The AFA Blog

Update on the Safe Chemicals Act - some good news from Capital Hill

by Kimberly Inez McGuire

A bit of good news for reproductive health today coming from Congress! Signaling their clear intention to protect families from toxic chemicals in everyday products, Senators Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Charles Schumer and others today introduced the “Safe Chemicals Act” to upgrade America’s outdated system for managing chemical safety.  (Click here to watch video of Sen. Lautenberg talking about the bill.) This bill comes on the heels of a USA Today article highlighting the alarming rise in early puberty among girls and would go a long way toward protecting the reproductive health and fertility of millions of Americans. 

Reproductive Health Advocates to Congress: Protect Women’s Health, Pass Chemical Policy Reform

Statement by Kirsten Moore, President & CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, on the introduction of the Safe Chemicals Acts of 2011 by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ):

“Amid an increasingly partisan backdrop, this bill gives Americans from across the political spectrum something they have been clamoring for—better laws to protect our families from toxic and untested chemicals in everyday products. Reforming our chemical laws is a prime example of how government can work for the people by protecting our reproductive health and our children from the threat of chemicals like lead, formaldehyde, and asbestos. The introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 is a critical first step to creating a healthier tomorrow for women and their families. This bill also presents a profound opportunity to protect the most vulnerable among us, from pregnant women and children to low-income communities and communities of color, which are disproportionately affected by toxic chemicals.”

Statement by Tracey Woodruff, PhD, Director, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California San Francisco, former EPA scientist, and Board member of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project:

 “Mounting scientific evidence demonstrates that commonly-used chemicals can harm reproductive health and contribute to infertility, miscarriage, early puberty, and decreased sperm counts. Thousands of other chemicals have never been studied. It’s time to use current science to study chemicals used in everyday products, place common-sense limits on those that can adversely impact our health, and provide consumers with the information they need to protect their families.”

 Background: The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 will provide long overdue reform of the 35-year-old federal law that regulates toxic chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This new legislation would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stronger authority to test and regulate the 84,000 chemicals on the market today. Studies have linked exposure to many commonly used chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA), to a host of reproductive health problems including infertility, miscarriage, birth defects, early puberty in girls, low sperm counts, and breast cancer.

 For more information about this legislation and how toxic chemicals impact reproductive health and fertility, please visit: http://www.rhtp.org/fertility/SafeChemicalsAct2011.asp

Kimberly Inez McGuire is the Senior Associate, Programs & Policy Reproductive Health Technologies Project
www.rhtp.org / www.judgment-to-empathy.org

For more information about this bill, or how you can support efforts to reduce toxic chemical exposure, please contact [email protected] or 202-530-4401.

Protecting reproductive health from dangerous chemicals

by Corey Whelan

I was privileged to attend a Congressional briefing in Washington, D.C. yesterday, specific to toxic chemical exposure and reproductive health.  The briefing was coordinated through the Reproductive Health Technologies Project and the Guttmacher Institute, as well as Congressional Reps. Louise Slaughter (D,NY), Diana DeGette (D,CO), Lois Capps (D,CA) and Rosa DeLauro (D,CT).

The panel of speakers was comprised of moderator Kirsten Moore, President & CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project; Katie Huffling RN, MS, CNM, Environmental Health Program Coordinator of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Celinda Lake, President of Lake Research Partners, Andy Igrejas, Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, and Elizabeth Nash, Public Policy Associate of the Guttmacher Institute.

One of the stated goals of yesterday's briefing was to move forward, through verifiable scientific data as well as statistical analysis of public opionion, regulatory changes that could positively impact upon the levels of toxic chemicals that Americans are routinely exposed to, thereby reducing risks to reproductive health and overall health.  

The most significant fact brought forth to me personally, was the verification that over 200 scientific studies have definitively and negatively implicated BPA (bisphenol A) in cases of cancer, metabollic disorders, premature puberty, male factor infertility and reproductive health issues.  

A number of important findings and action plans were brought forth by both the speakers and the audience.  These included:

NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) - All complex diseases have been shown to have both a genetic and environmental component.  A growing body of research is beginning to suggest that many adult diseases and disorders, including asthma, diabetes and obesity, may be traced back to exposures that occur during development.  Research supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and others are finding that in utero or neonatal exposures to environmental changes may make people more susceptible to diseases later in life.  In addition, a growing body of evidence suggests that numerous man-made chemicals may interfere with the endocrine system.  Scientists refer to these chemicals as endocrine disruptors.  Endocrine disruption is an important public health concern.

Guttmacher Institute Policy Review - In a long-awaited announcement, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially acknowledged concern about the effects of bisphenol A on the health of fetuses, infants and young children.  The statement marked a notable refersal of the agency's earlier position that BPA did not pose a health risk to humans.  Equally notable, however, was the fact that the FDA took no steps to restrict BPA's use.  Instead, it provided recommendations for parents to reduce exposure and said the government would continue to study the chemical's toxicity.

Safer Chemicals Healthy Families - A reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would serve as the backbone of a sound and comprehensive chemicals policy that protects public health and the environment, while restoring the luster of safety to U.S. goods in the world market.

