[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Koop on ACSH Phthaltes panel; Greenpeace v CMA
Playing It Safe - Eco Toys Benefit Children's Health and Development - As
the holiday season approaches, when everyone rushes to buy the latest new
toys for their kids, its time to investigate which toys help or harm our
kids. This report from E Magazine provides a great place to start:
http://www.emagazine.com/november-december_1998/1198gl_consumer.html
--
IMO, Koop is at his public health-icon best on traditional P.H. issues
incl. bashing big tobacco (addictive, ban it (tho prohibitions of
addictive drugs don't "work", they do good); and NEVER grant the sh*ts
immunity). But he's out to lunch on some issues, e.g. dangers of
pesticides in food. So as Susan S. indicates, for the ACSH to call a
panel of theirs "independent" is in-credible.
--
this post contains 3 articles:
1) Greenpeace Is Wrong - A Response To Greenpeace's Latest Claims About
Phthalate Esters Prepared by the Chemical Manufacturers Association Phthalate
Esters Panel
2) Industry Admits to Using Toxic Chemicals in Vinyl Toys [Greenpeace
rebuttal]
3) Independent Panel Forms to Conduct Phthalates Safety Review; Former U.S.
Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop to Chair Panel
Note from Andi -- I'm usually leery of Greenpeace reports, which is why I have
posted all of these press releases. However, I do tend to learn toward
believing that minimizing a baby's contact with unnecessary chemicals is
prudent advice. I'm encouraged that a blue ribbon panel has been put
together, and that the chair is C. Everet Koop. It will be interesting to see
the results. This battle between Greenpeace, the PVC manufacturer's
association, and others has be going on for years now.
=================================
Greenpeace Is Wrong - A Response To Greenpeace's Latest Claims About Phthalate
Esters Prepared by the Chemical Manufacturers Association Phthalate Esters
Panel
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued
today by Chemical Manufacturers Association Phthalate Esters Panel:
Greenpeace has issued a press release and report that purport to show that
the phthalate ester principally used in children's toys (DINP) poses human
health hazards. Greenpeace is wrong. The following explains why.
1. Exposure is minimal. Greenpeace compares chewing on a toy to
squeezing a sponge, and seeks to imply that the phthalate ester comes out of
the toy just like water comes out of a sponge. In fact, the amount that comes
out of the toy is extremely small. The amounts that come out are measured in
micrograms. A microgram is one millionth of a gram, and a gram is less than
one-tenth of an ounce.
2. There is no human cancer hazard. Greenpeace suggests that DINP in
toys poses a cancer hazard. DINP has been shown to cause liver tumors in rats
and mice that are fed very high doses every day for their lifetimes. This
finding was not a surprise. DINP is what is known as a "peroxisome
proliferator," meaning that it causes a component in the liver cells of mice
and rats to multiply. If the rats or mice are exposed to large amounts of a
peroxisome proliferator for a long period, the liver cell changes eventually
lead to tumor formation. Peroxisome proliferators do not act in humans the
same way as in rodents. This has been demonstrated numerous times using
primates as a model for humans and using human cells in culture. The
potential for peroxisome proliferators (including many FDA-approved drugs) to
cause cancer in humans was considered at a 1995 international symposium that
included approximately 100 scientists from government agencies, academia and
industry, including leading researchers in the field from the United States
and Europe. Those scientists concluded "that it is unlikely that peroxisome
proliferators are carcinogenic to humans under anticipated conditions and
levels of exposure."(a) Numerous other articles in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature support the view that peroxisome proliferators such as
the phthalate esters are not human carcinogens at any likely level of
exposure.(b)
3. There is no developmental or reproductive hazard. Greenpeace implies
that DINP poses a hazard to the reproductive organs. This view is not
supported by the scientific evidence. In fact, the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) preliminary report on DINP concluded that
commercially-available DINP "is not a developmental or reproductive toxin."(c)
Additionally, RIVM, the Dutch governmental science institute, has concluded
that "there is no proof of any effect of the phthalates di-isononylphthalate
(DINP) and di-isodecylphthalate (DIDP) on reproduction and on male fertility
in particular."(d)
4. Recent studies show that DINP does not mimic estrogen. Greenpeace
cites a 1997 paper to imply a possible hazard based on the potential for DINP
