Recently in Health and safety Category

I've been monitoring the news on chemical dispersants being used on the Gulf oil spill and my colleague in ICIS, Judith Taylor, wrote an excellent article about surfactants* as one of the active chemicals in dispersants.

Many surfactants these days use natural fats/oils-based raw materials and ICIS Pricing recently reported* a slight tightness in the fatty acid market:

US tall oil fatty acid supply tightens on BP oil spill demand

Oleic fatty acids, used in dispersants, tighten on BP oil spill

However, the dispersants themselves are causing environmental advocates to cry foul claiming it could do more harm than good because of unknown long-term effects. Nalco's Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 are particularly the two major dispersants that have been used on the spill.

According to a recent analyst report from Jefferies & Company, Nalco was able to make around $40m in dispersant sales related to the cleanup of the US Gulf oil spill reflecting sales of roughly 840,000 gal of Corexit.

Thus far Corexit is the only dispersant used at the spill although the Federal government has mandated a significant ramped down of its use because of the toxicity concerns. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently listed on their website the chemical components of the Corexit dispersants which include: 2-Propanol, 1,2-Propandiol, at least one ethanol derivative (which is in only COREXIT 9500), at least one butane derivative, several sorbitol derivatives called sorbitans and several petroleum distillates.

The group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition noted that very few data are available on the Corexit dispersants and that the EPA only require two short-term tests of acute toxicity to fish and shrimp for a dispersant to gain approval for use in any quantity.

"Only limited short-term data are available on individual ingredients as well, with virtually no data on toxicity to surface- or bottom-dwelling organisms, land animals and plants, or birds."

The Center for Biological Diversity is even planning to sue the EPA for allowing BP to pump nearly 1 million gallons of dispersants into the gulf without ensuring that the chemicals will not harm endangered species and their habitats.

"Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527, have been banned by the United Kingdom due to their adverse effects on the marine environment," the group said in a statement.

"BP has applied dispersants that are known to be toxic to the marine environment in a wholly unprecedented, unanalyzed, and arguably unauthorized manner yet the EPA has continued to allow the use of enormous amounts of Corexit and other dispersants on the surface and deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico without ensuring that this massive ecological experiment will not jeopardize protected species or adversely affect their critical habitat."

The group requests that the agency, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, immediately study the effects of dispersants on species such as sea turtles, sperm whales, piping plovers and corals and incorporate this knowledge into oil-spill response efforts.

The EPA said it has been working closely with the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA to ensure an aggressive dispersant monitoring plan is implemented by BP and that data are regularly and rigorously reviewed.

As of June 13, the EPA claimed that their toxicity data for the dispersants used does not indicate any significant effects on aquatic life and that, so far, the dispersant is effective.

The EPA also listed on its website all dispersants that have been authorized for use on their National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule, the authorized list of dispersants. The agency said it requires toxicology tests and reports for all dispersants that are approved on this list.

Other dispersant producers to name a few include BP, Croda, Dasic International, INEOS Chemical, Shell, Taiho, Total, and U.S. Polychemical, according to Jefferies.

Several press release about more environment-friendly dispersants have came out because of this issue. Here are some of them:

Tampa-Based Thermablok, Inc. May Have the Answer to Oil Spill Clean-up Using Aerogel

Low-tox dispersant shows promise in oil-spill remediation

Green Earth Technologies Has a New Ultimate Biodegradable Solution for the Gulf Oil

[*ICIS stories are subscription only]

As part of my bisphenol-A (BPA) article published March 29 on ICIS Chemical Business (ICB), here is my interview with John. M. Rost, chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA). Some of the blog's faithful readers might recall NAMPA on the spotlight of a certain Milwaukee newspaper last year.

--------------
Q: Several food companies and even retailers such as Walmart are moving to phase out BPA in their products, how is NAMPA addressing this development?

Rost: NAMPA fully supports the continued safe use of epoxy coatings for metal packaged foods. Regulatory bodies around the world have deemed BPA-based epoxy coatings to be safe in their current applications; this includes recent reviews by Health Canada, US FDA, European Food Safety Authority, as well as regulatory agencies in Japan and Germany.

NAMPA is also aware of consumer's increasing demand for alternative coatings for metal packaged foods, despite this record of success. NAMPA members are engaged in research programs to deliver those alternatives to consumers who request them. This must be done in the safest manner possible and not be immediate due to testing requirements and regulatory procedures to ensure the safety of any new product.

The current epoxy coatings have an unprecedented safety record when it comes to protecting food from real food safety issues like food borne illnesses . Whether industry is able to develop an alternative that allows for the same level of shelf-life afforded by epoxy resin is yet to be seen.

Q: Is NAMPA encouraging chemical companies to develop alternatives for BPA in canned food packaging applications? What alternatives are currently being considered in this application?

