, chelation is not all bad and may even be beneficial. Flora et al (2007) published a study entitled "Arsenic and lead induced free radical generation and their reversibility following chelation" in the Cellular and Molecular Biology journal. The researchers found that chelation after exposure to lead or arsenic actually reversed the free radical damage that the heavy metals caused.

The researchers focused on lead and arsenic, as they believe the two are the most important current global environmental toxicants because the symptoms of toxicity are believed to be produced by an imbalance between pro-oxidant and antioxidant homeostasis, as well as a high affinity for thiol groups on functional proteins.

Lead poisoning can result in fatigue, vomiting, gastrointestinal irritation, diarrhea, loss of appetite, colic, weakness and dehydration. Severe cases lead to convulsions, external limb paralysis, coma, and death. Arsenic poisoning can result in stomach pains, cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting, dryness and tightness in the throat, thirst, hoarseness, speach difficulty, convulsions, delirium, and death. Both interfere with central nervous system function, as well as liver and kidney function. The approved treatment for both is administration of chelating agents to bind with the metals and carry them out of the body.

The researchers cite calcium disodium ethylenediamine tetra acetic acid (CaNa2EDTA), D-penicillamine and British anti-lewisite (BAL) as the most commonly used chelating agents. They believe that meso 2,3 dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), commonly used by naturopaths for mercury chelation, is unable to remove the metal from intracellular sites. Therefore, they recommend combination therapy, including the use of "structurally different chelators or a combination of an adjuvant/ antioxidant/ herbal extracts and a chelator" for better results.

-LS

Reference:
Flora SJ, Flora G, Saxena G, Mishra M. Arsenic and lead induced free radical generation and their reversibility following chelation. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2007 Apr 15;53(1):26-47.

The Critical Period

The International Conference on Fetal Programming and Developmental Toxicity was held from May 20 - 24, 2007 in Torshavn, Faroe Islands, where researchers in the fields of environmental health, environmental chemistry, developmental biology, toxicology, epidemiology, nutrition, and pediatrics met to discuss the human health effects of developmental exposure to environmental toxicants. The focus of the meeting conference was to review the effects of prenatal and infant exposure to toxicants and to examine the lifelong impact of exposure.

As summarized by Christensen (2007), it is already well know that the developing fetus is highly susceptible to the intrauterine environment. As a result, the many physiological processes underway during development are highly vulnerable to toxic effects of environmental contaminants. Upon meeting, the researchers were already aware that toxic exposures to chemical pollutants during times of increased susceptibility can cause disease, functional deficits, and disability in infants and children that may stretch across their lifetime. Congenital malformations are well recognized and documented to occur with environmental exposures to contaminants, such as pesticide exposure. during gestation. The researchers believe that discovering the critical windows of susceptibility is a crucial factor in protecting infants from harm.

"Chemical exposures during prenatal and early postnatal life can bring about important effects on gene expression, which determines normal development" and predisposition to disease risks during adolescence and adult life (Christensen, 2007). "Many environmental chemicals can alter gene expression by DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling. These epigenetic changes can cause lasting functional changes in specific organs and tissues, amounting to increased susceptibility to disease that may even affect successive generations. New research on rodent models shows that developmental exposures to toxic chemicals, such as the hormonally active substances diethylstilbestrol, tributyl tin, bisphenol A, genistein, can increase the incidence of reproductive abnormalities, metabolic disorders, including obesity and diabetes, and cancer, presumably through epigenetic mechanisms that do not involve changes to DNA sequences but may be heritable" (Christensen, 2007).

The researchers discussed prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol, an estrogenic drug no longer used on pregnant women, and its link to an increased risk of vaginal, uterine, and breast cancer. Bisphenol A was noted to result in an increased susceptibility to breast cancer or prostate cancer in very low doses. Vinclozoline, a fungicide, was also noted to promote development of cancer. These substances, and many others are much more carcinogenic to infants and children than adults, mainly due to susceptible periods children go through and their smaller size. The same exposure would be more diluted in an adults larger body than a child's.