to mimic the hormone estrogen.(e) That paper reported the results from a
"test tube" study, in which DINP "showed extremely weak estrogenic activity"
(DINP was more than 1 million times less potent than human estrogen).(f) DINP
has not shown estrogenic activity in other "test tube" studies. In addition,
such "test tube" experiments are used as screening tools -- the more critical
studies for endocrine effects are conducted in live animals. In such live
animal tests, which have recently been conducted, DINP does not show
estrogenic activity.(g)
5. There is no reason to believe that DINP in toys poses other health
hazards. A report recently prepared by a Dutch Consensus Group (DCG) recently
examined this issue.(h) The DCG report evaluated the potential for young
children to be exposed to DINP in excess of an acceptable daily intake (ADI)
level. The value the DCG used for the ADI was 0.1 milligrams per kilogram
body weight per day (mg/kg/day). The report stated that for children between
12 and 36 months of age, no exceedance of the ADI would occur.(i) For
children under 12 months, the report stated, "In 99% of the cases the exposure
would remain below 0.1 mg/kg/day. In 95% of the cases the exposure would
remain under 0.04 mg/kg/day."(j) Although the report found a statistical
possibility that the exposure for a child under 12 months might exceed the
ADI, it stated that that possibility is "so rare that the statistical
likelihood cannot be estimated on the basis of the current data."(k)
Moreover, the ADI used by DCG was based on studies conducted in 1986 which
showed no effects in rats at 17 mg/kg/day. More recent studies using
additional dose levels have now established that the ADI should be
considerably higher. Specifically, these studies show that no adverse effects
are seen in rats and mice at levels up to 90 mg/kg/day. Using the same safety
factors applied by the DCG, these studies support an ADI of approximately
0.9 mg/kg/day -- a 9-fold increase. We are aware of no credible data that
suggests that toys would produce exposures that exceed this new ADI.
Greenpeace has launched a global campaign against all uses of vinyl.
Their attacks on vinyl toys appear to be part of that campaign. Last year,
Greenpeace claimed that children were exposed to dangerous levels of lead and
cadmium from children's toys. That claim was rejected by the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The Phthalate Esters Panel believes the
current allegations about phthalate esters are equally groundless.
The Phthalate Esters Panel is working cooperatively with the CPSC,
providing them with data and research on DINP so that the safety of phthalate
esters in vinyl toys can be evaluated using the best science available.
DINP has been extensively tested over a period of many years, using state-
of-the-art testing procedures. Based on this research, the producers strongly
believe that DINP is safe and does not pose a hazard to children's health when
properly used in vinyl toys.
(a) Cattley, R.C., DeLuca, J., Elcombe, C., et al. (1998). Do Peroxisome
Proliferating Compounds Pose a Hepatocarcinogenic Hazard to Humans? Reg.
Toxicol. Pharmacol. 27:47-60.
(b) E.g., Ashby, J., A. Brady, C.R., Elcombe, et al. (1994).
Mechanistically-based Human Hazard Assessment of Peroxisome Proliferator-
Induced Hepatocarcinogenesis. Human & Exptl. Toxicol. 13:(Suppl. 2), S1-S117;
Bentley, P., Calder, I., Elcombe, C., Grasso, P., Stringer, D., and Weigand,
H. (1993). Hepatic Peroxisome Proliferation in Rodents and Its Significance
for Humans. Chem. Toxicol. 13:857-907; Lake, B.G. (1995). Mechanisms of
Hepatocarcinogenicity of Peroxisome-Proliferating Drugs and Chemicals. Ann.
Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 35:483-507; Williams, G.M., and Perrone, C. (1996).
Mechanism-based Risk Assessment of Peroxisome Proliferating Rodent
Hepatocarcinogens. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 804:554-72; Huber, W.W.,
B. Grasl-Kraupp, and R. Schulte-Herman (1996). Hepatocarcinogenic Potential
of Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate in Rodents and Its Implications on Human Risk.
Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 26:365-481.
(c) CPSC, Preliminary Hazard Assessment of Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) in
Children's Products, Memorandum from M. Babich to R. Medford (Mar. 10, 1998),
page 10.
(d) RIVM, Consensus consultations on phthalate release from PVC baby toys
(Press Release) (on the Internet at http://www.minvws.nl (click the following
sequence of links: volksgezondheid; preventie en bescherming;
folders & factsheets; beleid en achtergrond; consultations on phthalate
release from PVC baby toys).
(e) Harris, C.A., Henttu, P., Parker, M.G., and Sumpter, J.P. (1997).
The Estrogenic Activity of Phthalate Esters In Vitro. Environ.
Health Persp. 105:802-811.
(f) Id.
