#405: Turning Point for the Chemical Industry

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #405
(formerly RACHEL's HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS)
---September 1, 1994---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com =======================Original Source========================

In St. Louis, Missouri on July 30, Dr. Barry Commoner gave the keynote address at the Second Citizens' Conference on Dioxin. Here are excerpts:

...We meet at a crucial time in the history of dioxin. I am convinced that 1994 will be seen as the year in which --despite every effort of the chemical industry and its journalistic allies to confuse and misinform us --the true dimensions of the ominous threat of dioxin to human health became known. The profound significance of its diverse attack on living things has now become clear: Dioxin and dioxin-like substances represent the most perilous chemical threat to the health and biological integrity of human beings and the environment.

The history of dioxin is a sordid story --of devastating sickness inflicted, unawares, on chemical workers; of callous disregard for the impact of toxic wastes on the public; of denial after denial by the chemical industry; of the industry's repeated efforts to hide the facts about dioxin and, when these become known, to distort them. 

... We need to learn what must be done, now, not merely to diminish, but to end --the menace of dioxin and its many toxic cousins to life. 

... On May 26, 1971, 2,000 gallons of what was supposed to be waste oil were sprayed on the soil in a nearby horse arena [in Times Beach, Mo.]. Three days later the arena was littered with dead birds; four days later three horses and the ringmaster were sick. By June, 29 horses, 11 cats and four dogs had died; in August the six-year-old daughter of one of the owners was admitted to St. Louis Children's Hospital with a severe kidney disorder.

[This led to a decade of scientific study of dioxin, during which it became clear that dioxin is an inevitable by-product of chlorine chemistry.] ... The chemist learns to favor the production of a particular molecule by controlling temperature, pressure and other conditions and, more precisely, by introducing a catalyst. But the process is never perfect; some unwanted molecules that happen to be very stable and resist further transformation will persist --as waste. [Dioxin is one of these stable waste products.] ... Toxic waste is not simply a matter of poor housekeeping or bad management; it is an inescapable part of chlorine-based chemical production.

... In 1985 the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] issued its first formal cancer risk assessment of dioxin. ...EPA estimated that people would be exposed to the one-per-million [cancer] risk if they lived near soil contaminated at the level of one part per billion. When soil in Times Beach [Mo.] was found to considerably exceed this level, the EPA decided to evacuate the town.

[Because controlling dioxin is expensive, since 1985 industry has maintained relentless pressure on government to relax dioxin standards. Some animal studies showed dioxin to be an extremely potent toxin in some species; other studies showed it to be weaker in other species. EPA established a Workgroup to review the data and conclusions of its 1985 assessment.] ... The Workgroup decided that the "scientifically sound" thing to do was to average the potency values indicated by the different theories. Because the high potency value of the 1985 assessment's theory was outweighed by the more numerous low-potency theories, the average turned out to be 16 times less stringent than the 1985 risk assessment. ...[However] if the low-potency theories are right, then the original high-potency theory is wrong, and vice versa --a situation that can hardly be corrected by averaging their mutually contradictory results. [The Workgroup's flawed efforts died somewhere inside EPA, and the 1985 risk assessment survived.]

... [In 1986 EPA proposed controls on dioxin emissions from the paper industry. The industry responded by re-evaluating the data upon which EPA's 1985 risk assessment was based.] And once more, under this new assault.... the 1985 risk assessment survived. [In October 1990 EPA and the Chlorine Institute ---an industry group --convened a conference at the Banbury Center in Long Island.] The purpose of the conference was to review new data about how dioxin caused cancer in order to provide a "scientific" basis for a new risk assessment. The "new data" were studies that actually went back to the 1970s....

The EPA participants in the Banbury Conference hurried back to Washington with news that prompted the Administrator, William K. Reilly, to predict that a new reassessment would in fact reduce the dioxin risk. [This latest dioxin risk assessment has now been prepared and will be released September 13.] But we already know what it will say, thanks to a leak of the report's conclusions a few weeks ago. The new attempt to downgrade the dioxin hazard, like all the earlier ones, has failed. But in failing, it has not simply confirmed the important but narrow result of the 1985 risk assessment that dioxin is an enormously potent carcinogen. It has also greatly expanded the range and biological impact of dioxin's effects, at levels of exposure already experienced by the entire U.S. population.

... Apparently Americans are sufficiently exposed to some very general source of dioxin to put us all well above the "acceptable" cancer risk of one in a million, and within range of its numerous other harmful effects. That source, according to the forthcoming EPA report, is chiefly food [meat and dairy products]....

Stated more simply, the situation is this: The general spread of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals in the U.S. environment has already exposed the entire population to levels of these extremely toxic substances that are expected to cause a number of serious health effects. These include an average risk of cancer of 100 or more per million in the entire U.S. population --100 times greater than the risk standard that has triggered EPA remedial action, for example at Times Beach.

The EPA document also acknowledges that the newly appreciated hazards of dioxin go far beyond the risk of cancer... the expected non-cancer effects include:

** disruption of endocrine hormone systems, especially those related to sexual development; 

** disruption of critical stages of embryonic development, for example of the nervous system; 

** damage to the developing immune system, leading to increased susceptibility to infectious diseases.

These are intergenerational defects, they are imprinted for life on the developing fetus by the effect of dioxin on the mother and sometimes the father.

...Dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals have become widely known as "environmental hormones"... [but] There is a crucial molecular difference between dioxin and hormones. Dioxin is distinctively characterized by its chlorine atoms, which, when linked to particular carbon atoms in its molecular structure, give rise to dioxin's powerful toxic properties. In contrast, no natural hormone is chlorinated. 

... [Chlorinated molecules] are rare in living things; only about 600 such substances have been identified, compared with tens of thousands of different organic substances made by living things that are not chlorinated. Moreover, not a single chlorinated compound has been identified as natural in mammals. In Gribble's compilation of 611 chlorinated (and other halogenated organic) compounds produced by living things, there are numerous examples from fungi, higher plants, algae, sponges, jellyfish, worms, and other marine animals. 

... When the first mammals --or possibly vertebrates --emerged, chlorine was abruptly excluded from this new form of life. As a result, chlorinated organic compounds like dioxin are incompatible with the distinctively complex hormonal systems and developmental processes that are characteristic of vertebrates, especially mammals. 

... The industry's chief defense against shutting down the use of chlorine in chemical manufacturing is that it is essential to the manufacture of most of its products (true), which are in turn essential to most other industries and agriculture (not so true). It is true that synthetic organic chemicals --plastics, pesticides, detergents and solvents --have deeply penetrated the modern world. This was done not so much by creating new industries as it was by taking over existing forms of production. After all, we did have food before synthetic pesticides, and there was furniture, flooring and paint long before plastics. In fact, as pointed out by one of the leaders in the development of the petrochemical industry, Lord Beeching, it grow through a virulent form of industrial imperialism: 

..."Instead of producing known products to satisfy existing industrial needs, it [the petrochemical industry] is, increasingly, producing new forms of matter which not only replace the materials used by existing indus-tries, but which cause extension and modification of those industries.... To an increasing degree it forces existing industries to adapt themselves to use its products."