There was much more.  It is understandable that the American public is, and should be, concerned about our daily toxin exposure, and the number one action item on anyone's list should be to keep in touch with your Congressional and Senatorial representatives about this issue.  Everyone needs an action plan.  Several potential and key, proactive behavioral changes were suggested by the Reproductive Health Technologies Project:

• Refuse Receipts, as the powdery coating on them contains BPA.
• Keep Plastic Cool, as heat causes chemicals to leach out of them and into food
• Leave Shoes at the Door, to keep pesticides and other chemicals out of your home
• Don't Be Fooled by Fragrance, and avoid cosmetics and cleaning products that list fragrance as an ingredient.  It is code for phthalates, another known endocrine disruptor
• Look Up Your Lipstick - check it out at http://cosmeticdatabase.com
• Filter Your Drinking Water, to remove common contaminants like arsenic and lead
• Buy BPA Free, if your product does not contain BPA it will say so on the label
• Toss the Teflon, as this chemical has been linked to cancer and early menopause
• Limit Canned Food, another known source of BPA
• Dust, Vacuum and Mop Frequently, to cut down on chemcials that accumulate in household dust

The American Fertility Association is proud to be aligned with powerful, proactive advocates who are working for the public good.  For more information on endocrine disruptors and fertility, visit The AFA's library.

 

 

Food Packaging Significant Source of BPA Exposure, New Study Finds

The American Fertility Association congratulates allied non profit organization, The Breast Cancer Fund and the Silent Spring Institute on their groundbreaking new study on BPA exposure and women's health.  The AFA has been sounding the alarm on BPA and other toxins that affect reproductive health for many years; our most recent press release quoted Executive Director Ken Mosesian as stating, "The AFA is proud to be a thought leader in this arena, and looks forward to definitive answers being realized.  We recognize that more research is urgently needed."

  A peer-reviewed study published today in Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that food packaging is a substantial source of exposure to the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which laboratory studies have linked to breast cancer, infertility, early puberty, and other serious health problems. In this unprecedented human study, scientists at the Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute discovered an average drop of 60 percent in BPA levels when study participants ate a diet that avoided contact with BPA-containing food packaging, such as canned food and polycarbonate plastic.

“This study suggests that removing BPA from food packaging will remove the number one source of BPA exposure,” said Janet Gray, Ph.D., Science Advisor to the Breast Cancer Fund and professor at Vassar College. “The study should serve as a call to action for industry and government to get BPA out of food packaging and to fix the broken chemical management system that allows it to be there in the first place.”

The study, “Food Packaging and Bisphenol A and Bis(2-Ethyhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a Dietary Intervention,” tested the levels of BPA in the urine of five San Francisco Bay Area families who had a high likelihood of regular exposure to food packaging containing BPA (they consumed canned foods and beverages, ate meals outside of the home, used polycarbonate water bottles, and/or microwaved in plastic). The families were provided with three days’ worth of freshly prepared organic meals with no canned food, and using only glass storage containers. The families’ urine was evaluated while they ate their typical diets, again during the period when they were provided with freshly-prepared meals, and then again after returning to their normal eating habits. While the families were eating the fresh-food diet, their BPA levels dropped on average by 60 percent. Reductions were even more pronounced—75 percent—for those with the highest exposures. When families returned to their regular diets, their BPA levels increased back to pre-intervention levels.

In addition to BPA, participants were tested for phthalates, plastic-softening chemicals that can interfere with reproductive development. Levels of DEHP (a phthalate used in food packaging) dropped by an average of 50 percent during the intervention; and the highest exposures dropped by over 90 percent.

"Our study provides clear and compelling evidence that food packaging is the major source of exposure to BPA and DEHP,” said Ruthann Rudel, lead author of the study and Director of Research at Silent Spring Institute. “The study shows that a fresh-food diet reduces levels of these chemicals in children and adults by half, after just three days."

BPA and the phthalate DEHP are both used widely in food packaging. BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastics and is used in the lining of food cans, and DEHP is an additive used in some food containers and plastic wraps to increase flexibility. BPA and phthalates are both known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals because of their effects on hormone systems. BPA has been shown to mimic the hormone estrogen, and exposure has been associated with effects on the developing brain, reproductive system, and mammary and prostate glands in laboratory studies. Phthalates have been demonstrated to interfere with androgen signaling and male reproductive development in laboratory and human studies.

“The findings of this food packaging study suggest that if the food and food-storage industries reformulated packaging to remove BPA and phthalates, or if there were a federal ban of these chemicals in food packaging, a large portion of the population would experience a rapid reduction in the levels of these chemicals in their bodies,” said Dr. Gray. “Industry and government need to ensure the safety of any substitute chemicals before they are put into use.”

Suggestions from the Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute for reducing exposure to BPA and DEHP include cooking at home with fresh foods and making some changes in the kitchen, such as avoiding canned foods, choosing glass and stainless steel food and beverage containers, and not microwaving in plastic. After aggregating the results of tests of 300 canned food products, the Breast Cancer Fund found that BPA especially leaches into canned foods that are acidic, salty or fatty, such as coconut milk, soup, meals (e.g., ravioli in sauce) and vegetables. For additional tips or to download a shopper’s guide, visit www.breastcancerfund.org.