(g) Zacharewski, T.R., Clemons, J.H., Meek, M.D., Wu, Z.F., Fielden,
M.R., and Matthews, J.B. (1998). Examination of the In-vitro and In-vivo
Estrogenic Activities of Eight Commercial Phthalate Esters. Toxicological
Sciences (accepted for publication May 19, 1998).
(h) RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volsgezondheid en Milieu), Phthalate
release from soft PVC baby toys: Report from the Dutch Consensus Group, RIVM
report 613320 002, W.H. Konemann, ed. (September 1998).
(i) Id. at 8.
(j) Id.
(k) Id.
SOURCE Chemical Manufacturers Association Phthalate Esters Panel
================================
Industry Admits to Using Toxic Chemicals in Vinyl Toys
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Greenpeace today issued a statement
providing more facts to support its Nov. 13 report that popular soft vinyl
children's products contain large amounts of a toxic ingredient. The toxin is
called DINP, which is a plasticizer and member of the phthalate family.
The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) reacted to the report by
admitting that DINP is carcinogenic and that children are exposed to it from
vinyl toys. Previously, the Vinyl Institute admitted that lead and cadmium
are also deliberately added to vinyl children's products.
Vinyl is the only major plastic that requires toxic additives such as
plasticizers and heavy metals to be soft and stable. That is why Lego has
pledged to eliminate the use of vinyl in their products.
The following clarifies CMA claims:
Claim: Exposure is minimal.
FACT: Greenpeace does not believe children should be exposed to toxic
chemicals. The European Union Scientific Committee concluded that vinyl
teethers released DINP at levels more than ten times the unprotective standard
promoted by the CMA.
Claim: There is no human cancer hazard.
FACT: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) disagrees stating,
"If any currently used DINP's were found to be carcinogenic, Health Sciences
staff would continue to assume that the tumors are relevant to humans." The
CMA statements only apply to liver carcinoma. Studies by phthalate
manufacturer, Aristech, demonstrate that DINP caused four types of cancer in
animals: liver carcinoma, liver adenoma, transitional cell carcinoma of the
kidneys, and mononuclear cell leukemia.
Claim: There is no developmental or reproductive hazard.
FACT: Studies hidden from the public show industry officials knew in 1997
that DINP damaged the testes of animals. The CPSC overlooked these studies and
instead cited Exxon and BASF who concluded that DINP was not a reproductive or
developmental hazard.
Claim: DINP does not mimic estrogen.
FACT: DINP has not been fully tested for endocrine disrupting effects.
However, DINP weakly mimics estrogen in test tube experiments.
Claim: There is no reason to believe that DINP in toys poses other health
hazards.
FACT: However, manufacturers warn scientists about DINP as follows: "may
cause cancer, harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed,
possible risk of irreversible effects, avoid exposure, wear suitable
protective clothing, gloves, and eye/face protection."
SOURCE Greenpeace
Web Site: http://www.greenpeaceusa.org
===========================
Independent Panel Forms to Conduct Phthalates Safety Review; Former U.S.
Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop to Chair Panel
NEW YORK, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Council on Science and
Health (ACSH) today announced the formation of a blue ribbon committee of
independent scientists and physicians, chaired by Dr. C. Everett Koop, to
review all available scientific research relative to the safety of phthalate
esters in consumer products made with flexible vinyl plastic.
"Dr. Koop will oversee the blue ribbon committee's work and ensure that
the most qualified scientists are recruited to look at the science on
phthalates," said Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, ACSH president. "We know that
people want to hear from independent scientists and physicians on
important safety issues. The committee's report will provide an authoritative
point of view on the safety of phthalates in vinyl products."
Phthalate esters are added to vinyl plastic to make it flexible. Flexible
vinyl is used in a wide variety of consumer products ranging from children's
toys to wall coverings. Recent news stories and public statements by
individuals associated with the Greenpeace organization have questioned the
safety of phthalates in vinyl consumer products.
ACSH is a science-based, public health group that is directed by a board
of 300 leading physicians and scientists. ACSH is celebrating its 20th year
of providing mainstream, peer reviewed scientific information to American
consumers. Visit ACSH on the web at http://www.acsh.org.
SOURCE American Council on Science and Health
Web Site: http://www.acsh.org
------------------------------
Regarding this so-called ''independent'' panel which the scientific
propaganda organization called ACSH is forming. Of whom are the
scientists on their panel independent? Their employers --the
manufacturers and users of phthalates? Or, are they independent of ACSH
itself, a chemical industry front group? I have less trust in anything
this group of spin doctors have to say as the American Council for
Science and Health is funded by the manufacturers (and polluters) of
chemicals that are making us ill.
