wildcardenvironmentalist Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, News

Press Release: WHO/UNEP strongly endorse need to regulate as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) identified as ‘global threat’.


Press Release:

Immediate release

Alliance for Cancer Prevention

20/2/13

WHO/UNEP strongly endorse need to regulate as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) identified as ‘global threat’.

A new report from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) comprehensively reviews the state of the science on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).  It outlines the very serious and immediate threat to human health and wildlife from EDCs and signals the urgent need for effective regulation and testing of these chemicals.

The report estimates that as much as 24% of human diseases and disorders are due at least in part to environmental factors which include chemical exposures. “Many endocrine diseases and disorders are on the rise and the speed at which they are increasing rules out genetic factors as the sole plausible explanation”.

The Alliance is concerned that the one of the most worrying assessments from the report is that we are only looking at the ‘tip of the iceberg’ on this issue. Some 800 chemicals are known or suspected of interfering with our hormones.  Yet only a small fraction of these chemicals have been tested.  We are exposed to EDCs through everyday contact in our workplaces or homes to certain plastic products, cosmetics, furniture, computers, toys, construction materials and other products, materials and goods. We are exposed through the food we eat, the water we drink and the very air we breathe. EDCs may also be by-products formed during manufacture or use of products or through the disposal and combustion of waste.

Current testing does not take into account our multiple and cumulative exposures to EDCs and the fact that their effects cannot be considered in isolation. Their impacts on our health are being observed across our lifespan from conception in the womb through to old age. With EDCs, there are no safe levels and the report states that “thresholds” should not be assumed.

Diseases and disorders induced by exposure to EDCs during development in animal model and human studies include: Breast/prostate cancer, endometriosis, infertility, diabetes/metabolic syndrome, early puberty, obesity, susceptibility to infections, autoimmune disease, asthma, heart disease/hypertension, stroke, Alzheimer and Parkinson’s disease, ADHD and learning disabilities.

As the endocrine system regulates all our bodily functions, EDCs can interfere with normal body functions in multiple ways including impacting our metabolism, fat storage, bone development and immune system and this suggests that..” all endocrine systems can and will be affected by EDCs”, and these effects may be passed on to future generations.

The WHO report says that “‘it is critical to move beyond the piecemeal, one chemical at a time, one disease at a time, one dose approach currently used by scientists studying animal models, humans or wildlife. Understanding the effects of the mixtures of chemicals to which humans and wildlife are exposed is increasingly important”. EDCs can operate at extremely low unobservable levels and in combination. The strength of attraction of an endocrine disruptor to a hormone doesn’t equate to its strength as a chemical. Its potency or strength to affect our hormone system is dependent on many factors.

The Alliance believes the implications for public health are enormous, and for the focus of our work, cancer risk.  Currently addressed lifestyle risk factors for cancer will alone not curtail rising incidences and deaths, which will continue to escalate unless affirmative action is taken on EDCs. Neglect of the environmental and occupational risk factors for cancer skews research on cancer causation and with EDCs implicated in obesity their potential to affect even so called lifestyle factors for cancer is obvious.

The Alliance calls for an effective strategy on EDCs from the EU parliament taking advantage of the opportunity in March with the vote on EDCs in parliament. There is the potential to make history by making sure these harmful chemicals are removed from our homes, workplaces and wider environment.

How will this affect strategies to prevention cancer?

The WHO/UNEP report follows hot on the heels of another paper published in advance in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), which is relevant in so far as the authors include the WHO Director of Public Health and the Environment.

That paper assesses “Primary prevention of cancer of environmental and occupational origin reduces cancer incidence and mortality, and is highly cost effective; in fact, it is not just socially beneficial because it reduces medical and other costs, but because it avoids many human beings suffering from cancer.”

“A substantial proportion of all cancers is attributable to carcinogenic exposures in the environment and the workplace, and is influenced by activities in all economic and social sectors. Many of these exposures are involuntary but can be controlled or eliminated through enactment and enforcement of proactive strategies for primary prevention.’

It concludes: ‘Currently, the almost exclusive focus of cancer policies in most countries is on secondary prevention (ie. early detection), diagnosis and treatment. Too little resources are devoted to primary prevention, which aims to eliminate or control exposures to environmental and occupational carcinogens… The prevailing approach is socially unfair and often unsustainable, especially in low and middle income countries.’ It adds: ‘There is sufficient evidence that primary prevention is feasible and highly effective in reducing cancer incidence.’

While the Alliance welcomes the WHO/UNEP report, we look forward to seeing action in response to the report’s call for reducing the exposures to EDCs by a variety of measures. Initiatives such as introducing Toxics Use Reduction Acts, promoting green chemistry and substitution, and a precautionary approach in regulating EDCs could be immediate responses. Coupled with a coherent and effective EU EDC strategy on banning, phase out and eliminating human exposure to EDCs. We are particularly interested in how the cancer establishment will address the issue of EDCs in all strategies to preventing cancer.