I believe that this is where the [chemical] industry is most vulnerable. The chemical industry is the source of persistent, dangerously toxic substances that must be eliminated. To meet that obligation, the industry must change its methods of production --and, where necessary, its products --beginning with the elimination of chlorine. Of course, the industry will use its enormous wealth and political power to resist such a far-reaching change. But some of its equally powerful corporate customers --paper mills, electronics manufacturers, and the food industry --may be less rigid. Yes, they have been invaded by the chemical industry's products that they use. But with those products have come the built-in toxic accompaniments and the economic liability for their damage.

We now know, for example, that the U.S. population is exposed to dioxin not so much from the chemical industry's direct emissions, but chiefly from food that has been contaminated with dioxin entering the food chain, especially beef and dairy products. These industries, already suffering from reduced consumption to avoid fat and cholesterol, are now likely to be hit once more, this time by the dioxin problem. Sooner or later, to protect their own economic interests--properly encouraged by grass-roots activists --they will use their own corporate power to help persuade the chemical industry to change its ways. Already the paper industry has begun to make plans for ending chlorine bleaching processes. There are even whispers from the chemical industry itself that they have got the message; very quietly, I have heard, their chemists are looking for ways to take chlorine out of their processes.

These are some of the reasons why we are at a turning point not only in the history of dioxin, but of the chemical industry itself. What has brought us to this point, I am convinced, is the environmental movement --at its powerful grassroots: the numerous community campaigns against trash-burning incinerators; the valiant battles against hazardous waste incinerators in East Liverpool [Ohio] and Jacksonville [Arkansas]; the struggles at Times Beach [Mo.] and Love Canal [N.Y.]; the campaign for justice for the veterans exposed to Agent Orange. Let this conference, here in the place where it all began, be the start of new campaigns and new victories --for the sake of the environment and the people who live in it.

 --Peter Montague

Descriptor terms: barry commoner; center for the biology of natural systems; cbns; st. louis; second citizens' conference on dioxin; times beach; dioxin; chemical industry; wildlife; epa; risk assessment; banbury center; banbury conference; william reilly; cancer; carcinogens; endocrine system; hormones; developmental disorders; teratogens; nervous system; immune system; food safety; beef; milk; cheese; dairy products; wti; east liverpool; oh; love canal; ny; jacksonville; ar;

#412: A Turnabout for Cancer Policy?

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #412
---October 20, 1994---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com =======================Original Source========================

The National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB), an official body of the National Cancer Institute, last month issued a stinging indictment of the nation's cancer programs. Furthermore, for the first time in memory the Board said industrial chemicals, environmental chemicals that mimic hormones, and pesticides need to be investigated as causes of cancer. [1]

In 1971 the U.S. Congress declared "War on Cancer," but year after year many cancers have steadily increased. See Table I. In a blunt assessment of the failed War on Cancer, the NCAB last month said, "The alarming statistics are that one in three people in this country will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime; every minute, another person in the United States dies of cancer; in 1994, 1.2 million new cancer cases will add to the more than 8 million people in this country alive today who have already been diagnosed; and within five years, cancer will surpass heart disease as the leading cause of death," the NCAB said. [pg. 9]

"The great strides made in understanding the disease still pale in comparison to the problem. It is disturbing that since 1971 the overall incidence of cancer has increased 18 percent, and the mortality rate has grown by 7 percent. Tobacco use and inadequate health care access account for much of this alarming and wholly unacceptable increase," the NCAB said. [pg. 10]

"While individuals have a responsibility to change high-risk behavior, government and society have responsibilities to identify and prevent workplace and environmental hazards, restrict advertising of unsafe products, require accurate product labeling, and provide culturally targeted education about cancer risk and prevention," the NCAB said. [pg. 17]

Throughout its report, the NCAB makes reference to industrial chemicals, environmental chemicals that mimic hormones, and pesticides, as suspected causes of cancer. Until now, the National Cancer Institute has taken the official position that chemicals cause such a small percentage of cancers that they are not worth investigating.

In a turnabout, the NCAB now says, "The elimination or reduction of exposure to carcinogenic agents is a priority in the prevention of cancer. We are just beginning to understand the full range of health effects resulting from the exposure to occupational and environmental agents and factors." [pg. B-6]

And: "Lack of appreciation of the potential hazards of environmental and food source contaminants, and laws, policies, and regulations protecting and promoting tobacco use worsen the cancer problem and drive up health care costs." [pg. 6]

The report makes 13 recommendations for applying research dollars more effectively; recommendation No. I-5 says, "Examine and change laws and regulatory policies and practices, including those related to the environment and food supply, that contribute to the cancer problem and frustrate cancer prevention and control efforts." [pg. 21]

Furthermore, under "recommendations for translational research" (research to translate existing knowledge into practical benefits) we find, "Establish the role of hormones in the etiology [cause] and prevention of certain cancers." [pg. 26] And: "Develop cancer risk assessments for occupational and environmental carcinogens, based on sound epidemiologic evidence, potency of the carcinogen, and prevalence of human exposure." [pg. 26] Recommendation II-2(4) reads: "Establish the role of external hormones (e.g., from plant or environmental sources) in the etiology [cause] and prevention of certain cancers." [pg. 26]

The report says, "Cancers developing in reproductive tissues such as the breast, ovary, endometrium, and prostate account for approximately 30 percent of all cancers. These tissues are dependent upon an interactive network of various hormones (estrogens, progestins, and androgens) for their structural and functional development. In recent years, investigators have shown that there is a relationship between the level and duration of hormone exposure and tumor development in these hormonally sensitive tissues." [pg. B-5]

In an appendix, the NCAB report lists known and suspected causes of various cancers. Pesticides are listed for cancers of the female breast; the prostate; the stomach; the brain; and the lymph system (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). As Table I shows, several of these are major killers and/or are rapidly increasing.

Perhaps most importantly, the report focuses on poverty as a major stumbling block to winning the war on cancer: "Unless proven advances in cancer prevention and care are made available to our people in all walks of life, the cancer burden will never be markedly reduced. Bringing existing knowledge and technologies to all of the people will achieve the greatest and most rapid impact on cancer incidence, suffering, and death," the NCAB says. [pg. 17]

"Over 38 million people have no health insurance at all; 50 million are uninsured at some time during the year. Eighty million more have health insurance insufficient to cover the costs of a catastrophic illness such as cancer," the NCAB says. [pg. 18]

"The problem of access is severe among the 35 million poor. African-Americans represent one-third of the poor although they comprise only 12 percent of the United States population. The poor, who typically experience substandard living conditions, lower educational levels, risk-promoting lifestyles, and insufficient access to health care, have a higher incidence of many cancers, are diagnosed with more advanced disease, and have lower survival rates than the more affluent. Even the poor on Medicaid may fare no better than the uninsured," the NCAB says. [pg. 18]

"Anecdotal evidence indicates that even those with insurance may delay seeking diagnostic and other medical care for fear of employment discrimination, future uninsurability, and financial ruin should cancer be discovered," the NCAB says. [pg. 18]

Lastly, the report says that "Current health care reform proposals" [i.e., the Clinton administration's proposals AND the Republicans' suggested alternatives] "are devastating to the War on Cancer" because they deny resources for research and for quality cancer care. [pg. 5]

In sum, the National Cancer Institute is showing definite signs of beginning to "get" the connection between environmental justice, economic justice, and cancer prevention. So far, however, there are no signs of an awakening in the White House or in Congress.

