seemslikeadream wrote:Study: Most money is contaminated with toxic chemical
A study released Tuesday by the Washington Toxics Coalition found "significant levels" of the chemical BPA on dollar bills and retail receipts.
Flame Retardants Found in Butter
There is currently no way to know how widespread this kind of chemical contamination is in food.
By Emily Sohn | Tue Dec 7, 2010 12:20 PM ET
As part of an ongoing investigation into chemicals in our food supply, scientists found extremely high concentrations of a flame-retardant compound in a supermarket sample of brand-name butter.
It is the first documented case of serious contamination in food in the United States with a class of chemicals known as PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers.
Commonly used in furniture and electronics, among other products, PBDEs are known to disrupt hormone function and have been associated with a range of health concerns, including cancer as well as reproductive, developmental, and neurological problems.
Since no federal agencies currently track levels of chemicals like these in food, there is no way to know how widespread this kind of chemical contamination is in butter or other products. But it clearly happens at least sometimes.
"This study and others mean that we are getting episodic contamination with persistent organic man-made chemicals, and that every so often, the level is much higher than the day-by-day ordinary levels," said Arnold Schecter, a public health physician at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas. His group recently found traces of the hormone-disrupting chemical BPA in a wide range of canned foods.
Even though the Senate just approved a sweeping new food safety bill that would give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration more power to prevent people from eating tainted food, Schecter added, the bill focuses only on bacteria, not chemicals.
"I would feel much more comfortable with the food we're all eating if I knew the federal government was trying to do large, systematic and periodic sampling to figure out which contaminants are getting in, what their route is, and how we can decrease their amounts," he said. "From what I've read, there does not seem to be any consideration for chemical contamination in the new bill, which is very unfortunate."
For years, Schecter and colleagues have been measuring levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals in both our bodies and our food. As the researchers looked through some of their data recently, they noticed high levels of one type of PBDE flame-retardant in a pooled sample of 10 kinds of butter.
To follow up, the researchers went back to the original 10 butter samples, which they had collected over a few months from Dallas grocery stores. After testing each type of butter separately, results showed that nine of them contained low levels of PBDEs, consistent with what previous studies have found in various foods. (PBDEs often enter the food supply as dust that gets in through soil, water and air).
But compared to those untainted samples, one pat of butter contained more than 135 times more of a PBDE called deca-BDE, the scientists report today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Levels of that chemical in the butter's wrapper were even higher, Schecter said, suggesting that contamination came from the packaging.
"We had never seen or read anywhere about PBDE-contamination of food at such high levels," he said. "We were really startled. This is entirely new to us."
After talking with representatives from the company that made the butter, Schecter suspects that an electrical incident was to blame. If there was a fire or overheating in machines that contain PBDE flame-retardants, the chemicals could have ended up in the paper and later migrated into the butter.
Schecter wouldn't name the manufacturer, but he hinted that its headquarters are located near the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area and he said that the company had recently advertised that it was using new and improved wrappers for its butter.
Another sample of the company's butter was tested in this study, but that one did not show the same high levels of contamination.
"We don't know whether this was a one-in-a-million occurrence, or whether there was some kind of processing or electrical incident that maybe government agencies could track down and figure out how the chemicals got in there," Schecter said.
Chances are, said Mike McClean, an environmental health researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health, the new study did not find the only sample of contaminated butter out there.
"Think of all the butter in the United States, and if in just 10 samples, you find one, that is super-high," McClean said. "I don't think they stumbled upon an isolated incident. I personally think you could go take 10 samples of lots of different types of foods and probably find something similar."
Rather than make consumers wary of grocery shopping, McClean added, the findings point to the need for regulators to work on preventing and detecting chemicals in our food in the first place.
"We basically have all of these chemicals in our bodies just from being in an indoor environment and from eating," he said. "You're certainly not going to be able to control that by being careful about what kind of butter you buy."
Formaldehyde in Wrinkle-Free Clothes May Pose Skin Risks
December 10, 2010
When Wrinkle-Free Clothing Also Means Formaldehyde Fumes
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD
The iron, that relic of households past, is no longer required to look neat and freshly pressed. Why bother when retailers like Nordstrom offer crisp “wrinkle-free finish” dress shirts and L. L. Bean sells chinos that are “great right out of the dryer.”
Though it is not obvious from the label, the antiwrinkle finish comes from a resin that releases formaldehyde, the chemical that is usually associated with embalming fluids or dissected frogs in biology class.
And clothing is not the only thing treated with the chemical. Formaldehyde is commonly found in a broad range of consumer products and can show up in practically every room of the house. The sheets and pillow cases on the bed. The drapes hanging in the living room. The upholstery on the couch. In the bathroom, it can be found in personal care products like shampoos, lotions and eye shadow. It may even be in the baseball cap hanging by the back door.
Most consumers will probably never have a problem with exposure to formaldehyde, though it can have serious health implications for people who work with the chemical in factories. The biggest potential issue for those wearing wrinkle-resistant clothing can be a skin condition called contact dermatitis. It affects a small group of people and can cause itchy skin, rashes and blisters, according to a recent government study on formaldehyde in textiles. Still, some critics said more studies on a wider array of textiles and clothing chemicals were needed, including a closer look at the effects of cumulative exposure. At the very least, they said, better labeling would help.
