Toxic Exposures in the Green Mountain State - Good Chemistry

good.chemistry.org

Toxic Exposures in the Green Mountain State - Good Chemistry

for a Clean and Healthy Vermontfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


for a Clean for and a Healthy Clean and Vermont Healthy Vermont


Rivers and streams are the arteries of theearth, synthesizing and integrating the effectsof all that we do within our communities andour watersheds (all of the land that drainsto a particular river system). Sometimesthat effect is direct, such as when factoriesdischarge their waste products directly intostreams. Other times, it is indirect, such aswhen chemicals are stored or released on theland and subsequently are washed into ourrivers. So it is that all of the toxic materialsthat are used to produce our many consumerproducts, from computers to televisions toplastic baby bottles, eventually find their wayinto our rivers and streams.Over sixty percent of our nation’s publicdrinking water comes from surface water,and most of that from rivers and streams.When our fresh waters are contaminated, itposes a threat to our drinking water supply,and ultimately to our health. Many assumethat water treatment plants eliminate all ofthese contaminants. And while that may betrue for some of the larger facilities, it is oftennot the case for smaller, more rural watersystems. Furthermore, even in large cities, thecosts of treatment in terms of both dollarsand energy consumption can be exorbitant.So it was with considerable enthusiasm thatRiver Network joined the Alliance for a Cleanand Healthy Vermont to examine the extentto which chemicals accumulate in people’sbodies, and also to seriously propose how wecan limit the use of the most dangerous toxins,in order to prevent the contamination of ourrivers and planet and the endangerment ofour health.We hope that the contribution of this researchhelps to educate you about the presence oftoxic substances in our environment. Wehope too that you will join us in helpingwith the Alliance’s work to eliminate the useof unneeded toxic substances, and at RiverNetwork, as part of a nation-wide movementto create greater stewardship for our nation’srivers and streams, the sentinels of ourtreatment of the planet.For most of the past two decades, RiverNetwork has helped communities whoseresidents’ health has been heavily impacted bytoxic contaminants ranging from radioactivematerial to heavy metals. Some of thesecommunities have seen horrifying incidencerates of various forms of cancer, birth defects,and other serious health problems. WhileRiver Network will continue to provideassistance to these communities, it is equallyobvious to us that we must do more to preventtoxins from being produced and released intoour environment in the first place.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


This study set out to determine if a range ofcommon industrial chemicals found bothin the environment and consumer productscould be detected in the bodies of a halfdozen ordinary Vermonters. The participantswere tested for four categories of chemicals—bisphenol A, mercury, organochlorinepesticides and PBDE flame retardants —allof which are common chemicals used both inour environment (e.g., pesticides applied tocrops) and in the manufacturing of consumerproducts (e.g., flame retardants applied tocomputers). Many of these chemicals don’tbreak down easily. All are known to bedangerous to human health. Some are evendangerous in minute concentrations becausethey mimic natural hormones in the body,which regulate the body at extremely lowconcentrations.Whether chemicals are applied directly to theland or produced as part of consumer goods,they eventually end up in our environment,contaminating our land, water and air,exposing humans to those toxins.Many assume that those of us who live inVermont are more insulated from exposureto harmful chemicals. Unfortunately, weknow that many of these chemicals surroundall of us on a daily basis even in Vermont. Asmall number of studies in other states andnationally have tested for the level of toxinsin human subjects. We wanted to discoverthe level of toxic chemicals in Vermontresidents.Unfortunately, the findings confirmed ourconcerns. Almost all of the range of chemicalsfor which we tested did show up in the bodiesof these ordinary Vermonters. The chemicalswere in fact present at levels suspected ofcausing human health problems. We foundthree of the four classes of the chemicalstested in the bodies of every participant in thestudy. The amount of each chemical variedwidely from participant to participant. Theamounts present were sometimes lower thanand other times higher—in some cases manytimes higher—than the amounts found inparticipants nationally.The levels of Bisphenol A (BPA)—an ingredientin plastics—in one-third of theparticipants exceeded the national norm. Weare exposed to BPA through plastic food anddrink containers, including water bottles. BPAhas also been widely detected in streams thatare the source water of our drinking water.Bisphenol A (ng/ml)Bisphenol AFlame Retardants(PBDEs)PesticidesMercury14121086420Bisphenol A inParticipants’ UrineNationalMeanParticipants1 2 3 4 5 61 2 3 4 5 6Participantsfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


BPA can have toxic effects on the body evenat low dose exposures. It has been linked torecurrent miscarriages, ovarian dysfunction,abnormalities in female eggs , and possiblecarcinogenic effects including breast cancerand prostate cancer, amongst other healthproblems.[1,2,3,4]The levels of mercury in four of the sixparticipants equaled or exceeded the nationalnorm. Much of the mercury to which we areexposed comes from fossil fuel power plantsthat emit mercury in the air; rain then washesthat mercury out of the air into our streamsand lakes. Fish concentrate the mercury intheir tissues and humans are exposed whenwe consume fish. Numerous ill health effectsare associated with exposure to mercury. Highexposures, seen in other countries where peopleconsumed highly contaminated fish, havetaught us that mercury poisoning can causepermanent damage to the brain and kidneys.brush off these products and we can inhalethem with household dust. Twenty typesof flame retardants showed up in all of theparticipants. PBDEs are associated withdevelopmental disorders affecting learning,memory and motor activity, reproductiveand thyroid impairment and cancers (ie. liverand testicular). [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]However, the main point of these findingsis not the amount of contaminants foundin participants, but rather the fact thatthese contaminants were found at all inparticipants. It is not natural for suchchemicals to be present in any quantity in thehuman body. And again, we know that evenminute quantities of some of these chemicals80Pesticides in BloodLevels of two of the dangerous chlordanepesticides, long since banned, showed upat levels 4-5 times higher than the nationalnorm in one of our participants, andhigher than the national norm in severalparticipants. Pesticides are widely used inagriculture, but are also used by homeownersand institutions, such as schools. Humansare exposed to pesticides in numerous ways,such as when we consume crops sprayedwith pesticides; drink from well water whichis contaminated with pesticides, or breatheair near where it is sprayed. Pesticides are ofcourse dangerous by design. Organochlorinepesticides can cause a wide range of adversehealth effects, including cancer, neurologicaldamage, and birth defects.Thirty-one of the forty chemicals foundin flame retardants tested showed up inour participants. We are exposed to flameretardants (PBDEs) which have been appliedto our furniture or electronic products suchas computers. The flame retardants easilyt-NonachlorMercury in hair (ug/g)604020010.80.60.40.20ParticipantsNationalMean1 2 3 4 5 6Mercury in ParticipantsNationalMean1 2 3 4 5 6Participantsfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


can affect the regulation of hormones andpose health dangers.The chemicals in our environment findtheir way into our bodies through a varietyof ways: breathing air that contains dustfrom these products; drinking water and/oreating food that is contaminated with thesechemicals, and absorbing chemicals—suchas those found in common perfumes andsunscreens—through our skin. Over time,these chemicals accumulate in our bodies.Many of the chemicals are linked to a widerange of serious health problems andillnesses, including miscarriages, neurologicalproblems, cancers, heart conditions, hormoneproblems and even death.the focus on regulating individual chemicalsdoes not consider the interactive effects ofvarious chemicals.Comprehensive chemical reform considersthe regulation of classes of chemicals thatare known to be particularly harmful and/orpersistent. It requires that we research, examineand use economically and technologicallyfeasible alternatives to harmful chemicals.Most of us assume that our state and thefederal government protect us from exposureto the harmful effects of these chemicals. Thereality is that our laws have grossly failed usin this regard. Under the Toxic SubstancesControl Act, enacted in 1976, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hasrequired the testing of only about 200 of the80,000 chemicals in industrial production;and only 5 chemicals or chemical groups haveactually been banned. Our laws assume thata chemical is safe unless proven otherwise.Even the EPA admits that the laws are writtenin such a way that makes it extremely difficultto establish that a chemical is not safe.It is clear that we must adopt a moreprecautionary approach that restricts humanexposure to chemicals that are reasonablysuspected of causing harm. We must insiston laws that truly protect the health of ourchildren and all citizens. Further, our lawshave historically been focused on regulationof individual chemicals. With over 80,000chemicals in production and thousandsmore being introduced each year, it is clearthat such an approach is simply not feasibleto adequately protect human health. AlsoCurrently there are national efforts underwaynow to re-write and strengthen federal toxicslaws, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA). The Alliance supports these effortsand encourages Vermont’s federal delegationto firmly back meaningful TSCA reform.Many states, including Maine, Massachusettsand Washington have begun to implementcomprehensive chemicals reform. TheAlliance for a Clean and Healthy Vermontwill support such legislation introduced intothe Vermont legislature this year.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Our comprehensive chemicals policy should:• Phase out the most harmful chemicalsand require the use of safer alternatives;• Require that all chemicals be screenedfor safety;• Honor the public’s right-to-knowwhich hazardous chemicals are in whatproducts; and• Promote the development of saferalternatives and sustainable design.Those wanting to help support such effortsshould contact the Alliance or their statelegislators.While our ultimate goal must be to ensuresuch a comprehensive approach to chemicalreform, we can and should continue tophase out individual chemicals known to beharmful, and for which there are clearly saferalternatives.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Most of us think of Vermont as a pristineplace. Our beautiful Green Mountains, riversand lakes conjure up images of health andvitality.While Vermont is certainly a nice place tobe, Vermonters are not as immune fromexposure to toxic substances as we maythink. Unfortunately, pollution knowsno boundaries. Despite the passage oflegislation such as the Clean Water Act, theSafe Dinking Water Act, the Clean Air Actand Toxic Substances Control Act, the realityis that hundreds of thousands of pounds ofknown carcinogens, reproductive toxicants,neurotoxicants and other chemicals known tocause health problems are knowingly releasedinto our water and air yearly. The New YorkTimes recently reported that forty percentof the nation’s community water systemsviolated the Safe Drinking Water Act at leastonce last year, and dozens of chemicals havebeen detected at unsafe levels in drinkingwater. [13] Many of the chemicals withwhich this study was concerned, find theirway into our homes in the form of consumerproducts, such as computers, plastic bottlesand make-up.Thousands of chemicals are in commonuse, but only a small portion of themhave undergone significant toxicologicalevaluation. Current methods of riskassessment for some manufactured chemicalsmay not accurately predict the health risksof exposure. In fact, research is starting todemonstrate that very low levels of exposureto some chemicals—doses to which humansand are routinely exposed—can disrupt theendocrine system. This finding is distressingbecause endocrine signals regulate manyaspects of cell development and functioning.[14]Many of these toxins are used to producecommon household items and personalhealth products. Consequently, we areexposed to many of these toxins in our ownhomes. It is important to recognize thateven the toxins like Bisphenol A and flameretardants found in consumer products arealso serious environmental contaminantsthat are often released directly into theenvironment during the manufacturingprocess.Just how bad is the problem? Do Vermontersactually accumulate toxic substances in ourbodies as a result of these exposures? Canthose accumulated substances affect ourhealth?We set out to seek answers to these questions.We wanted to learn if toxic substances arepresent in the bodies of typical Vermonters.We focused our efforts on some commontoxic substances that we may be exposed tothrough either household products or ournatural environment. This study focusedon four groups of industrial chemicals thathave been linked to harmful health effects intoxicological studies:BPA is a chemical that has received widespreadpublicity of late, due to its presence infor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