--Peter Montague

===============

[1] Paul Calabresi and others, CANCER AT A CROSSROADS: A REPORT TO CONGRESS FOR THE NATION (Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, September, 1994). Available free; phone 1-800-422-6237.

---

TABLE 1
U.S. Cancer Incidence (Occurrence) and Deaths in 1990, and the
Percent Change in Rates of Incidence and Death (Per 100,000
Population) During the Period 1950 to 1990.*

	-----ALL RACES------		----------------WHITES----------------
Cancer Type	Incidence in 1990	Deaths in 1990	Percent change in incidence, 1950-1990**	Percent change in deaths, 1950-1990
mouth & pharynx	30,500	8,405	- 32.2	-28.3
uterus	33,000	6,027	-3.8	- 66.3
stomach	23,200	14,072	-74.6	- 76.3
cervix	13,500	4,627	-75.1	- 73.6
esophagus	10,600	9,719	- 13.3	+9.4
colon/rectum	155,000	57,154	+9.9	- 28.2
larynx	12,300	3,709	+59.3	- 10.5
testicles	5,900	342	+124.7	- 68.6
bladder	49,000	10,340	+53.7	- 34.5
Hodgkin's	7,400	1,632	+26.9	- 65.8
childhood cancers	7,600	1,697	+1.3	-59.2
leukemia	27,800	18,725	+5.7	- 2.4
thyroid	12,100	1,026	+102.4	- 50.3
liver	14,600	8,511	+87.8	+18.3
pancreas	28,100	25,081	+11.8	+16.9
ovaries	20,500	12,566	+10.7	+1.0
lung	157,000	141,146	+258.6	+261.5
skin (melanomas)	27,600	6,419	+336.1	+156.0
breast (female)	150,000	43,389	+52.3	+4.0
prostate	106,000	32,376	+134.4	+17.8
kidney	24,000	9,843	+116.1	+33.3
brain	15,600	11,630	+73.6	+47.9
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma	35,600	18,461	+171.9	+113.7
multiple myeloma	11,800	8,896	+182.5	+189.8
All types excluding lung	883,000	364,149	+31.7	-14.4
All types	1,040,000	505,295	+45.6	+10.0

Source: Barry A. Miller and others, editors, CANCER STATISTICS REVIEW 1973-1990 [National Institutes of Health Publication No. 93-2789] (Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 1993), Table I-3, pg. I.27.
* All data are age-adjusted to the 1970 U.S. population.
** Certain data are for all races combined, not just whites; specifically: all types; all types excluding lung; liver; brain; and childhood cancers. For other cancers, the National Cancer Institute says historical data for non-whites are not considered reliable.

---

Descriptor terms: national cancer advisory board; ncab; pesticides; solvents; cancer; carcinogens; hormones; estrogen; androgen; prevention; food safety; tobacco; reproductive system; cancer studies; cancer statistics; breast cancer; ovarian cancer; stomach cancer; brain cancer; lymph system cancer; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; health insurance; health policy; cancer policy; poverty; African-Americans; health care reform; bill clinton; president clinton; congress; national cancer institute; nci;

#438: Warning on Male Reproductive Health

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #438
---April 20, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com =======================Original Source========================

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency in Copenhagen, Denmark released a report April 18th entitled MALE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICALS WITH ESTROGENIC EFFECTS. The 175-page English-language report, which we have obtained, says male reproductive health is deteriorating in many countries, and that the most likely cause is exposure to low levels of industrial chemicals that contaminate food, water, and many consumer products.

The Danish report says many industrial chemicals mimic sex hormones (chiefly the female hormone, estrogen) and thus interfere with the normal development of creatures (including humans) that become exposed before, or shortly after, birth. The report identifies many consumer products as sources of such hormone-like chemicals: pesticides, detergents, cosmetics, paints, and packaging materials, including plastic containers and food wraps. [1] The report calls for an aggressive, coordinated international research effort to describe the extent of the problem, and to design programs of "prevention and intervention."

Meanwhile in the U.S., the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) has funded a report by a scientist who says these problems are not real. "The suggestion that industrial estrogenic chemicals contribute to an increased incidence of breast cancer in women and male reproductive problems is not plausible," the CMA's 6-page study concludes. [2]

In contrast, the Danish report says, "It is now evident that several aspects of male reproductive health have changed dramatically for the worse over the past 30-50 years. The most fundamental change has been the striking decline in sperm counts in the ejaculate of normal men; recent evidence from Paris indicates that this decrease amounts to about two percent per year over the last two decades. The result is that many, otherwise normal, men now have sperm counts so low that their fertility is likely to be impaired. Over the last half-century, the incidence of testicular cancer has increased progressively in many countries to become now the most common cancer in young men. Other disorders of the male reproductive tract may also be increasing in incidence, with several European countries reporting a progressive rise in hypospadias (a malformation of the external genitalia) and an apparently emerging trend towards an increasing incidence of testicular maldescent [undescended testicles]....

"While the etiologies [causes] underlying these apparent changes are currently not clear, both clinical and laboratory research suggest that all of the described changes in male reproductive health appear inter-related and may have a common origin in fetal life or childhood. This means that the increase in some of the disorders seen today originated 20-40 years ago and that the prevalence of such defects in male babies born today will not become manifest for another 20-40 years or more," the report says.

The Danish report was prepared by 19 scientists and physicians, including 13 from Denmark, two from France, one from England, one from Scotland, and two from the U.S.

The report says that declining reproductive health has also been widely observed in wildlife: "Trends in the reproductive health of species other than man also raise the possibility of environmental factors as partial etiologic [causal] contributions in a decline noted in the male reproductive health of wildlife. For example, wild panthers in the United States have been reported to have an increase in undescended testes and a decrease in semen quality, whereas male alligators in some lakes in Florida have been shown to have abnormalities in their sex hormone levels (tending towards femaleness) and to have smaller than normal genitalia. Male fish in some parts of the United Kingdom have been shown to express a 'female-like response' when studied in a relatively natural setting. Earlier studies of fish eating birds in the United States demonstrated nests containing male hatchlings that were apparently feminized. A recent report of lactating [milk-producing] male fruit bats suggested that the males were, in some way, exposed to a female sex hormone. Recent laboratory studies showed that when estrogenic forms of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were painted on turtle eggs, the male hatchlings were sex-reversed to females. Taken together, this growing body of evidence suggests that environmental factors that resemble female sex hormones may be having an adverse effect on the reproductive capacity and wellbeing of diverse species," the report says.

The report summarizes evidence indicating that all of these problems have a common origin: the exposure of male fetuses to estrogen-like chemicals before birth. "The wealth of experimental [laboratory animal] results and associated clinical [human] reports suggests strongly that prenatal exposure to exogenous [external] estrogens may play an etiologic role in the trends observed in male reproductive health," the report says.

