Chemical overload!

[Guest guest]

We're in chemical overloadToxic chemicals: Consumers are the lab ratshttp://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story..html?id=e4c6d71f-2a6f-4952-98c7-24866f28aa67Published: Friday, June 20Viviane Maraghi expected the blood tests to show she would have some chemical pollution in her body, but nothing like this.After

all, she viewed herself as "very environmentalist," carefully

monitoring what she ate and and the household products and items she

purchased.Nevertheless, lead, arsenic, mercury, PCBs, PBDEs (a

flame retardant banned in Europe and eight U.S. states but still in use

in Canada), plus an array of other chemicals that have been linked to

cancer, birth defects and neurological diseases were all well

represented in her bloodstream.Viviane

Maraghi and son Aladin, 12, were tested for chemical contaminants as

part of a 2005 Environmental Defence study. The results surprised them.

 

Her

blood tested positive for 36 of 68 potentially toxic chemicals, many of

which never actually leave the body, but continue to accumulate over

time in tissues such as fat or bone.They get there because they are in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the products we use.Over

the last 50 years, from 70,000 to 100,000 different chemicals have been

introduced into the world's markets with about 1,500 new ones added

each year. They are found mostly in industrial processes and consumer

products such as cosmetics, cleaners, food, plastics and more recently

the circuit boards that run our computer electronics. Even a seemingly

innocuous polyvinyl chloride (PVC ) shower curtain contains up to 108

toxic chemicals - some of which have already been banned by some

countries, but not in Canada.Manufacturers often argue that

these chemicals have been used for decades with no reported incidents

of harm. But who has ever been able to say: "I'm dying of cancer and

it's the shower curtain's fault?"Fact is, only sporadic toxicity studies have been done on the enormous array of industrial chemicals used in Canada.Only

now are governments beginning to examine the dangers posed to human

health and ecosystems. Many western governments are initiating new

chemical controls as part of an international Strategic Approach to

International Chemical Management agreement signed in Dubai in 2006.

The agreement was sparked by the realization that nearly every square

inch of the planet is now contaminated to one degree or another with a

chemical pollutant. What's more, over the next 15 years, chemical

production is expected to climb 80 per cent. The main goal is to assure

that by 2020 everybody uses chemicals safely.Leading the way is

the European Union with a new program called REACH (Regulation on

Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals)

that requires industry to prove the safety of their chemicals and

consumer products before they reach the market. The next 10

years will see a vast number of chemical assessments, all of which will

be made public, that will shed light on the murky world of chemical

toxicity. It's a world that until now has remained hushed up or simply

ignored. The ultimate result could be a sea change in how we

develop products for the consumer market. It could lead to widespread

bans on some substances, which might see many consumer products

disappear from the shelves or be replaced with safer equivalents. It

is an issue that is becoming increasingly important worldwide as

species disappear, health costs sore, and concern grows that many

diseases, particularly cancers and autoimmune diseases, might be the

result of chemical pollution.Few tests have been performed on

Canadians to pinpoint and quantify the chemical pollutants accumulating

in our bodies. But that is beginning to change.Health Canada is testing 5,000 Canadians for chemical contamination and preliminary results should be available in November.The

tests done on Maraghi, 35, and her son Aladin, 12, in 2005 were part of

a research project called Toxic Nation undertaken by the Toronto-based

activist group Environmental Defence. An attempt to wake up

Canadians to the growing danger of chemical toxins entering our bodies,

the study tested 11 individual volunteers plus five families. Maraghi

and her son took part, she said, because she was eager to help raise

Canadian's awareness of the dangers posed by the millions of kilograms

of chemicals emitted into the environment each year. Each volunteer had high levels of many different chemical pollutants in their bloodstreams.Even

Maraghi's son Aladin, who was only 10 when the tests were performed,

tested positive for 25 chemicals and had higher lead levels than his

mother.Both had high levels of organophosphate insecticides,

probably because they spent three years living in the country, Maraghi

said."It was surprising to us because we are very aware and a

big part of what we eat is organic, and we try to be careful with the

types of products we use in the house," she said. "So my first reaction

was, 'what happens with people that don't take care of that and are not

aware?' "To date, consumers have been unsuspecting lab rats for

chemical companies who have been allowed to market their products

without ensuring they won't damage human health or the environment.

Bans have been imposed only after the damage is done.So far, preliminary studies in Europe and the United States strongly indicate we all are contaminated. A

recent U.S. study found most of its subjects had rocket fuel chemicals

in their bodies as well as a host of other toxins like bisphenol A,

which gives the clear, pliable strength to plastic water bottles as

well as baby formula bottles. Health Canada tests reveal that it

disrupts the body's hormones and could be toxic even at low levels.