  

A Chemical Blowout: Frizz, Formaldehyde and Infertility

By Kimberly Inez McGuire

The first whispers of summer are in the air, foretelling sunny days, sultry nights, and trips to the beach. For better or worse, it also means that many women crowd into salons and spas in a frenzy of pre-summer health and beauty rituals. And it’s no small task to prepare for all the bared skin and exposure to the elements—that’s right, ladies and gents, I’m talking about the Brazilian.

No, not that Brazilian. I’m talking about the Brazilian Blowout (also known as Keratin Treatment), a salon procedure that claims to “improve the health and condition of the hair,” “eliminate frizz,” and “smooth the cuticle.” These are tantalizing promises to a curly-haired woman like me. Between my Irish ringlets and Puerto Rican kink (thanks, Mom and Dad!) my hair can be a handful—and the swampy, sticky DC summers don’t help. Neither do the countless women’s magazines, ugly duckling movies, and makeover TV shows that portray hair like mine as a problem, a “before” picture in desperate need of a stick-straight “after.” So, when I see photos of Jennifer Aniston, Halle Berry, and Nicole Richie rocking smooth, shiny locks, I hear the siren call of hassle-free hair and think, “Why not?”

In a word? Formaldehyde. Yes, that same stinky soup that held the dissecting frogs in 10^th grade biology is now available in your local high-end hair salon. Initially, this rather disturbing information came to light late last year when salon workers reported headaches, eye irritation, difficulty breathing, and nose bleeds, all symptoms of short-term formaldehyde exposure. When Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) tested samples of Brazilian Blowout products, they found dangerous levels of the chemical, including in products explicitly labeled “Formaldehyde Free.”

Investigators have concluded that the process of applying the solution to hair, and then using a blow dryer and flatiron, aerosolized the formaldehyde, making it easy for salon workers and clients to inhale. This is a great discovery if you’re looking for an effective biological weapon, but definitely bad news for women’s health. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, and scientific studies have linked it to miscarriage, stillbirth, menstrual disorders, and female infertility. Just last week, the beauty industry’s own scientists finally acknowledged that they cannot guarantee the safety of formaldehyde-containing hair straighteners. And by the way, this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of toxic cosmetics targeted to women of color.

Now, you’re probably thinking, Brazilian Blowout products have been recalled, right? Because putting a nasty chemical like formaldehyde into a product that women all over the country use must be illegal, RIGHT? Sadly, this is not the case. While Canada has stopped the distribution of these toxic products, Ireland has issued a recall, and the California Attorney General’s office has filed a lawsuit, there has been no nation-wide recall or federal government action to stop the use of these harmful products. And it’s certainly not for lack of effort by women’s health groups like Women’s Voices for the Earth, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the National Healthy Salon Alliance.

Unfortunately, the laws that are supposed to protect us from toxic cosmetics are 70 years old and badly broken—and the Brazilian Blowout brouhaha is a symptom of a failed system. There are no safeguards in place to prevent dangerous products from coming on the market, and no real labeling requirements—which is exactly how a product touted as “Formaldehyde Free” was found to contain dangerous levels of formaldehyde. There are over 12,000 ingredients used in cosmetics, yet 89 percent of them have not been reviewed for safety. In fact, voluntary recalls and anemic self-regulation are all that stands between American families and toxic chemicals in everyday products—from Brazilian Blowout to body wash, baby bottles to blue jeans.

I checked the Brazilian Blowout website today, and the company is heavily featuring a new product called “ZERO” which, they claim, “releases 0% Formaldehyde.” Given that there’s no real oversight of claims like this, I’m skeptical. The company is also standing behind their original formulation—you know, the one that gave salon workers nosebleeds and could be making clients infertile.

Women and workers deserve better. Fortunately, there is something we can do (besides just pulling our hair out from frustration). In the coming months, Congress is expected to introduce legislation that would update our national chemical policy, ensure that products are safe before allowing them in our homes and workplaces, and provide consumers and federal agencies with the information they need to protect human health. To make sure Congress lives up to this important responsibility, you can sign a petition asking President Obama to create a cancer prevention plan that stops the use of cancer-causing chemicals (like formaldehyde) in products we use every day.

Until we have common-sense regulation of chemicals in cosmetics and everyday products, the status quo—labels that lie and products that poison—will continue. So, until I can trust that a Brazilian Blowout isn’t going to give me cancer or make it hard for me to have kids someday, I’m keeping my curls, thank you very much. And I’ll use some of the time I’m not sitting at the salon to sign that petition to President Obama and send it to 10 women I care about. Because beauty is pain sometimes, but this is ridiculous.

Quick tip: How safe are your cosmetics? Find out here.

Kimberly Inez Mcguire is the Senior Associate, Programs & Policy for the Reproductive Health Technologies Project.

Experts at UN Meeting Urge Action to Combat Environmental Causes of Cancer.

Important and significant actions designed to reduce or eliminate environmental toxins in the workplace were urged today by experts attending a United Nations convened scientific meeting.  Interestingly, many of the same toxins known to contribute to escalating cancer rates world wide have also been linked in multiple studies to infertility and birth defects of various types.  The press release appears in its entirety here:

EXPERTS AT UN MEETING URGE ACTION TO COMBAT ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES OF CANCER.

UN press release

(New York; 18 March,  2011)

Medical experts attending a United Nations-convened scientific meeting today called for action to address preventable environmental and occupational causes of cancer, noting that nearly one in five of all cases of cancers are attributable to the environment, including work settings.