many of the plastic bottles we use for drinkingwater and as baby bottles. BPA may also befound on the inside of certain metal foodcans, beverage cans, and in dental sealantsused to fill certain cavities and cementcrowns. Animal studies have linked low doseexposures of BPA to reduced fertility, breastcancer, prostate cancer, and obesity, amongstother adverse health effects.Mercury is a heavy metal that hascontaminated all of Vermont’s rivers andlakes. The Vermont Department of EnvironmentalConservation (DEC) estimatesthat as much of half of this pollution is theresult of atmospheric deposition. Coal andoil fired power plants in the Midwest releasemercury into the atmosphere. Prevailingwinds carry the mercury to the east, whereit falls with precipitation into our waterways.Eating fish—either locally caught or storebought—can result in the intake of mercury.Mercury is also found in some commonproducts, such as older thermostats and thenew compact fluorescent light bulbs we use.Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that cansignificantly impair brain development.These include many persistent, long-actinginsecticides, such as DDT, fungicides andantimicrobials. Even though some of thesedangerous chemicals were phased out ofproduction years ago, we continue to beexposed to them due to their persistentnature. By their very design of course, thesepesticides are potent neurotoxins. Theyhave been associated with many chronicdiseases. Many organochlorines are knownor suspected hormone disruptors.and electronic goods. Reports have indicatedthat exposure to low concentrations of thesechemicals may result in irreparable damageto the nervous and reproductive systems.PBDEs are also widespread environmentalcontaminants.The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)reports that preliminary evidence suggeststhat high concentrations of PBDEs maycause neurobehavioral changes and affect theimmune system in animalsImproved laboratory technology is nowenabling us to detect these substances insmaller quantities – levels that were previouslynot detectable. We are thus becoming moreand more aware of the prevalence of thesesubstances in our bodies and in our world.Understanding how exposure to toxicchemicals affects our health is complex.Many factors can influence whether exposureto a toxin may result in ill health affects.These variables include: genetics; toxicity ofthe chemical; duration of exposure; age ofexposure; the dose of exposure; the overallhealth of the exposed individual, and otherfactors.PBDEs are toxic flame retardants that areadded to both office furniture and draperiesfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Therefore this study cannot be used to predicthow an individual’s health may be affected bychemicals in his or her body. That is not thepurpose of this study.We also do not draw conclusions from thisstudy about the levels of contaminants that allVermonters carry in their bodies. This studywas not a controlled research study; subjectswere not randomly chosen and the numberof subjects was small. The purpose of thisstudy was simply to find out whether thesecommon toxicants show up in the bodies ofa half dozen Vermonters.Br xPBDEBr xThe results of this study can best be understoodin the context of other such studies,and in particular, the National Health andNutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)conducted by the U.S. Centers for DiseaseControl (CDC). NHANES was designed toassess the health and nutritional status ofAmericans. The survey combines interviewsand physical exams, which includesbiomonitoring of toxic substances.The protocols in this study were reviewedand approved by the Copernicus GroupInstitutional Review Board (IRB). IRB’sare independent research bodies thatreview research protocols and studyrelatedinformation, as well as investigatorqualifications and resources of studies thatinvolve human subjects. Copernicus GroupIRB (CGIRB) is fully accredited by theAssociation for the Accreditation of HumanResearch Protection Programs, Inc. CGIRBis registered with the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Office forHuman Research Protections (OHRP).Columbia, Canada, and the EnvironmentalQuality Institute (EQI). EQI conductsresearch on environmental issues throughthe University of North Carolina at Asheville(UNCA). EQI serves governmental agencies,the private sector and citizens groups.Samples of blood, urine and hair werecollected by professional staff at health clinicsthroughout Vermont. These samples wereanalyzed by two accredited laboratories thatspecialize in highly sensitive chemical analysis:AXYS Analytic Services in Victoria, Britishfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Katy, 36, is a teacher, writer, parent and activist.She currently teaches fifth and sixth gradeat Rumney Memorial School in Middlesex,Vermont. Katy holds a Master of Sciencein Teaching degree with a concentrationin Middle School Science from the StateUniversity of New York at Plattsburgh. Sheis the founder and author of Non-Toxic Kids,a green parenting and environmental healthblog for parents. Katy also writes abouteducation, and her first book called WhyGreat Teachers Quit will be published byCorwin Press in April.“I’m surprised and disturbed to hearabout the elevated amounts of theflame retardant Deca in my samples.Other factors, I felt I could control,such as not eating meat, or buyingorganic produce—but this came outof nowhere.Now I question my computer, myelectronics, my furniture and thedust I don’t vacuum as regularly asI should. Most importantly to me, Iwonder about the flame retardantsmy young daughters are exposed toin our home—and what the healthconsequences for them might be.It shouldn’t be this way. We haveenough to worry about as parents—we shouldn’t have to worry thatmerely living in our homes can causeserious health problems.”Rich is a 60 year old man who has lived inVermont for 35 years. He is a former managerwith the state government of Vermont.Now retired, he lives with his wife in ruralVermont. He is a lifelong outdoors enthusiastwho spends much time hiking, camping,paddeling and in the sustainable use of theland on which he lives.“The body burden study helps tobring into perspective the effects thattoxic chemicals have on the averagecitizen. By volunteering for the studyand sharing results I hope that thisdata will [add to the] empiricalevidence as to the widespreaddistribution of these toxic substances.”Aaron Levison, 19, is a lifelong Vermontresident. He is a musician and a writer, andwill be attending UVM starting in January2010, after taking time off to travel, record,and gain work experience. He is a connoisseurfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


of woodlands and wildlife, as his childhoodhomestead is seated on ten acres of forest inRichmond, Vermont. He currently resides inBurlington, Vermont.“I’m part of a generation that’sunarguably dependent on technology.We take much of our world’sconvenience for granted, and thus,it’s imperative that people my ageare aware of exactly what negativebyproducts are the result of our tools,machines, and industries. When wereach the time in which we are adults,education is key in changing futurepolicies to protect ourselves fromharmful substances.”“I have a tear on my cheek forour demonstrated inability tounderstand, catch up or keep up,let alone stay ahead of, advancingchemical technologies’ effect on life onour planet.”John is a retired Pediatrician, age 77, who haslived in southern Vermont for 45 years, withthe exception of 3 years on Indian reservationsin the Dakotas and New Mexico, one year(total) in New Zealand and Newfoundland.Jim lives on his family’s farm of 136 years. Hishome is the oldest in his town; built in 1796.He has been Williston’s State Representativesince 2003; the 5th from his family whileresiding in this home. His roots are prerevolutionary and he describes his sense ofplace as extremely comforting. His familydairied on this farm until 1954. He was 9years old and devastated when they sold theherd. He and his wife Lucy started their “landuse experiment” in 1978. It was to intendedas an alternative to subdividing their 500acre property for housing. The result wasCatamount Family Center, a recreation area.It has become a nonprofit with the missionof “education and recreation in an outdoorenvironment.”David has lived in Burlington for the past 20years, and has been an organic farmer therefor the past 15 years. He has served in thelegislature since 1997.He served on the Natural Resources andEnergy Committee (6 years), the AgricultureCommittee (6 years, 4 as Chair) and nowserves on the Ways and Means Committee(taxes and fees). He is married to RachelNevitt, and has one child, Addie, who wasborn in 2005. The farm which he currentlyowns is 150 acres in size. In 2009 he produced20 acres in organic vegetables, 800 organicpastured poultry, 3 pigs and describeshimself as an oportunivore. He generallyeats vegetarian for most meals, except whenhe eats out.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Laboratory analysis of the blood, hair andurine of our subjects confirms what otherbiomonitoring projects have demonstrated:toxic chemicals are in our bodies!We found at least three of the four categoriesof toxic chemicals in every person we tested:We detected a minimum of 35 of thechemicals tested. See the chart on thenext page.substance present in each studyparticipant.In the following section of this report, “TheChemicals,” we describe the findings for eachchemical and how those results compare toboth national norms and quantities knownto result in adverse effects in toxicologicalresearch.Participants had an average of 40 ofthe chemicals tested in their bodies.We found twenty kinds of flameretardants (PBDE’s) in all subjects.We detected Bisphenol A, the chemicalused in plastic bottles, in the urine ofall of the subjects.Fifty percent of the participants hadBisphenol A levels above the medianlevel reported by the CDC.We found mercury present in the hairof 4 of the 6 participants.Seven types of organochlorinepesticides were found in the bloodof all participants, including DDT—banned in 1972—in the bodies of 5 ofthe 6 participants.We found forms of the bannedpesticide chlordane in the blood of allparticipants.The table on the following pageprovides details on the chemicalsfound in each participant*. See theappendix for specific levels of eachfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Flame Retardants (PBDEs)There are 209 different varieties of PBDEs made; we tested for these.PesticidesGroup 1PesticidesGroup 2ChemicalParticipantsAaron Jim Rich John David KatyPct. ofParticipantsBisphenol A 100%Br2-DPE -7 0%Br2-DPE -8/11 0%Br2-DPE -10 0%Br2-DPE -12/13 0%Br2-DPE -15 100%Br3-DPE -17/25 100%Br3-DPE -28/33 100%Br3-DPE -30 100%Br3-DPE -32 0%Br3-DPE -35 0%Br3-DPE -37 17%Br4-DPE -47 100%Br4-DPE -49 100%Br4-DPE -51 33%Br4-DPE -66 100%Br4-DPE -71 17%Br4-DPE -75 17%Br4-DPE -77 0%Br4-DPE -79 100%Br5-DPE -85 100%Br5-DPE -99 100%Br5-DPE -100 100%Br5-DPE -105 0%Br5-DPE -116 17%Br5-DPE -119/120 50%Br5-DPE -126 17%Br6-DPE -128 0%Br6-DPE -138/166 100%Br6-DPE -140 100%Br6-DPE -153 100%Br6-DPE -154 100%Br6-DPE -155 83%Br7-DPE -181 17%Br7-DPE -183 100%Br7-DPE -190 50%Br8-DPE -203 100%Br9-DPE -206 100%Br9-DPE -207 100%Br9-DPE -208 100%Br10-DPE-209 83%HCB 100%alpha-HCH 50%beta-HCH 100%gamma-HCH 67%HEPTACHLOR 33%ALDRIN 33%OXYCHLORDANE 100%t-CHLORDANE 50%c-CHLORDANE 100%t-NONACHLOR 100%c-NONACHLOR 83%p,p-DDE 100%p,p-DDT 83%MIREX 100%delta-HCH 67%Heptachlor-Epoxide 100%alpha-Endosulphan 17%Dieldrin 100%Endrin 0%beta-Endosulphan 67%Endosulphan- 0%Endrin-Aldehyde 17%Endrin-Ketone 0%Methoxychlor 0%Mercury 67%% of Chemicals Present 61% 61% 56% 68% 68% 53%for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Bisphenol A (BPA), found in the 1930s to bea synthetic estrogen and originally proposedas a pregnancy aid [16], is now a high-volumeproduction chemical used to make epoxy resinand polycarbonate plastic. Approximately 7billion pounds of BPA is produced globallyeach year for use in baby bottles, dental sealants,compact discs, water bottles, food cans anda large variety of other items.[17] Prenatalexposure is to BPA is also significant as thechemical can be absorbed and distributed inthe fetus through the placenta.[18] Accordingto the Centers for Disease Control more than90% of Americans have detectable levels ofBisphenol A in their bodies.Human exposure to BPA comes primarilyfrom contaminated food and beverages.[19]Food and beverage packaging made withBPA – such as plastic bottles, metal cans, andreusable storage containers – can leach thechemical into food and drinks. A study by theHarvard School of Public Health found thatconcentrations of BPA in urine increased by69% when polycarbonate water bottles wereused for cold beverages during the course ofa week.[20] BPA can also leach from infantformula cans and heated baby bottles, theprimary source of exposure to the chemicalfor newborns and infants.[21]But we are also potentially exposed to BPAin our drinking water. The U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) sampled 25 groundwaterand 49 surface water sources of publicdrinking water supply in 25 states and PuertoRico and analyzed them for 124 emergingcontaminants. Bisphenol A was one of themost commonly detected con-taminants inthe samples. [22]for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