Rost: NAMPA fully supports the continued safe use of epoxy coatings for metal packaged foods. But like any industry, NAMPA member companies are constantly working with their suppliers to develop new an innovative materials and processes to advance metal packaging. Metal packaging has been around for over 200 years and only through this innovation has it continued to be one of the most trusted and sustainable forms of packaging. NAMPA members embrace that innovation and are working to ensure that any consumer demand for coating alternatives are met, but also that it is done in the safest manner possible.

Q: What is the economical impact to the metal packaging industry of a possible BPA ban in canned food packaging not only in states but in federal level? What other implications would result if a ban will be implemented?

Rost: The economic impact of any ban on BPA would likely be felt most directly by the consumer. If a ban was to go into place prior to availability any fully developed and tested alternative coatings, one result would likely be significant decreases in shelf life of the packaged foods. This decrease would dramatically increase the amount of food waste therefore increasing overall food cost for everyday consumers and their families.

Q: What do you think the group, as well as the chemical industry, should have done differently in avoiding this type of issue to escalate?

Rost: The BPA issue is and should continue to be a scientific question. The vast majority of scientist and all regulatory agencies in the world consider the current uses of BPA to be safe. As this issue continues to spill over into the political arena, the scientific data often becomes clouded or disappears entirely. This could have dramatic consequences and set a precedent that would be detrimental to product safety and public policy. The vast majority of consumers trust the regulatory scientists who have been entrusted to protect their health and safety. These scientific experts in public health and toxicology are best suited to review the data and make recommendations to policymakers based on the data.

------------
Here is a video from the NAMPA website (I did not do this interview). I was looking for a photo to accompany this post but decided to use this one instead.

I was a little bit tied up with deadlines when this report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) came out two weeks ago but this is still interesting enough to warrant a post before the year ends.

CDC said its recently released Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environment Chemicals was the most extensive assessment to date yet covering for the first time 75 new chemicals bringing to a total of 212 chemicals in its database.

Some of the chemicals added include acrylamide and glycidamide adducts; arsenic species and metabolites; environmental phenols including bisphenol A and triclosan; perchlorate; perfluorinated chemicals; polybrominated diphenyl ethers; volatile organic compounds, etc...

The data analyzed in the Fourth Report are based on blood and urine samples that were collected from approximately 2400 people who participated in CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2003 through 2004.

NHANES is an ongoing national health survey of the non-institutionalized U.S. population that includes collecting and analyzing blood and urine samples to help further research involving exposures and health effects.

CDC said the report can help physicians and public health officials determine whether people have been exposed to higher environmental chemicals as well as help scientists plan and conduct research about health effects.

A very interesting development here is the recent agreement between the Danish government and the Californian environment authorities on green chemistry initiatives.

The Danish Minister for the Environment, Troels Lund Poulsen, said this cooperation will focus on exchanging experience, training, and best available technology in the chemicals field, particularly on endocrine disruptors, combination effects and nanotechnology.

"I know that people in California are very interested in our knowledge about endocrine disruptors and our experience in enforcing regulation and informing about problem substances in consumer products. On the other hand, California has invested huge resources in developing "green chemicals", environmental and health assessments of nanomaterials, and developing consumer product registers. This is where we in Denmark can benefit from Californian knowledge and experience," said Mr. Lund Poulsen.

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is currently continuing to develop the Safer Alternative Regulations under its Green Chemistry Initiative. Under the proposal, California manufacturers will be forced to use non-toxic chemicals in their products by 2011. There are currently around 10,000 chemicals on the state's draft list. DTSC expects to finalize the proposal by the end of 2010.

Some of the comments coming from proponents and against the regulation proposal can be found here.

The issue on bisphenol-A is definitely worldwide as in the case in the UK where the group Breast Cancer UK recently launched their "No More BPA" campaign today calling the British goverment for a BPA ban.

In their campaign, the group cited a recent survey of 2,101 adults where 61% agreed on a government BPA ban.

"Already voluntarily withdrawn from shelves in Canada and the USA, polycarbonate baby bottles made with BPA are still available in the UK, despite our view being that clear and compelling scientific evidence in lab experiments have linked even low level exposure to increased risk of breast cancer and other chronic conditions." - Breast Cancer UK

The British Plastics Federation (BPF), meanwhile, also released today their statement reassuring the public on the safety of BPA. According to BPF, the campaign by Breast Cancer UK is misleading and based upon a selective use of evidence.

"The survey is not a good basis for assessing public feeling on BPA as it features leading questions and a preamble that presupposes risks associated with BPA." - BPF

BPF noted that the UK Food Standards Agency - the equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - maintained their position on the safety of BPA in food contact materials.

Speaking of the FDA, various US health activists groups were disappointed yesterday when there was no official ruling about BPA despite the FDA's previous announcement that it will make a decision by November 30 concerning the chemical's safety when being used in polycarbonate baby bottles and in food packaging (such as in metal can lining).

In an ICIS News* report, FDA Agency spokesman Michael Herndon said that an announcement will come soon but he did not give a reason for the delay.

The pressure is on for the FDA to make a decision as more and more research studies came out this year accusing BPA's content in food packaging and baby bottles enough to be a health risk.

*ICIS News is subscription only.

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]