The brain is also more susceptible to toxic exposures during development, which may result in social implications and economic difficulties in the absence of any apparent mental or physical disease. Though each exposure may be minor, what has not been studied enough is the total body burden, or the combination of many toxicant exposures which may enhance neurotoxic effects. Add other adverse factors, and the damage from seemingly innocuous substances could indeed be quite severe.

Moving on to the reproductive system, the researchers conferred regarding the vulnerability of the intrauterine hormonal environment to changes, including testicular cancer and poor semen count/quality, both of which have been linked to developmental exposures to maternal smoking and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Also noted were phthalate exposure and pesticide exposure to many common substances, including polychlorinated biphenyl, polybrominated biphenyl, endosulfan, and DDT.

Lastly, the immune system may also be affected by immunotoxic chemicals, which include polychlorinated biphenyls, vaccines, and atrazine among others. These immunotoxic chemicals increase the risk of infections and development of allergy in the child.

In conclusion, the key points discussed were:

• The mother's chemical body burden is shared with her fetus, exposing the fetus to larger doses relative to body weight.
• Susceptibility to adverse effects is increased during critical periods of development.
• Developmental exposures to toxicants can lead to life-long functional deficits and increased disease risk.
• There is a new paradigm of toxicologic understanding. The old paradigm, developed by Paracelsus, was that "the dose makes the poison". The new paradigm is that "the timing makes the poison".
• Adverse effects have been linked to chemical pollutants at realistic human exposure levels similar to those occurring from environmental sources.
• Changes in gene expression as a result of altered epigenetic marking is of concern as it may lead to increased susceptibility to diseases and may be passed on to subsequent generations.
• Finally, understanding chronic disease processes requires a holistic approach where multiple causalities are examined.

The researchers concluding recommendations are to:

• Incorporate studies on the etiology of human disease in early development through longitudinal studies with planned birth cohorts, as they may affect subsequent disease risks.
• Promote cross-disciplinary approaches and translation of animal data on exposure biomarkers and disease susceptibility in studies of human disease.
• Emphasize the time period of early development in environmental chemical exposure assessment.
• Consider mixed exposures (body burden).
• Explore intake of essential nutrients and societal environment in relation to the impact of genetic variation and genetic predisposition to disease.
• Take into account the susceptibility in early development in toxicological tests and risk assessment of environmental chemicals .

Increase the use of available test protocols to assess reproductive toxicity or developmental neurotoxicity.

In a final statement by the International Scientific Committee of the Conference, "the accumulated research evidence suggests that prevention efforts against toxic exposures to environmental chemicals should focus on protecting the fetus and small child as highly vulnerable populations. Given the ubiquitous exposure to many environmental toxicants, there needs to be renewed efforts to prevent harm. Such prevention should not await detailed evidence on individual hazards to be produced, because the delays in decision-making would then lead to propagation of toxic exposures and their long-term consequences. Current procedures therefore need to be revised to address the need to protect the most vulnerable life stages through greater use of precautionary approaches to exposure reduction" (Christensen, 2007).

Sounds like good advice!

-LS

Reference

Chiristensen, TS. PPTOX. The International Conference on Fetal Programming and Developmental Toxicity. Torshavn, Faroe Islands. May 20—24, 2007.
http://www.pptox.dk/Consensus/tabid/72/Default.aspx

Co-Occurring MCS, CFS, and FM

It would seem obvious to most people that the more illnesses one has, the less functional they would be. Scientists, on the other hand, must prove things via empirical studies.

In a study titled Functioning in individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome: increased impairment with co-occurring multiple chemical sensitivity and fibromyalgia, Brown and Jason (2007) set out to "differentiate these diagnoses by comparing individuals with one or more illnesses on functioning, psychiatric comorbidity, coping style, and in vivo physical measures".

Brown and Jason were spurred by the proposal that chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and fibromyalgia (FM) commonly co-occur and may be manifestations of the same illness.

The researchers surveyed 114 men and women who met the criteria for CFS. They further diagnosed FM during a physical examination, and MCS using a questionnaire. The men and women were then divided into four groups based on diagnoses:
43.9% met criteria for CFS,
23.7% met criteria for CFS & MCS, 15.8% met criteria for CFS & FM,
16.7% met criteria for all three.