When we consider the far reaching consequences of inaction on EDCs, the platitudes in relation to other global threats pale into insignificance. Some say the threat is even greater than that of climate change, given EDCs ability to affect fertility, foetal development, the brain and behaviour. We are changing the very landscape of the womb and adversely affecting the abilities of future generations. Leaving aside the financial costs of inaction on EDCs, the human cost is unthinkable, to not act now is to be complicit.

The Alliance for Cancer Prevention is a multi-stakeholder group which includes representatives from NGOs, environmental and occupational health organisations, trade unions, public health advocates and civil society groups.

T @Cancer_Alliance
E info@allianceforcancerprevention.org.uk
Tel: 07960033687

Notes to editor:

  1. State of the Science for Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Report can be downloaded here:
  2. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) are chemicals which can affect our Endocrine System (the bodies messenger system) and other bodily functions, which co-ordinates reproduction, development, growth, mood, and what happens in our cells to help our bodies and organs function normally.
  3. Current risk factors for cancer include: tobacco, diet and obesity, infections, radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing, up to 10%), stress, lack of physical activity, hereditary genes, physical agents, chemicals, and hormones.
  4. Environmental and occupational risk factors are potential risk factors from exposure to certain chemicals, substances, or particles (either occupational or environmental) and absorbed in utero (pre birth) or through breathing, touching, and eating, which contribute to a cancer outcome by nature of their carcinogenic, mutagenic or endocrine disrupting abilities.
  5. Espina C, Porta M, et al. Environmental and Occupational Interventions for Primary Prevention of Cancer: A Cross-Sectorial Policy Framework. Environ Health Perspect.  Advanced publication here.
  6. Dr. Theo Colborn’s letter to President Obama, watch it here.
  7. Toxic Use Reduction. Replacing toxic substances with safer alternatives or processes. www.turi.org
  8. Sign the petition to get EDCs out of consumer goods: here

 

wildcardenvironmentalist Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, News

Denmark prohibits endocrine disruptors

In 2009 the Danish Consumer Council (DCC) started a campaign to ban endocrine disrupting chemicals in consumer products. So far Denmark has banned Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and food packaging material  for children, 2 parabens (Butyl and Propyl) from cosmetic products for children under 3, and now, four phthalates in consumer products.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals/oestrogen mimics/xenoestrogens can be found in a wide rang of consumer products and can interfere/disrupt or prevent any aspect of our hormones action.  And as such have no place in consumer products, in our workplaces or our environment.

The Danish Government , urged by their consumer council, is taking prevention and precautionary action to ban phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals from consumer products  “The DCC has for a long time called for the use of the precautionary principle – the benefit of the doubt should protect the consumers and their health, not the chemical industry. Research on EDCs from the Danish Centre on Endocrine Disrupters clearly shows the need for caution“. Claus Jørgensen, Senior Policy Advisor at the Danish Consumer Council.

The ban covers “the import and sale of products for indoor use which contain one or more of the four phthalates and products which contain these substances in parts of the products which may come into contact with skin or mucous membranes” and does not not include phthalates found in medical devices, toys, cosmetics, and food packaging.

Does this mean that industry will have to manufacture specific products for sale in Denmark, or can we save them the trouble and push for a ban on all EDC’s in consumer products across the EU?

Newsletter from the Danish Consumer Council

 

 

 

 

 

wildcardenvironmentalist News

HSE’s dithering, denial and delay on workplace cancer is deadly!

 Press Release for immediate use 21st August 2012 

HSE’s dithering, denial and delay on workplace cancer is deadly!

Workers enquiry needed to identify and eliminate all exposures to carcinogens.

The Hazards Campaign says the HSE intervention paper on occupational cancer to be presented to the HSE Board meeting on 22nd August in Bootle, while more detailed than the original rejected paper, “fails to acknowledge the actual scale of cancer caused by work(1). The paper is based on a fairy tale unrealistic view of the world of work today, ignores many known carcinogens, shows little interest in finding unknown exposures, underestimates the numbers of workers exposed and shows no sense of urgency to tackle this massive but preventable workplace epidemic. Because of the lack of action now, more people will develop occupational cancers and die from them in the future. 

Hazards Spokesperson says:

“Rushton estimates that work cancer kills 8,000 (5% of all cancers) or at least seven times as many workers as are killed by work injuries every year, and affects a further 14,000.  Hazards estimates, based on work by international cancer specialists, place the toil even higher at 12% of all cancers.  That is 18,000 deaths and over 30,000 cases of cancers related to work each year in GB (2).

