DEHP again

[charlie.cray@green2.greenpeace.org]

----------
Original-TO:      dioxin-l@essential.org
----------

to:  Dioxin heads
fr:  Charlie Cray
 
A follow-up to my earlier memo and the misinformation given by
PVC industry representatives in response:
 
1)  While it may be true that only two of the phthalate esters
are currently considered ESTROGENIC, DEHP (the principle
phthalate in commerce) is considered a known endocrine disruptor
(estrogenicity is not the only way endocrine disrupting chemicals
act).  DEHP is listed as an endocrine-disrupting chemical in the
Wingspread experts statement on chemically-induced alterations in
sexual development.  
 
2)  As far back as the early 1980's researchers at the Research
Triangle Institute, one of two testing laboratories contracted by
the National Toxicity Program, found that DEHP, used in the
production of soft plastics (esp. PVC), causes the testes to
atrophy and androgen (male sex hormone) levels to decrease.  
 
Dr. Ralph Dougherty, a professor of biochemistry at Florida State
University, who specializes in research about infertility, found
that "phthalates concentrate in human semen and can lower sperm
production."  Dr. Jerry Reel, director for life sciences and
toxicology at Research Triangle Institute (Research Triangle
Park,NC) "has shown that phthalates can cause infertility in
adult laboratory animals and birth defects in offspring."   
("Probing chemical causes of infertility," Chemical Week, Feb 15,
1984)
 
Again, while this has been known for some time, the government
has done little to protect us.   The PVC industy is growing at a
pace of about 5-6% annually in the US, becoming the key product
line of the chlorine (dioxin) industry, despite the fact that it
is the key source of these ubiquitous pollutants.
 
3) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has
determined "that DEHP may reasonably be anticipated to be a
carcinogen.  DEHP causes cancer in rats and mice.  It is also
known to produce liver damage and male reproductive system
damage,affect reproduction, and produce birth defects in
laboratory animals.  Because none of these effects have been
documented in humans, it is difficult to estimate the kinds of
health effects and exposure levels that may actually affect
humans.   However, it is prudent to regard the animal data as
indicating some degree of concern for harmful hman effects until
more research can be done." (US Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Public Health Statement)
 
4)  According to the Danish EPA, "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," Male Reproductive Health and Envionmental
Chemicals with Estrogenic Effects, Danish EPA, April 1995)  There
is likely not a single person on the planet who is not carrying
phthalates in their body.  Given the additive and synergistic
nature of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and the fact that all of
us are now exposed to it (especially those at the most sensitive
stages of development), it would seem that we'd want to eliminate
the known source of a known endocrine-disrupting chemical like
DEHP.
 
5) To talk about se found
to be toxic (like organotins for lead, lead for cadmium, adipates
for phthalates) is to send people on a toxic merry-go-round. 
It's like discovering that they put a carcinogenic additive in
cigarettes, and suggesting that cigarettes can be made safe by
substituting another, "safer" additive.  Of course this is just
an analogy, but pretty appropriate for an industry which seems to
be learning its PR from the Tobacco companies.
----------