“Many environmental and occupational factors, including certain chemicals, radiation and airborne particles, can cause cancer,” said Maria Neira, the Director for Public Health and Environment at the UN World Health Organizations (WHO), which convened the meeting in the Spanish Principality of Asturias.

“These cancers could be prevented and reduced by changes in national and international policy to limit people’s involuntary exposure to these substances,” she added.

The cancers related to the environment, which comprise roughly 19 per cent of all cancers and cause 1.3 million deaths each year, are often the result of situations where people have limited control over the quality of air they breathe, the water they drink, and the level of chemical contamination in indoor and outdoor environments and at places of work.

In their “Asturias Pledge,” the experts urged governments to include environmental and occupational preventive measures in their national cancer control programmes, and ensure enforcement of national and international standards for environmental and occupational carcinogens.

They recommended that WHO lead a global effort in highlighting the importance of primary prevention of cancer, assess the impact of environmental and occupational interventions on primary prevention of cancer, and develop guidance for implementation of evidence-based interventions.

Civil society should raise awareness about practices and processes that increase carcinogenic risks, raise awareness, educate and advocate for funding to implement effective primary prevention of those types of cancers, the experts suggested.

Industry, for its part, should support and implement measures aimed at preventing the cancers. It should also contribute to policy development relating to the mitigation of occupational risks and workers’ exposures; eliminate or reduce exposure to known and probable carcinogens, and better inform workers on the risks they face in the workplace and protect them from carcinogens.

Reducing and eventually eliminating the exposure to environmental and occupational carcinogens is the most effective way to prevent a number of cancers, according to WHO. Stopping the use of asbestos can prevent lung cancer, mesothelioma and cancers of the larynx and ovaries, for example. Replacement of benzene with safer solvents will prevent leukaemia, the agency said.

 

Asturias Pledge

Environmental and Occupational Determinants of Cancer: Interventions for Primary Prevention

Asturias (Aviles and Gijon), Spain

17 – 18 March 2011

http://www.who.int/phe/news/events/international_conference/Call_for_action_en.pdf

 

Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Environmental and occupational risk factors are estimated to be a substantial contributor to the cancer burden, many of them are modifiable and often result from involuntary exposure of populations, but have yet to be seriously addressed by cancer prevention programmes. The burden of cancer is currently shifting towards heavily populated low- and middle-income countries and is predicted to increase due to a rise in life expectancy as a result of economic development. Therefore, environmental and occupational interventions are key for reducing the incidence and mortality of cancer, can be cost-effective and contribute to the overall well-being of communities.

 

In line with World Health Assembly Resolution WHA58.22 on Cancer Prevention and Control, where countries were urged to pay special attention to cancers for which risk factors are avoidable, including environmental and occupational factors, we, the participants in the first WHO International Conference on "Environmental and occupational determinants of cancer: Interventions for Primary Prevention", call for a broad, public health driven response bringing together public heath, environmental, occupational and cancer control communities in a multi-sectoral and collaborative approach, to tackle known and preventable causes of cancer, using scientific evidence to raise awareness and promote environmental and occupational interventions in support of primary preventive measures:

 

 

TO GOVERNMENTS

1. Further develop surveillance of the burden of cancer, support research and build capacities for systematic identification and measurement of environmental and occupational risk factors as part of national cancer control programmes.

 

2. Include and implement evidence-based environmental and occupational preventive measures as part of policies, legislation and regulations, creating synergies among public health programmes, with NGOs and private and public institutions.

 

3. Adopt and enforce national and international legislation for protection against environmental and occupational carcinogens.

 

4. Support campaigns for behavioural change, including in the work place, to protect individuals from environmental and occupational cancer risks, through innovative approaches and collaboration with the media, and using easily accessible public information about the risks and protection measures.

 

 

 

 

TO WHO

1. Lead a global effort to highlight the importance of primary prevention of cancer through healthy environments, raising awareness and bringing together public heath, environmental, occupational and cancer control communities.

 

2. Shape the research cancer agenda so as to take account of environmental- and occupational-related cancers, including a better characterization of causes and assessment of the effectiveness of behavioural change and environmental and occupational interventions for the primary prevention of cancer.

 

3. Encourage governments to include environmental and occupational prevention measures as part of national cancer control programmes.

 

4. Develop guidance for the implementation of evidence-based environmental and occupational interventions based on population needs assessments.

 

5. Support the implementation of environmental and occupational prevention measures in developing countries and countries in transition through technical assistance, training and other means.

 

6. To support implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the World Health Assembly Resolution WHA60.23 on Prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases: implementation of the global strategy.

 

7. Encourage governments to provide funding to further study environmental factors as potential causes of cancer and to support primary prevention of cancer due to known environmental and occupational risk factors.

 

8. Establish a coordinated network of institutions at national and international level to support policy development and implementation of primary prevention measures for environmental- and occupational-related cancers.

 

 

TO CIVIL SOCIETY NETWORKS

1. Increase awareness raising about environmental and occupational determinants of cancer.

 

2. Advocate for the enforcement of national and international standards for exposure to environmental and occupational carcinogens and to enhance protection of workers.