The report lists many ways in which humans become exposed to chemicals that mimic hormones: "Estrogen effects are not restricted to a small group of therapeutic agents but appear in several groups of compounds that are in daily use in industry, agriculture or in the home," the report says. "A major problem is determining which chemicals are estrogenic... At present, tens of thousands [of] man-made chemicals are used, yet the effects on the endocrine [hormone] system have been studied for only a few of these. The estrogenic activity of most chemicals (e.g., alkylphenols, phthalate esters, bisphenol-A) has been detected by accident, not by intent; that is, no systematic screening, even on individual groups of chemicals, has been attempted. Hence it is highly possible that other estrogenic chemicals remain unidentified... Thus, the present situation is that man and wildlife are exposed to a very wide range of chemicals, and for the majority of them we do not know whether these chemicals are, or are not, estrogenic, whether their effects are additive, or even what the true exposure to these chemicals is."

The report points out that even weakly estrogenic chemicals may be of concern if they remain in the bodies of humans and wildlife for long periods. Natural hormones are created by the body, circulate in the blood stream very briefly to carry out a particular task, and are then destroyed by natural mechanisms. In contrast, many industrial chemicals that enter the body are not readily broken down so they circulate in the blood for long periods --in some cases many years --mimicking natural hormones.

The Danish report lists the following chemicals and classes of chemicals as known to have estrogenic activity:

Organochlorine pesticides: DDT, DDD, DDE, dicofol, perthane, methoxychlor, chlordane, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, heptachlor, heptachlorepoxide, aldrin, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexanes, lindane (gamma HCH), mirex, and toxaphene. Although these chemicals have been banned in several industrial countries, including the U.S., some of them are still manufactured [in the U.S. or overseas, by U.S. corporations--PM] and sold in developing countries where they are "widely used" today, the Danish report says.

Other known estrogenic chemicals include:

** Many of the 109 types of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls); 

** Dioxins and furans (unwanted by-products of all incinerators; paper-making mills; metal smelters; and the manufacture of some chemicals and pesticides); 

** Alkylphenols, the breakdown products of alkylphenol polyethoxylates (APEs) which are widely used in detergents, paints, herbicides and cosmetics. Some 300 million kilograms (660 million pounds) of APEs are produced each year and ultimately released into the environment. 

** Phytoestrogens, or plant-produced estrogens, including isoflavones and coumestans found in rye, wheat, cabbage, sprouts, spinach and soybeans. "Soybean is far and away the richest source of plant estrogens and is used ubiquitously [everywhere] in the food industry as a protein source including the production of infant milk formula substitutes," the Danish report says. Depending upon the dose, phytoestrogens have an estrogenic, or an anti-estrogenic, effect, the Danish report says. Unlike many of the other estrogenic chemicals identified in the Danish report, phytoestrogens do not bioaccumulate or biomagnify, but are readily metabolized and excreted. 

** Many common chemicals found in plastics, in-cluding bisphenol-A, phthalate esters (butylbenzyl phthalate and di-n-butylphthalate): "Phthalates are the most abundant man-made environmental pollutants, and human intake per day via various routes, especially via the diet, is measured in tens of milligrams," says the Danish report. Some plastics contain up to 40% phthalate esters (by weight). These esters leach out of, or volatilize out of, the plastics as time passes. Many foods in the U.S. and elsewhere are packaged in phthalate-containing plastics. Even blood for transfusions is sometimes packaged in phthalate-containing plastics. 

** Herbicides, such as the popular crab-grass and dandelion killer, 2,4-D, and the now-banned 2,4,5-T, both of which were widely used by U.S. forces in Vietnam. (See REHW #436.) Other herbicides with estrogenic effects include: alachlor; amitrole; atrazine; metribuzin; and trifluralin. 

** Fungicides: benomyl and its principal breakdown product, carbendazim, used on apples and bananas, among other food crops; and ethylene bis dithiocarbamates (EBDCs, including mancozeb, maneb, metiram, and zineb). 

** Hexachlorobenzene. Although this pesticide was banned in many countries in the 1970s, it "continues to be released to the environment as a byproduct and contaminant in many other chlorinated chemicals including chlorinated solvents," the Danish report says. 

** Tributyltin compounds. Tributyltin compounds, until very recently, were used in large quantities as antifouling paints on ships, boats, and mariculture pen nets. Now banned in many countries. 

** Malathion, heavily sprayed around residential areas of the U.S. to kill nuisance mosquitoes.

And finally the Danish report warns that exposure to low levels of many chemicals may be harming the reproductive health of humans and wildlife by mechanisms that have nothing to do with estrogen: "Although not the subject of this report, in considering and evaluating the possible role of estrogenic chemicals in male reproductive disorders, it should not be forgotten that many chemicals may have a detrimental effect on male reproductive health through other mechanisms than an estrogenic effect," the Danish report says.

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Our thanks to Lisa Finaldi of Greenpeace International for helping us obtain a copy of the Danish EPA report.

[2] Stephen H. Safe, "Environment and Dietary Estrogens and Human Health: Is There a Problem?" ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 4 (April, 1995), pgs. 346-351.

Descriptor terms: endocrine disrupters; strogen; hormones; reproductive system; pesticides; detergents; cosmetics; paints; packaging materials; plastics; packaging; cma; chemical manufacturers association; denmark; sperm count; hypospadias; undescended testicles; testicular cancer; cryptorchidism; wildlife; panthers; alligators; penis size; fish; birds; bats; turtles; pcbs; chlorine; organochlorine compounds; pesticides; DDT; DDD; DDE; dicofol; perthane; methoxychlor; chlordane; oxychlordane; trans-nonachlor; heptachlor; heptachlorepoxide; aldrin; dieldrin; hexachlorobenzene; hexachlorocyclohexanes; lindane (gamma HCH); mirex; toxaphene; dioxin; furans; alkylphenols; alkylphenol polyethoxylates; apes; metal smelting; paper mills; incineration; phytoestrogens; bisphenol-A; phthalate esters; herbicides; 2,4-d; 2,4,5-t; agent orange; vietnam veterans; alachlor; amitrole; atrazine; metribuzin; trifluralin; benomyl; carbendazim; ethylene bis dithiocarbamates; ebdcs; mancozeb; maneb; metiram; zineb; hexachlorobenzene; tributyltin; malathion;


Next issue

#447: The Challenge of Our Age

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #447
---June 22, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com =======================Original Source========================

In the past 60 days, two important British scientific journals have published editorials calling for more research into environmental chemicals that may be harming the reproductive health and sexual development of men throughout the industrialized world. NATURE (the equivalent of SCIENCE magazine in the U.S.) said on June 15th, "The case for research to be conducted urgently is overwhelming." [1] The medical journal, LANCET (approximately equivalent to the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE in this country) was much more explicit, making the following points: [2]

** Industrial chemicals that mimic sex hormones (or xeno-estrogens, as they are sometimes called) "may be responsible for a massive decrease in male sperm counts and semen quality since 1940," LANCET said. 

** "Female infertility is the subject of intense research and an unfailing source of headlines for the popular press. Male reproductive health has not been studied nearly so thoroughly, and little attention was paid to a series of observations indicating that the frequency with which a male factor is responsible for a couple's infertility has increased in recent years from about 10% to 25%," LANCET said. 