miscarriages [30], ovarian dysfunction [31],abnormalities in female eggs [32], earlyonset puberty [33], altered mammary glanddevelopment [34], early vaginal opening[35], reduced sperm count [36], increasedanogenital distance [37], and impacts on thetestis. [38]Those most vulnerable to problems resultingfrom BPA exposure are pregnant mothersand newborns. According to Ramakrishnanand Wayne (2007) BPA has been detectedin various fluids such as amniotic fluid,maternal and fetal plasma, placenta, andbreast milk. [39]In a new study, funded by the U.S. NationalInstitute of Occupational Safety and Health,and the first to be designed specifically totest the effects of BPA on humans, factoryworkers exposed to large amounts ofBisphenol A substantially increased theirrisk of sexual dysfunction. The study foundworkers in the BPA facilities had four timesthe risk of erectile dysfunction, and seventimes more risk of ejaculation difficulty thana control group working in plants where noBPA was made. The workers were exposed toBPA at levels 50 times higher than the averageAmerican consumer faces. [40]Possible carcinogenic effects that have beenobserved in toxicological studies include:breast cancer [41] prostate cancer [42] andreduced effectiveness of chemotherapytreatments. [43]Examples identified in the research includeheart disease [44], diabetes [45], liverabnormalities [46], insulin resistance [47,48],obesity [49] and heart arrhythmias. [50]TOXICOLOGY BRIEFThe health impacts of exposureto toxic substances are knownlargely as a result of toxicologicalresearch done on laboratoryanimals. That is because weobviously cannot intentionallygive these substances tohumans to measure responses.Toxicologists assume that if aneffect is observed in animals, itwill likely produce similar harmin humans. Indeed there arenumerous similarities in manyaspects of the physiology ofall animals that make suchassumptions reasonable.Obviously there is potentialharm that can occur in humans– psychological and cognitive– that may not be possible totest for in animals. Sometimes,there are studies that directlymeasure the effects of toxics onhumans, such as in occupationalsettings or where there has beena large environmental exposure.These studies shave been usedto validate assumptions oftoxicological studies.BPA can potentially result in the alteredbehavior of over 200 genes [51] impactingthe health of the body and how it responds toits environment throughout its entire life.You can reduce the amount of Bisphenol Ain your body by using some of the alternativetypes of food and beverage containers listedin the section below. Avoid heating your foodsfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


in plastic containers that may be made usingBPA. Use less canned foods, especially thosethat contain food with higher fat content.Before having dental work done, ask yourdentist if the sealants he or she uses containBPA.Alternatives to BPA in food and beveragecontainers not only exist, but are already inuse. With growing frequency, manufacturersare producing BPA-free products and seeingbenefits to their bottom lines. Retailers havealso joined the ranks by refusing to sell itemscontaining BPA.Glass is a common and popular alternativefor replacing the synthetic estrogen in babybottles. For those parents concerned withbreakage, many bottles come with siliconesleeves to protect against this. Plasticalternatives such as polyamide, used by BornFree, also exist.Many manufacturers are opting for stainlesssteel instead. This is good, as long as thestainless container is not lined with asubstance containing BPA.Alternative food can linings include a naturalblend of oil and resin extracted from plants(such as the balsam fir) [52] and polyesterbasedcoatings. [53] However, finding asuitable replacement for all applications isa challenge due to the corrosive nature ofhighly acidic foods.BPA exposure in infants and newborns bybanning the importation, sale, and advertisingof polycarbonate baby bottles. [54]In the United States, Minnesota was the firststate in the country to ban BPA, prohibitingits use in baby bottles and Sippy cups. [55]Connecticut soon followed, passing aneven more extensive law that prohibits theuse of BPA in baby bottles, infant formulaand baby food jars and cans, and reusablefood and beverage containers. [56] And theMassachusetts Department of Public Healthrecently issued a public health advisory onBPA. [57]In addition to states, cities and towns arealso taking action. The city of Chicago aswell as three New York counties (Albany,Schenectady, and Suffolk) established policiesthat restrict the sale of BPA-tainted babybottles and Sippy cups.Given the overwhelming amount of scientificevidence showing the harmful effects of BPA,Vermont must take steps to protect publichealth and the environment from exposure tothis synthetic estrogen. The state legislaturewould be wise to follow the example ofConnecticut, Minnesota, and others, andprohibit the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippycups, and other food and beverage containers.We must also require manufacturers touse the safest alternatives available whenreplacing BPA in their products.In the last year, governments working toprotect the health of children from BPA havemade extraordinary progress. The Canadiangovernment recently took steps to reducefor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Mercury is a naturally occurring elementthat is present in different forms in theenvironment. When mercury combineswith carbon, the compound formed is called“organic mercury.” Microorganisms convertinorganic mercury into the most commonform of organic mercury, a substance calledmethyl-mercury, which is a potent neuroxin.Methylmercury can enter the water or soiland remain for a long time. It also can enterand accumulate in the food chain, such aswhen larger fish eat smaller fish.Mercury is found in many products that we useand in foods that we consume. Products thatcontain mercury include older thermostats,thermometers, fluorescent lights—and dentalamalgams (fillings that contain mercury).A major source of the mercury found inVermont is from the burning of coal and oil inMidwestern power plants. Mercury is releasedinto the air and prevailing winds carry it overNew England where it falls with precipitationinto our waters. In 1999, EPA estimated thatapproximately 75 tons of mercury was foundin the coal delivered to power plants eachyear and about two thirds of this mercurywas emitted to the air, resulting in about 50tons being emitted annually.Fish caught in Vermont lakes and rivers cancontain high levels of mercury. Even wild fishcaught in our oceans and sold at our grocerystores contains various levels of mercury.In the 1990’s River Network conducted astudy of mercury in fish in the MississquoiRiver. Many of the fish had elevated levels ofmercury.Mercury can also enter into our rivers andlakes when it leaches—or leaks— from illegaldumps and landfills that contain discardedproducts—such as fluorescent lamps, oldthermostats and batteries that containmercury. This is why the proper disposal ofsuch products at an environmental hazardouswaste depot is so important.The Vermont Department of EnvironmentalConservation has estimated as muchas half or more of all mercury in our riversand lakes comes from this “atmospheric”source. According to the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, almost all of the rivers inNew England are threatened as a result ofmercury pollution. That mercury is convertedto methylmercury by microorganisms andthen works its way into the food chain.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


There are still other sources of mercuryin our environment. Silver-colored dentalfillings typically contain about 50% metallicmercury. People may be exposed directly,or indirectly through waters contaminatedby the waste water of medical and dentalfacilities that use mercury. Some mercurycompounds are used in fungicides. Inorganicmercury compounds have been used in skinlighteningcreams.Recently it has also been discovered thatcertain corn syrups, the sweetener found inmany of our foods and soft drinks containsmercury. This results from a particularmeans of manufacturing corn syrup thatsome producers use. [58]Mercury was found in the bodies of fourof our six participants. The levels rangedfrom 0.2 micrograms per gram (μg/g) hairmercury to 0.85 micrograms per gram(μg/g) hair mercury. The CDC’s 1999-2000National Health and Nutrition ExaminationSurvey (NHANES) assessed exposure tomethyl mercury in U.S. children 1-5 yearsof age and women 16-49 years of age usinghair mercury analysis. The geometric meanhair mercury was 0.12 μg/g in children,and 0.20 μg/g in women. The focus of thestudy was on women of child-bearing age(a population of concern because the fetusis highly susceptible to harmful effects) andchildren. No data were collected on men.Among frequent fish consumers, geometricmean hair mercury levels were 3-fold higherfor women, at 0.38 μg/g g, further reinforcingthe fact that fish consumption is the majorpathway of mercury exposure in the U.S. Ourparticipant with the highest mercury levelshad more than twice this amount.WHAT IS A GEOMETRIC MEAN?The geometric mean is a measurethat is commonly encountered whenviewing monitoring data. You will seethe term used throughout this report.The geometric mean, in statistics, isa type of average, which indicatesthe central tendency or typical valueof a set of numbers. It is similarto the arithmetic mean, which iswhat most people think of withthe word “average,” except thatthe calculation is more complex. Ageometric mean, unlike an arithmeticmean, tends to dampen the effect ofvery high or low values, which mightbias the mean if a straight average(arithmetic mean) were calculated.This is helpful when analyzing datathat might vary by a number ofmagnitudes, where one value couldgreatly affect the arithmetic mean.So, for example, consider thearithmetic mean of the following dataset: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. You may be able toeyeball it and see the average is 5,or you could calculate it by adding1+3+5+7+9, which equals 25, anddividing by 5, which equals 5. Thegeometric mean of those samenumbers is 3.9, a bit smaller than 5;in fact the geometric mean is usuallya bit smaller if the data are not highlyskewed (which means lopsided).Here’s a data set that is moreskewed: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 100 (thevalue of 100 is so much higherthan the other numbers it makes itsomewhat lopsided). The arithmeticmean of this data set is 20.8.The value of 100 really raised thearithmetic mean a lot. The geometricmean of this data is 6.7, much closerto the mean of most of the numbersin the data set.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


