Recently in Health and safety Category

My colleague Simon Robinson noted the increasing hits on ICB's bisphenol-A (BPA) chemical profile online, which was published last year in October. Last week, it generated over 1300 hits. Barbara Ortner, another colleague and author of the Chemicals Confidential blog, dubbed BPA as the current most hated chemical as it is constantly splashed through the news from various studies indicating it's health/environmental risks (or lack thereof from counter studies).

Here are some of the recent ones that came out on the news as well as comments from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) on these findings:

• Consumer Reports Study Detected BPA in Some Canned Foods (see ACC comment)
  

• An investigation from Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), American Nurses Association (ANA) and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) revealed that the chemicals BPA, phthalates, PBDEs and PFCs are found in the bodies of health care professionals who participated in the study.(see ACC comment)
  

• High levels of workplace exposure to BPA may increase the risk of reduced sexual function in men, according to a Kaiser Permanente study. (see ACC comment)
  

• A study from the National Institute of Health Sciences (NIEHS) found a link between maternal exposure to BPA in early pregnancy and the behaviour of female children up to the age of two years. (see ACC comment)
  
  

ACC also commented that the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent rodent study finds that low dose exposure of BPA has no effect on female and male rat offspring.

Speaking of endocrine disruptors, another plasticizer being linked to this issue is phthalates. According to a recent study by researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, higher concentration of phthalates in mothers' prenatal urine are altering the brains of baby boys and making them more feminine.

The ACC noted that the researchers of this study acknowledged that their results are not straightforward.

"It appears that the researchers selectively excluded data, eliminating certain subjects from the analysis, in order to strengthen their conclusion. Even the phraseology of the paper is more sensationalistic than scientific." - ACC

The green blog has been covering the carbofuran issue ever since the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided in 2008 to cancel the pesticide's registration because of concern for its health safety.

Carbofuran is an N-methyl carbamate insecticide and nematicide that has been registered to control pests in soil and on leaves in a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable crops.

In October 30, the EPA finally decided to implement its final rule to ban the pesticide and said that farmers who use the product should switch to safer alternatives instead. The carbofuran ban will start after December 31, 2009.

"EPA has carefully evaluated the scientific issues and has provided more than 500 days of public comment on this decision. It is now important to move forward with the needed public health protections, especially for children."

The EPA also denied any objections or requests for hearings regarding the ban, which of course FMC - the lone US producer of carbofuran, strongly objected to. During the 3-month commentary period on the ban, the National Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower Association, National Potato Council and FMC filed objections to the EPA proposal.

The EPA said the objections and science arguments presented were flawed and FMC's proposed amendments to the carbofuran registration is said to be insufficient.

FMC and the three commodity crop associations plan to take legal action against the EPA's decision in a federal court. FMC said the EPA's attempt to link carbofuran food residues to symptoms of potential poisoning in children is unwarranted.

"EPA's unprecedented attempt to deny any review of its science deprives the registrant and the growers who use carbofuran the right to prove that the product is safe, and represents a bold abuse of power in contradiction of the agency's earlier commitments to transparency and good science," said Dr. Michael Morelli, Director of Global Regulatory Affairs, FMC Agricultural Products Group.

BY JOSEPH CHANG

Celebrity Star Power! - not at your typical chemical industry event.

But the launch of the Dow Live Earth Run for Water event - "the largest global water initiative in history" - drew out a number of celebs supporting the cause, including actress Jessica Biel, musicians Pete Wentz and Angelique Kidjo, water advocate Alexandra Cousteau and elite triathlete and model Jenny Fletcher.

The launch event took place at The Lighthouse at Chelsea Piers in New York City.

Dow Chemical is partnering with Live Earth to combat the global water crisis by raising awareness and funding for water projects worldwide.

It's a worthwhile cause, and one that can raise the profile of the chemical industry and highlight its leadership in taking on such important global issues.

The actual Dow Live Earth Water Run for Water will take place on April 18, 2010 in around 20 cities worldwide, including New York, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, London, Singapore City, Rio de Janeiro and Stockholm. The run/walk will be 6 kilometers, representing the average distance many women and children walk every day to secure water, said Dow.

NGO partners including Global Water Challenge, A Child's Right, Akvo, Fondo Para La Paz, Indonesia Water Partnership, Lien Aid, Pump Aid, Wildlands Conservation Trust and many others will aim to successfully implement water and conservation projects around the world.

Ian Barbour, general manager of Dow Water & Process Solutions, said the initiative draws attention to the chemical industry being part of the solution to crucial world issues.

"Sometimes we're too defensive in the chemical industry. Here is a fantastic opportunity to show what chemistry can do in tackling a critical world issue," Barbour said in an interview with ICIS.

See the story on Dow's Water & Process Solutions business on ICIS news (subscription required).

Actress Jessica Biel said: "Responsible corporate citizens like Dow make events and movements like this possible. They have committed to making changes in their business to positively affect communities and citizens around the world."