** "Numerous compounds in daily industrial, agricultural, or domestic use have oestrogenic effects [oestrogen is the British spelling of estrogen], but the endocrine effects of the tens of thousands of man-made chemicals with which we come into daily contact have been studied in only a few instances, and then by accident rather than design.... For most chemical pollutants we do not know whether they are oestrogenic or not, what their effects are singly or together, or even the degree of our exposure.... They will remain in the environment for generations, and even small amounts of such contaminants can lead to the accumulation of considerable quantities in animal and human tissues," LANCET said. 

** "It is the mother's lifetime exposure [prior to pregnancy] that determines the fetal dose, not just her exposure during pregnancy," LANCET said.

Both these journals called for urgent research to learn more about the male reproductive system, the chemicals that we encounter in our daily lives, and the effects those chemicals may have, singly or in combination, on male reproductive health.

The research task is formidable, to say the least. It is well-known that sexual differentiation (the point at which males become males and females become females in the womb) is initiated by the presence of the Y chromosome, which sets in motion male development; absence of the Y chromosome sets in motion female development. After initiation by the Y chromosome (or absence of it), all further steps are controlled by chemicals called hormones --estrogens are the "female" hormones and androgens are the "male" hormones. But the development of gender, with all its physical and behavioral aspects, depends upon both estrogens and androgens in both males and females; it is the balance of these chemicals, in combination, that produces normal differentiation and development. [3] All females contain some androgens, and all males contain some estrogens; it is the balance of the two types of chemicals that is important.

Over the past 30 years, it has been discovered that many industrial chemicals mimic estrogens. (See RHWN #263, #264, #343, #365, #372, #377, #446.) An "estrogen hypothesis" has been proposed to explain why each year more men in the industrialized world are getting cancer of the testicles, birth defects affecting the penis, lowered sperm count, lowered sperm quality, and undescended testicles. The estrogen hypothesis suggests that all of these effects can be traced to one cause: industrial chemicals mimicking hormones, affecting male children while they are still in the womb. [4]

However, in the last two years, a different set of concerns has been raised: some chemicals that don't mimic estrogens can still interfere with sexual differentiation and development in laboratory animals; they do it by interfering with the action of androgens (male hormones). Since it is the BALANCE of estrogens and androgens that creates one gender or another, anti-androgens can interfere with male development as effectively as excessive estrogens can. In NATURE June 15, William Kelce, a researcher at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that a breakdown byproduct ("metabolite") of the pesticide DDT (called p,p'-DDE, and pronounced "p, p-prime D D E") is a powerful anti-androgen. [5] Anti-androgen drugs (developed as therapy for human prostate cancer), when given to animals before and shortly after birth, can cause reproductive tract disorders, including small penis, hypospadias, [6]and undescended testicles. Thus it is important to learn that a DDT metabolite is a powerful anti-androgen. DDT has been banned in this country, but many countries still allow its use, including its use on food products that are imported into the U.S. [7]Furthermore, despite the ban, many ecosystems in the U.S. remain heavily contaminated from past DDT use.

Therefore, the research task requires us to know not only which chemicals mimic estrogens, but also which chemicals interfere with androgens. For example, a common pesticide, Vinclozolin, was recently discovered to be a powerful anti-androgen. [8] Dosing a pregnant female rat with Vinclozolin at a level that caused no toxicity in the mother, gave rise to baby male rats which all appeared to be female at birth. The newborn male rats developed nipples (which, in rats, only females normally have), and they all had the hypospadias birth defect, [6]and undescended testicles. Furthermore, they were all sterile, unable to produce enough sperm to inseminate a female. In the U.S. today, Vinclozolin is legal for use on cucumbers, grapes, lettuce, onions, bell peppers, raspberries, strawberries, tomatoes, and Belgian endive. [9] It is sold under the following trade names: Ronilan, Ornalin, Curalan, and Vorlan. It is also one of the ingredients in the following mixtures: Hitrun, Konker, Ronilan M, Ronilan T combi, Silbos, and Fungo-50. EPA has no published plans for banning Vinclozolin.

Note that in the cases of both DDT and Vinclozolin, the chemical itself has certain gender-bending properties, but the breakdown byproducts (metabolites) have even more powerful anti-androgenic properties. For example, the M1 metabolite of Vinclozolin is 100 times more powerful than Vinclozolin itself. Therefore, researchers will need to study not only the main chemicals but all of their important metabolites. In the case of Vinclozolin, there are at least 2 important metabolites. Obviously, the need to, first, identify and, second, test, metabolites greatly increases the size and scope of the research task.

The problem of chemical combinations is even more difficult. Several prominent researchers calling for urgent work on gender-benders have suggested that combinations of chemicals might be important. For example, we quoted the editorial from LANCET April 15: "For most chemical pollutants we do not know whether they are oestrogenic or not, what their effects are singly OR TOGETHER, or even the degree of our exposure...."

Suppose we wanted to study only the possible 2-chemical combinations among the commonest 500 industrial chemicals. To do this, we would have to run 124,749 different experiments (let's call it 125,000). [10] To study all the different 3-chemical combinations among the 500 would require 20.7 million experiments--an impossible task. Even testing all 3-chemical combinations among only 100 chemicals would require 161,700 experiments. Testing combinations is a burden.

If we were worried about 500 chemicals, each with one metabolite, for a total of 1000 chemicals, and we wanted to study all possible 2-chemical combinations, we'd have to run 499,500 (just shy of half a million) experiments; to learn about all the different 3-chemical combinations of these 1000, we'd have to run 166 million experiments--simply out of the question.

Running even 125,000 experiments (all 2-chemical combinations of the top 500 chemicals) would require quite a different attitude than public health officials presently exhibit toward these problems. Many dozens of competent laboratories would have to get involved. Hundreds of researchers and technicians would have to be trained (or re-trained). Much current research would have to be abandoned. If each experiment cost only $100,000, then 125,000 experiments would cost $12.5 billion and 499,500 experiments would cost $50 billion.

Finally, recent research on dioxin reveals that, at dose levels not toxic to the mother, both male and female offspring of dioxin-exposed pregnant rats and hamsters have their sexual development stunted. [11]In females, the external genitalia were malformed; in males, testicles were reduced in weight, and sperm count was reduced by more than 50%. These effects were not caused by estrogen-mimicking, nor by an anti-androgen mechanism. Some entirely different mechanism, not understood, allows dioxin to interfere with sexual development of mammals at extremely low levels of exposure. Are there other chemicals like dioxin in this regard? It seems a fair question.

For scientists all these research questions may seem interesting, if not actually doable. But for the public, a different question seems paramount: how can we avoid exposure to dioxin and to all the other gender-benders found in pesticides, detergents, paints, plastics, and so on? After they are made and released into the environment, there is no avoiding them. Therefore, we must prevent their manufacture in the first place. This is the life-and-death challenge of our age.

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Anonymous, "Masculinity at risk [editorial]", NATURE Vol. 375 (June 15, 1995), pg. 522.

[2] Anonymous, "Male reproductive health and environmental oestrogens [editorial]," LANCET Vol. 345, No. 8955 (April 15, 1995), pgs. 933-935.

[3] See Frederick S. vom Saal and others, "Sexual Differentiation in Mammals," in Theo Colborn and Coralie Clement, editors, CHEMICALLY-INDUCED ALTERATIONS IN SEXUAL AND FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE WILDLIFE/HUMAN CONNECTION [Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology Vol. XXI] (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., 1992), pgs. 17-83; and in the same volume, see Leon Earl Gray, Jr., "Chemical-Induced Alterations of Sexual Differentiation: A Review of Effects in Humans and Rodents," pgs. 203-230.

