From Megan Schwarzman, (PI), MD, MPH, Research Scientist at the UC, Berkeley School of Public Health

UC Berkeley and NRDC publish a report from the Breast Cancer and Chemicals Policy Project
Although breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer and death in women, even the small numbers of chemicals that undergo safety testing are not routinely evaluated for their impacts on mammary (breast) tissue. The Breast Cancer and Chemicals Policy Project was conceived to address this issue by developing a toxicity testing approach for screening and identifying chemicals linked to the disease. This project followed the recommendations of the NAS report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st century by promoting the use of rapid, cell-based tests to detect early (upstream) indicators of the disease.

An expert panel of 20 scientists and policy experts investigated the biological mechanisms associated with breast cancer and developed a testing strategy for screening and identifying chemicals that could increase the risk of the disease. Download the report here: http://coeh.berkeley.edu/greenchemistry/cbcrp.htm

A brief description of the project and its findings is attached here.  Your comments and feedback on the report are welcome.
In addition, Sarah has posted a blog about the project here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sjanssen/breast_cancer_and_the_environm.html
Meg Schwarzman and Sarah Janssen
Co-Directors, Breast Cancer and Chemicals Policy Project

#10 – Greenwashing is now a familiar word. It can be described as a deceptive marketing tactic aimed at promoting a product or an organization based on unproven or unmerited environmental claims. In March 2009 TerraChoice revealed that “98% of products committed at least one of the sins of greenwashing”. Although the environmental consulting firm identified seven sins, we condensed them into three, which in our opinion are the most used and also represent the worst type of greenwashing. These practices are perversely dangerous, as they tend to add confusion and mistrust about green claims. Continue Reading »

Since I wrote a post titled “Autism: An urgent public “health challenge” or just another smoke screen?” I have spoken with an MD, a scientist and a pediatrician about it and suffice to say I feel a bit misunderstood. But one thing is sure: it is definitely difficult to write about the topic of vaccination without running the risk of being put into either the pro or the anti vaccination category. Continue Reading »

Does any Autism Spectrum Disorder or ASD news report strike a chord within you? Are you feeling prompted to open the news link and read it in hope there is finally an answer or even the beginning of one? Or do you just avoid it fearing that you will emerge a lot more frustrated and confused than you were the last time you read about ASD? When I read about ASD, whether it is a – sad – story, a new research study, a governmental agency’s report (…) my first thoughts go to these hundred of thousands of children who have been diagnosed with ASD or other biochemical and psychological disorders, to their families that endure the heart breaking journey of raising and caring for these kids with special needs, feeling hopeless 9 days out of 10. I know almost certainly that this piece of news will make mention of a probable correlation between some vaccines and ASD and the most anticipated reality will strike again … “we do not know what is causing it” … is it so? Continue Reading »

How To Reduce Fire Retardant Chemicals In Your Home

All California furniture has been required to meet an open flame flammability standard for foam since the 1980s. This standard is also followed by some national manufacturers outside California. It is primarily achieved by adding potentially toxic fire retardant chemicals (BFRs and CFRs) to the polyurethane foam inside furniture. These chemicals migrate from the furniture and are found in dust, dryer lint, pets, and people. Since there is no labeling requirement, there is no way to learn what chemicals are inside your furniture. But there are things you can do!

Here are some suggestions to minimize exposure to potentially toxic fire retardants in your home: Continue Reading »

Penta, deca, octa are not pets’ names but chemistry names (actually the number of bromine atoms per molecule of diphenyl ether) for a family of polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDE) used to retard combustion of electrical and electronic equipment that would be caused by an internal ignition or a small external flame like a … candle. In an unprecedented move, the European Court of Justice restored the ban against decaBDE.
It might sound like a middle age battle, as the Kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark and Norway were fighting the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Besides this – amusing – detail of history, this episode translates the growing concerns of the hazardous impact of brominated and chlorinated halogens and hydrocarbons on human health and the environment. It is also a display of the PR and lobbying efforts of bromine manufacturers to make fire resistant testing always more stringent. The tactic is simple: fear and fact manipulation. On the other side, 120 distinguished scientists, biologists, researchers and physicians have come together to rebut these facts and warn the electrical and electronic community of the potentially harmful consequences of enabling this new standards. Click here to access the court order.