Demographics varied widely. A total of 46% were referred by physicians, 34% from media advertisements, and 20% from word-of-mouth.

After an initial screening, participants were given a CFS questionnaire to collect demographics, health status, medication usage, and symptom data. This was followed by a structured clinical interview for DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) disorders to determine presence of any mental disorders. A medical assessment of CFS was performed, including an in-depth medical and neurological history, and physical exam. A self-report measure was used for general functioning. The Fatigue Severity Scale was added to measure fatigue and the Beck Depression Inventory was included to measure depression.

A Brief Cope and Brief Pain was administered to determine how subjects reacted to stress and pain respectively. An Actiograph, designed to measure activity during every minute of a week was worn to record daily activities. A six minute walking test measured physical functioning and the Rating of Perceived Exertion was used to measure subjects perception of the intensity of their activity based on bodily sensations. Sit and reach, hand grip, and employment status were the final factors examined that concluded this extensive battery of measures.

As you undoubtedly guessed, the more conditions the subject had, the more impaired they were. Those with CFS alone were the highest functioning and those with CFS, FM, and MCS were the lowest functioning, leading Brown and Jason to conclude that "this study provides evidence that having more than one illness exacerbates one's disability beyond CFS alone", which we have already guessed would be the case.

No significant differences were found in varying socio-demographic categories. A rather large percent of subjects (68%) had a college degree or higher, suggestive of prior functioning.

A substantial number of CFS patients (56%) had co-occurring MCS and/or FM, which is consistent with prior study findings that have shown significant overlap between MCS, CFS, and FM.

Depression was more common in those with MCS, CFS, and FM combined, suggesting increased prevalence of depression in those who are more severely disabled.

Overall, this exhaustive study has shown that increased disability means decreased functioning. It is important to remember that all participants in this study suffered from CFS. FM and MCS was not evaluated alone or as a pair without the presence of CFS.

-LS

Reference:
Brown, MM & and Jason, LA (2007). Functioning in individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome: increased impairment with co-occurring multiple chemical sensitivity and fibromyalgia. Dynamic Medicine 2007, 6:6

Community Spotlight: Di Steiner

How did you learn that you had MCS?

I was exposed to Freon at work. I became hypersensitive to many chemicals. I developed increased allergic reactions. Before MCS, I only had some mild allergies. I did some research and a doctor confirmed I had chemical sensitivities.

How has MCS changed your life?

MCS created significant limitations in my world. I had to put my health first.

Has MCS affected your relationships with others?

Most of my friends & family have been very supportive. With new visitors, I give them a list of things I have to avoid. Most are willing to assist me.

What benefits has MCS provided for you?

I am more aware of how much damage is caused by chemicals & toxicants. I have met many new friends through the MCS community. I consider MCS one of the many factors that make me unique. I value it for that.

What are your future plans in light of MCS?

Life is a journey and I am going to enjoy the entire trip. I'd like to get approved for Social Security.

Would you like to share anything else?

Thanks to MCS America & especially Sal for being here & helping the fight to save lives.

-Di Steiner

Activists' Corner

Welcome to our new column, designed to provide pre-designed letters for various purposes and other information for MCS activists. This month's letter is regarding fragrance applied to bills and catalogs received in the mail

Dear XXXX;

I have been a customer of your company since XXXX. Recently, a concern in regards to your company's practice of adding fragrance to catalogs and bills has arisen. I would like to address this issue as it not only affects me, but also many of your customers and would be customers.

Fragrances, such as common cologne, were scientifically shown to reduce air flow velocity and produce neurotoxicity in mice in a study by Anderson and Anderson at Anderson Laboratories. Many people who make up your customer base have ailments such as asthma, chemical sensitivity, and other respiratory disorders and these people are even more susceptible to the effect of fragrances. In fact, it is estimated that 20 million Americans have asthma, 16% chemical sensitivity, and 30 million suffer other respiratory disorders. People with these conditions can suffer exacerbation of their condition, and even serious harm, by contact with fragrances. They are often instructed by physicians to avoid such contact.

The practice of applying fragrance to mail exposes all your customers to potential neurotoxicity and respiratory difficulties and puts all your customers in jeopardy, especially sensitive populations.

