From baby bottles to shampoo to the carpet in your house, you are surrounded by products every day that contain chemicals known as endocrine disruptors. The
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigated whether these chemicals are as safe as their manufacturers say they are.
There is a body of evidence that these "disruptors" cause cancer in lab animals, and the paper says a growing number of scientists are convinced the chemicals
interfere with human reproduction and behavior.
Still, the Journal Sentinel investigation found that the government has
failed to regulate these chemicals, despite repeated promises to do so:
The newspaper reviewed more than 250 scientific studies written over
the past 20 years; examined thousands of pages of regulatory documents
and industry correspondence; and interviewed more than 100 scientists,
physicians, and industry and government officials.
Among the findings:
• U.S. regulators promised a decade ago to screen more than 15,000
chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system. They've spent tens
of millions of dollars on the testing program. As yet, not a single
screen has been done.
• Dozens of chemicals the government wants to screen first have
already been tested over and over, even while thousands of untested
chemicals are waiting to be screened.
• By the time the government gets around to doing the testing,
chances are the results will be outdated and inconclusive. The
government's proposed tests lack new, more sensitive measures that
would identify dangerous chemicals that older screens could miss.
• As the U.S. testing process remains grounded, hundreds of products
have been banned in countries around the world. Children's products --
including some baby toys and teething rings -- outlawed as dangerous by
the European Union, Japan and Canada are available here without
warning.
• Lacking any regulation in the U.S., it's impossible for
consumers to know which products are made with the dangerous compounds.
Many companies don't list chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine
system on product labels.
The government's efforts have been "an abject failure, a disaster,"
said Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and chairman of the department of
community and preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in
New York.
Landrigan was at the White House ceremony in 1996 when President
Clinton signed laws requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to screen chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system.
Because the effects of endocrine disruptors may take years to reveal
themselves, it is almost impossible to say that a particular chemical
caused a certain disease. There also is a lot of uncertainty about how
these chemicals work inside your body. So, scientists extrapolate. They
can't test their theories on humans. Instead, they have to rely on
animal studies and try to figure out the implications for people.
I interviewed Mark Katches, assistant managing editor for projects and investigations, to learn more about the
Journal Sentinel investigation:
Q. The debate about disruptors has been around for a long time. Why did you get interested in it now?
A. More and more scientific studies are finding dangerous effects of endocrine disruptors in laboratory animals. At the same time, cancer rates and other serious problems are spiking in people. We didn't set out to show a cause and effect, but we thought it would be a really good time to assess the government's role when it comes to regulating endocrine disruptors. A decade ago, Congress passed laws calling for tests, and the EPA followed up with a promise to test 15,000 chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system. To date they've tested zero. It seemed like a good time to ask the question, why?
Our science reporter Susanne Rust has been writing about endocrine disruptors for some time, and she wanted to look deeper. We teamed her up with two investigative reporters, Meg Kissinger and Cary Spivak. The three reporters deserve all the credit for this work.
Q. What should consumers know about these chemicals? What can the average guy/gal do with this information?A. Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are virtually everywhere. They're in plastic baby bottles, children's toys, plastic containers, the lining of tin cans, plastic shower curtains, even things like CDs and DVDs. Some scientists will say you should avoid all of these things. The chemical industry counters that their own studies show their products to be safe. So it gets back to the failure again of the U.S. government to take any steps forward to regulate the chemicals.
You won't find any warning labels on products sold in the United States that are banned in other countries because of the risks. Consumers can't even easily make a choice about what to safely buy because companies -- absent any regulation -- don't have to tell you whether they include the chemicals in their products.
Many of the scientists who have studied the effects of these compounds have stopped using any products that contain the chemicals in their own homes.
In our story Sunday, a family in Wisconsin volunteered to have their home "audited" by a leading scientist in the field. He spent a few hours going through their house finding hundreds of products and items that could pose a risk. In presenting that information, we wanted to make sure that we also gave readers solutions of what they can do to protect themselves. For instance, don't microwave in plastic containers. Look at the bottom of plastic containers and bottles you buy at the store. If they have the recycling numbers 1, 2 or 5, they are not made with the type of plastic that contains these chemicals. Some scientists will say that if you're looking to limit your exposure, focus on the things you put in your mouth or that your children put in their mouths that come in contact with these chemicals.