Occupational cancer researcher Simon Pickvance warns: “The HSE has been in denial about work cancer for over three decades, depending far too heavily on epidemiology which is only capable of seeing widespread, long-established problems amongst large numbers of workers, employed for long periods of time, in large workplaces such as mines, mills and manufacturing. This is totally unsuitable for today’s, smaller and fast evolving workplaces with more complex, and diverse exposures.  It is incapable of picking up high risk exposures affecting smaller groups of workers.  We welcome HSE’s response to the detection of hazardous exposure to azo dyes in the engineering industry by members of Hazards Campaign, but this is just one of many such high risk groups that can be identified using mass participatory methods of relating workers’ exposures to case reports.  A fully participatory approach towards identifying exposure scenarios and methods for toxic use reduction must be the way forward. The Rushton estimates for the HSE continue to under count the number of workers exposed. On  diesel fumes exposure alone, it is simply incomprehensible that the well over a million workers who have a raised risk of a cancer because they work in diesel-exposed jobs become ‘over 10,000’ in HSE’s estimation – and a million is just a fraction of the total diesel-exposed workforce”.

Simon goes on to explain: “The HSE’s target organ approach is also very damaging as most carcinogens have a very broad spectrum but epidemiology is not clever enough to see it.  Real life workers’ bodies do not play by epidemiologists rules so that even quite large increases in common cancers are entirely and irretrievably invisible to traditional epidemiological number-crunching (3)  

The Hazards Campaign joins occupational cancer campaigners in demanding a workers inquiry to identify all workplace exposure to carcinogens and urgent action to enforce their elimination;  a spokesperson said: “We need proactive enforcement of existing legislation (4), and in the absence of reliable figures on numbers of people exposed (the underestimation of diesel-exposed workers is only the latest in a series of HSE blunders in calculating exposed populations) the over-dependence on the Rushton burden calculation (how much cancer is work-related ?),in setting priorities for action must stop.
Helen Lynn spokesperson for the Alliance for Cancer Prevention said: “The HSE approach to occupational cancer ensures thousands more people will develop the disease through exposures at work. Delaying action on better shift work patterns is just condemning more women to greater risk of breast cancer while there is action that could be taken immediately. Although the word ‘action’ is mention exclusively by the HSE in relation to naturally occurring carcinogens such as radon, there is no action on promoting substitution to known or suspected carcinogens when there are safer alternatives available as applies to the chemicals used in dry cleaning. The HSE scope for carcinogens should be widened to include all carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic chemicals and substances (CMR’s), and encompass those not only addressed in REACH but also listed on the SIN list” (5)

Campaigners argue that the response outlined in the HSE paper is based on a combination of dithering, denial, and delay. Their ‘wait and see’ approach and leaving the job up to other agencies, while they continue to do a little bit more of what is currently ineffective, is completely inadequate to the task of preventing work related cancers.

Simon Pickvance concludes:  “We are sick to death of being treated as second class workers in Europe, who can wait for preventative action till research is carried out, for example on shiftwork, when other member states have adopted a precautionary, pro active approach.  It is not more science that is required before more humane shift patterns can be introduced. HSE’s intervention strategy is based on ignorance, denial and a false view of work today, and its response to the biggest workplace killer is utterly pathetic. It is hard to see what will be achieved by more of the same without the active involvement of workers themselves in finding out where the main problems lie. What is needed is a picture of the risks we face in the jobs we do today via a Trade Union backed workers inquiry (6) to identify all workplace cancer exposures. Plus a massive preventive proactive enforcement of elimination, and an abandonment of the use of cost-benefit analysis in setting exposure limit for carcinogens in EU, as there are no safe levels of exposure to carcinogens”

For more information:

Graphic: http://www.hazards.org/images/h117cover1200px.jpg

Simon Pickvance Tel: 0114 268 4197

Hilda Palmer, Hazards Campaign  Tel: 0161 636 7557

Helen Lynn, Alliance for Cancer Prevention: Tel: 0207 274 2577, mobile 07960033687

Note for editors:

1. HSE supplementary paper on occupation cancer: ‘Occupational cancer, priorities for future intervention – supplementary paper’  The initial paper was rejected by the HSE board in May 2012.

2. Hazards Magazine cancer pages: see Burying the evidence

3. This Man Knows all about Cancer:

Details Simon Pickvance’s criticisms of the HSE strategy on work-related cancer.   His criticism of the HSE supplementary paper include:
Silica Dust – No evidence for the HSE technical innovations on control.
Welding and Painting – no active involvement of workers in finding where the main problems lie.
Shift work – no action on safer working patterns only a call for yet more research.
Dry cleaning – no interventions on safer substitutes, only low cost ‘awareness raising initiatives’.
Epidemiology – focus from HSE is on widespread, long established problems while ignoring high risk exposures affecting smaller groups of workers.
Lack of participatory approach to risk detection – HSE fails to engage workers in identifying risk in their work places.
Lack of Toxic Use reduction methods – HSE ignores reducing exposure to existing and known carcinogens and setting targets for elimination.

4.COSHH- Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

5. Alliance for Cancer Prevention 

6. Workers Inquiry : The inquiry should be trade union backed, and involve workers in mounting an all-out search for carcinogens at work.  It must identify high risk groups within occupations/workplaces; and look at case studies, industrial hygiene and toxicological studies.  What is needed is a true picture of the risks we face in the jobs we do today, not something based on an out of date, fairytale world of work.