The fragrance on your mail often rubs off onto other mail delivered as well, making reading any mail arriving with your mail challenging. I encourage you to consider discontinuing this practice in the interests of your customer's health.

Many companies do offer fragrance free bills and catalogs. I would like to request that my bills and catalogs be delivered without fragrances. If you do not offer this service at this time, I highly encourage you to do so as soon as possible. I would also be interested in e-billing or another method where I can review and pay my bill without coming into contact with any fragrances.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I look forward to continued patronage.

Sincerely,

XXX

To download this letter for your own use, go to:

http://mcs-america.org/FragrancedMailCatalogBillsLetterforActivists.doc

Who is Truly Unethical in Allowing the Continued Use of Biphenol-A?

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a chemical that was discovered to act like estrogen, a hormone, in the 1930's. Chemists began to use it to make polycarbonate materials and soon afterwards companies began to use it in making plastic products and resins. The plastic industries now make billions of dollars from this one chemical, with a yearly production of 2.5 billion pounds (McGowan, n.d.).

This profitable chemical has been very useful in the manufacturing of many items that are used by today's consumer. A person has contact with it through microwavable containers, electronic equipment, eye glass lenses, dental sealants, reusable drink containers, children's toys, epoxy lining of food and drink cans, and all polycarbonate plastic items, including many baby bottles (Gibson, 2007). With all of these wonderful uses in society, why should one be concerned that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has found BPA in 95% of people who have been tested (Gibson, 2007)? The government agencies that regulate chemical use surely would not allow a dangerous chemical to harm the members of its society after all these years of use. Evidence suggests otherwise, and the levels of BPA found in humans are greater then what has been proven harmful to lab animals, and this stirs up a lot of ethical questions that need to be answered, but don't be fooled (Public Interest Research group, 2007).

Independent scientists have been publishing the results of research that shows the harmful effects of very low exposures to BPA since 1997 (McGowan, n.d.). BPA has been shown to be a hormone disrupting developmental, neural, and reproductive toxicant (Public Interest Research Group, 2007). Researchers have voiced their concerns, for a long time now, because the harmful effects of BPA seen in laboratory studies are very similar to the same types of health issues that are increasing in humans (Hileman, 2007). Cancer, impaired immune function, early onset of puberty, obesity, diabetes, and hyperactivity are just a few samples of the effects of low dose exposure to BPA found by scientists (Gibson, 2007).

A recent report by the Environmental California Research and Policy Center proclaims that five major brands of baby bottles, Avent, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, and Playtex, all leach BPA at levels above what is known to cause harm in lab testing (Public Interest Research Group, 2007). There is a growing concern for young children as their detoxification mechanisms are not fully developed to handle toxic levels of chemicals; along with the fact that they are exposed in the womb, as BPA is known to cross the placenta into the fetus and may cause problems during critical stages of development (Gibson, 2007). Gibson states that the low dose effects of hormone mimicking chemicals have not been accounted for in standard toxicology testing and that due to this, the government may not be protecting society as it should (Gibson, 2007).

Why hasn't the EPA taken steps to investigate this matter? Charles Auer, who heads the toxic chemical division of the EPA, states that they take action when they are allowed to by law (Watson, 2007). In 1976 Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and this allowed existing chemicals to remain in use without any testing. The view of the government is that chemicals "are innocent until proved harmful" (Gibson, 2007). State Representative Jon Hinck believes that the federal law that regulates chemicals has "terrible loopholes," but the EPA stands strongly, believing that there is not enough evidence to ban BPA (Watson, 2007).

In addition to this, the EPA was supposed to implement a program, ordered by Congress in relation to the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, by no later than 1999, in order to test possible hormone interfering chemicals. This has still not been completed (Ambrose, 2007).

The EPA finally faced a lawsuit from the National Resources Defense Council. Legislators are speaking up because two laws have been passed to help regulate chemicals in our society over the past 10 years. Yet, the EPA has not tested a single one under these programs (Ambrose, 2007). What would cause them to stall, not carry out their responsibilities to society, and cause enough concern for state and local agencies to try to take control themselves?