 

3. Further develop innovative campaigns and strategies to raise awareness about individual behavioural change to support primary prevention of environmental- and occupational-related cancers.

 

4. Strengthen involvement in policy development and implementation related to the mitigation of environmental and occupational risks.

 

5. Advocate for research on environmental- and occupational-related cancers and on effectiveness of prevention measures, including those related to behavioural change.

 

6. Advocate for funding to tackle primary prevention of environmental- and occupational-related cancers, including support for awareness raising, education, and wider implementation of measures known to be effective.

 

7. Support the development of a global network of international environmental-, occupational- and health-related NGOs to advocate for the introduction of environmental and occupational aspects to the global cancer agenda, and with other actors to engage with the media in support of primary prevention of environmental- and occupational-related cancers.

 

 

TO INDUSTRY AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR

1. Incorporate measures for primary prevention of environmental- and occupational-related cancers into existing corporate initiatives and business management programmes.

 

2. Where necessary, develop substitutes, products, technologies and processes to eliminate the use of carcinogens, evaluate their effectiveness and support international technology and information transfer.

 

3. Provide information to governments, workers and consumers about hazardous substances and products, ensure clear labelling and responsible marketing.

 

4. Train workers, suppliers and sub-contractors in preventing exposures to carcinogens and establish prevention and mitigation measures.

 

5. Partner with governments and civil society groups in support of primary prevention of cancer.

 

Mercury and Toxic Pollution Hall of Shame: Meet The Members of Congress That Sided With Corporate Polluters Over Children and Your Health

by John Walke

For the first time in the forty-year history of the Clean Air Act, a majority of the House of Representatives has voted to block EPA from implementing and enforcing standards to sharply reduce mercury and other toxic air emissions from a polluting industry.

In one of a long list of irresponsible amendments to last week's Republican budget, nearly all Republicans and a small group of Democrats voted to block EPA standards to reduce mercury, arsenic, lead, PCBs, dioxins and furans, and heavy metals from cement plants.

Mercury and lead both are dangerous neurotoxins – brain poisons – that harm the developing brains of children and fetuses. Dioxins are known human carcinogens linked to birth defects, reproductive abnormalities, and lung and breast cancer. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen linked to lung and kidney cancer and PCBs are probable human carcinogens linked to liver cancer.

On February 17th, in a 250-177 vote, the House of Representatives approved an amendment by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) to deny any funds to EPA to “implement, administer or enforce” mercury and other toxic air pollution standards for all cement plants in the country.

The EPA standards [pdf] that the House voted to block would reduce cement plants’ mercury emissions nationwide by 16,600 pounds [pdf], a 92 percent reduction from projected 2013 emission levels.

Most of the remaining toxic pollutants are metals or organics that are reduced by controlling particulate matter and hydrocarbons, respectively. The EPA standards would further reduce particulate matter by 11,500 tons annually, a 92% reduction, and total hydrocarbons by 10,600 tons annually, an 83% reduction [pdf].

Were these toxic pollution safeguards allowed to take effect, EPA projects that starting in 2013 and every year thereafter, the standards would avoid: up to 2,500 premature deaths; 1,500 heart attacks; 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma; 32,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms; and 130,000 days when people would have missed miss work [pdf].

Instead, the following members of Congress chose to join the mercury and toxic pollution hall of shame by blocking EPA from carrying out and enforcing toxic air pollution standards. These members sided with corporate polluters over America’s children, health and environment.

Alabama: Aderholt (R), Bachus (R), Bonner (R), Brooks (R), Roby (R) and Rogers (R).

Alaska: Young (R).

Arizona: Flake (R), Franks (R), Gosar (R), Quayle (R) and Schweikert (R).

Arkansas: Crawford (R), Griffin (R), Ross (D) and Womack (R).

California: Bilbray (R), Bono Mack (R), Calvert (R), Campbell (R), Cardoza (D), Costa (D), Denham (R), Dreier (R), Gallegly (R), Herger (R), Hunter (R), Issa (R), Lewis (R), Lungren (R), McCarthy (R), McClintock (R), McKeon (R), Gary Miller (R), Nunes (R), Rohrabacher (R) and Royce (R).

Colorado: Coffman (R), Gardner (R), Lamborn (R) and Tipton (R).

Florida: Adams (R), Bilirakis (R), Buchanan (R), Crenshaw (R), Diaz-Balart (R), Mack (R), Mica (R), Miller (R), Nugent (R), Posey (R), Rivera (R), Rooney (R), Ros-Lehtinen (R), Ross (R), Southerland (R), Stearns (R), Webster (R) and West (R).

Georgia: Barrow (D), Broun (R), Gingrey (R), Graves (R), Kingston (R), Price (R), Austin Scott (R), Westmoreland (R) and Woodall (R).

Idaho: Labrador (R) and Simpson (R).

Illinois: Biggert (R), Costello (D), Dold (R), Hultgren (R), Kinzinger (R), Lipinski (D), Manzullo (R), Roskam (R), Schilling (R), Shimkus (R) and Walsh (R).

Indiana: Bucshon (R), Burton (R), Donnelly (D), Pence (R), Rokita (R), Stutzman (R) and Young (R).

Iowa: King (R) and Latham (R).

Kansas: Huelskamp (R), Jenkins (R), Pompeo (R) and Yoder (R).

