Nonstick chemicals may pose a threat

By SCOTT STREATER

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

They're found in floor waxes and shampoos. They're used in many fast-food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags. They coat pizza boxes, carpets and frying pans. And they're in people. They're perfluorochemicals. While you may not recognize the word, you probably know the brand names: Teflon, Stainmaster, Gore-Tex.

You are exposed to those compounds every day, and there is mounting concern that they may cause a variety of health problems. A panel of scientists selected by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded this year that a perfluorochemical used in nonstick cookware is a likely cancer-causing agent.

As is the case with many of the 82,000 chemicals in commercial use today, health officials aren't sure what levels of perfluorochemicals in the body can cause health problems. Researchers aren't even sure of the main source of human exposure: household products or manufacturing plants. They know only that perfluorochemicals remain in the environment and the body for a long time. "These compounds are used in an unbelievable number of products that we come in contact with every day," said Kurunthachalam Kannan, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health, in Albany, who has extensively researched the compounds.

Scientists have found that U.S. residents have the world's highest levels of perfluorochemicals in their bodies. Kannan says it takes the body at least eight years to rid itself of the chemicals. That's one reason 3M agreed six years ago to stop making and using perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, to make Scotchgard. The company's own research found that the compound was showing up in low doses in people and wildlife worldwide. Today, a different chemical is used in the popular stain- and water repellent. "We didn't want to be a contributing source of these materials in the environment," said Bill Nelson, a 3M spokesman. He said the company's decision does not mean that there is evidence that the chemicals in the products cause harm.

In January, DuPont and other companies volunteered to phase out the use of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, used in Teflon nonstick cookware and some microwave popcorn bags. But researchers say there's evidence that both compounds persist in the environment -- perhaps forever. That means people could be exposed for an untold amount of time.

A Star-Telegram research project tested the blood of 12 volunteers for a host of chemicals, and PFOS was found in all 12; PFOA was found in six. The concentrations were tiny -- in the parts-per-billion range. One part per billion is equivalent to one kernel of corn in a 45-foot silo filled to the brim.

Yet one study published last year in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicological Sciences found that PFOA hurt the livers of laboratory rats at low levels. The highest level of PFOA found in any of the Star-Telegram study participants was 5 parts per billion. Zoraida Rodriguez, 33, had one of the lowest levels of perfluorochemicals. And she had no measured level of PFOA. One possible reason, says Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican native, is that she has never used nonstick cookware. Her mother always cooked with stainless steel pans, which were common where she grew up. But not here. Rodriguez, who lives in Burleson, said that she's seen news reports about Teflon products and the health concerns associated with them and that she tries to avoid them. She's just not sure that's possible. "You go to a restaurant, and they may cook with it," she said. "I go to eat at my sister-in-law's. I go out of town. I eat out. You never know."

DuPont's troubles

The chemical that makes nonstick cookware slick is in the national spotlight now. DuPont, based in Wilmington, Del., is North America's only producer of PFOA and faces numerous lawsuits tied to plants that produce the compound. In 2004, DuPont agreed to pay up to $343 million to settle a class-action suit filed by Ohio and West Virginia residents who said their water supplies had been contaminated with PFOA from DuPont's Parkersburg, W.Va., plant. The settlement requires the company to spend up to $70 million for medical evaluations for tens of thousands of people who drank contaminated water. A similar federal lawsuit was filed in April by New Jersey residents who claim that DuPont's plant in Salem County, N.J., contaminated drinking water supplies there and that the company knew of the contamination for years. The PFOA levels in those cases are much higher than what would be expected from products. Texas has no industrial plants that are known to emit PFOA.

DuPont faces a federal class-action lawsuit brought by residents in 20 states and the District of Columbia who say the company failed to make public possible health risks associated with the use of its nonstick pots and pans. The lawsuit, filed in May in Iowa, alleges DuPont knew its Teflon cookware releases PFOA and other toxic gases into the air when heated. DuPont denies the allegation. Last year, the EPA fined DuPont $10.25 million -- the largest civil penalty in the agency's 36-year history -- for failing to report that it had learned as early as 1981 that PFOA could pass from a woman's blood to her fetus.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore said in February that in blood samples from the umbilical cords of 300 newborns, 298 contained trace levels of the compound. "We're not only looking at the levels, but we're also trying to understand whether there are potential health effects or biological markers, biological changes that might be indicative of a biological effect," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who helped lead the study.

Goldman, a former assistant administrator in the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said researchers don't know the answer yet. Dr. Leo Trasande, a pediatrician and environmental health specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said: "We know relatively little about PFOA. But what we know raises strong concerns about their human health effects, especially their effects on children."