As mentioned previously, methyl-mercury ishighly toxic. Numerous ill health effects areassociated with exposure to mercury. Highexposures, seen in other countries wherepeople consumed highly contaminated fish,have taught us that methylmercury poisoningcan cause permanent damage to the brain andkidneys. More limited exposures can resultin personality changes, tremors, changes invision, deafness, muscle coordination, andmemory problems. [59]The kidneys are especially sensitive to theeffects of mercury, as mercury accumulatesin the kidneys.Short-term exposure to mercury vapors candamage the lining of the mouth and lungs,as well as result in vomiting, diarrhea andincreased blood pressure. [60]Mercury in the mother’s body can be passedto the fetus. The fetus and young children aremuch more sensitive to the effects of mercury.Children exposed to methylmercury in uteroshow irreversible damage to their centralnervous systems. [61]There are numerous ways to reduce mercurylevels in your body. Some medical therapiescan be more harmful than beneficial andmay only be appropriate in extreme cases.The best way to reduce mercury in your bodyis to reduce future exposures. The easiest wayto accomplish that is to avoid fish known tobe high in mercury.The Sierra Club and Greenpeace suggestavoiding the following types of fish, knownto be high in mercury:Chilean Sea BassGrouperKing MackerelMarlinMonkfishOrange RoughySharkShrimpSwordfishTunaTilefishFor more information, see the VermontDepartment of Environmental ConservationMercury Education and ReductionCampaign at http://www.mercvt.org/fish/index.htm.Mercury is ubiquitous in the environmentand is easily transported in the air and water.Historically, the U.S. has been a significantexporter of mercury; some of that mercuryends up back in our air and water. In asignificant reversal, the U.S. delegation tothe United Nations Environment Program(UNEP) Governing Council endorsednegotiations in 2009 for a new global treatyto control mercury.A recent U.S. Clean Air Mercury Rule willhopefully reduce emissions from coal-firedpower plants – the largest remaining sourcesof mercury emissions in the country. TheClean Air Mercury Rule establishes “standardsof performance” limiting mercury emissionsfrom new and existing coal-fired powerplants and creates a market-based cap-andtradeprogram to reduce nationwide utilityemissions of mercury in two distinct phases.The first phase cap will reduce emissionsfrom 48 tons a year to 38 tons. In the secondphase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plantswill be subject to a second cap, which willreduce emissions to 15 tons upon fullimplementation.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


The Mercury Policy Project reports that aconsortium of northeastern governmentagencies found that over 10,000 pounds ofmercury are released to the air in northeaststates each year. It points to several substantialsources of mercury pollution that have notyet been adequately addressed and shows thatwaste incineration and dental mercury useaccount for over one-third of the mercurypollution still occurring in the region, whileanother 20% is emitted from coal-fired powerplants across the region. [62]With support from the Alliance, the Vermontlegislature passed a bill that requiresmanufacturers of mercury-containingthermostats to implement a collectionplan for discarded mercury-containingthermostats and offers a financial incentivefor homeowners and others who return suchthermostats.There is still more work to be done. Otheradvances we can make include:Eliminate the use and sale of mercurycontainingproducts, where feasible.Health care facilities, includinghospitals and dental offices, shouldphase out mercury containingproducts in favor of safer alternatives.Supermarkets and grocers shouldfollow the voluntary recommendationendorsed by the Vermont GrocersAssociation Request to post signs thatadvise consumers which fish containmore or less mercury.Mercury in Participants0.90.80.7Mercury in Hair (ug/g)0.60.50.40.3NationalGeometric Meanin NHANES study(women 16-49)0.20.10Aaron Jim Rich John David KatyParticipantsfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


“Pesticides” is a term that incorporatesinsecticides, herbicides and fungicides.Organochlorine pesticides have strongbonds between their chlorine and carboncomponents, which means that they do notbreak down easily. They are highly insolublein water, but are attracted to fats.Organochlorine pesticides were firstintroduced in the 1940’s. They were effectiveagainst a variety of insects and widely used.DDT is an Organochlorine pesticide. RachelCarson, in her book, Silent Spring, first warnedabout the dangers of these insecticides andtheir persistence in the environment: “Thesesprays, dusts, and aerosols are now appliedalmost universally to farms, gardens, forests,and homes – nonselective chemicals that havethe power to kill every insect, the “good” andthe “bad,” to still the song of birds and theleaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaveswith a deadly film, and to linger on in soil – allthis though the intended target may be only afew weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it ispossible to lay down such a barrage of poisonson the surface of the earth without makingit unfit for all life?” Many Organochlorinepesticides, including DDT, aldrin, dieldrin,chlordane and heptachlor have since beenbanned in the United States. Others remainin use.Organochlorine pesticides are mostly used asinsecticides. Some are sprayed on field crops,or to coat seeds during grain storage. Othertypes applied in pellet form.Organochlorine pesticides enter theenvironment from direct application andrunoff, disposal of contaminated wastesinto landfills, emissions from incineratorsand releases from manufacturing facilities.Studies of major rivers show that 90 percentof all fish, 100 percent of all rivers, 33 percentof major aquifers, and 50 percent of shallowwells contain one or more pesticides atdetectable levels (USGS, 2006). The U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) found pesticides inone or more water samples from every streamfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


sampled in the United States. Most peopledo not realize that EPA has not establisheddrinking water standards for most of thepesticides found in water. The nonprofitgroup Beyond Pesticides reports that of thehundreds of pesticide active ingredients itregisters, EPA – balancing consumer riskagainst water supplier cost – has establishedmaximum contaminant levels (MCLs) foronly 24 pesticides.Because organochlorines resist metab-olism– i.e., breakdown in the body – and are storedin the fatty tissue of animals, they accumulatein animals higher up the food chain. Thismay occur when birds eat fish that have beenexposed to the contaminant. It also occurs inhumans when we drink milk or eat fish.the U.S. in 1983 was present in the blood ofall participants.Biomagnification orBioaccumulationBiomagnification or bioaccumulation refers to theincrease in the concentration of chemicals(usually toxins) in the tissues of organisms witheach increase in the level in the food chain. Forexample, bigger fish eat little fish and the levels ofthe toxin increase significantly in the larger fish.BIOMAGNIFICATION4,800,000 ppteggDue to the global economy, humans can alsonow be exposed to pesticides formerly bannedin the United States by consuming foodfrom countries that still use these pesticides.DDT was still manufactured in the U.S. andshipped abroad, years after it was banned inthe U.S. To a lesser extent, we may be exposedto these chemicals in our air and our water.Obviously agricultural workers and otherswho may work directly with these substancescan be exposed through direct contact.We examined all participants for an extensivelist of 24 different organochlorine pesticides.We found 20 of those 24 pesticides inthe blood serum of our participants. Wediscovered the presence of seven differentorganochlorine pesticides in the blood of allparticipants. We found the presence of twoof the more dangerous pesticides, both nowbanned in the United States, in the blood ofmost of our participants. DDT, banned inthe U.S. in 1972, was present in the bodies of5 of the 6 participants. Chlordane, banned in???690,000 ppt98,000 ppt14,000 ppt2,000 ppt0.10 pptppt = parts per trillion(mercury concentration)Source: Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.Geological Survey, Center for Coastal Geologyfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Pesticides in Participants500470.6beta-Endosulphan450DieldrinMIREXOtganichlorine pesticides in blood serum (ng/g)40035030025020015010084.1266.1241.2184.7p,p-DDTp,p-DDEc-NONACHLORt-NONACHLORc-CHLORDANEOXYCHLORDANEbeta-HCHHCB5037.60Aaron Jim Rich John David KatyParticipantsThe most recent data from the CDCNational Report on Human Exposure toEnvironmental Chemicals examined 12 ofthese organochlorine pesticides for a selectgroup of participants nation-wide. Thedata was collected as part of the NationalHealth and Nutrition Examination Survey(NHANES). Not all of those 12 pesticideswere detected, and some were only detectedin some participants, preventing theestablishment of a geometric mean. (See TextBox on Page 18 for explanation). Detectedlevels varied for some of the pesticides by ageand gender.The following are more detailed findingscomparing the available national data onorganochlorine pesticides with our own. Thenational data is much more limited.Hexa-chlorobenzene has been linked to cancerin laboratory animals and is considered to bea probable human carcinogen. [63] After itsintroduction as a fungicide in 1945, for cropseeds, this toxic chemical was found in allfood types. Hexachlorobenzene was bannedfrom use in the United States in 1966. Thegeomoetric mean of the Hexachlorobenzenefound in the most recent National Reporton Human Exposure to EnvironmentalChemicals to Environmental Chemicals was15.2 ng/g lipid. Higher levels were detectedin older persons and in females. The rangesfound in our Vermont subjects were 6.6to 14.5 ng/g lipid. Interestingly, our olderparticipants also had higher levels of HCBthan younger participants.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


DDT is of course the infamous and dangerouspesticide banned in the 1960’s. The DDTmetabolite p,p’-DDE was detected nationallyin 99.7% of persons aged 12 years and older.The geometric mean in the national CDCdata was 238.4 ng/g lipid. The levels in ourstudy participants ranged from 0 to 311ng/g.Chlordane was used extensively in homeand agricultural applications. Like DDT,chlordane compounds are very persistent inthe environment, resistant to metabolism,have a strong affinity for fats, and biomagnifyin aquatic food webs. Chlordane is a term thatrepresents a group of a large number (140)of individual compounds. Some of them are:oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor. [64]The National Report on Human Exposure toEnvironmental Chemicals found a geometricmean level of 9.4 ng/g lipid of oxychlordanein participants. Our Vermont participantsshowed a range spanning from belowdetectable to 34.7 ng/g, the latter almost 4times higher than the national norm.This is one of the major constituents of theinsecticide chlordane. It was used extensivelyprior to 1983. Its use was banned after 1988due to concern about the risk of cancer. Transnonachloris the most bioaccumulative of thechlordanes. [65] The geometric mean of the2003-2004 NHANES data was 14.6 ng/g lipid.The levels in Vermonters in this study rangedfrom