Kentucky: Davis (R), Guthrie (R), Rogers (R) and Whitfield (R).

Louisiana: Alexander (R), Boustany (R), Cassidy (R), Fleming (R), Landry (R) and Scalise (R).

Maryland: Bartlett (R) and Harris (R).

Michigan: Amash (R), Benishek (R), Camp (R), Huizenga (R), McCotter (R), Miller (R), Rogers (R), Upton (R) and Walberg (R). 

Minnesota: Bachmann (R), Cravaack (R), Kline (R), Paulsen (R) and Peterson (D).

Mississippi: Harper (R), Nunnelee (R) and Palazzo (R).

Missouri: Akin (R), Emerson (R), Graves (R), Hartzler (R), Long (R) and Luetkemeyer (R).

Montana: Rehberg (R).

Nebraska: Fortenberry (R), Smith (R) and Terry (R).

Nevada: Berkley (D), Heck (R) and Heller (R).

New Hampshire: Guinta (R).

New Jersey: Frelinghuysen (R), Garrett (R) and Runyan (R).

New Mexico: Pearce (R).

New York: Buerkle (R), Gibson (R), Grimm (R), Hanna (R), Hayworth (R), King (R) and Reed (R).

North Carolina: Coble (R), Ellmers (R), Foxx (R), Jones (R), Kissell (D), McHenry (R) and Myrick (R).

North Dakota: Berg (R).

Ohio: Austria (R), Chabot (R), Gibbs (R), Renacci (R), Johnson (R), Jordan (R), LaTourette (R), Latta (R), Schmidt (R), Stivers (R), Tiberi (R) and Turner (R).

Oklahoma: Boren (D), Cole (R), Lankford (R), Lucas (R) and Sullivan (R).

Oregon: Schrader (D) and Walden (R).

Pennsylvania: Altmire (D), Barletta (R), Critz (D), Dent (R), Fitzpatrick (R), Gerlach (R), Holden (D), Kelly (R), Marino (R), Meehan (R), Murphy (R), Pitts (R), Platts (R), Shuster (R) and Thompson (R).

South Carolina: Duncan (R), Gowdy (R), Mulvaney (R), Scott (R) and Wilson (R).

South Dakota: Noem (R).

Tennessee: Black (R), Blackburn (R), DesJarlais (R), Duncan (R), Fincher (R), Fleischmann (R) and Roe (R).

Texas: Barton (R), Brady (R), Burgess (R), Canseco (R), Carter (R), Conaway (R), Cuellar (D), Culberson (R), Flores (R), Gohmert (R), Granger (R), Green (D), Hall (R), Hensarling (R), Sam Johnson (R), Marchant (R), Olson (R), Paul (R), Poe (R), McCaul (R), Neugebauer (R), Sessions (R), Smith (R) and Thornberry (R).

Utah: Bishop (R) and Chaffetz (R).

Virginia: Cantor (R), Forbes (R), Goodlatte (R), Griffith (R), Hurt (R), Rigell (R) and Wittman (R).

Washington: Hastings (R), Herrera Beutler (R), McMorris Rodgers (R) and Reichert (R).

West Virginia: Capito (R), McKinley (R) and Rahall (D).

Wisconsin: Duffy (R), Kind (D), Petri (R), Ribble (R), Ryan (R) and Sensenbrenner (R).

Wyoming: Lummis (R).

 

Special gratitude is owed the members who voted against the pernicious Carter amendment and stood up for America’s children and public health, EPA, and the Rule of Law. This is especially true of the courageous seven Republicans who broke with their caucus and voted against the irresponsible Carter amendment: Bass (NH), Johnson (IL), Lance, (NJ), LoBiondo (NJ), Smith (NJ), Wolf (VA), and Young (FL). (This gratitude must be tempered, however, by pointing out that all seven of these Republicans voted for passage of the final Republican budget, meaning that they ended up voting for the destructive Carter amendment in the final analysis anyway.)

The members supporting the dirty air amendment have anointed themselves into a toxic hall of shame of their own creation. History should not judge this distinction kindly.

Reprinted with permission from John Walke's blog.  To read more of John's work, click here 

Leading experts bring infertility prevention awareness to University of Colorado

DENVER, Feb. 21, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Fertility Association (The AFA), a national family-building non-profit organization, is heading to college campuses around the country to educate young men and women about infertility - a disease affecting one out of 6 couples in the U.S. The 2011 College Tour Series kicks off on March 4th at the University of Colorado in Boulder with a presentation entitled "Why Mother Nature Wants You To Get Laid Right Now". Students will learn about preventing infertility by avoiding certain environmental toxins, STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection) prevention, and about the realities of the biological clock. Brenda Strong, The AFA's national spokesperson, board member, and Desperate Housewives actress, will be on hand to talk about the benefits of yoga to help alleviate stress, which can affect fertility. She will also lead a yoga demonstration for the students. Though The AFA's goal is to prevent infertility whenever possible, sometimes infertility can't be avoided. Dr. Mark Bush, a reproductive endocrinologist with Conceptions Reproductive Associates in Denver, will speak at the event so students are aware of savvy treatment options.  Executive Director Ken Mosesian and Program Director Corey Whelan will discuss infertility prevention for men and women, environmental toxin avoidance, and STI (sexually transmitted infection) avoidance.