Because the government here is worried that bisphenol A migrates into

baby formula, Health Canada is considering a ban on its use in baby

bottles. Canada, however, is still far behind the EU in assessing chemicals. The EU's REACH program

officially began on June 1, when it required that every company

register chemicals sold in the EU, in bulk or in consumer products.

Companies must reveal the chemical composition and toxicity of their

consumer products and must finance their own toxicity studies. All of

this information will be entered into a public registry. Essentially,

until a company proves the safety of its product, it cannot be sold in

the EU.The EU hopes the REACH program will motivate companies

throughout the world to produce safer products. Given the enormity of

the EU market (it has surpassed the U.S.), the motivation to conform

will be considerable.Canadian exports to the EU, for example,

have increased 600 per cent since 1998, totalling $4.7 billion last

year. Only a small percentage of our total chemical exports go to the

EU (most go to the U.S.), but it is not a market Canadians would want

to lose.While public health and a safe environment for all

species are the priorities of the REACH program, EU officials also note

that the high costs of cleaning up contaminated sites as well as

fighting diseases caused by chemical contamination are significant

reasons to implement the program. The EU says the program will

cost industry up to $8.2 billion over the first 11 to 15 years.

However, it estimates a reduction of .01 per cent in the overall burden

of disease would save about $80 billion over 30 years.A wide

array of studies indicate a significant proportion of disease is

directly related to environmental and occupational factors like

chemical contamination. The World Health Organization estimates that

the poor, particularly children and women, suffer disproportionately

from diseases that are related to environmental contamination. In

developing countries, up to 35 per cent of diseases are caused by

contaminated environments. The figures could, however, be much

higher for all societies. But because few studies have examined this

issue, nobody really knows. The studies that have been done indicate

serious problems.For example, scientists at Université Laval

have revealed that Inuit children and their mothers in northern Quebec

have high levels of organochlorines such as PCBs and the extremely

toxic chemical dioxin. These chemicals can damage the immune system,

especially as it develops in the womb and during infancy. This might

explain why Inuit children have been found to have a much higher

incidence of acute infections such as ear and lung infections compared

with people living in southern Quebec. Most of the chemical pollution

in the North has been brought from the South by ocean currents that

circle the Arctic. The contaminants concentrate at the top of the food

chain in predatory fish and mammals, which are the main food source for

the Inuit. In some cases, studies show that Inuit children's

immune systems have been so badly damaged that doctors are hesitant to

prescribe antibiotics for fear they will worsen the infection.Canada has started

its own chemical assessment program. Unlike the EU program, which

demands that industry foot the bill for toxicity assessments, the

Canadian program is completely financed by the taxpayer."On the

level of depth and breadth of coverage, the REACH program wins on both

accounts," John Margeson, Industry Canada's chemical specialist, said.Canada's umbrella law for the regulation of chemicals is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).Under

this law, which was passed in 1999, all new chemicals produced in or

imported into Canada since 1994 have to be assessed for health and

environmental effects by Health Canada.However, companies can

market a chemical before tests are completed. Essentially, it is up to

the government to prove the chemical is a risk before it is taken off

the market. There is also no obligation for the government to

keep a dangerous chemical off the shelves. The law gives the government

up to two years after assessing a chemical to take action, but does not

oblige it to ban a dangerous chemical."These chemicals are in

all kinds of different products and it's going to be very interesting

to see how much political will there is and whether they have the guts

to do things that are going to be disruptive to the market," Dr. Kapil

Khatter, pollution policy advisor for Environmental Defence, said.

"It's hard not to bow to the social and economic pressures." What's

more, when the new CEPA was made law in 1999, it did not require that

companies supply toxicity reports for the 23,000 chemicals already

widely used Canada.It did, however, obligate the government to

sort the chemicals into those that are inherently toxic to humans or to

the environment.The sorting process was finally completed in

September 2006. The government identified more than 4,000 chemicals,

which it decided required further study. Of these, it labelled 200

"high priority." Of these 200, 66 are potentially dangerous to human

health and the rest pose ecological dangers. All of them have remained

on the market as the government completes its assessment. The final

test results for the first 15 chemicals will be published July 5. But

that is nowhere near the end of the assessments.Christine

Norman, acting director of the risk and impact assessment branch of the

program, said it will take two more years to complete the testing on

the 200 high-priority chemicals. Then there are another 2,600 chemicals

from the petroleum sector that will have to be assessed; another 1,400

are considered of medium priority. How long that will take is not

clear. So far, Health Canada has identified 16 substances that

pose a high risk to humans and another 17 that are toxic to other

species.One of those substances is thiourea, which is used in

metal finishing solutions as well as silver polish, tarnish removers,

metal cleaners and in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and in the