The following is what Peter Montague has written about ACSH:
**The chemical industry has many clandestine front groups that pretend
to be "independent" and "scientific." [6] However, back in 1989, when
the Alar story made it onto CBS's "60 Minutes" TV show, the chemical
industry had only a few such "public
interest pretender" groups. In 1989 the industry's main front group was
something called the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
The ACSH had been started in 1978 by Elizabeth ("Beth") Whelan, who has
a degree in public health from Harvard,
a devotion to the chemical industry, and a quick tongue.
Whelan's mission is to prove to the world that industrial chemicals are
safe, particularly industrial chemicals in food.
ACSH does "independent" studies of topics like artificial sweeteners,
then seeks funding from groups like the Calorie Control Council to
disseminate the results. Monsanto and its
subsidiaries, G.D. Searle and the Nutrasweet Co., gave ACSH $105,000 in
1992 making Monsanto "our largest funder," according to an ACSH
memo.[6] The close ties between ACSH and the petrochemical industry are
revealed in a comment by Ms. Whelan after she lost some funding from
Shell Oil: "When one of the largest international petrochemical
companies will not support ACSH, the great defender of petrochemical
companies, one wonders who will."[6] ..**
[6] See, for example, "Public Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS
Vol. 59, No. 5 (May 1994), pgs 316-320.
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r534.html
In reference to plastics, Dr. Montague writes:
**Plastics are a major source of dioxins, perhaps the major source. And
of course medical researchers have identified clusters of disease in
humans living near the petrochemical plants where plastics are
manufactured. (See REHW #168.) Recently, it has been learned that many
plastic products exude chemicals that disrupt the hormones of reptiles,
amphibians, birds, fish and mammals, including humans. (See REHW
#501.) No doubt about it, plastics make living things, including
people, sick, and they kill.**
: http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r504.html
There is more about Elizabeth Whelan at:
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r535.html.
I have more faith in the scientists at Greenpeace, than I will ever have
with a front group for corporations who poison for profit.
Susan Snow
More information on American Council on Science and Health. It is
hardly an independent body, nor are its studies independent!
Susan Snow
_________________________________________________________
THE CORPORATE BACKLASH: JUNK (FOOD) SCIENCE?
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) an industry-funded
front group, announced last week that it is inviting C. Everett Koop to
head up a "blue ribbon panel" to examine the dangers of phthalates.
Keep in mind that ACSH receives funding from Exxon, the largest maker of
phthalates, as well as other chemical companies.
"A closer look at the entire list of ACSH's major contributors reveals
that the group is heavily funded by corporations within the food, drug
and chemical industries, including Dow Chemical U.S.A., Kraft
Foundation, the Nutrasweet Company, PepsiCo Foundation, Inc., Inc.,
General Mills, Inc., Burger King Corporation, and the National Starch
and Chemical Foundation. The general philosophy of the Council is very
friendly to the interests of these corporations. The group claims that
its goal is to "provide consumers with up-to-date scientifically sound
information on the relationship between
chemicals, food, nutrition, lifestyle, and the environment and human
health," but in actuality, ACSH seems devoted to presenting the point of
view that almost no food, drug or chemical is harmful if consumed in
moderation. Low doses of asbestos, caffeine, Agent Orange and PCB's are
all harmless, they claim. According to Dr. Whelan, there
"is no such thing as "junk food" and ..there is insufficient evidence of
a relationship between diet any disease." Furthermore, "cancer, except
that from smoking, is overrated as a threat and .the chemical industry
is taking a bum rap for its publicly perceived role in
raising cancer rates." Almost every one of these claims is supposedly
justified by the group's assumption that animal studies do not provide a
fair gauge of health risks presented to humans.
Though Dr. Whelan claims they are not, it seems highly probable
that ACSH's opinions are influenced by the sources of its funding.
Rarely does the group take a position which would be in opposition to
the interests of its supporters. As Mike Jacobson, executive director
of the Washington public interest organization, Center for Science in
the Public Interest (CSPI), puts it, "Industry invests in this pretend
consumer group, and investment pays off nicely when there's a
controversy." He notes that "most reporters, wire-service people and
local TV reporters don't have any idea who the group is." (- from "Masks
of Deception: Corporate Front Groups in America," by Essential
Information, Washington D.C., 1991)
------------------------------