100% of our Vermont participants. No nationalgeometric mean was calculable because it wasnot detected in all subjects; however the 90thpercentile (i.e., the level exceeded by only 10%of the subjects) was reported to be 8.3 ng/glipid. Our Vermont participants’ levels rangedfrom 0.3 to 7.3 ng/g.Originally developed as an alternative to DDT,dieldrin was a highly effective insecticide andwidely used during the 1950s to early 1970s.However, it does not easily break down inthe environment and tends to biomagnify asit is passed along the food chain. Long-termexposure has proven toxic to a very widerange of animals including humans. It is nowbanned in most of the world. Dieldrin wasdetected in 87.2% of persons aged 12 yearsand older in the national sample, but onlydetected in 33.3% of our participants.Organochlorines can cause a wide rangeof adverse health effects, including cancer,neurological damage and birth defects. Manyorganochlorines are also suspected endocrinedisruptors. Each organochlorine pesticide hasa different level of toxicity and can result indifferent adverse health effects. The followingparagraphs detail some of the known healthaffects of some of the various types oforganochlorines found in our Vermont studyparticipants. The specific health effects of theconcentrations of these contaminants foundin our participants is not known. Chlordaneaffects the nervous system, the digestive system,and the liver in people and animals. We knowabout some of these effects from people whobreathed air containing high concentrationsof chlordane or accidentally swallowed smallamounts of chlordane. Symptoms includeheadaches, irritability, confusion, weakness,vision problems, vomiting, stomach cramps,diarrhea and jaundice. Large amountsof chlordane taken by mouth can causeconvulsions and death in people. [66]WHAT ARE LIPID-ADJUSTEDVALUES?We analyzed the amount of PBDEsand Organochlorine pesticides bytaking blood samples from eachof the participants. Blood containslipids or fats of various kinds, thingslike cholesterol and triglycerides.Because the chemicals we’re testingfor have an affinity for fat, themore lipids in the blood, the higherthe reading the lab will obtain. Inorder to adjust for the amount oflipids each individual has in theirblood, and thus to be able to moreaccurately compare the amountsacross individuals in relative terms,we divide the amount (weight) ofthe chemical present by the amount(weight) of lipids present in the bloodand obtain a result called a lipidadjustedvalue.UNITSOur lipid adjusted values arereported in either nanograms (ofthe chemical) per gram (of lipids)or picograms (of the chemical) pergram (of lipids). There are 1 billionnanograms in a gram. There are1,000 picograms in a nanogram.The Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC) reported theirNHANES results in these same units.Even though these measurementsare minute quantities, we know fromtoxicological research that these arequantities that can be associatedwith harmful health outcomes.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Long-term exposure caused harmful effectsin the liver of test animals. Animals exposedbefore birth or while nursing developedbehavioral effects later. [67]DDT impacts the nervous system as well.People who accidentally swallowed largeamounts of DDT became excitable and hadtremors and seizures. [68]A study in humans showed that women whohad high amounts of DDE in breast milk hadan increased chance of having prematurebabies. [69]Short-term exposure to large amounts ofDDT in the food of animals affected thenervous system, while long-term exposureto smaller amounts affected the liver. Evenshort-term exposure to small amounts ofDDT in the food of animals had harmfuleffects on reproduction. [70]The CDC reports on a study of peoplein Turkey who accidentally ate breadcontaminated with hexachlorobenzene. Thestudy showed that both the young children ofthe mothers who ate it while these childrenwere in the womb, and the young childrenwho ate it themselves after birth can havelower survival rates. The people who ate thecontaminated bread also suffered from a liverdisease. [71]Nursing infants can be exposed tohexachlorobenzene through breast milk iftheir mothers have been exposed. Unbornchildren may also be affected if their mothershave been exposed. [72]Animal studies show that eatinghexachlorobenzene can damage the liver,thyroid, nervous system, bones, kidneys,blood and immune and endocrine systems.[73]The U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services (DHHS) has declared thathexachlorobenzene is reasonably expected tobe a carcinogen. [74]Reducing your intake of fat containingfoods may reduce the accumulation oforganochlorine compounds in your body’sfat tissue, resulting in lower concentrationsin breast milk as well. [75] In so far as someorganochlorines are still in use, consumingorganic foods can lower your exposure.Ironically, women may reduce their levelsof organochlorine pesticides throughbreastfeeding, but this may occur at thefor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


expense of passing those pesticides on totheir infants. This puts women in a Catch-22,as physicians concur that breast feeding stilloffers many health advantages.Due to the nature of organochlorines and theirtendency to concentrate in greater amountsthe higher one goes on the food chain, eatinga diet lower on the food chain (consumingvegetables or smaller species of fish) is likelyto reduce your overall exposure.As previously mentioned, many of theorganochlorine pesticides have long sincebeen banned in the United States dueto knowledge of their persistence in theenvironment and affect on both wildlife andhuman health. Unfortunately, many of thesechemicals are still produced and used inother countries. Vermonters can be exposedto this DDT when we consume vegetablesor fish from these countries. Restrictionsor labeling of products imported from thesecountries would help.Other Organochlorines are still produced inthe United States today.Federal and state regulations need to makeprotecting public health a greater priority.Today, although the US EPA mandatesmanufacturers to test pesticides for harmfuleffects, current laws do not prevent the useof pesticides that research has linked withcancer or other harmful health impacts. Thecurrent federal pesticide law, the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA), protects a pesticide’s uses unlessthe chemical poses an “unreasonable risk toman or the environment, taking into accountthe economic, social, and environmentalcosts and benefits of the use of any pesticide.”In other words, if the perceived economicbenefit of using a pesticide outweighs thehealth risks, the pesticide can be used. TheOregon Environmental Council (OEC), inits “Pollution in People” report, explainsthat there are two problems with thisapproach. First, many pesticides have notbeen completely tested as to their humanor environmental health impacts. Second,this cost-benefit analysis does not take intoaccount the fact that there are often saferalternatives to achieving the end goal.At the State level, in order to address thethreat of pesticides and other toxic chemicalsused in and around schools, the Vermontlegislature passed the School EnvironmentalHealth Act (Act 125) in 2000. Act 125 wascharged with reducing environmental healthhazards in schools through the creation ofa voluntary program. Act 125 established agoal of having at least 50% of schools qualifyfor an environmental health certificateby January 2005. Only 7% of schools hadreceived a certificate by the end of 2006.Unfortunately, the state’s commitment toimplementation and enforcement of thelaw has been weak. To date only a handfulof schools have achieved the standards ofenvironmental health certification spelledout in the law.The Alliance would like to see the adoption ofnew legislation that would eliminate the useof high-risk pesticides at schools and establishintegrated pest management programs thatare designed to reduce sources of problemsand minimize pesticide use.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers)are used as flame retardants. The three basictypes of PBDE’s are used in different kinds ofconsumer products: Penta(5): Used in polyurethane foamsuch as in mattresses, seat cushions,other upholstered furniture and rigidinsulation. Octa(8): Used in high-impact plasticssuch as fax machines and computers,automobile trim, telephones andkitchen appliances. Deca(10): Used in carpet foam pads,draperies, televisions, computers,stereos and other electronics, cableinsulation, adhesives and textilecoating. Deca makes up 82% of theseproducts. [76]PBDEs enter the air, water and soil duringtheir manufacture and during their use inconsumer products. PBDEs are found inU.S. coastal waters and river basins as well asin human breast milk. The main sources ofexposure may be through foods, especiallyfatty foods, where PBDE’s accumulate fromenvironmental contamination, and throughhouse dust. [79,80,81,82,83,84,85] PBDEsdo not bind chemically to the plastic productto which they are applied and thereforecontinually leach out into the environmentand accumulate in house dust. Becauseconsumers tend to keep carpeting andcouches for years, PBDEs may persist in theirindoor air for years.In addition to these basic categories, thereare 209 different configurations of PBDEs(called congeners) based on the numberof bromine atoms attached to the overallstructure. They were first produced in the1970s and are used as flame retardants infurniture cushioning and electronics. Annualproduction of PBDEs is approximately 50,000metric tons with 40% of their use in theUnited States. [77] High levels of PBDEs wereshowing up in human breast milk [78] andindustry discontinued producing Penta andOcta by January 2005. In the United StatesDeca continues to be produced and usedmainly in electronics in their hard plasticcasings (ie., TVs and computers). Recentlythe manufacturers of Deca, in negotiationswith the EPA, have agreed to discontinueproducing and importing the chemical.PBDEs, or flame retardants, are found inthe plastic parts of computer equipment,and are slowly released to the environmentalong with dust particles that chip off thecomputer's surface. These particles end upin household dust or can leach from landfillsand dumps into our waterways. PBDEsare known thyroid-disruptors and canbioaccumulate in fish and people.Source: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA)for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


PBDE’s have been shown to volatilize (changefrom a solid or liquid to a vapor), so we canthen breathe them in. Another source issimple ingestion from PBDEs that have beenshown to accumulate on our hands. We ingestthe PBDE’s when we touch our hands to ourmouths. [86] A 2008 Body Burden Study of35 participants from 7 states and a 2009 studyof doctors and nurses reported PBDEs in allparticipants. [87,88] Even more concerningare studies reporting higher accumulationsof PBDEs in infants and toddlers than inadults. [89,90] Also Body Burden of PBDEsand levels of PBDEs in human breast milkare considerably higher in the U.S. than thosein Europe. [91]All of the Vermont participants had PBDEsin their bodies. Data from the CDC’snational NHANES study [92] only producedgeometric means for 4 of the PBDE’s in ourstudy. The levels of these PBDE’s in Vermontparticipants ranged from several timeslower than the national geometric mean insome individuals to 5-6 times the nationalgeometric mean in others.Specifically, the national geometric meanof PBDE-47 was 20,500 pg/g. Levels inVermont participants ranged from 3,110 pg/g to 102,000 pg/g. The national geometricmean for PBDE-99 was 5,000 pg/g. Levelsin Vermont participants ranged from 763pg/g to 35,400 pg/g. The national geometricmean for PBDE-100 was 3,900 pg/g. Levelsin Vermont participants ranged from 783pg/g to 30,200 pg/g. The national geometricmean for PBDE-153 was 5,700 pg/g. Levels inVermont participants ranged from 2,810 pg/gto 54,000 pg/g. While there are no NHANESmeans of the PBDE Deca, still in use, wedo have comparison data from a nationalstudy in 2009 done by Physicians for SocialResponsibility (PSR). The Deca levels of 4of our participants were considerably higherthan levels found in doctors and nurses inthe PSR study. [93] The PSR study and ourstudy utilized the same laboratory for bloodanalysis.PBDEs are associated with developmentaldisorders affecting learning, memory andmotor activity, reproductive and thyroidimpairment and cancers (ie. liver andtesticular). [94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101] TheEPA has classified Deca as a possible humancarcinogen.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Since PBDEs are in house dust and fatty foodsyou can reduce PBDE exposure by washinghands frequently especially before eatingand removing fat before cooking. If possibleuse a vacuum with a high efficiency filter tovacuum household dust. Inspect cushionedfurniture and if unable to replace itemsmanufactured before 2005 be sure covers areintact. Be aware that most home electronicscontain PBDEs and prevent young childrenfrom playing and mouthing items such as cellphones and remotes. [102]When shopping for new furniture avoid“complies with CATB117”, a standardrequiring halogenated (i.e., bromide)flame retardants. (8) Consider buying lessflammable fabrics such as wool. Whenshopping for new electronics ask forPBDE-free products. Several top electroniccompanies have committed to phasing outthe use of PBDEs in their products. [103]Non-chemical alternatives to Deca caninclude the redesign of a product or theuse of materials that are inherently moreflame resistant. For example, in electronicequipment, metal components could beused to protect the power supply. And withtextiles, easily ignitable fabrics such as cottoncould be replaced with materials that aredifficult to ignite or burn more slowly (suchas nylon, silk, and wool).Fire safety standards can also be met by usingchemical alternatives to Deca. For example,a phosphorous-based compound calledresocinol bis diphenyl phosphate (RDP) is acommon substitute for Deca in electronics.According to the Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection and Center forDisease Control and Prevention, “RDPpresents a significantly lower threat tothe environment and human health thandecaBDE.”Alternatives to Deca are not only available, butare cost effective as well. According to reportswritten by the states of Illinois, Maine, andPBDEs in ParticipantsPBDEs in blood serum (ng/ml)300250200150100500276.597.054.128.1 24.619.9Br10-DPE-209Br9-DPE-208Br9-DPE-207Br9-DPE-206Br8-DPE-203Br7-DPE-190Br7-DPE-183Br6-DPE-155Br6-DPE-154Br6-DPE-153Br6-DPE-140Br6-DPE-138/166Br5-DPE-119/120Br5-DPE-100Br5-DPE-99Br5-DPE-85Br4-DPE-79Br4-DPE-66Br4-DPE-49Br4-DPE-47Br3-DPE-28/33Br3-DPE-17/25Br2-DPE-15Aaron Jim Rich John David KatyParticipantsfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Minnesota, there are affordable alternativesto Deca for consumer electronics, residentialupholstered furniture, and mattresses.In fact, many of these alternatives are alreadybeing used in the marketplace. For instance,Washington State estimates that roughly 57%of televisions and 95% of computer productsdo not contain Deca. And as noted above,mattress manufacturers have already shiftedaway from the use of Deca.The European Union (EU) has been moreproactive in legislating against PBDE use.In 2003 the EU banned the manufacture ofOcta and Penta and in 2008 banned DECAfrom new electronic products.Due to mounting health concerns, theU.S. manufacture of the many PBDEs wassuspended under a voluntary agreementbetween manufacturers and the US EPA in2005. But deca-BDE, which constitutes over80% of PBDE production, is still widelyused. In December 2009, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA) announced avoluntary phase out of Deca by the onlytwo U.S. Deca manufacturers and the largestU.S. importer. Under the agreement, themanufacturers will stop the production,importation, and sale of Deca for most usesin the United States over a three-year period.The agreement can be found at: www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde.Vermont’s leadership on Deca providedmomentum for this agreement, crystallizingthe impact that state action can have on thenational level. This year, Vermont became thethird state in the country to adopt a ban onDeca. Our law bans Deca in mattresses andupholstered furniture by 2010 and in TVs andcomputers by 2012. Manufacturers will stillhave to comply with Vermont’s law forthese products despite the voluntaryagreement.Maine, Washington and Oregonhave also enacted restrictions onDeca. In addition, California, Hawaii,Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,Minnesota, New York, Oregon, RhodeIsland, Vermont and Washington havereinforced the voluntary phase-out ofPenta and Octa by enacting state banson these chemicals.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