[4] For example, see Niels E. Skakkebaek and Niels Keiding, "Changes in semen and the testis," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (November 19, 1994), pgs. 1316-1317.

[5] William R. Kelce and others, "Persistent DDT metabolite p,p'-DDE is a potent androgen receptor antagonist," NATURE Vol. 375 (June 15, 1995), pgs. 581-585. Our thanks to Peter deFur and Mechelle Evans of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) for providing us with a copy of this article.

[6] As a male grows inside the womb, the penis develops a urinary channel called the urethra; with the birth defect called hypospadias, the urinary channel is not closed but remains open for a certain distance on the underside of the penis, and this has to be corrected surgically after birth. The hypospadias birth defect is thought to be increasing in frequency; see A. Giwercman and N.E. Skakkebaek, "The human testis--an organ at risk?" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY Vol. 15 (1992), pgs. 373-375.

[7] Richard M. Sharpe, "Another DDT connection," NATURE Vol. 375 (June 15, 1995), pgs. 538-539.

[8] William R. Kelce and others, "Environmental Hormone Disruptors: Evidence That Vinclozolin Developmental Toxicity is Mediated by Antiandrogenic Metabolites," TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 126 (1994), pgs. 276-285. And: L. Earl Gray, Jr., and others, "Developmental Effects of an Environmental Antiandrogen: The Fungicide Vinclozolin Alters Sex Differentiation of the Male Rat," TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 129 (1994), pgs. 46-52.

[9] See 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Chapter 1 (7-1-94 edition), section 180.380.

[10] The formula for calculating how many different subcollections of size k can be formed from a collection of n different chemicals is (n!)/((k!)*((n-k)!)) when n! means n factorial and * means "multiplied by". See, for example, Michael Orkin and Richard Drogin, VITAL STATISTICS (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), pg. 285.

[11] L.E. Gray, Jr., and others, "Exposure to TCDD during Development Permanently Alters Reproductive Function in Male Long Evans Rats and Hamsters: Reduced Ejaculated and Epididymal Sperm Numbers and Sex Accessory Gland Weights in Offspring with Normal Androgenic Status," TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 131 (1995), pgs. 108-118.

Descriptor terms: nature; lancet; endocrine disruptors; endocrine system; xenoestrogens; estrogen; hormones; androgens; infertility; fertility; reproductive health; testicular cancer; sperm count; sperm density; sperm quality; hypospadias; cryptorchidism; undescended testicles; birth defects; epa; william kelce; metabolites; ddt; dde; p,p'-dde; vinclozolin; pesticides;

#446: Our Future in Doubt

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #446
---June 15, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com =======================Original Source========================

After 30 years of scientific detective work, a picture has emerged strongly suggesting that American-style industrialization is in fundamental conflict with living systems. Many common chemicals used in bulk quantities are now known to interfere with the reproductive systems of wildlife and humans, causing reproductive failure, birth defects, immune system deficiencies, and cancers. [1] About 40 widely-used chemicals (pesticides, detergents, plasticizers and other important industrial building blocks) have now been identified with these characteristics. [2] However, scientists say the only way to discover all such chemicals is to test each of the 70,000 chemicals now in commercial use. [3] Such a broad-scale testing program would be unprecedented and seems politically, economically, and logistically impossible, given today's corporate milieu and mood. Without such a testing program, the withdrawal of these chemicals from commercial use cannot even reach the discussion stage. Thus the conflict between our industrial institutions and the health of living things seems irreconcilable without a fundamental shift in world view and in political relations.

It was 1972 when the federal National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) formally began studying chemicals that interfere with the endocrine system of wildlife and humans. The endocrine system is a complex set of bodily organs and tissues whose actions are coordinated by chemical messengers called hormones, which control sexual reproduction, growth, development and behavior. Bears hibernate because of chemical signals from the endocrine system, and women menstruate under control of their endocrine systems. In the egg or the womb, males are made into males, and females into females, by endocrine hormone signals.

In the late 1960s, scientists began reporting disruptions of the endocrine system in birds --for example, the pesticide DDT was causing eggshell thinning, leading to reproductive failure. [4] The same year DDT was banned in the U.S. (1972), Dr. John A. McLachlan began a research program at NIEHS, examining chemicals that mimic hormones (chiefly estrogen, the main female sex hormone). McLachlan says even he didn't realize how many endocrine-disrupting chemicals were "out there" until 1979, when NIEHS sponsored the first scientific conference on the subject. [5] Even after that conference, the general public (including the environmental community) knew nothing of these problems.

In 1988, two government researchers in Canada --Tom Muir and Anne Sudar --packaged much of the available information on chemicals and health into a concise and alarming report on the Great Lakes. Their employer, Environment Canada --the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) --refused to publish their report. [6]Subsequently, the Conservation Foundation in Washington, D.C. --a private organization with close ties to the U.S. government [7]--was asked to examine the Muir/Sudar report. In 1990, the Conservation Foundation published an expanded and toned-down version of the facts in GREAT LAKES GREAT LEGACY?, authored by Theodora E. Colborn [8] with an extensive bibliography of studies from the 1980s showing endocrine damage to wildlife, and, to a much lesser extent, humans.

In July of the following year Theo Colborn convened a conference attended by 21 scientists at the Wingspread Center in Racine, Wisconsin; that conference issued a consensus statement by the 21 scientists, saying, in part, "We are certain of the following: A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans... Many wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds. The impacts include thyroid dysfunction [impaired or abnormal functioning] in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish and turtles; gross birth deformities in birds, fish and turtles; metabolic abnormalities [impaired or abnormal use of energy, manufacture of tissue, or handling of resulting wastes] in birds, fish, and mammals; behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization and feminization in male fish, birds, and mammals; defeminization and masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised [impaired] immune systems in birds and mammals." [9](See RHWN #263, #264.)

In 1992, Theo Colborn went on to summarize what is known about endocrine-disrupting chemicals in a technical book aimed at a scientific audience. [9] In 1993, she presented a summary in the prestigious journal, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, the official voice of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). [13] That put the issue "on the map" in the U.S.

In 1992 and 1993, researchers in Denmark, England, the U.S. and elsewhere began connecting the dots among a wide range of studies that had shown various kinds of damage to the reproductive systems of men, including:

** increases in cancer of the testicles in many industrialized countries; [10]** increased incidence of undescended testicles (cryptorchidism) in humans and in wildlife; [10]** reduction in sperm count by 50% among men in many industrialized countries; [11]** increased incidence of hypospadias--a birth defect of the male genitalia. [10]

Furthermore, several studies in 1993 suggested that certain important problems of the female reproductive system --breast cancer and endometriosis --may also be linked to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. [12]

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals of industrial origin are now measurable in rain water, well water, rivers, lakes, and oceans, as well as in freshwater, oceanic and terrestrial food products. Effects of exposure to endocrine disrupters early in life are permanent and irreversible. Exposure of a woman at any time in her life prior to pregnancy can affect her offspring because these chemicals persist in the body. [13]

There seems to be no doubt that estrogen-mimicking chemicals are damaging wildlife worldwide. In certain cases, the damage is so severe that extinction is occurring; for example, pallid sturgeon in the Mississippi and Missouri rivers have not reproduced for at least 10 years; any members of the species seen today are 30 to 40 years old. For 15 years, scientists have been reporting that the gonads of the pallid sturgeon "aren't distinctly male or female any more." [14]Likewise, the Florida panther most likely will go extinct this decade or next, victim of undescended testicles and diminished sperm count. How different is the prospect for humans? The handwriting on the wall couldn't be more plain, yet the most knowledgeable among us are largely confined to talking to themselves.