“From a consumer perspective, you are very much in the dark in terms of what clothing is treated with,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization. “In many ways, you’re in the hands of the industry and those who are manufacturing our clothing. And we are trusting them to ensure they are using the safest materials and additives.”
The United States does not regulate formaldehyde levels in clothing, most of which is now made overseas. Nor does any government agency require manufacturers to disclose the use of the chemical on labels. So sensitive consumers may have a hard time avoiding it (though washing the clothes before wearing them helps).
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, recently examined the levels and potential health risks of formaldehyde as required by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Most of the 180 items tested, largely clothes and bed linens, had low or undetectable levels of formaldehyde that met the voluntary industry guidelines based on standards in Japan, which are among the most stringent. Still, about 5.5 percent of the items — primarily wrinkle-free shirts and pants, easy-care pillow cases, crib sheets and a boy’s baseball hat — exceeded the most stringent standards of 75 parts per million, for products that touch the skin. (Levels must be undetectable, or less than 20 parts per million for children under 3 years, and can be as high as 300 parts per million for products like outerwear that do not come into direct contact with the skin.)
The study did not offer recommendations, but the researchers said in interviews that their findings made them think twice about wearing no-iron clothes without washing them first. “Some of the highest occurrences were with the men’s shirts,” said John Stephenson, director of environmental protection issues at the G.A.O. “That was an eye opener because I wear, almost exclusively, non-iron shirts.” He added, “That caused me to wash them, at least twice.”
The levels found in the study are not likely to irritate most people. People who have allergic contact dermatitis caused by formaldehyde in clothing typically become hypersensitive because of some other exposure, like a worker with chapped hands who has handled metal-working fluids that contained the chemical, or someone who applied moisturizer with a formaldehyde preservative on inflamed skin, said Susan T. Nedorost, associate professor of dermatology and environmental health sciences at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland.
“People rarely become allergic to the low levels of formaldehyde released by textile resins, but for those already sensitized, it is entirely possible to react to the low levels released by textile resins in clothing,” she said, adding that some people were probably genetically predisposed to allergy. Research shows that the small group of people who are allergic can develop a rash with levels as low as 30 parts per million.
So why use the chemical at all? Formaldehyde basically keeps the fabric’s fibers in place after a spin in the washing machine. Without it, the fibers become wrinkled or creases may fade.
Formaldehyde levels have declined over the last several decades, largely as a byproduct of regulations protecting factory workers at risk of inhaling the chemical and improved resins. The retail industry has also helped to reduce the numbers. The American Apparel and Footwear Association maintains a growing list of restricted substances — a collection of 200 chemicals that are banned or restricted around the globe — that it provides to the industry as a reference tool.
“Even in the absence of regulation, we are trying to get the industry engaged to be at the forefront, to be self-regulating,” said Nate Herman, vice president for international trade at the association.
Several retailers, including the Gap, whose Banana Republic stores offer an array of no-iron shirts, said those shirts met the most stringent standards. Land’s End and Levi Strauss & Company, too, said all adult textiles, including the never-iron Dockers, met the standards. Nordstrom said all of its clothing conformed with the standard except for its wrinkle-free garments, because of the way they were manufactured. But the company said the levels were minimal.
“Many of the retailers do commit themselves to those standards, but not everybody does,” said David Brookstein, executive dean for university research at Philadelphia University, and a textile engineer who has conducted his own formaldehyde tests. “As a scientist, I think it would be good if there was a strong part of the label that said, ‘Wash before wearing.’ ”
That can certainly help, though studies found that results varied based on the resins involved and the water used. And people generally do not wash items like hats beforehand. Meanwhile, humidity and sweating can also have an effect on the chemical’s release. It must also be applied properly during manufacturing.
“The textile industry for years has been telling dermatologists that they aren’t using the formaldehyde resins anymore, or the ones they use have low levels,” said Dr. Joseph F. Fowler, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Louisville. “Yet despite that, we have been continually seeing patients who are allergic to formaldehyde and have a pattern of dermatitis on their body that tells us this is certainly related to clothing.”
A 2006 study that tested people with suspected skin allergies found that 9 percent of those tested were allergic to formaldehyde, but not all of those people will necessarily have a bad reaction to various compounds that release formaldehyde, said Dr. Peter Schalock, an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School who runs a skin allergy patch testing clinic.
Critics of the government’s study say it could have incorporated a wider array of textiles, like drapes and upholstery. Others are calling for a closer look at the potential cumulative effects of exposure.
“Given all of the things we buy new that can release formaldehyde in our house, all of those things contribute,” said Urvashi Rangan, director of technical policy at Consumers Union, who noted that the Environmental Protection Agency was currently developing formaldehyde emissions regulations for pressed-wood products. “Over all, minimizing your exposure is a good idea.”
As for ridding clothes of wrinkles, she said, “We’re all for irons, to be honest.”
they've even ruined pyrex FFS...
Glass cookware dangers: Consumer Reports - The American-made Pyrex and Anchor Hocking bakeware we tested, made from soda lime glass, shattered at lower temperatures in our tough heat tests than European-made pans, which are made of a more expensive glass, borosilicate. U.S. Pyrex and Anchor Hocking glass bakeware used to be made of borosilicate but no longer are.