This Vermont-based body burden studyreflects findings from larger nationwidestudies, including those conducted by theU.S. Centers for Disease Control, showingthat toxic chemicals used in everything fromenergy production to consumer productsfinds their way into our air, soil and water,and eventually into our bodies. The levelsof contaminants found in the bodies ofVermonters are no lower than the levels foundnationally, including levels found in highlyindustrialized states. In fact, the levels of someof the toxics for which we tested Vermonterswere found in amounts that were many timesgreater than emerging national norms. Therewas no difference if a participant was born inVermont or simply lived here for many years.Native Vermonters had all of the same classesof chemicals in their bodies as those not bornin Vermont. The native Vermonters in ourstudy had amongst the highest numbers ofpesticides present. On average all participantshad 24 of the 40 PBDE’s for which we testedin their blood; the native Vermonters had 23,an insignificant difference.This may surprise many of us who think ofour state as much more pristine than most ofthe nation. While that in fact may be true inmany respects, it is clear that the ubiquitousand persistent nature of many toxic substancesin the environment is such that Vermontersare every bit as exposed as others across thecountry. Many of these toxics find their wayto Vermont in the very products and foodswe consume.In so far as this study was done for educationalpurposes and we did not randomly study alarge group of Vermonters, we are unable todraw many inferences from the results, beyondthe obvious fact that these contaminants areshowing up in our bodies.There were variations of the level ofcontaminants in the bodies of theparticipants, and while it is interesting toponder the reasons why, our study was notdesigned to answer such specific questions.Why did David, Katy, and Aaron have thehighest levels of PBDE’s, especially Deca?They happen to be our three youngestparticipants, and one might have thereforeguessed they would have had lower levelsas they’ve had fewer years to accumulatesuch toxins in their bodies. Could it bethat computers, cell phones and other suchelectronic products were the primary sourceof their Deca? Could it be that youngerpeople have higher levels because they aremore exposed to these products?John, Jim and Rich have the highest levels oforganochlorine pesticides, many of whichhave long since been banned. They are ourthree oldest participants and were aroundbefore these persistent toxins were banned.Might that be why?David has the highest levels of BisphenolA and reports that he almost always has apolycarbonate drinking bottle in his hand ashe works on his farm. Might those bottles bethe source?John has the highest levels of mercury. Mightthis have to do with the quantity of mercurycontainingfish he has consumed, or perhapsplaying with mercury as a child?We can’t answer any of these questionsdefinitively. We can only conjecture. Themain realization that stems from this studyis simply that, due to whatever types ofexposures, these Vermonters have variouslevels of toxic chemicals in their bodies thatsimply do not belong there. Participants hadfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


an average of 40 of the chemicals for whichwe tested in their bodies. The levels foundin participants were not trivial. The levels ofBisphenol A in one-third of the participantsexceeded the national norm. The levelsof mercury in four of the six participantsequaled or exceeded the national norm. Thelevels of two different chlordane pesticidesshowed up at levels 4-5 times higher thanthe national norm in one of our participants.And we know that even minute quantities ofsome of these chemicals can cause serioushealth problems. This cannot be acceptable.The toxic substances we examined in thisstudy have been linked to adverse healtheffects, some quite severe. It is clear that moremust be done to limit the use of harmfultoxins in our environment, especially wheresafer alternatives may already exist.There are currently more than 80,000chemicals in use with 1,000 new chemicalsadded each year. In 1976, the federalgovernment passed the Toxic SubstancesControl Act (TSCA) in an attempt to betterregulate chemicals in the U.S. However,TSCA grandfathered in 62,000 chemicals anddoes not require the EPA to assess the risk ofthese chemicals. Instead, the EPA may onlyrequire toxicity data if the agency is able toshow “substantial evidence” that potentialharm already exists. Similarly, TSCA doesnot require that new chemicals be testedfor safety either. Since TSCA became law,the EPA has only restricted the use of fivechemicals and has required testing for lessthan 200 chemicals. The egregious loopholes,the onerous burden of proof placed onthe EPA, and the record of EPA inactivity,has left many believing that TSCA is themost ineffective environmental law in thecountry. Currently there are national effortsunderway now to re-write and strengthenTSCA. The Alliance supports these effortsfor a Clean and Healthy Vermontand encourages Vermont’s federal delegationto firmly back meaningful TSCA reform.In addition, Vermont should look beyondaddressing chemicals on an individual basis.Instead, we must take a comprehensiveapproach to chemical regulation that usesprecaution and acts when there is evidence ofharm. Due to a previous lack of movement atthe federal level, other states -such as Maine- have enacted laws that identify chemicalsof high concern and target the most toxicfor phase out or other forms of regulation.Vermont can and should do the same. Ourcomprehensive chemicals policy should: Phase out the most harmfulchemicals and require the use of saferalternatives; Require that all chemicals be screenedfor safety; Honor the public’s right-to-knowwhich hazardous chemicals are in whatproducts; and Promote the development of saferalternatives and sustainable design.Although a change of administration at thefederal level has left open the possibilityof reforming our outdated methods ofregulating chemicals, states are still drivingthe national dialogue. By establishing aprotective and effective chemicals policy,Vermont can both protect the health of ourfamilies and impact change on the nationalstage.It is only through such comprehensivechemical reform – that is, an over-archingapproach that does not seek to limit onechemical at a time – that we can more fullyprotect human health. Such an approach hasbeen adopted by the European Union, and asmentioned, is currently being adopted in anumber of states.


While our ultimate goal must be to ensuresuch a comprehensive approach to chemicalreform, we can and should continue toimmediately phase out individual chemicals– such as Bisphenol A – known to beharmful, and for which there are clearly saferalternatives.Toxic chemicals should not be releasedinto the environment or used in consumerproducts until they have undergonesufficient testing to ensure their safety. Thesesubstances do not belong in our consumerproducts and especially not in children’stoys. Unfortunately, as long as there are nolaws to prevent it, manufacturers will keepproducing and using these toxins, and wewill continue to be exposed. We’ve assumedthat laws such as the Toxic Substance ControlAct protect us from harm, but in fact theselaws have been grossly deficient. As we lookto the future, we must urge our legislatorsto enact laws that take a more precautionaryand much more comprehensive approachtoward safeguarding human health.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Having worked for over 20 years as apediatrician, I have long been concernedabout environmental toxins that have thepotential to affect the health of children, aconcern brought closer to home in recentyears as the grandmother of two boys livinghere in Vermont. My concern has beenheightened by the alarming increase in theoccurrence of conditions such as autism,learning and behavior problems, cancers,autoimmune diseases, reproductive healthproblems and the declining age of pubertyand its consequences. (104,105,106,107,108)The increasing number of chemicals aroundus having the potential for real and significantharm is staggering. There are more than80,000 chemicals available for use in theUnited States. Since 1976 only about 200chemicals have been assessed for safety andonly 5 have been banned for health and safety.(5) The European Union, by sharp contrast,has banned several thousand chemicals forsafety and health reasons. (104) The U.S.Toxic Substances Control Act created in 1976has failed to provide the protection that wasintended.Can we continue to gamble that chemicalsincreasingly found in our bodies may haveadverse affects to our health, the health of ourchildren and that of future generations? Canwe continue to find acceptable the results ofstudies that are finding higher levels of toxicchemicals in infants and children than inadults?The mounting evidence demonstrating linksbetween exposure to these common chemicalsand health problems clearly suggests that wecannot.There is now a window of opportunity to beginto eliminate toxic exposures. On October6, 2009. Lisa Jackson, the Administrator ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,asserted that “massive reform” is needed toprotect our children from environmentaltoxins. Now is the time for all concernedcitizens to join with organizations like theAlliance for a Clean and Healthy Vermontto encourage our elected representativesto strengthen laws to protect citizens fromtoxins that are now too often found in ourwater, air, food and consumer products. Weneed to insist that existing chemicals, as wellas new chemicals brought to the market, bethoroughly and objectively tested beforebeing used in manufacturing and releasedinto the environment or used in consumerproducts.As parents, grandparents and concernedcitizens, we have not only the right but theobligation to make certain that the productswe use are free of chemicals that mightharm the health or the development of ourchildren.This project has been a learning experiencefor all of us involved. We hope that the resultsand information help Vermonters becomemore aware of this crucial concern.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