Q. Is there really a threat to my health here or is it just something else to lose sleep over?
A. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) just recently reported that a suspected endocrine disruptor, the chemical bisphenol A, was detected in the urine of 93 percent of the people it tested. A growing body of research is finding harm to animals -- linking to these chemicals everything from breast cancer and diabetes to hypertension and lowered sperm counts. No studies have been conducted directly on people that show effects. But there are a lot of scientists who are concerned.
This is a nerve-wracking time -- especially if you're a parent. Most of the toys our kids play with and put in their mouths are made in China. Some of them have lead and some don't, so how do you know what's safe? The same could be said for these chemicals. What's safe? What isn't? What products have it? What don't? There are so many questions any of us would have, and there are few ways to know the answers until the government follows through with its testing. There are a couple of Web sites out there that list products that contain suspected endocrine disruptors and will also list products that are banned in other countries. One of those sites is put together by the Environmental Working Group. Another is called The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
Q. If the government promised to look into this, what happened?
A. There are a lot of theories on this. Some blame the chemical industry for slowing down the process. It's an influential lobbying group with a $75 million budget. Some say there has been a lack of political will to follow through with the testing. Budgets have been cut for the testing program about 30 percent. EPA officials counter that this is complicated science and that the work can't be rushed. Whatever the answer, our story found that the government doesn't have much to show for 10 years worth of time and money.
It's a YouTube/Facebook/MySpace ElectionFormer WSB-TV Atlanta investigative reporter Dale Cardwell is among a handful of Democrats running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Saxby Chambliss. I thought you might be interested in how Cardwell is
using news-like videos on YouTube to attack the incumbent.
Chambliss is promoting his Facebook page (registration required). Chambliss also has a YouTube video.
The Washington Post reported on how a local candidate in Manchester, N.H., used YouTube this year to attack his opponent. Are your local campaigns hiring videographers to file for YouTube? Are they hiring or recruiting videographers to follow opposing candidates and post their flubs and lies?
Click here to see what presidential candidates have said about hot issues such as the environment, energy, immigration and Iraq.
This week, ABC News and Facebook announced a partnership. ABC says that it will work with Facebook to provide information about candidates, blogs
from the reporters covering them, and photographs from the campaign
trail. It also said the partnership will allow the social networking
site's users to influence ABC's news reporting. CNet took a fairly dim view of the ABC News/Facebook deal, pointing out that Facebook is an entertainment site, not an information site. Case in point: Stephen Colbert's Facebook group has more members than Barack Obama's.
Earlier this year, MySpace unveiled its "Impact" page, which is supposed to be a virtual town square for people who want to do anything from signing up to vote to learning about issues. And MySpace and MTV have teamed up for the Presidential Dialogues project that allows users to ask candidates questions and watch them respond.
It really amazes me how many campaign/candidate-related photos
get loaded into Flickr every day.
I also like this site on TechPresident that collects e-mails sent to voters by each candidate. This is a great idea for covering races on any level.
Who Monitors Foster Kids' Psychiatric Meds?The Oregonian uncovered some disturbing facts about Oregon foster kids. The angle of the story is one I have never seen examined:
More than one in four Oregon children in foster care -- some
as young as 2 -- are being given powerful psychiatric drugs
developed to treat depression, anxiety, trauma and other
mental health issues.
The medications include potent drugs such as Prozac and
Zoloft. Many have not been approved for children, their side
effects can be severe and there's little evidence about
how they might act on developing brains and young bodies.
About 2,400 kids a year in foster care are on psychiatric
drugs. The medications can help troubled children who suffer
abuse, neglect or other trauma. Even so, The Oregonian found
that children in foster care took psychiatric drugs at a
much higher rate -- more than four times higher -- than
other Oregon children.
The state's child welfare system creates incentives for
foster parents that could encourage psychiatric drug use:
The meds make the kids less trouble. And the foster parents
can be paid double for the "special needs" of kids
on psychiatric drugs.
The state, the legal guardian for children in foster care,
does little to monitor the use of psychiatric drugs.
"Nobody is tracking it in a way that makes sense,"
says Judge Nan Waller, the chief family law judge in
Multnomah County. "We need to make sure we have the
level of oversight our children deserve."
How Do Some Online Videos Get So Many Views?It could be they are just extraordinary and they take off like a shot. But it could also be the product of a slick marketing push.
Go inside the process of how this works. It is as fascinating as it is creepy.
We are always looking for your great ideas. Send Al a few sentences and links.
Editor's Note: Al's Morning
Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other
materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and
analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it
will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The
column is fact-checked, but depends on the accuracy and integrity of
the original sources cited. Errors and inaccuracies found will be
corrected.