What industry's doing

Under mounting public pressure, industry is taking action. DuPont and seven other companies worldwide agreed in January to work toward stopping manufacture and use of PFOA by 2015. "The fact that it's out there in the blood of the population raises questions that need to be answered," said David Boothe, global business manager for DuPont Fluoroproducts. But the company vigorously defends the use of the chemical and the products that contain it, saying it is "not toxic by the yardsticks that the government usually measures these things." A number of independent health studies dispute that, however. The EPA's science advisory board that recommended PFOA be considered a likely carcinogen has also proposed that the agency study PFOA's potential to cause liver, testicular, pancreatic and breast cancers and whether it affects the hormones or nervous or immune systems.

DuPont rejects the science panel's review because it is based primarily on animal testing. "We think the weight of evidence and science says, look, the things that are happening in rats don't happen in people," Boothe said. He also said the EPA has ignored company studies that did not find health problems in workers "exposed to thousands of times higher levels than in the general population." "So DuPont's position on this is, to date, there are no known health effects from exposure to PFOA," Boothe said. But the company's worker studies "have many limitations, such that definitive conclusions about PFOA cannot be made at this time," said Charles Auer, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics, in an e-mail response to written questions from the Star-Telegram. There's nothing wrong with using animal studies to gauge the health effects of chemicals, said Linda Birnbaum, an EPA toxicologist. "People are animals," Birnbaum said. "If you find a similar kind of response in a couple of species of animals or if you find that a chemical is targeting multiple kinds of tissues, why would we think that humans would be completely resistant or different?"

Tracking PFOA

Researchers know that PFOA is widespread in the environment, but how did it get there? Until recently, many suspected Teflon cookware was the main source. A 2001 University of Toronto study published in the British science journal Nature concluded that PFOA is one of several toxic gases emitted when Teflon is heated to 680 degrees, which is easy to do, even if cooking an omelet. And there have been at least 94 documented cases of a flulike illness, polymer fumer fever, among industrial workers exposed to Teflon heated beyond 700 degrees. DuPont has spent millions of dollars on studies that it says show that the compound is not coming off nonstick pots and pans. And DuPont has recently reduced the level of PFOA in new Teflon products. Independent researchers say small levels do come off the pans but not enough to explain the widespread exposures that have been measured.

Today, the focus has shifted to food wrappers, carpet and other household products. Kannan, the New York State Department of Health scientist, believes that those items release perfluorochemicals as a gas. "They are constantly leaching from the surfaces they are applied to," he said. "The indoor air is filled with these compounds." They can also be released from manufacturing plants. That's one reason that the EPA pledged in January to add PFOA to a program that tracks industrial emissions of toxic chemicals and makes the results public. Doing so would allow researchers to track "where this stuff might be concentrated," said Brad Karkkainen, an expert on environmental and natural-resources law at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis. It would also be a symbolic gesture, he said, "an official acknowledgement by the EPA that it has reason to believe that there are adverse environmental or public health effects associated with the thing." The agency has not added the compound to its Toxics Release Inventory, and EPA officials say they have no timetable for doing so.

Wastewater treatment plants can also release perfluorochemicals. When shampoos, denture cleaners and car waxes are washed down the drain, wastewater plants are not designed to treat the PFOA in them. "So they get released into the rivers, lakes and ponds, and fish living in those places accumulate these compounds and enter into the food chain that way," Kannan said.

The voluntary withdrawal will help slow the spread of PFOA. But the deadline for withdrawal is not until 2015, which the EPA has classified as an "aspirational goal," not a mandate. "Technical and cost issues might preclude eliminating PFOA and related chemicals entirely from emissions and product content by 2015," said Auer, the EPA toxics official. That concerns some researchers who want to see regulatory action taken now to reduce human exposure, even if a lot more research is needed to determine precise human health effects. "I think you want to take regulatory action at a point before there are effects in humans," said Goldman, the Johns Hopkins researcher. "The point is to try and prevent that."

PERFLUOROCHEMICALS

What are they? A group of man-made chemicals often used in a wide variety of consumer products such as carpets, upholstery, textiles and nonstick cookware. Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has grabbed the public spotlight recently because it is used in Teflon cookware. DuPont and other manufacturers agreed to work to phase out its use by 2015. Still, perfluorochemicals are in the blood of virtually all Americans, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. And numerous studies have found that the levels in U.S. residents are the world's highest. The chemicals' widespread use in carpets, stain-resistant textiles and cleaners is possibly the major source of human exposure.

What are the possible health effects? The main concern is that when perfluorochemicals enter the body, they stay there for years. An EPA science advisory panel recommended in February that PFOA is a "likely" human carcinogen. Other studies involving laboratory animals have found that perfluorochemicals damage organ function and sexual development. DuPont officials, however, say there is no evidence that the chemicals harm humans.