The International Joint Commission (IJC) has outlined a regulatory program adequate to the task before us, but President Clinton has rejected it. [15] What is to be done? We can only ask questions. How can we modify the framework that prevents scientists from speaking out? How can we get private money out of politics, so we can elect public officials who are not beholden to corporate interests? How can we liberate the decision-makers within corporations from today's legal constraints, freeing them to consider the public health consequences of their business decisions? How can we induce the mass media --particularly those that use the publicly-owned airwaves --to inform the public about the nature and importance of these chemical and political problems?

--Peter Montague

===============

[1] Bette Hileman, "Environmental Estrogens Linked to Reproductive Abnormalities, Cancer," C&EN [CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS] January 31, 1994, pgs. 19-23; Bette Hileman, "Concerns Broaden over Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons," C&EN [CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS] April 19, 1993, pgs. 11-20; Theo Colborn, Frederick S. vom Saal, and Ana M. Soto, "Developmental Effects of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and Humans," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101 No. 5 (October 1993), pgs. 378-384; Paul Cotton, "Environmental Estrogenic Agents Area of Concern," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 271 (February 9, 1994), pgs. 414, 416.

[2] Here is an incomplete list of chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T; alachlor; amitrole; atrazine; metribuzin; nitrofen; trifluralin; benomyl; hexachlorobenzene; mancozeb; maneb; metiram-complex; tributyl tin; zinab; ziram; beta-HCH; carbaryl; chlordane; dicofol; dieldrin; DDT and metabolites; endosulfan; heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide; lindane (gamma-HCH); methomyl; methoxychlor; mirex; oxychlordane; parathion; synthetic pyrethroids; toxaphene; transnonachlor; aldicarb; DBCP; cadmium; dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD); lead; mercury; PBBs; PCBs; pentachlorophenol (PCP); penta-to nonylphenols; phthalates; styrenes.

[3] For example, Ana M. Soto and others, "The Pesticides Endosulfan, Toxaphene, and Dieldrin Have Estrogenic Effects on Human Estrogen-Sensitive Cells," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 102, No. 4 (April 1994), pg. 380, says, "It should be noted that the estrogenic activity of chemicals cannot be deduced solely from their molecular structure..."

[4] For example, D.A. Ratcliff, "Decrease in Eggshell Weight in Certain Birds of Prey," NATURE Vol. 225 (1967), pg. 208.

[5] McLachlan quoted in Janet Raloff, "EcoCancers; Do environmental factors underlie a breast cancer epidemic?" SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 144 (July 3, 1993), pg. 10.

[6] Tom Muir and Anne Sudar, TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN ECOSYSTEM: SOME OBSERVATIONS (Burlington, Ontario: Environment Canada, 1988; never formally published). Discussing this report, see Bette Hileman, "The Great Lakes Cleanup Effort," C&EN [CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS] February 8, 1988, pgs. 22-39, who compares it to Rachel Carson's SILENT SPRING.

[7] For example, William Reilly was president of the Conservation Foundation before President Bush selected him to head U.S. EPA.

[8] Theo Colborn and others, GREAT LAKES GREAT LEGACY? (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1990). Available for $20.00 (plus $2.00 shipping) from: World Wildlife Fund, P.O. Box 4866, Hampden Post Office, Baltimore, MD 21211; phone (301) 516-6951.

[9] Theo Colborn and Coralie Clement, editors, CHEMICALLY-INDUCED ALTERATIONS IN SEXUAL AND FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE WILDLIFE/HUMAN CONNECTION [Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology Vol. XXI] (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., 1992). The opening chapter reprints the consensus statement from the Wingspread conference. And see: Theo Colborn, Frederick S. vom Saal, and Ana M. Soto, "Developmental Effects of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and Humans," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101 No. 5 (October, 1993), pgs. 378-384.

[10] A. Giwercman and others, "Evidence for increasing abnormalities of the human testis: a review," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101, Supplement 2 (1993), pgs. 65-71. And see: A. Giwercman and N.E. Skakkebaek, "The human testis--an organ at risk?" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY Vol. 15 (1992), pgs. 373-375.

[11] Jacques Auger and others, "Decline in Semen Quality Among Fertile Men in Paris During the Past 20 years," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 332, No. 5 (February 2, 1995), pgs. 281-285. And: D. Stewart Irvine, "Falling sperm quality," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (August 13, 1994), pg. 476. Elisabeth Carlsen and others, "Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 305 (1992), pgs. 609-613.

[12] Sherry E. Rier and others, "Endometriosis in Rhesus Monkeys (MACACA MULATTA) Following Chronic Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin," FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY Vol. 21 (1993), pgs. 433-441.

[13] Theo Colborn, Frederick S. vom Saal, and Ana M. Soto, "Developmental Effects of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and Humans," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101 No. 5 (October, 1993), pgs. 378-384.

[14] Janet Raloff, "The Gender Benders; Are environmental 'hormones' emasculating wildlife?" SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 145 (Jan. 8, 1994), pgs. 24-27. See also: Janet Raloff, "The Feminine Touch; Are men suffering from prenatal or childhood exposure to 'hormonal' toxicants?" SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 145 (January 22, 1994), pgs. 56-59.

[15] The IJC's recommendations are summarized in Peter Montague, "Our Greatest Accomplishment: Grass-roots Action Has Forced a Major Shift in Thinking," THE WORKBOOK Vol. 19 No. 2 (Summer 1994), pgs. 86-90. Paper reprints of this article are available for $2.00; an electronic copy is available free (E-mail your request to erf@rachel.clark.net).

Descriptor terms: endocrine disupters; wildlife; human health; niehs; national institute of environmental health sciences; reproduction; development; growth; birds; fish; estrogen; tom muir; anne sudar; conservation foundation; world wildlife fund; wwf; cf; william reilly; theo colborn; environment canada; wongspread statement; shellfish; turtles; mammals; sexual development; sexual differentiation; immune system; endocrine system; thyroid; denmark; great britain; england; united kingdom; testicular cancer; cryptorchidism; undescended testicles; sperm count; hypospadias; birth defects; breast cancer; endometriosis; pallid sturgeon; florida panther; international joint commission; ijc; corporations; regulation; mass media;

#270: EPA'S Dioxin Reassessment--Part 2: Dioxin Damages Human Immune System

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #270
---January 29, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com ========================Original Source========================

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is presently reassessing the dangers of dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals ever tested on laboratory animals. As a result of animal tests, EPA has declared only exceedingly small amounts of dioxin "safe" for the human food supply. Americans eat food routinely containing roughly 10 to 100 times more dioxin than EPA considers safe. [SEE RHWN #269.]