As the EPA continues to defend their actions while state and local agencies try to gain control, the chemical industries are speaking out against local control. Steve Russell from the American Chemistry Council believes that the federal government is better qualified for making decisions relating to chemical use and the council he represents is for chemical manufacturers (Watson, 2007). Steve Hentges, who represents the American Plastics Council and the manufacturers of BPA, is quoted saying "The evidence has been examined by governments and scientific bodies worldwide. In every case, the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that bisphenol-A is not a risk to human health…"(Kay, 2005). If this is true, then why have so many independent scientific studies been overlooked by the EPA?

Interestingly, as State Representatives began to speak out, the Bush Administration funded $76 million to the EPA for the program that is now called "The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program" (EDSP)(Ambrose, 2007). Independent scientists have scrutinized the lab test designs and they have found the program to be inadequate as it allowed the use of lab rats that are known to be insensitive to hormone disrupting chemicals. A reproductive and toxicological geneticist, Jimmy Spearow, states that this action "could legitimize levels of chemicals that could be detrimental to sensitive individuals" (Ambrose, 2007). The EPA believes that the chemical companies should choose the breed of rat to be tested and they do not believe that the chemical companies "would select a strain that serves their own financial interests" (Ambrose, 2007). They appear to be allowing chemical industry influence in the complete study design and they are accepting opinions from those who have financial interest in the results of the tests (Ambrose, 2007).

Along with this, the rat chow chosen is soy based, which is known by scientists to have phytoestrogens that will mask the exposure of hormone type chemicals (Hileman, 2007). The EPA has made no guarantees that prenatal exposure will even be tested, although current research shows this to be essential. The design does not use the appropriate dose needed to gain accurate results (Ambrose, 2007). Fred vom Saal, who has expertise in researching BPA, states that "If your objective is not to find anything, that's the perfect way to do it" in reference to the EDSP (Ambrose, 2007). If research has been done in this manner by the chemical companies, then this could explain the reason for the huge discrepancies between the other government funded and industry experiments in the past (Hileman, 2007).

The recent actions of the EPA may seem unethical, as they are being what many may perceive to be unjust and unfair by allowing the chemical industry to lead the way with this new program after ignoring many of the independent scientists studies. This may very well cause harm, result in more badness over goodness, and violate the Value of Life Principle which should be of the utmost importance in a societies moral system from a humanitarian ethics view point (Thiroux, 2007). However, the immorality goes deeper than the EPA, and although the EPA was negligent and irresponsible in their duties, I feel that the unethical issue lies within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and may be why the EPA has dismissed many of the independent scientists' findings and has given more focus to the industry instead.

The Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHP) was created in 1998, within the NIH and part of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), to assess chemicals and to give reports on which ones should be regulated (Cone, 2007, March; Hileman, 2007). The public has recently been made aware that most of this work is being done by a private consulting company called Sciences International (SI) (Cone & Gellerman, 2007). SI not only has been reviewing literature and writing initial reports, but they are also involved in choosing the scientific panel that determines the outcomes of the use of the chemicals (Hileman, 2007). Although it is normal for an agency to hire private contractors, this is suspicious as the CERHP has given SI an administrative role (Cone & Gellerman, 2007).

Red flags have gone up as the National Toxicology Program is now aware that SI also represents many of the chemical companies, such as DOW and BASF who manufacture BPA, and others who make the chemicals that they have been doing government reviews for over the last decade (Cone & Gellerman, 2007). The CERHP's director states that SI was not required to disclose any financial conflicts of interest (Cole, 2007). The strong role of SI in its involvement with NIH became noticed when the Environmental Working Group reviewed the very industry biased report presented concerning BPA. Fred vom Saal who does BPA research for the NIH states the following about the SI report "It's a combination of inaccurate information and blatant bias as it exists in its draft form. They specifically ignore fatal flaws in industry-sponsored publications" and that SI misrepresented government funded studies and that they also failed to mention that some of the studies were, in fact, industry funded (Cone, 2007).

The Environmental Working Group gained access of a letter written from SI to R.J. Reynolds asking to be allowed to represent them concerning regulation of a pesticide with the EPA (Cone, 2007). The SI company founder stated that SI "serves the private sector, including many trade associations, on a wide range of health and risk assessment issues. However, we are different from most other consulting firms in that we also currently serve government agencies" and this provides "a unique credibility to negotiate with regulators on behalf of our private sector clients" (Cone, 2007).