Later that night, The AFA will honor Dr. Mark Bush with the Joyce M. Vargyas, MD, Visionary Award at the Illuminations Denver cocktail party. Dr. Bush has extensive experience in all aspects of reproductive endocrinology, infertility, and assisted reproductive technologies. He has published numerous scientific and clinical papers in the field of women's health. Recently, Dr. Bush has taken a serious interest in elective single embryo transfer in order to avoid multiple births. The AFA strongly supports the use of single embryo transfer when possible for the safety of the patient and the child.

This year's Illuminations Denver will focus on The AFA's work, empowering young men and women to take control of their fertility. Illuminations Denver will be held at Palazzo Verdi at Fiddler's Green, and special guests will include Brenda Strong, Dr. Kevin Fitzgerald from Comedy Central and Animal Planet and pianist Joseph Eisele with the prestigious Young Musicians Foundation of Colorado. The event is designed to raise much-needed funds to support the educational outreach work of The American Fertility Association.

The media is welcome, and encouraged, to attend both events. The AFA would like to thank all of our sponsors who are helping to make both of these events a huge success, including our Platinum Event Sponsors, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Conceptions Reproductive Associates, and our Gold Event Sponsor EMD Serono. Special thanks to Disney / ABC Television Group for their support as the Charter Sponsor of our 2011 College Tour. If you're interested in sponsoring Illuminations Denver or purchasing tickets, please contact Corey Whelan at 718-853-1411.

Press Contact: Merry Armentrout Director of Communications, The AFA 205-470-9406 [email protected]

The American Fertility Association, a 501(c)(3) national non-profit organization, is a resource for infertility prevention, reproductive health and family-building. AFA services and materials are provided free of charge and without reservation. These services include an extensive online library, resource directory, hosted message boards, daily fertility news and a toll-free support line. http://www.theafa.org or 888.917.3777

This press release was issued through eReleases(R). For more information, visit eReleases Press Release Distribution at http://www.ereleases.com.

SOURCE American Fertility Association

Read more: Preventing Infertility and the Future of Fertility Treatments - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/coloradocorporatestatements/ci_17442679#ixzz1EdBw9Rec
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

The Human Experiment

by Corey Whelan

When my phone rang and the voice on the other end said it was Dana Nachman, you could have knocked me over with a feather.  She didn't know it yet, but I have been a fan of Dana's since she produced a film with Don Hardy on 9/11 (which won an Emmy, by the way).  Those of you who read this blog regularly know how that day affected my family personally.  I liked the work Dana did on that documentary, and when she told me she was currently working on a film focusing on environmental toxins and its impact on human health, I got really excited.  Dana wants to put a human face on this issue, and what could be more human than the face of infertility?  Given The AFA's strong commitment to chemical avoidance, however, I had a couple questions.  

Q: Tell us about the film in just a few sentences. 

A: “The Human Experiment” is about the thousands of chemicals we come in contact with everyday. They’re in our cosmetics and other personal care products, our cleaning supplies, our furniture and our electronics. Many of these products have not been tested for their safety. Meanwhile, many diseases and conditions such as certain cancers, autism, learning disabilities and infertility are on the rise and no one is really sure why. “The Human Experiment” is following 7 people who believe chemicals are responsible for these detrimental changes in our health. These people are on a quest to make chemical companies accountable for their products, so that we’re no longer guinea pigs in this giant human experiment.

 Q: Your past films have been about things like wrongful conviction and responses to terrorism, so this topic is somewhat of a departure. Why did you want to make this film?

A: I was working as a producer at NBC in the San Francisco Bay Area when I first learned about this issue. I did a series about household products and toxins. For that story, I interviewed a UC Berkeley professor who told me about how indoor air quality is typically way worse than outdoor air quality… even if the outdoor air we’re talking about is right next to an oil refinery. He said it is because of all of the products that we use. He described homes as toxic boxes and that imagery always stuck with me. I found myself leaving my doors and windows open all the time! After leaving NBC and finishing my other films I realized (much like with the other films) that it wasn’t a matter of whether or not we were going to do this film… we had to do it! The subject is just that outrageous and it needs to be exposed in a big way.

 Q: As you've researched this topic more, what has most surprised you about the issue of chemical exposure?

A: Really it’s the most basic premise of the movie that I find most shocking, that products do not have to be tested for their safety before they reach the marketplace. I really had no idea this was the case!

 Q: How did your research bring you to the infertility storyline and why do you want to include this in the film?

A: It wasn’t long after I began looking into the issue more deeply that I came across the work of Linda Giudice and Tracey Woodruff at UCSF.  They have been studying the increasingly strong links between environmental exposures and reproductive health problems. They report that in certain areas in the U.S. sperm count in men is down by more than 50% and that the amount of women who are under 25 who report having trouble conceiving and maintaining a pregnancy has doubled since the 1980’s. The statistics go on and on. Another thing that has been on the rise in the same timeframe is our use and exposure to chemicals. We feel strongly that this potential connection needs to be exposed.

 Q: I have to ask, how has working on this film changed what you do in your personal life?