Around 1bn people worldwide, or one-eighth of the population, have no access to clean, safe drinking water, noted Barbour.

"We want to generate a surge in awareness and level of funding that will make a difference - making a dent in the number of people who don't have access to clean, safe drinking water," he said.

As for raising awareness, it sure doesn't hurt that high profile celebrities are on board to help solve the water crisis.

Jockeying for position amidst the throng of professional fotogs at the event in New York, I managed to get some videos (though a bit shaky!).

Video credit: ICIS

Trade union United Steelworkers (USW) is calling for the phaseout of hydrogen fluoride, an acid used as a catalyst in the alkylation unit for high-octane petroleum production, stating that the chemical is health hazard to workers in petroleum refineries.

The demand for the ban comes at a time when several petroleum refineries this year had incidents of HF release including last month's incident at ExxonMobil refinery in Joliet, Ill. According to the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), recent reported releases include those at the CITGO refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, on July 19, 2009, and at the Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 11, 2009.

USW said solid-state catalysts offer a safer alternative but are currently at the pilot plant stage and have not been used commercially yet for the alkylation process. One-third refineries reportedly used hydrogen fluoride while the other two-thirds use sulfuric acid as a catalyst.

"Hydrogen fluoride turns into hydrofluoric acid when it is in contact with moisture and becomes an extremely corrosive liquid and contact poison that burns skin, tissue and eyes. It rapidly penetrates tissues and can cause systemic toxicity, damaging the heart and lungs and causing death. Under the right conditions, a large release could form a lethal plume of acid vapors that could extend for miles downwind, putting thousands of people at risk." - USW

Sulfuric acid can also burn skin, tissue and lungs although is somewhat less toxic, the USW said. The group plans to discuss with the petroleum industry other alternatives to the use of hydrogen fluoride and said that if necessary, will also work through the regulatory agencies and Congress to get the issue resolved.

The group also plans a mid-September meeting between the local and international union, the Sierra Club and Citizens for Environmental Justice in Corpus Christi, Texas.

USW claims to be the largest industrial union in North America representing workers employed in metals, rubber, chemicals, paper, oil refining, atomic energy and the service sector.

[Photo from HazmatHelper.com]

The Netherlands-based Ewaste Foundation is hoping certification can help defuse E-waste dumping into developing countries such as Africa and China coming from European as well as from the US.

How it works? It's like buying those carbon offset credits but unlike tree planting, your money will be used to to process and dismantle the corresponding amount of e-waste in developing countries (in an ecologically and socially responsible way of course). The foundation said they have close cooperation with their certified local e-waste disassembly projects to do that job.

The hazardous parts (such as the capacitors, batteries, and CRT glass) are then shipped out of the developing countries to places where they are processed in an environmentally correct way.

If you or your company want to neutralize the carbon footprint of your electronic equipment (each certificate can apply to one piece or a batch of electronic equipment), the "E-Waste Neutral" certificate includes the date, the type and amount of equipment you neutralized with your certificate. You can enter or upload the serial numbers from your equipment. These then can be searched for by everyone via their ITEM CHECKER, to proof they indeed have been neutralized.

"To address the e-waste problem in developing countries in a structural way, more is needed than just bringing back the hazardous leftovers," says Ewaste Foundation founder Paul de Jong. "We bring together practical knowledge and capabilities through our broad network. Also, we personally give local initiatives practical assistance for them to become successful."

I guess you may not know where the final destination of your old electronic equipment goes but at least your conscience tells you that there is an equivalent e-waste that will be handled with sustainable care and out of the toxic dumping ground being handled by children from Africa or China.

[Photo from Greenpeace]

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) send me some updates about bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates last week.

With regards to BPA, the ACC said that a new data from Health Canada confirmed the safety level of the chemical in bottled water, baby food and infant formula, and that they are said to be extremely low.

"These new government data confirm Health Canada's previous conclusion that exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children." - ACC

The ACC said an adult would have to drink approximately 1,000 liters (or 264 gallons) of water from polycarbonate water cooler bottles every day to approach the BPA intake limit established in Canada.

No BPA was reportedly detected in any canned powdered infant formula samples tested while the levels found in baby food packaged in jars are said to be extremely low.

The Canadian Bottled Water Association and the North American Metal Packaging Alliance both applauded the Health Canada BPA survey and said it confirmed the safety levels of BPA in food packaging.

Meanwhile, the ACC also commented on a recent University of Illinois study by veterinary biosciences professor Jodi Flaws, which will be presented on July 19 at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction.

Last week Friday, Canada's Minister of Health announced their planned proposal to ban phthalates in soft vinyl toys and child-care articles as well as further reduction limits of lead in consumer products.

Canada is proposing regulations to prevent the use of six phthalates DEHP, DINP, DBP, BBP, DNOP and DIDP citing studies that suggest these chemicals are hazardous to reproduction and development in children.