The investigation of SI is still in its early stages, however from what I have already absorbed from my research, I believe SI and the associating chemical industries to be unethical in all of their actions revolving around the use of BPA. Again, from a Humanitarian ethics view, both have acted dishonestly and have been shown to be untrustworthy to society by hiding, covering up, and inappropriately arranging research data. They have shown themselves to be unjust and unfair by their unequally distribution of goodness- the financial gains that they have both made at the expense of society, the government agencies that want to protect society, and of other concerned researchers. They have used all of us as a means to their end. They have violated the Principle of Goodness by not preventing harm and they have caused badness, not only in the use of harmful chemicals, but by causing society to have a negative opinion about the government agencies that are trying to protect them.

Granted, the harmful effects of BPA can not be specifically tested on humans as that would raise more ethical issues, but the correlation of human disease and current studies can be seen so they violated the Value of Life Principle. I can not justify their rights to individual freedom in conducting research of chemicals that will only profit them and harm society. I guess I can finally agree with Steve Russell on one thing- the federal government is better qualified at making these decisions- that leaves no room for the chemical industry and their "protectors!"

Annotated Bibliography

Ambrose, S.G. (2007, May). Scientists criticize epa chemical screening program. The Dallas Morning News.

Sue Goetrick Ambrose informs us on how the EPA has not performed their responsibilities in implementing an ordered program by Congress in relation to the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and hormone interfering chemicals, that was supposed to be in place by 1999. Now the program is finally being developed, under the Bush Administration, following a lawsuit by the National Resources Defense Council. This program, the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program, has been reviewed by independent scientists who have found many flaws in the research design along with biased participation of the chemical industry. Independent researchers show concern that the design of the research program is not sensitive enough to detect the harmful effects of the chemicals and that results will be favorable for the chemical industry. This will allow the continued use of the chemicals and the continuing of harmful effects on human health.

Cone, M. (2007, March). Public health agency linked to chemical industry. LA Times.

The LA Times staff writer, Marla Cone, informs her readers of the conflicts of interest of the company, Sciences International, in their preparation of reports for the toxicity of chemicals for the National Institute of Health. The biased position of this company was first revealed by the Environmental Working Group after they reviewed reports relative to a chemical called Bisphenol-A. Further investigation reveals questionable actions and communications between the government and industry agencies with Science International.

Cone, M. & Gellerman, B. (2007, March). Living on earth. Retrieved May 19, 2007 From:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programlD=07-P13-00010&segmentlD=2

Bruce Gellerman hosts the LA Times reporter, Marla Cones, on his program, Living on Earth. This is the discussion concerning the conflicts of interest that have been found in the current evaluations of chemical toxicity presented to the government agencies that are suppose to regulate such chemicals in order to prevent harm to the public. Sciences International (SI) is presently under federal contract to collect data and write the first drafts of reports, which are later presented for further review. This same company also represents DOW and NBASF, who are both producers of Bisphenol-A, the current chemical under investigation for determination of harmful health effects. The Environmental Working Group has reviewed a recent draft and they state data has been omitted from studies and that there are inaccuracies. The National Toxicology Program has growing concerns and is investigating whether or not a conflict of interest policy applies to SI.

Gibson, R.L., (2007). Toxic baby bottles-scientific study finds leaching chemicals in clear plastic baby bottles. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from
http://www.uspirg.org/uploads/Fc/FR/FcFROlpqsxJ6IoedOygzSQ/Toxic-Baby-Bottles.Feb2007.pdf

The Environmental California Research and Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization whose aim is to protect California air, water, open spaces, and public health. This report shows that Bisphenol-A (BPA) causes health problems as it is a neural, developmental, and reproductive toxicant. Gibson states that BPA exposure is common and that harmful levels have been found in 95% of humans. She explains how children are more at risk, especially with the leaching of this chemical from five popular baby bottles. Gibson addresses the importance of the government needing to take action in regulating the use of toxic chemicals, as the present ways are not sufficient.