SOURCES: Environmental Protection Agency, federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, New York State Department of Health

Nail salons' workers, clients at risk from toxic chemicals:

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/294599_nailsalon04.html

Nail salons' workers, clients at risk from toxic chemicals: Insufficient regulation cited in call for improved safety practices

Monday, December 4, 2006

By LISA STIFFLER, P-I REPORTER

Close your eyes and walk past one of the city's countless nail salons and you might think you're passing an auto body paint shop. That's because many of the chemicals are the same, albeit in smaller quantities. The products that lacquer your toenails fire-engine red or make your fingernails luxuriously long and shapely can contain chemicals that are suspected or known to cause cancer and birth defects. For many dangerous ingredients, the long-term effects -- five, 10, even 20 years after exposure -- are unclear. Yet there are limited safeguards for nail salon workers and their customers.

There are no requirements for ventilation or protective gear for manicurists. Masks worn by some salon workers will shield them from dust, but not fumes. And the government isn't making sure that the nail polishes, removers and acrylic nail products are safe before they adorn your digits -- that's up to the manufacturers. "They are heavy-duty toxic chemicals so you can't just use them indiscriminately," said Susan Titus, an indoor-air-program specialist with the Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle. "You have to be aware of the chemicals that you are using. "I'm guessing that most of the customers that go in are not really thinking about it," she said.

Led by the EPA, local and state health officials, along with Seattle environmental and community activists, began meeting in July to learn more about the risks and to devise ways to better protect manicurists and their clients. The group will continue meeting next year. Participants plan to monitor air quality in salons and to increase their educational outreach. "We really don't have a good understanding of what the accumulative effects are of (nail salon) chemicals when they're put together," said Ryan Kellogg, public health supervisor for the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County. "We really need to get a better handle on that." Until that happens, county officials are visiting salons and teaching workers about safer practices, including keeping products capped with tight lids and disposing of irritating solvents -- such as acetone and toluene -- in sealed trash cans.

The number of nail salons is multiplying rapidly, with between 800 and 1,200 new manicurist licenses issued by the state each year since 2002. There are more than 13,600 licensed manicurists in Washington and more than 400 nail salons in King County alone. Fueled by Vietnamese immigrants who have made this their niche business, the salons offer pampering at a reasonable price -- about $12 for manicures and acrylic nails for $25. For seven years, Tien Tran worked in poorly ventilated salons from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., six days a week, before opening her own shop in the Central Area six months ago. Tran wanted to create a healthier environment for her customers and workers. Her goal was "to build a nail salon that was less potent," said the 26-year-old woman, who has two manicurists working with her. Her Couture Nails & Spa is spacious and well-ventilated to the outdoors. After they use noxious solvents, workers dispose of them quickly. Containers holding strong-smelling products such as nail polish remover are capped except for the brief time when they're in use. Tran also switched to chamomile lotion to dry nails, rather than a pungent aerosol spray. "I know that the fumes may be hazardous, but I'm doing my best to do research to find products that have less fumes and are less hazardous for myself and for my customers," Tran said.

Nail-product manufacturers and some regulatory agencies say that workers and customers are not at risk from the chemicals. "Generally speaking, the exposure is very low-level in a nail salon, as compared to what we see in industrial use," said Elaine Fischer, spokeswoman for the state Department of Labor and Industries. "Not only is it not over the regulated limit, it's well under."

Like other businesses in which dangerous chemicals are used, salons are required to have a written training program to teach workers about the chemicals and what to do if there's an accident, such as a spill or the splashing of a product into someone's eyes. Product safety is part of the 600 hours of training required for a manicurist license. For many years, the safety focus for nail salons has been the risk of bacterial or fungal infections from salons practicing sloppy hygiene. Now those concerns have been expanded. "People need to be aware of what they're being exposed to," said Yalonda Sinde, outgoing executive director of the Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, which works to safeguard minority and low-income communities.

On the West Coast, the majority of manicurists are Vietnamese women. They're frequently immigrants who may have difficulty understanding chemical safety sheets -- though shop owners are supposed to provide them with information in their own language.

On an early Saturday morning, Huong "Jenny" Nguyen's hair and nail salon on Martin Luther King Jr. Way South has only a detectable scent of beauty supplies. Through an interpreter, Nguyen says that she notices the nail supply smells, but that they don't give her headaches or irritate her nose or throat. She wondered if maybe pregnant women would be more sensitive to the fumes. To increase the ventilation at her shop -- which does manicures, but not acrylic nails -- she'll open up the doors during the summer.

Sinde's group has joined with the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle to try to win grant money from the EPA to pay for better public education for salons such as Nguyen's. They want to teach salons about less-toxic products and ways to improve air quality, such as using ventilated manicure tables that suck up noxious fumes. Nationally, groups such as the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum have pushed to ban some of the most dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, including dibutyl phthalate, which is used in nail polishes.