The proposed Consumer Products Containing Lead (Contact with Mouth) Regulations would limit the lead content for all affected products such as toys for children under three years of age; mouthpieces used in sports equipment, (i.e. snorkels); mouthpieces of musical instruments; pacifiers; teethers; baby bottle nipples; plastic beverage straws; and drinking cup spouts; to a maximum of 90 milligrams of lead per kilogram of product (90 mg/kg).

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) released a statement saying that the Health Canada's proposal about phthalates has no scientific basis in meeting the stated objective of protecting the health and safety of Canadian children.

ACC said they are willing and able to demonstrate the sound science behind phthalates.

"We urge the agency to review the strong body of scientific evidence and to consider carefully the real risks to children in addressing potential restrictions."

[Photo image from Health Canada]

And the bisphenol-A (BPA) cycle of "is it safe or not?" goes on...

Several studies have again come out mostly from the Endocrine Society and none of them were pleasing to the BPA manufacturers' (and consumers') ears. First stop is during the Endocrine Society's annual meeting which was held last week in Washington, DC.

The following papers were presented that according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC) have not been peer-reviewed or published in scientific literature.

• Bisphenol-A Exposure In Utero Leads to Epigenetic Changes and Altered Developmental Programming, by Hugh Taylor, MD
• Low-Dose Bisphenol A Promotes Arrhythmogenesis in the Female Heart Via Alteration of Calcium Handling, by Scott M. Belcher, PhD
• Oral Exposure of Female Rhesus Monkeys..., by Frederick vom Saal, PhD.
  

ACC said few details were available in the abstracts and the scientists themselves bypass the scientific process in favor of sensationalism.

Some of the researchers' method that ACC objected to include the injections of BPA into animals, which ACC said have limited value for assessing human health effects (as acknowledged by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences); and that studies on cell cultures are also unlikely to be directly relevant to human health unless such relevance is scientifically validated.

Got the copy of my latest article about biopesticide, with pretty cool (and a little gross) graphic of a venus flytrap.

As previously tweeted, I was intrigued by how the biopesticide industry have been struggling in the overall pesticide and crop protection market despite their products having the benefits of being environment- and regulatory-friendly (especially in the US when it comes to EPA regulation).

The truth of the matter is (and like what the chemical industry has been warning for years), companies cannot just simply market a product as green or environment-friendly. It has to be efficient in doing what it's supposed to do.

I guess that's what happened in the biopesticide industry which is mostly populated with small-to-medium enterprise. Pesticides in the US, whether traditional or bio-based (as according to the EPA biopesticide definition) has to be registered, and that cost money as well. How can small companies compete with big global agchemical giants especially when it comes to marketing and registering their products? Farmers will probably choose a well-known, efficient maybe even cheaper, brands over a privately-labeled, albeit a greener product.

That's what I use to do (and still is most of the time) when buying a cleaning product.

The good news is that the green trend itself is empowering biopesticides to be more noticeable these past few years. Consumers clamor food and agricultural products that have less or no chemical residues on them. Growers and farmers are also demanding safer pesticides for health reasons.

Agchems are now actively seeking out or having marketing deals with biopesticide businesses. It is much like the cosmetics, personal care and cleaning industries where giants such as Clorox, Church & Dwight, L'Oreal, Colgate have dipped into the natural (and organics) market - some through acquisitions (remember Burt's Bees and Toms of Maine?).

This year alone, BASF formed a marketing deal with US biopesticide company AgraQuest; Bayer acquired certain businesses of Israel-based biopesticide firm Agrogreen; and Bayer is also rumored to have acquired a stake at Dutch biopesticide company Koppert. The blogger was unable to get a confirmation from Bayer (ignored my request more likely).

It is encouraging for the biopesticide industry to see this kind of activities but they remain vigilant for any "snake oil" companies that could ruin their reputation. According to one member of the US-based Biopesticide Industry Alliance (BPIA), the industry is trying to become much better stewards of their technology in the marketplace so that people who use their products will be more confident that what they claim is credible.

Before I delved more deeply into the green regulatory buzzwords of the week CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) and ACES (American Clean Energy and Security Act), let me go to the more simple news such as this cancellation of carbofuran registration by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The blog posted last year in July about EPA's proposal to cancel the pesticide's registration. I guess it took them almost a year to make a definite action as the sole producer of the pesticide, FMC, filed a protest (and a lawsuit) against the EPA. The agency started its carbofuran cancellation effort in 2006.

Carbofuran is an N-methyl carbamate insecticide and nematicide that has been registered to control pests in soil and on leaves in a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable crops. According to the EPA, all products containing carbofuran generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and do not meet safety standards, and therefore are ineligible for reregistration.

FMC said it will file objections and seek an administrative hearing.

With the EPA action, FMC said it can still sell and growers can use carbofuran until December 31, 2009. The company will follow all available administrative procedures and hopes to have the product available for the next crop growing year.

One problem with the cancellation registration, according to FMC, is that there are no alternatives to carbofuran in certain plant application such as in sunflower or killing rootworm. One 'concerned farmer' who commented last year on the blog said that carbofuran is one of the only chemicals that kills soybean aphids.