Hileman, B. (2007, April). Bisphenol-a on trial. Chemical & Engineering News, 85(16).

This article was written by Bette Hileman and it was posted in the Government & Policy section of Chemical & Engineering News provided by the American Chemical Society. Hileman addresses the issues in discrepancies between government funded and industry research of Bisphenol-A (BPA). The majority of government funded experiments reveal harmful effects of this chemical, while none of the industry studies show any. Hileman shares reasons why these studies may have provided the results that occurred and then she writes about the bias of the company who writes the industry reports. She concludes with the known harmful effects of BPA and its possible relationship to emerging illnesses in humans.

Kay, J. (2005, March). California legislature considers bill to ban chemical from kids' products. San Francisco Chronicle.

Jane Kay, the Chronicle Environmental Writer, informs her readers of the works of Assemblywoman Wilma Chan's bill, AB319, which would prevent the use of Bispheno-A in any products produced for children 3 years of age or younger. This bill would also prohibit phthalates, another harmful chemical, from being used in the same products. Kay presents comments from the American Plastic Council who believes that there is no risk to human health from exposure to these chemicals as they ignore the presented research that claims otherwise.

McGowan, M. (n.d.). Uncovering a hidden danger. Mizzou News. Retrieved May 19, 2007, from the University of Missouri, Columbia,
http://atmizzou.missouri.edu/Jun03/plastics.htm

McGowan informs his readers how researchers from the University of Missouri, vom Saal and Welshons, have continually warned both public and government agencies about the harmful effects of Bisphenol-A (BPA) since 1997. He states that vom Saal said that scientists have been aware, for many years, of the chemical's potential of leaching from products and the harmful health effects that this can produce. vom Saal has been quoted to state that there are other products that can be used that do not have BPA in them and that there is no reason to continue to use such a potentially harmful chemical. vom Saal believes that it is only a matter of time before the government takes action, as evidence is growing to prove the harm caused by BPA.

Public Interest Research Group. (2007, February). Toxic chemical leaches from popular baby bottles. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from
http://www.uspirg.org/newsroom/toy-Safety/toy-safety-news/toxic-chemical-leaches-from-popular-baby-bottles

This article is a news release informing the public of the current results of a scientific study that found a harmful chemical, Bisphenol-A, leaching out of popular baby bottles. This study was performed by the Environmental California Research Group, which revealed that the following baby bottles leach the chemical: Avent, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, and Playtex. The group urges the government to take action and it also makes recommendations for parents who should be concerned for their children's health. The group feels that parents do not have the information that they need to protect their children.

Watson, T. (2007, May). The hazards in our plastic. The Seattle Times.

Tom Watson is a project manager for King County's Recycling and Environmental Services. He writes this article to inform the public on the basic health concerns related to food-related plastics and states that Bisphenol-A is known to cause reproductive problems at very low amounts in animals that have been studied. Watson offers simple tips in order for one to limit exposures that occur daily. In this article he mentions the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's recommendation for one not to use plastic or plastic wrap in the microwave as "microwave safe" only means that the product will hold up to microwaving. As the American Chemistry Council states, it doesn't mean that it is chemically safe. This is a simple article, yet it is filled with resources and information for the average consumer.

Watson, T. (2007, May). States and cities move to curb toxic substances the epa hasn't. USA TODAY.

Traci Watson reports on how states and cities are stepping up to take action against the harmful chemicals that are being allowed in consumer products. State officials claim that the EPA is not acting sufficiently; the EPA feels that they are not justified to ban the chemicals; and the chemical industries feel that the regulation of chemicals should be left to the EPA- not state or local agencies. The Government Accountability office states that the present federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, is not sufficient for the EPA, but the EPA defends their position with the act…and their actions…or lack of action as one is to believe after reading this article.

Other References

Thiroux, J. & Krasemann, K. (2007) Ethics theory and practice (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

-Wanda Finney

Wanda Finney is an activist in the MCS community and serves as a member of the Board of Directors for MCS America, while currently pursuing a degree in Environmental Health Ethics. Both Wanda and her son have been doctor-diagnosed with MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity).

Copyrighted © 2007 Wanda Finney
Printed with Permission