No one makes dioxin intentionally, but many industries create dioxin as a byproduct of their main activity. Industries that emit dioxin into the environment (paper, plastics, chemicals, and solid waste incinerators) are being sued for their emissions by citizens claiming harm from exposure, and one industry--paper--faces billions of dollars in lawsuits.

Partly to please the paper industry, and partly because there were new scientific findings worth considering, EPA chief William Reilly announced a year-long dioxin reassessment to begin in April, 1991.

Now, nine months into the year-long process, EPA scientists responsible for parts of the reassessment have begun talking openly about new findings that make dioxin seem as bad as, or worse than, EPA used to think.

For two decades dioxin has baffled toxicologists. They are used to seeing cancer-causing chemicals that predominantly cause cancer in one organ or another--like asbestos, which chiefly affects the lungs, or benzene, which chiefly affects the blood-forming cells, causing leukemia. But dioxin seems to cause cancer in many organs, raising the general level of cancer in a population without causing a huge increase in any one type of cancer. In addition, dioxin causes certain toxic effects in one species and other effects in another species. Likewise, dioxin at low doses causes one kind of illness, and at higher doses it causes different illnesses. Only recently have EPA scientists concluded that this puzzling pattern occurs because dioxin acts like an "environmental hormone." Hormones are potent natural chemicals that send messages via the bloodstream, turning on and off chemical switches throughout the body, creating an array of effects in different organs. Dioxin behaves this way. Hormones are present in the body in tiny amounts, yet they can trigger huge changes in various bodily systems. For example, it is hormones that trigger the different stages of growth in a fetus, and that cause young humans to go through puberty.

New Information

EPA chief William Reilly was right--there IS new information about dioxin. But it won't be reassuring to the paper industry. On the contrary, two studies of workers exposed to dioxin, published during the past year, have shown unmistakable increases in cancers of several types. A study of 5172 American workers revealed a cancer rate 46% above the norm.[1] Likewise, a study of 1583 German workers revealed a cancer rate 39% above the norm; among German workers 20 years on the job, the rate was 82% above the norm, and among the most heavily exposed Germans workers, the cancer rate was three times the norm.[2] Notably, among female German workers, the risk of breast cancer was doubled. Whereas a year ago one might have argued whether dioxin had ever been shown to cause cancer in humans, now such arguments are only voiced by the kind of people who say it still isn't proven that cigarettes cause lung cancer.

Linda Birnbaum, one of the scientists conducting EPA's reassessment of dioxin, says these two studies have convinced her that dioxin causes cancer in humans, at least at relatively high exposures. But, she told SCIENCE NEWS (January 11, 1992, pgs. 24-27.), she has an even greater concern about dioxin: "I'm very concerned that much lower exposure to dioxin may result in adverse health effects that are very subtle and difficult to detect." She was talking about dioxin's impact on the immune system.

The immune system is an exceedingly complex network of organs, cells, and chemical secretions (hormones) that react to preserve health in the face of a vast array of hostile microorganisms and toxicants that our bodies encounter every day. The immune system fights against common colds, influenza, and the body's own cells that go haywire and start to multiply uncontrollably (a definition of cancer).

A degraded immune system leaves the body less able to defend itself against hostile forces in the natural environment. Dioxin attacks the immune system.

EPA's dioxin reassessment will "focus much greater attention on toxicological data revealing TCDD's [dioxin's] reproductive, developmental, and immunotoxic effects," says SCIENCE NEWS. Immunotoxic means toxic to the immune system. Furthermore, "This document [EPA's draft reassessment][ will also establish TCDD as the first pollutant to be regulated on the basis of toxicity observed at the cellular level."

This is one reason why the dioxin controversy is being followed so carefully by industry and by environmentalists. It promises to set precedents in the way chemicals are regulated in the future. In the past, chemicals were considered harmless if they caused no "clinical" damage (damage your family doctor might detect). Now, with the dioxin reassessment, evidence of chemical changes inside individual cells is being considered important to a person's well being.

"So far, studies in mice suggest that dioxin's immunotoxic punch occurs in extremely low doses and may well be more important than cancer in determining dioxin's primary health risk," says Birnbaum."

To study TCDD's toxicity to the immune system, researchers use mice, whose immune systems model those of humans. For example, EPA researchers have measured how well TCDD-treated mice withstand the influenza virus. Mice pre-treated with TCDD readily die after exposure to a quantity of virus that rarely kills healthy mice.

Naturally, it would be very difficult to detect such effects in people. If people exposed to unusually high levels of dioxin, say from a solid waste incinerator, had damaged immune systems and consequently experienced various illnesses, no one might ever suspect dioxin as a cause.

People might question whether some of dioxin's low-level effects represent real harm to people, but "...few people will contend that suppression of the immune system is not an adverse health effect," Birnbaum told 

SCIENCE NEWS.

Unlike hormones, which remain in the body only a few hours, dioxin has a half-life in the body of seven years. At the end of one half-life, half the initial dioxin remains. What this means is that dioxin has, relatively, a very long half-life in the body, unlike the hormones that it mimics, so it stays around to play havoc with the body's chemical systems year after year. "Thus one TCDD [dioxin] molecule can continuously disrupt normal cell physiology," says SCIENCE NEWS, citing work by well-known dioxin researcher Thomas A. Gasiewicz at the University of Rochester (NY) Medical School. EPA's Birnbaum, and Michael Holsapple, a well-known di-oxin researcher at the Medical College of Virginia, say studies of humans at Times Beach, Missouri, and of Vietnam veterans, were essentially bungled. Holsapple says, "If I were to take mice and ask the same [research] questions that are routinely asked of the populations of Times Beach or in the Ranch Hand study [of Vietnam vets exposed to dioxin-contaminated herbicide], I would come up with a very nebulous picture [of dioxin's immunotoxicity]," says Holsapple. "But when we ask different questions [in mice], we can certainly show very strong effects on the immune response," he says.

Is there a threshold for dioxin's damage to the human body? Is there a level of dioxin below which no effects can be observed? George Lucier of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle, North Carolina, has been asking this question in his laboratory. His data show no evidence of any threshold. "My data might not prove that a threshold doesn't exist," he told SCIENCE NEWS, "but there's also no evidence of any thresholds." In other words, any amount of dioxin does some damage, according to Lucier's findings. This means the only safe amount is zero.

This conclusion is not what the paper industry wanted to hear when its executives urged William Reilly to initiate EPA's dioxin reassessment. As the reassessment reaches its draft stages early this summer, we'll have new measures of the potency not only of dioxin, but also of industry's muscle in a contest with unwelcome scientific conclusions.

For all of us, much is riding on the outcome.

{Also see - Dioxin Reassessment--Part 1: #269}

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Marilyn Fingerhut and others, "Cancer Mortality in Workers Exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 324 (1991), pgs. 212-218.

[2] A. Manz and others, "Cancer Mortality Among Workers in Chemical Plant Contaminated With Dioxin," THE LANCET Vol. [338] (October 19, 1991), pgs. 959-964.

Descriptor terms: dioxin: dioxin reassesment: immune systems: evironmental protection agency: cancer: paper industry: william reilly