A:  It’s changed what I do in so many ways. I’m extremely mindful now of what I’m buying. I buy with a purpose. And this is across the board – from food, to cosmetics, to cleaning supplies. I want to spend my money on products that I know are not going to harm my family. I think the companies that have this sensibility should be rewarded with my money.

 Q: What are the top 2-3 things you want people to take away from this film after they've seen it?

A: Well, I think #1 is that these products are not vetted and it’s up to all of us to pressure companies – through our voices and our wallets - to make products that are safe.

#2) Someone I talked to recently said that they think this is the next big woman’s issue. I love thinking of it in this way, that woman are standing up to industry saying, “We’ve had enough. And it’s time to give us products that are safe.”

#3) And the third thing is that we can influence politicians to create a climate where the government can do what it’s suppose to do and protect us from harm.

 Q: Okay, so when can we see the film and what can we do now?

A: We just started shooting the film in December and will be shooting for the rest of 2011. We are still looking for some of the key characters who will make this film hit home for viewers. That’s why were coming to you at The American Fertility Association. We would like to profile someone who is affected by infertility who believes chemicals are at least partially to blame and who is trying to work towards educating others about toxic chemicals and the need for reform. If anyone is interested in letting us share their story in our film, please reach out to me at [email protected]

 You can also follow The Human Experiment on Facebook and Twitter! Join our Facebook fan page at http://www.facebook.com/TheHumanExperiment. And follow us on Twitter @ktffilms. Our film’s website is also up and running now at www.thehumanexperimentmovie.com. Thanks for spreading the word.  We are commited to raising awareness of this issue, and creating change around it.

The Human Experiment from Don Hardy on Vimeo.

 

 

 

Tighty whities and hot testes

by Craig Niederberger, M.D., F.A.C.S.

If you’re trying to conceive, do you need to change your underwear from boxers to briefs?

No doubt heat kills sperm.  The testes live outside of the abdomen for a good reason.  They need to be cool, about 4 degrees C cooler than body temperature.  Testes that don’t descend, a condition called “cryptorchidism,” have real problems making sperm.  Ovaries obviously don’t have this sensitivity to heat; they’re perfectly happy living in the abdomen.

The real question is: how much heat kills sperm?  Crossing your legs increases your scrotal temperature by about 1 degree C, and it’s difficult to imagine that every man who crosses his legs is going to have a hard time impregnating his wife.  Form fitting underwear, or briefs, raise it by a similar amount.  Putting a laptop on your lap increases your scrotal temperature by about 1.5 degrees C or so.

So you probably shouldn’t worry about wearing boxers or briefs, but stay away from cooking your testes in a jacuzzi or sauna while you’re trying to conceive.  Save that for stress reduction after the baby’s born.

Lift your voice and say no to the toxic trio

by Corey Whelan

In 2009, The American Fertility Association brought a cutting edge initiative devoted to teaching women about infertility prevention to nail salons nationwide, called The Manicures and Martinis Infertility Prevention Program.  Part of the curriculum for these evenings was teaching women about the avoidance of toxins that could harm the reproductive system. 

During that year, we also found ourselves talking to more and more women employed in salons nationwide, and became ever more acutely aware of the toxic load that these women are forced to endure six, seven days a week.  The AFA had always visualized holdind these events in "green", non toxic salons and the more immersed we became in this inititiave, the happier we were about that choice. But we continued to worry about the vast majority of nail salon workers, mostly Asian, who unfortunately find themselves employed in salons that are literally saturated with chemicals. 

The AFA had a choice about where we would hold our events but most of these women did not have much choice around their employment options, nor were they very educated about the long term effects of the chemical soup they were working in. 

At that time, The AFA became a member of the National Healthy Nail Salon Alliance, an organization working to raise the profile of salon worker health and safety issues, to connect and leverage the resources of concerned groups (including workers’ rights, labor, environmental and reproductive health and justice, and Asian Pacific Islander groups), to advocate that salon product manufactures reformulate and produce safer products, and to advocate for greater regulatory protection of salon workers. 

Always envisioned as a two year inititiave, The AFA retired the Manicures and Martinis Program in 2010.  Now, in 2011, a new incarnation of our Infertility Prevention outreach will be brought to campuses nationwide, in the form of a College Lecture Tour.  Various AFA staff and board members will be speaking at Universities across our country; the focus of these events will continue to be educating young women on creatng a life plan that includes career and family building, as well as fertility protection.  Brenda Strong, Ken Mosesian and myself will be lecturing at the University of Colorado in Boulder this coming March and several weeks later, Ken and I will continue onto the University of Maryland.  More scheduled dates in various cities will be announced over the next several months. 

One of the things The AFA will be urging these young women to do will be opting to frequent only nail salons that are green, in an attempt to not only protect their own health and fertility but to also create a sea change in this country about lowering levels of toxicity in the work place.

We invite you to do the same.  Stop frequenting salons that use toulene, formaldehyde and phtalates, also known as the toxic trio.  Instead, opt to bring your business only to salons that value their workers, and their customer's health. It is better for everyone and simply makes good sense, particularly if you are currently trying to conceive. 

I love my weekly manicures and truly marvel at the women who are willing to serve me.  Nail workers have a really hard job, and protecting them, as well as ourselves, is a smart choice.  View the video below to learn more.  And thank you, in advance, for going green, and for lifting your voice to speak for these women.