Bisphenol ACLIENT ID Aaron Jim Rich John David Katy Lab Blank Spiked MatrixAXYS ID L13080-1 L13080-2 L13080-3 L13080-4 L13080-5 L13080-6 WG29627-101 WG29627-102WORKGROUP WG29627 WG29627 WG29627 WG29627 WG29627 WG29627 WG29627 WG29627Sample Size 1.00 mL 1.00 mL 1.00 mL 1.00 mL 1.00 mL 1.00 mL 1.00 mLUNITS ng/mL ng/mL ng/mL ng/mL ng/mL ng/mL ng/mL % RecovBisphenol A 0.903 0.538 2.35 1.36 12.8 0.925 < 0.250 94.1E1 Pesticides (Lipid) (ng/g)CLIENT ID Aaron Jim Rich John David Katy Lab BlankAXYS ID L13081-1 L13081-2 L13081-3 L13081-4 L13081-5 L13081-6 WG29547-101WORKGROUP WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547UNITS ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g(lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis)HCB 6.61 9.85 11.2 14.5 12.7 5.55 K 0.152alpha-HCH K 0.154 < 0.0597 < 0.133 K 0.091 K 0.204 < 0.0889 < 0.0909beta-HCH K 1.69 K 3.28 5.67 8.55 K 1.43 0.667 0.455gamma-HCH K 0.308 K 0.149 < 0.167 K 0.273 < 0.0817 K 176 < 0.106HEPTACHLOR < 0.0769 K 0.149 < 0.0833 K 0.091 < 0.102 < 0.111 K 0.152ALDRIN K 0.154 < 0.0746 < 0.117 K 0.091 < 0.102 < 0.133 K 0.303OXYCHLORDANE 4.77 12.4 K 18.5 34.7 5.72 K 1.33 < 0.242t-CHLORDANE K 0.154 K 0.299 < 0.283 0.364 < 0.184 < 0.200 K 0.152c-CHLORDANE 0.615 3.73 3.5 8.27 1.63 K 0.222 < 0.0909t-NONACHLOR 5.23 20 22.8 66.4 K 7.15 1.78 < 0.0909c-NONACHLOR K 0.461 2.39 K 2.50 10.8 K 1.02 < 0.378 < 0.242p,p-DDE 66.6 200 187 311 155 25.8 < 0.515o,p-DDT < 0.846 < 0.836 < 1.00 < 0.536 < 1.41 < 1.71 < 0.848p,p-DDT K 2.31 4.48 2.5 4.09 3.27 < 1.82 < 0.848MIREX 0.308 5.97 3.83 7.27 3.27 1.33 < 0.0303E2 Pesticides (Lipid) (ng/g)CLIENT ID Aaron Jim Rich John David Katy Lab BlankAXYS ID L13081-1 L13081-2 L13081-3 L13081-4 L13081-5 L13081-6 WG29547-101WORKGROUP WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547 WG29547UNITS ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g(lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis) (lipid weight basis)delta-HCH < 0.153 0.299 K 0.335 K 0.182 < 0.164 K 0.222 0.462Heptachlor-Epoxide K 1.07 1.5 K 2.51 K 3.37 3.07 K 0.445 < 0.123alpha-Endosulphan < 1.87 < 3.47 < 0.636 < 0.382 < 0.920 2.45 1.38Dieldrin K 1.99 5.53 4.69 K 8.65 K 4.09 K 1.56 < 0.200Endrin < 0.245 < 0.494 < 0.268 < 0.164 < 0.388 < 0.334 < 0.215beta-Endosulphan < 1.15 K 4.49 K 3.68 5.01 K 6.95 < 2.11 < 1.12Endosulphan-Sulphate < 0.889 < 0.808 < 1.02 < 0.756 < 1.76 < 1.62 < 0.862Endrin-Aldehyde < 1.20 < 1.65 < 0.837 < 0.583 K 1.23 < 1.00 K 0.615Endrin-Ketone < 0.107 < 0.838 < 0.100 < 0.0819 < 0.266 < 0.378 < 0.231Methoxychlor < 2.79 < 3.35 < 1.76 < 1.74 < 2.84 < 3.63 < 1.63for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


1 M Sugiura-Ogasawara, Y Ozaki, S Sonta, T Makino, K Suzumori. Exposure to bisphenol A is associated withrecurrent miscarriage. Human Reproduction 20:2325-2329. 2005.2 T Takeuchi, O Tsutsumi, Y Ikezuki, Y Takai, Y Taketani. Positive relationship between androgen and the endocrinedisruptor, bisphenol A, in normal women and women with ovarian dysfunction. Endocr. J. 51:165–169. 2004.3 PA Hunt, KE Koehler, M Susiarjo, CA Hodges, A Ilagan, RC Voigt, S Thomas, BF Thomas, TJ Hassold. Bisphenol Aexposure causes meiotic aneuploidy in the female mouse. Current Biology 13(7): 546-553. 2003.4 S Jenkins, N Raghuraman, I Eltoum, M Carpenter, J Russo, C Lamartiniere. Oral Exposure to Bisphenol AIncreases Dimethylbenzanthracene-Induced Mammary Cancer in Rats. Environmental Health Perspectives117:910-915. Doi:10.1289/ehp.11751. 2009.5 Physicians for Social Responsibility (Wilding, Bobbi Chase, et al. Hazardous Chemicals in Health Care. A Snapshotof Chemicals in Doctors and Nurses. October 8, 2009. http://www.psr.org6 Is it in US? Chemical Contaminations in Our Bodies Report. A Report from the Body Burden Work Group &Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center. 2009. www.IsItInUs.com7 Toxicology Review of Decabromodiphenyl Ether (BDE-209) (CAS No. 1163-19-5). June 2008. EPA/635/R-07/008F.www.epa.gov/iris8 Main, Katharina Maria, et al. Flame Retardants in Placenta and Breast Milk and Cryptorchidism in NewbornBoys. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115. Number 10. October 2007. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/9924/abstract.html9 Eriksson, P, et al. Brominated Flame Retardants: A Novel Class of Developmental Neurotoxicants in OurEnvironment? Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 903-908. 2001. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newScience/oncompounds/PBDE/2001/2001-0820erikssonetal.htm10 The Basics of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs). Adapted from: Manchestser-Neesvig et al. 2001.Environmental Science and Technology 35:1072-1077. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/PBDE/whatarepbdes.htm11 Kuriyama, SN, et al. Developmental exposure to low dose PBDE 99: 1-effects on male fertility and neurobehaviorin rat offspring. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:149-154. 2005. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/PBDE/2004/2004-1104kuriyamaetal.htm12 Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Project Plan. U.S. EPA. March 2006. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/pubs/projplan32906a.pdf13 Toxic Waters, By CHARLES DUHIGG, The New York Times, Thursday, October 15, 2009, http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters.14 Challenging Risk Assessment: Traditional Toxicological Testing Cannot Detect the Adverse Effects of Very LowDoses of Environmental Chemicals. Journal article by Frederick S. Vom Saal, Daniel M. Sheehan; Forum forApplied Research and Public Policy, Vol. 13, 199815 ATSDR Public Health Statement. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts68-pbde.html#bookmark0516 The Work Group for Safe Markets. Baby’s Toxic Bottle: BPA Leaching from Popular Baby Bottles. February 7,2008. http://www.chej.org/documents/BabysToxicBottleFinal.pdf17 Stemp-Morlock, Graeme. Chemical Exposures: Exploring Developmental Origins of Obesity. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives, May 2007. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=186797918 Environment and Human Health, Inc. Plastics that May Be Harmful to Children and Reproductive Health. 2008.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


19 R Stahlhut, W Welshons, S Swan. Bisphenol A Data in NHANES Suggest Longer than Expected Half-Life,Substantial Nonfood Exposure, or Both. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117: 784-789.20 J Carwile, H Luu, L Bassett, D Driscoll, C Yuan, J Chang, X Ye, A Calafat, K Michels. Use of Polycarbonate Bottlesand Urinary Bisphenol A Concentrations. Environmental Health Perspectives doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900604. May 12,2009.21 Health Canada. Government of Canada Takes Action on Another Chemical of Concern: Bisphenol A. April 18,2008.22 http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc/source_water.html23 Vandenberg, L.N> 2007. Human exposure to bisphenol A. Reporductyive Toxicology 24:139-17723a David Melzer, Neil E. Rice, Ceri Lewis, William E. Henley, Tamara S. Galloway. 2010. Association of UrinaryBisphenol A Concentration with Heart Disease: Evidence from NHANES 2003/06, By PLoS ONE24 F Vom Saal, W Welshons. Large effects from small exposures. II. The importance of positive controls in low-doseresearch on bisphenol A. Environmental Research 100:50-76. 2006.25 M Ishido, Y Masuo, M Kunimoto, et al. Bisphenol A causes hyperactivity in the rat concomitantly withimpairment of tyrosine hydroxylase immunoreactivity. Journal of Neuroscience Research. 76(3):423-33. 2004.26 P Palanza, KL Howdeshell, S Parmigiani, F vom Saal. (202) Exposure to a low dose of bisphenol A during fetal lifeor in adulthood alters maternal behavior in mice. Environ. Health Perspect. 110:415-422. June 2002.27 A Nakagami, T Negishi, K Kawasaki, N Imai, Y Nishida, T Ihara, Y Kuroda, Y Yoshikawa, T Koyama.Alternations in male infant behaviors towards its mother by prenatal exposure to bisphenol A in cynomolgusmonkeys (Macaca fascicularis) during early suckling period. Psychoneuroendocrinology doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.03.005.28 NJ MacLusky, T Hajszan, C Leranth. The Environmental Estrogen Bisphenol-A Inhibits Estrogen-InducedHippocampal Synaptogenesis. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:675-679; Zsarnovszky A, Le H, Wang HS,Belche S. (2005). Ontogeny of Rapid Estrogen-Mediated Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase Signaling in theRat Cerebellar Cortex: Potent Nongenomic Agonist and Endocrine Disrupting Activity of the XenoestrogenBisphenol A. Endocrinology, 146: 5388-5396. 2005.29 R Heimeier, B Das, DR Buchholz, YB Shi. The xenoestrogen bisphenol A inhibits postembryonic vertebratedevelopment by antagonizing gene regulation by thyroid hormone. Endocrinology doI:10.1210/en.2008-1503.2009.30 M Sugiura-Ogasawara, Y Ozaki, S Sonta, T Makino, K Suzumori. Exposure to bisphenol A is associated withrecurrent miscarriage. Human Reproduction 20:2325-2329. 2005.31 T Takeuchi, O Tsutsumi, Y Ikezuki, Y Takai, Y Taketani. Positive relationship between androgen and the endocrinedisruptor, bisphenol A, in normal women and women with ovarian dysfunction. Endocr. J. 51:165–169. 2004.32 PA Hunt, KE Koehler, M Susiarjo, CA Hodges, A Ilagan, RC Voigt, S Thomas, BF Thomas, TJ Hassold. BisphenolA exposure causes meiotic aneuploidy in the female mouse. Current Biology 13(7): 546-553. 2003.33 Y Nikaido, K Yoshizawa, N Danbara, M Tsujita-Kyutoku, T Yuri, N Uehara, A Tsubara. Effects of maternalxenoestrogen exposure on development of the reproductive tract and mammary gland in female CD-1 mouseoffspring. Reprod. Toxicol. 18:803-811. 2004.34 T Murraya, V Maricel, A Maffinia, et al. (2007). Induction of mammary gland ductal hyperplasias and carcinomain situ following fetal bisphenol A exposure. Reproductive Toxicology Volume 23, Issue 3, April-May 2007, Pages383-390. 2007.35 S Honma, A Suzuki, DL Buchanan, et al. Low dose effect of in utero human exposure to bisphenol A anddiethylstilbestrol on female mouse reproduction. Reproductive Toxicology. 16:117-22. 2002.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