The chemical is easily absorbed through the skin and intestinal tract and can cross the placenta into the fetus. It has been linked to development problems in the male genitals of humans and rats. Exposed pregnant rodents had fewer live pups and smaller offspring. Nail-polish makers and trade groups maintain that the ingredient as used in their products does not pose a threat to humans. The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating the safety of cosmetics, agrees. But the European Union banned the use of dibutyl phthalates in makeup in 2004. That led consumer groups this summer to pressure recalcitrant companies to remove it from products sold in the United States as well. The popular nail-polish maker OPI is one of the companies that finally agreed to eliminate the ingredient beginning with its winter 2006 collection. The reason? "They wanted one worldwide formula," said spokesman Harris Shepard. "OPI products are safe. Absolutely." It's up to manufacturers to make sure their products aren't dangerous, because the FDA's approach to cosmetic regulation is largely hands-off. Manufacturers make information sheets available to the public, with many posted online. But they are often too technical, incomplete or vague for most consumers or nail salon workers to understand. They might lack the exact concentrations of ingredients, fail to list components deemed "trade secrets" or state that exposure limits and health hazards have not been established. For ingredients that are listed, additional health information frequently is difficult to find, out-of-date or inconclusive.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel -- an independent panel created and funded by the cosmetics industry -- is a key source for safety information, though it's tackled only a small fraction of ingredients used. The FDA lacks the authority to force cosmetic manufacturers to prove that their products are safe -- even if the public raises concerns. But complaints are rare, those in the industry say. The EU ban on dibutyl phthalates was because of concerns about the chemical generally, not specifically because it's a risk when used in makeup and nail polish, said Doug Schoon, co-chairman of the Nail Manufacturers Council, a trade group with the Professional Beauty Association. "It's rare when somebody is really injured by cosmetics," he said. "The truth is cosmetics are extraordinarily safe." Kellogg, the King County health official, objects to the notion "that we need to be seeing the cancers, that we need to be seeing the birth defects before we take action." "In public heath, we're about prevention," he said. "There's an interest in taking precautionary action in a setting like this."

FOLLOWING THE BEAUTY ROUTINE

NAIL TREATMENTS

 Manicures: Old nail polish is removed. Fingernails are filed and cuticles gently pushed back from the nail. The nails can be buffed or painted with nail polish, typically with multiple coats.

 Artificial nails: The lengthening or thickening of natural nails most commonly uses acrylics made from liquids and powders. The nail is then painted, sometimes with elaborate designs including jewels and glitter.

 Fills: As the natural nail grows, a gap is created between the cuticle and the artificial nail. That gap can be "filled" with acrylic.

REDUCING EXPOSURE

 Proper ventilation: Ventilate room to the outdoors; manicure tables should have well-maintained charcoal filters or ventilation leading outdoors.

 Personal safety devices: Odor masks with charcoal filters protect from some vapors; protective gloves specific to the chemicals should be used.

 Safe storage: Store chemicals with tight lids; open containers for short periods of time.

 Cleanliness: Dispose of solvent-saturated tissues and cotton balls in plastic bags and metal, lidded garbage cans, which should be emptied daily.

 Products: Select products that contain fewer toxic ingredients; read Material Safety Data Sheets for ingredient and safety information. Recent research has identified polishes and removers from Honeybee Gardens, Sante Kosmetic and en Vogue Sculptured Nail Systems as safer alternatives.

CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

 Acetone: Solvent in nail polish remover, polish; can cause nose, throat and eye irritation, headaches, confusion, nausea, vomiting, unconsciousness and possibly coma, and shortening of the menstrual cycle.

 Dibutyl phthalate: Plasticizer in nail polish; easily absorbed through the skin and intestinal tract and can cross the placenta into the fetus; can cause development problems in the male genitals of humans and rats; exposed pregnant rodents have fewer live pups and smaller offspring.

 Toluene: Solvent in nail polish remover and nail treatments; low levels can cause tiredness, weakness, drunken-type actions, memory loss, nausea, loss of appetite, and hearing and color vision loss; high levels can cause birth defects in children including retarded mental abilities and growth.

 Ethyl methacrylate: Used to form artificial nails; can cause eye and skin irritation, vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation.

Sources: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Environmental Protection Agency; Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel; New Ecology Inc.

Bad Shoes

A leading source of environmental toxins is the material composing Chanel's $555 ballet flats- It's PVC, or vinyl, used throughout the shoe industry, where exposures during manufacturing threaten workers' health, though not customers'. Although Chanel proudly advertises its vinyl shoes, some manufacturers—including Nike—are eliminating PVCs and dangerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (see chart below). Nike is also focusing on reducing greenhouse emissions from manufacturing and shipping, says Sarah Severn, corporate global director of sustainable development. And its Reuse-A-Shoe program converts sneakers into soccer fields and basketball courts.