pulp and paper industry.The federal government claims that in

2006, industry imported between 10,000 and 100,000 kilograms of

thiourea. Norman said the government knows the exact number but won't

make it public because industry insists it is a business secret.Importation

was permitted despite the fact that dozens of studies dating back as

early as 1947 showed that even at low doses rats and mice fed thiourea

developed a variety of cancerous tumours. It can enter the human body

orally, through inhalation or through skin contact.The Chemical

Substances Program published an assessment of thiourea on May 8 stating

that it could cause cancer "at any level of exposure."The report

said thiourea should be considered a "substance that may be entering

the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that

constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or

health."But despite its potential danger to humans, the chemical is still widely used in Canada. Norman

said the final assessment is still months away. She said two years

after the final assessment, Health Canada will publish a

risk-management assessment that will outline steps the government

should take to deal with the dangers. These could include an outright

or limited ban on its use, or simply a warning on packages.The

chemical bisphenol A is another example of the slow pace of government

action. Global production, now more than three billion kilograms per

year, is increasing. Bisphenol A has been found in high concentrations

in municipal and industrial wastewaters, sludge and biosolids, which

are often spread as fertilizer. As well as a danger to humans,

"bisphenol A is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and is considered

highly hazardous to the aquatic environment," Health Canada states in

its assessment. Yet the government is only considering a ban on its use

in baby bottles, without considering its danger to wildlife or the

broader Canadian population. Khatter said the government just

wants to give the appearance of taking action. "There is an

intellectual gap between the people who wrote the risk assessment and

the minister's office," he said. "The risk assessment says this stuff

is really toxic to aquatic wildlife at very low levels and we have to

do something about releases to the environment, period, but all the

government seems to do is ban it from baby bottles." In March 2007,

Health Canada began testing 5,000 Canadians for the chemical pollution

in their bodies. Tests are being done on blood, urine, hair, saliva and

breast milk. The idea is to track chemical contamination levels

in a broad spectrum of the population and measure trends in exposure

over time and by geographical region. Eventually, Health Canada

hopes to be able to compare the medical records with the level of

chemical exposure to find a possible relationship between the two.Statistics

Canada is compiling the data. Jeanine Bustros, director of the project,

said they have already completed about two thirds of the testing

including subjects in Montreal and the south shore communities.Preliminary

results for heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury are scheduled

to be made public in November. Final results for all 5,000 participants

across Canada will be released January 2010, she said.Each

participant fills out a lengthy and detailed health and lifestyle

survey detailing such data as illnesses, daily routines, exercise

regiments, food consumption, job environment, beauty products, hobbies,

stress levels and products used in the home."This is the first

time we will have normative data on the level of chemicals in the

Canadian population," she said. "This means that we will have a point

of reference to compare, say, the levels of lead in a person with the

norm."Advances in the technology of detection are making it

easier for scientists to detect the present of even the smallest

quantities of chemical pollutants. We can now detect chemical levels in

parts per trillion."One part per trillion is one second in

32,000 years," Dr. Joe Schwartz, a chemist at McGill University's

science and society department, noted. "That you can detect things in

that concentration is far better than finding a needle in a haystack.

It's like finding a needle in a world full of haystacks."Our

ability to measure data, however, has outstripped our ability to

interpret the data, he said. The ultimate goal has to be to find out

what, if any, detrimental health or environmental effects exist. With

many chemicals, this is still a black hole. Most studies that

detect potentially dangerous toxins are the result of giving large

doses to rats, but what kills a rat may not have any effect on humans."The

value of bio-monitoring is going to be long term," Schwartz said. "If

we have a good baseline now, we get good data and then we check 10, 20

years down the road to see if there is any alteration in disease

patterns for those people and then you look back to see if there is any

link."So while Maraghi and her son Aladin may know the chemicals

that are polluting their bodies, finding out the impact is a

wait-and-see game.She said her son never gets sick. She on the other hand is plagued with migraines."I have had them since I was young. But it's hard to relate it to anything."But just knowing about the chemical cocktail in her body is a good thing. It's made her even more careful of what she buys."I

lately brought a mattress for my son and since we were aware of the

products they can put in, like the products against fire, we asked for

a mattress without (fire retardants). Whereas before when I bought any

of this furniture, I would never ask this question because I was not

aware."wmarsdenVisit Canada's Chemical Substance Program website at www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca© The Gazette 2008"It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment ofchronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many histories of littlechildren who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the severalyears that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn't put my finger onthe disease they have. They just weren't strong. Their resistance was gone. They wereperfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since. "---Dr. William Howard Hay

Best Jokes, Best Friends, Best Food. Get all this and more on Best of .