36 F vom Saal, PS Cooke, DL Buchanan, et al. A physiologically based approach to the study of bisphenol A andother estrogenic chemicals on the size of reproductive organs, daily sperm production, and behavior. Toxicol IndHealth 14:239–260. Medline. 1998.37 C Gupta. Reproductive malformation of the male offspring following maternal exposure to estrogenic chemicals.Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. Jun;224(2):61-8. 2000.38 K Kawai, N Takehiro, H Nishikata, et al. Aggressive behavior and serum testosterone concentration during thematuration process of male mice: The effects of fetal human exposure to bisphenol A. Environmental HealthPerspectives.111:175-8. Medline. 2003.39 Ramakrishnan S & Wayne N. 2008. Impact of bisphenol-A on early embryonic development and reproductivematuration. Reproductive Toxicology 25:177-183.40 Kissinger, Meg, “BPA raised workers’ risk of sexual dysfunction, study says” in the Milwaukee-Wisconsin JournalSentinel, Nov. 11, 2009.41 S Jenkins, N Raghuraman, I Eltoum, M Carpenter, J Russo, C Lamartiniere. Oral Exposure to Bisphenol AIncreases Dimethylbenzanthracene-Induced Mammary Cancer in Rats. Environmental Health Perspectives117:910-915. Doi:10.1289/ehp.11751. 2009.42 YB Wetherill, CE Petre, KR Monk, et al. The Xenoestrogen Bisphenol A Induces Inappropriate Androgen ReceptorActivation and Mitogenesis in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Cells. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, 1:515–524. 2002.43 Byrne, Jane. US Study Claims BPA Induces Chemotherapy Resistance. October 9, 2008. Food Production Daily.44 I Lang, T Galloway, A Scarlett, W Henley, M Depledge, et al. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A ConcentrationWith Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. The Journal of the American MedicalAssociation. 2008.45 I Lang, T Galloway, A Scarlett, W Henley, M Depledge, et al. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A ConcentrationWith Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. The Journal of the American MedicalAssociation. 2008.46 I Lang, T Galloway, A Scarlett, W Henley, M Depledge, et al. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A ConcentrationWith Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. The Journal of the American MedicalAssociation. 2008.47 P Alonso-Magdalena, S Morimoto, C Ripoll, et al. The Estrogenic Effect of Bisphenol-A Disrupts the Pancreaticß-Cell Function in vivo and Induces Insulin Resistance. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:106-112. 2006.48 AB Ropero, P Alonso-Magdalena, E García-García, et al. Bisphenol-A disruption of the endocrine pancreas andblood glucose homeostasis. Int J Androl. Apr; 31(2):194-200. 2008.49 J Miyawaki J, Sakayama K, Kato H. Perinatal and postnatal exposure to bisphenol A increases adipose tissue massand serum cholesterol level in mice. Atheroscler Thromb. Oct;14(5):245-52. Epub 2007, Oct 12. 2007.50 Raloff, Janet. Concerns over bisphenol A continue to grow: New studies of plastics chemical measure effects,exposures. ScienceNews. July 18, 2009. Vol.176 #2 (p.5).51 Meyers, Pete. Good Genes Gone Bad. The American Prospect. March 19, 2006. Available at http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11315 (Accessed on August 18, 2009).52 Balin, Paul. Byrne, Margaret. Lewis, Sandford. Liroff, Richard. Public Awareness Drives Market for SaferAlternatives. Investor Environmental Health Network. September 15, 2008.53 Green Century Capital Management, As You Sow. Seeking Safer Packaging: Ranking Packaged Food Companieson BPA. 2009.54 Health Canada. Government of Canada Protects Families with Bisphenol A Regulations. October 17, 2008.for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


55 An act relating to public health; protecting the health of children; prohibiting bisphenol-A in products for youngchildren; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 325F. Available at http://chemicalspolicy.org/legislationdocs/Minnesota/MN_SF247.pdf (Accessed on August 19, 2009)56 Public Act No. 09-103. An Act Concerning Banning Bisphenol-A in Children’s Products and Food Products.Available at http://chemicalspolicy.org/legislationdocs/Connecticut/CT_HB6572.pdf (Accessed on August 19,2009)57 Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Public Health Advisory Regarding Bisphenol A (BPA). August 3,2009. Available at: http://www.mass.gov?pageID=eohhs2pressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Eeohhs2&b=pressrelease&f=090803_bpa_advisory&csid=Eeohhs2 (Accessed on August 17, 2009)58 Dufault, Rene, Blaise LeBlanc, Roseanne Schnoll, Charles Cornett, Laura Schweitzer, David Wallinga, JaneHightower, Lyn Patrick and Walter J Lukiw, Environmental Health 2009, 8:2.59 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Statement,Mercury, CAS#: 7439-97-6, March 1999.60 Ibid.61 Ibid.62 Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the Northeast Prepared by NESCAUM (Northeast States forCoordinated Air Use Management), November 200563 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), ToxFAQs, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html#h,U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention64 United State Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/ecoservices/envicon/pim/reports/contaminantinfo/contaminants.html65 Ibid.66 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), ToxFAQs, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html#h,U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention67 Ibid.68 Ibid.69 Ibid.70 Ibid.71 Ibid.72 Ibid.73 Ibid.74 Ibid.75 Schlaud, M, A Seidler, A Salje, W Behrendt, F W Schwartz, M Ende, A Knoll, and C Grugel (1995) Organochlorineresidues in human breast milk: analysis through a sentinel practice network. J Epidemiol Community Health.1995 August; 49(Suppl 1): 17–21.76 Public Health Statement for Polybrominated Diphenly Ethers(PBDEs).. September 2004. Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs68-pbde.htmlfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


77 The Basics of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs). Adapted from: Manchestser-Neesvig et al. 2001.Environmental Science and Technology 35:1072-1077. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/PBDE/whatarepbdes.htm78 Lignell, Sanna et al. Persistent organochlorine and organobromine compounds in Mother’s milk from Sweden1996-2006: Compounds-specific temporal trends. Environmental Research Vol. 109, Issue 6, August 2009. pp 760-767. abstract. http://www.sciencedirect.com79 Roosens L, et al. Exposure to hexabromocyclododecanes via dust ingestion, but not diet, correlated withconcentrations in human serum - preliminary results. 2009 Environmental Health Perspectives doi:10.1289/ehp.0900869. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/dust-not-diet-associated-with-hcbcflame-retardants/80 Fraser AJ, et al. Diet contributes significantly to the body burden of PBDEs in the general US population. 2009.Environmental Health Perspective doi: 10.1289/eph.0900817. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/red-meat-and-poultry-sources-of-pbde81 Betts,E, et al. Waste from consumer goods containing PBDEs can contaminate U.S. waterways....EnvironmentalScience Technology. 2009, 43 (14), pp 5161-5163. http://pub.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es901200v82 Toxic Chemicals used as fire retardants have been found in all U.S. waters........National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration(NOAA). March 2009. Michelle Ma. Seattle Times. April 1, 2009. http://www.ewg.org/node/27776/print83 Main, Katharina Maria, et al. Flame Retardants in Placenta and Breast Milk and Cryptorchidism in NewbornBoys. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115. Number 10. October 2007. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/9924/abstract.html84 Lignell, Sanna et al. Persistent organochlorine and organobromine compounds in Mother’s milk from Sweden1996-2006: Compounds-specific temporal trends. Environmental Research Vol. 109, Issue 6, August 2009. pp 760-767. abstract. http://www.sciencedirect.com85 Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Project Plan. U.S. EPA. March 2006. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/pubs/projplan32906a.pdf86 Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 116, Number 6, May 2008.87 Is it in US? Chemical Contaminations in Our Bodies Report. A Report from the Body Burden Work Group &Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center. 2009. www.IsItInUs.com88 Physicians for Social Responsibility (Wilding, Bobbi Chase, et al. Hazardous Chemicals in Health Care. ASnapshot of Chemicals in Doctors and Nurses. October 8, 2009. http://www.psr.org89 Toms, Leisa-Maree L., et al. Higher Accumulation of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Infants Than in Adults.Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42 (19), pp 7510-7515. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800719v90 Fire Retardants in Toddlers and Their Mothers. Environmental Working Group. September 4, 2008. http://www.ewg.org91 Gray, Janet, MS Ph.D. Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer. PPNNE Conference: A Critical Link: TheEnvironment and Women’s Health. Burlington, VT. September 10, 2009. Notes92 Sjorden, Andreas, et al. Serum Concentrations of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) and PolybrominatedBiphenyl (PBB) in the United States Population: 2003-2004. Environ. Sci. Technol..,2008. 42 (4). pp1377-1384.93 Toms, Leisa-Maree L., et al. Higher Accumulation of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Infants Than in Adults.Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42 (19), pp 7510-7515. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800719v94 Physicians for Social Responsibility (Wilding, Bobbi Chase, et al. Hazardous Chemicals in Health Care. ASnapshot of Chemicals in Doctors and Nurses. October 8, 2009. http://www.psr.orgfor a Clean and Healthy Vermont


95 Is it in US? Chemical Contaminations in Our Bodies Report. A Report from the Body Burden Work Group &Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center. 2009. www.IsItInUs.com96 Toxicology Review of Decabromodiphenyl Ether (BDE-209) (CAS No. 1163-19-5). June 2008. EPA/635/R-07/008F. www.epa.gov/iris97 Main, Katharina Maria, et al. Flame Retardants in Placenta and Breast Milk and Cryptorchidism in NewbornBoys. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115. Number 10. October 2007. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/9924/abstract.html98 Eriksson, P, et al. Brominated Flame Retardants: A Novel Class of Developmental Neurotoxicants in OurEnvironment? Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 903-908. 2001. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newScience/oncompounds/PBDE/2001/2001-0820erikssonetal.htm99 The Basics of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs). Adapted from: Manchestser-Neesvig et al. 2001.Environmental Science and Technology 35:1072-1077. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/PBDE/whatarepbdes.htm100 Kuriyama, SN, et al. Developmental exposure to low dose PBDE 99: 1-effects on male fertility and neurobehaviorin rat offspring. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:149-154. 2005. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/PBDE/2004/2004-1104kuriyamaetal.htm101 Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Project Plan. U.S. EPA. March 2006. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/pubs/proj-plan32906a.pdf102 Healthy Home Tips. Tip 3: Avoid fire retardants. Environmental Working Group. September 2009. http://www.ewg.org/health-home-tips-03#products103 Ibid.104 Blake, Anne Ph.D. The Chemicals Around Us. PPNNE Conference: A Critical Link: The Environment andWomen’s Health. Burlington, Vt. September 10, 2009. Notes.105 Gray, Janet, MS Ph.D. Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer. PPNNE Conference: A Critical Link: TheEnvironment and Women’s Health. Burlington, VT. September 10, 2009. Notes106 Steingraber, Sandra, Ph.D. The Falling Age of Puberty in U.S, Girls and the Implications for Learning. PPNNEConference: A Critical Link: The Environment and Women’s Health, Burlington, VT. September 10, 2009. Notes107 Miller, Elise, M.Ed. Environmental Contributors to Learning and Developmental Disabilities. PPNNEConference: A Critical Link: The Environment and Women’s Health. Burlington, VT. September 10, 2009. Notes.108 Cromer, Barbara, M.D. et al. Early Pubertal Development in Chinese Girls. Pediatrics. Vol. 124, No. 2 , August2009for a Clean and Healthy Vermont


for a Clean and Healthy Vermont

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines