The pinkwashing and profitizing of breast cancer

It's that wonderful time of year again, and I'm not talking about the upcoming joyous holiday season. Please forgive my sarcasm, but the reason for my less than mirthful attitude about October is because it's officially National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  I have come to prefer Breast Cancer Action's more accurate designation of National Breast Cancer Industry Month.  

I've shared my feelings about this month-long marketing extravaganza in a previous post, along with a little background on the origin and history of pink ribbons and breast cancer.  You can read more about that here.  Unfortunately, not much has changed in the world of pinkwashing since I wrote that post a year ago. In fact, it appears things are getting worse.

First, however, the good news is that our awareness of this practice is increasing. This is evidenced by the creation of a new word to describe the phenomenon, i.e. pinkwashing. The term comes from a mash up of the words pink - the color of the ribbon used to commemorate breast cancer, and whitewashing - which means to gloss over or cover up vices or scandals (1).  The Urban Dictionary defines pinkwashing as "the use of breast cancer by corporate marketers in which companies promote their products with claims to donate a percentage of proceeds to the cause" (2). In the spirit of creating new words, let's throw in "profitizing" while we're at it because that's exactly the action that is occurring in what has become the industry known as breast cancer.

Now the bad news. Sadly, it's no longer uncommon for corporations to put profits before the welfare of people. However, things have gone from strange to bizarre considering the fact that joining the long line of companies marketing their products under the pink ribbon is the queen of breast cancer charities - the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.  Evidently, the Komen Foundation has enlisted a company to manufacture a fragrance for them called Promise Me (4).  The slogan listed on the ShopKomen webpage reads, "purchase with purpose to end breast cancer forever" (4).  Have you ever wondered how much of the purchase price of a product that is marketed as "pink" actually goes toward the noble mission to "end breast cancer forever"? At ShopKomen it's 25% (5) (see the small print at bottom of the Komen webpage).

Now, if you're reading this blog you are probably clued in to the fact that the beauty industry is unregulated and as a result most beauty care products, including fragrances, contain chemicals that are proven to be unhealthy. Can you believe that the safety testing of personal care products is left up to the manufacturers? You read that correctly! According to the Environmental Working Group, they police themselves. So, considering this revelation, it will probably come as no surprise to learn that the original Komen Promise fragrance contained at least 2 chemical toxins (8):
• Galaxolide – a synthetic musk that works as a hormone or endocrine disruptor and has been detected in blood, breast milk, and even newborns.
• Toluene – a potent neurotoxicant linked to a variety of demonstrated negative health effects and is widely known as one of the toxic trio. Toluene is banned by the International Fragrance Association.

HELLO!! Endocrine disrupting chemicals are linked to cancer (6). This is outrageous and appalling to me. The Susan G. Komen Foundation is an organization whose mission is to "eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease by advancing research, education, screening, and treatment" (3), yet they are marketing and selling a product containing chemicals that are suspected cancer causing agents.

That's why at this wonderful time of year, when everything is awash in pink, it is especially important to "think before you pink." This phrase, coined by Breast Cancer Action, suggests we ask the following questions before we generously support a charity or buy a pink ribbon product (9):

1. Where does the money raised by pink ribbon products go?
2. How much money goes towards breast cancer programs and services?
3. How are the funds being raised? For example, is it through the sale of cosmetics that contain potential cancer causing chemicals?
4. What types of programs are being supported? Is the money being used to conduct research to understand the causes of breast cancer, or in support of the prevention of the disease?

Check out the video below and please spread the word. Let's join together to let those who are choosing to profit from this disease that we won't be pinkwashed anymore!

Sources
(1) Wikipedia - definition of whitewashing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_%28censorship%29
(2) Urban Dictionary - pinkwashing - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pinkwashing
(3) Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508105/ 
(4) Shop Komen - http://www.shopkomen.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=1687
(5) Shop Komen homepage - http://www.shopkomen.com/
(6) http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/
(7) Endocrine Society - http://www.endo-society.org/journals/scientificstatements/upload/edc_scientific_statement.pdf
(8) Breast Cancer Action - Think before you pink - https://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6098/p/salsa/web/thank_you_page/public/thankYou.sjs?thank_you_page_KEY=1654
(9) http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/politics-of-breast-cancer/the-cancer-industry/#anchor2 
 

Chemical body burden: Are you toxic?

As the Britney song goes, "Don't you know that you're toxic?" Given that the belt I purchased on sale recently contained lead, these lyrics could be prophetic. I just might be toxic! Of course, the toxic love Britney sings about isn't to be taken lightly. Thankfully, we usually have the option to walk away from a toxic relationship. I wish the same could be said about the toxins in our environment.

Toxins in our environment-

How did we get here? Warning labels attached to accessories? You would think that the past experiences of public safety concerns due to chemical risks would have brought about a change in practice. For example, toys, jewelry, accessories, clothing, furniture, crafts, foodware and office supplies have been recalled because they were found to contain dangerous levels of heavy metals, usually lead and/or cadmium. Evidently, if we are warned about something containing a toxic substance, that somehow makes it OK to be sold. 

I know, "caveat emptor" and all that. Given that you're reading this it's probably safe to say that you're concerned about your health and all that influences it. So, when we choose our purchases we try to consider their impact on us and our environment. I could simply choose to buy a different belt.  One that doesn't contain lead. But how would I know which belt doesn't contain a toxic substance given that this warning label isn't required by every state government? How are we to ascertain whether something we are purchasing contains a toxic substance known to cause harm to our health and well being?

Toxins in our bodies: biomonitoring and body burden-

An even bigger question for me is how many of these toxic substances are we exposed to in our environment, and what are the cumulative health risks, if any? In the bigger scheme of health hazards, wearing a belt that may expose me to a low dose of  lead might seem relatively benign. However, when you combine that particular exposure with the multitude of other toxins we encounter daily, the health risks increase and we end up with something scientists call the body burden (1).

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), body burden is the total amount of of toxic chemicals that have built up over time in our bodies (1). "Scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied" (3). To my horror I learned that the presence of toxic chemicals is found even in fetuses (2)(3). Evidently, pregnant mothers unintentionally pass toxins on to their babies through the placenta. According to the EWG, "358 industrial chemicals, pesticides and pollutants [were found] in the cord blood of American infants" (6). One expert calls this the state of being born "pre-polluted" (4).

The knowledge of body burden is available because scientists are now better able to measure and track the levels of chemicals present in us through blood, urine, breast milk and hair specimens. This process is called biomonitoring. According to Commonweal Breast Cancer Fund, biomonitoring is an important process for monitoring public health because it indicates "trends of exposure, identifies highly exposed communities and helps in setting priorities for legislative and regulatory action" (10). You can find one overview of some of the chemicals currently being biomonitored here, as well as the CDC's 4th Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals here. Interestingly, biomonitoring is also being used to watch wildlife that inhabit chemically contaminated environments like toxic waste dump sites. Scientists find that biomonitoring these animals serves as a "front line indicator of pollutant levels and potential health impacts" (7). You can read more about this here at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Chemical regulation - Innocent until proven guilty-

When it comes to the chemical industry and our government's regulation of it, it appears their thinking is that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. Historically speaking, it hasn't been until recent times that chemicals and their link to ill health effects have come under closer scrutiny. Back in the 1970's, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to regulate a limited number of chemicals, mostly pesticides, under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). In 1992, the TSCA was amended to include a Lead Exposure Reduction Provision.

Toxins and health effects-

The health problems resulting from lead exposure are documented and well-known, with children being the most adversely effected. It took years, but health advocates pushed for tighter regulation of lead. As a result unleaded gas, paint and plumbing components are now the norm (5). However, as is evidenced by the warning label attached to my belt, lead is still finding its way into our lives. The lead example highlights what is broken with the current laws: 1) poor control of the import of goods made in countries that still allow the use of toxic substances and 2) current regulations are outdated.

The TSCA was enacted before the current scientific findings that show even small levels of chemical exposure, which were once considered harmless, actually do cause detrimental health effects. In addition, there are now hundreds of new chemicals that have been created since the TSCA went into effect. These chemicals aren't being regulated. Also, the present regulation of chemicals tends to focus on the effect that just one chemical has on our health and not the effects of total body burden. Given the past negative history of, for example, lead, one would expect that the government would choose to err on the side of caution and at least restrict the use of newer chemicals until more is known about their effects on us. Sadly, this just isn't the case. This wait and see attitude is like playing a game of chemical roulette. 

Since this post is focusing on what we can do to limit our body burden, I won't go into a lot of detail about the ill health effects of toxins.  Suffice to say, current scientific evidence clearly shows increased risk for birth defects, as in genetic mutations, reproductive issues, and cancers (3). These risks, combined with the fact that babies are being born pre-polluted is compelling enough to take at least a little protective action.

How are we exposed? The biggest chemical culprits-

One of the biggest areas of our exposure comes from the consumer products we use. Government health authorities have identified the following chemicals as being "human carcinogens, serious neurotoxins or well-established hormone disrupters" (4), so it would seem prudent to try to limit our exposure to these (click on each if you want to learn more):

• Brominated flame retardants
• pesticides
• the Teflon chemical PFOA
• the Scotchgard chemical PFOS
• BPA
• lead
• cadmium
• mercury
• perchlorate
• dioxins
• furans

Several other areas of exposure include the air we breathe, the water we drink and the foods we eat. If you've just thrown your hands up in surrender, I share your frustration. However, the situation isn't hopeless.  We may not be able to avoid toxins, but there are things we can do to reduce our level of exposure. Checking to see what your body burden currently is might seem like a logical place to begin.  However, at this point experts are saying that individual biomonitoring is difficult to use for specifically assessing how relevant your individual results are to your actual risk for disease. So, where do we begin?

What we can do to limit our body burden:

1. Let our government officials know that:
• we find the current regulation of chemicals unacceptable.  Public outcry was exactly what prompted the chemical DDT to be banned. The EWG states that "Proper environmental regulation does work to reduce people's chemical burdens" (8). The Toxic Substances Control Act must be amended to at least require that the complete health and safety data on chemicals be known and disclosed to the public. No more innocent until proven guilty. Dangerous chemicals should be phased out and safer alternatives assured.
• we desire community biomonitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been conducting biomonitoring for the past 30 years and several states are also biomonitoring for a small number of specific toxins only. One example is the program in Pennsylvania that tracks blood lead levels (9). You can read more about this at the CDC site here. However, more wide-spread biomonitoring of the chemicals experts have linked to increased risk for disease needs to be conducted in communities.
2. Support "watch dog" organizations that advocate for us by keeping an eye on the largely unregulated chemical industry, like the Environmental Working Group,  The Natural Resources Defense Council, or the Children's Environmental Health Network.
3.  Filter your water.
4. Buy organic foods if possible, especially if you have young children. If this isn't an affordable option, try to focus on buying organic products that make the most difference.  EWG has a handy list of the most pesticide laden produce here and it's also available as a free Iphone app.
5. Know what's in your personal care products and household cleaners and what chemicals to avoid. The list above gives you a good head start. Try to use natural products. You can read more about the natural personal care products at Skin Deep here and the household cleaning products here.
6. Know what kind of plastics are safer and avoid plastic baby bottles, water bottles, toys, teethers and  pacifiers and canned foods whose cans are lined with BPA. Avoid microwaving foods in plastic containers.
7. Throw away aluminum cookware and pans with non-stick coated surface. 
8. Avoid fabrics treated with flame retardants, wrinkle relaxers or stain repellents and limit use of fabric softeners and air fresheners.
9. Use low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paints whenever possible.
10. Try not to use chemical pesticides on your lawn, pets or in your home and take your shoes off before you walk in the house.

The evidence linking toxins to deteriorating health is mounting and seems compelling. The good news is that by becoming educated about the situation we can take steps to decrease our chemical body burden. While making these changes in our lifestyle are important to reducing our chemical exposure, it is critical that we also push for improved government and industry standards regulating chemicals.

As for the lead belt that prompted this post, it went back to the store, along with a letter to the company letting them know how I feel about their sale of a lead laced accessory! I like a bargain, but with this purchase I got more than I bargained for!    


Sources
(1) Environmental Working Group (EWG) http://www.ewg.org/news/proof-burden 
(2) Biomonitoring http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/
(3) Chemical Body Burden http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc15.wais&start=9720137&SIZE=4204&TYPE=TEXT
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/titleten.html
(4) EWG http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/pressrelease
(5) EWG http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/lead/docs/introhealtheffectsmedicalprovider.pdf?ga=t  
(6) EWG http://www.ewg.org/files/2009-Minority-Cord-Blood-Report.pdf
(7) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences - http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/srp/products/products2_s3_s1.cfm 
(8) EWG http://www.ewg.org/news/proof-burden
(9) Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/tracking/trackbiomon.htm

The not so rosy side of breast cancer pink ribbons

National Breast Cancer Awareness month celebrates its 26th anniversary this year, and pink seems to be everywhere. Even football players are wearing pink. Have you ever wondered how this campaign began and what impact it is actually having on the prevention of breast cancer? Personally, I didn't give it much thought, that is until I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Before then, I rather naively assumed that anything pink was linked to a benevolent organization that was supporting the critical research needed to prevent the disease. That's why it came as a total surprise to realize that when it comes to the pink movement it seems there's a whole lot of gray.

Before I get to the gray, here's a brief history of the pink. Back in 1985, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) was organized through the sponsorship of Astra Zeneca, a pharmaceutical company, the American Academy of Family Physicians, a medical society, and CancerCare, Inc., a non-profit. More on this later, suffice to say for now that their purpose in forming NBCAM was to "promote breast cancer awareness, share information on the disease and provide greater access to screening services." NBCAM's initial week long event spawned what is now an internationally recognized month devoted to breast cancer awareness.

On to the story of how breast cancer awareness became wrapped up in a pink ribbon. In the early 1990's, activist Charlotte Haley was inspired by the yellow ribbons tied on trees to honor American soldiers. She decided to make peach ribbons in her home and distribute them in an effort to raise public awareness about the National Cancer Institute's small percentage (5%) of their then $1.8 billion budget going towards cancer prevention.  Her efforts caught the attention of Estee Lauder and Self Magazine executives. They contacted Charlotte about joining her efforts.  She refused saying they were "too commercial". The attorneys at Self Magazine suggested that the color of the ribbon be changed in order for Self to use the concept. That's when the pink ribbon began to be associated with breast cancer, and shortly after Avon began their breast cancer cause related marketing campaign. 

Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pink ribbons, or raising money for cancer research, or providing greater access to mammography for the under or uninsured. When done altruistically, these are extraordinary  things. What is disconcerting is when pink ribbons are used to boost a company's profits or image under the guise of philanthropy. Unfortunately, it seems that breast cancer has become big business. It's because of those seeking to profit from breast cancer that some critics of NBCAM are now referring to it as "BCAM SCAM", or Breast Cancer Industry Awareness Month.  But how is it that such a noble and worthy cause has come to be viewed by some as a scam? To answer this question, a little research, along with some open minded consideration, is required.

When it comes to the public's health, the primary goals of health officials are prevention, intervention and eradication of disease, with prevention being preferable to intervention (McKenzie). For example, "immunizing to prevent a disease is preferable to taking an antibiotic to cure one" (McKenzie). Case in point, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and cervical cancer. Yet, when we look at the pink ribbon message, it focuses not on prevention, but detection and cure. Wait a minute. If prevention is preferable, why is the push for detection and cure? Because the detection and treatment of breast cancer has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Simply stated, prevention just isn't as profitable.

Skeptical? Perhaps a closer look at NBCAM might provide additional insight. Their organization was formed by Imperial Chemical Industries, the creator of Tamoxifen, a breast cancer treatment drug. In the 90's, Imperial Chemical Industries spun off Zeneca Group. Then Zeneca merged with Astra and became Astra Zeneca, which formed a non profit arm that is known today as AstraZeneca Healthcare Foundation, one of the largest financial contributors to NBCAM.  Astra Zeneca also created and markets Arimidex, another breast cancer treatment drug. CancerCares was also involved in the formation of NBCAM. A look at their donors reveals several pharmaceutical companies as well. So, what message would you want to spread if you were a drug manufacturer financially invested in breast cancer treatment medications? Probably not prevention. Might this explain NBCAM's focus on awareness and detection? To be clear, I'm in no way suggesting that awareness, screening and early detection of breast cancer is negative. The point is non-profit organizations accepting donations from companies that stand to gain from their philanthropy seems to represent a conflict of interest.

The pink campaign isn't only effected by conflicts of interest. There are also the companies that profit from linking their products to the breast cancer cause. At first glance this may seem altruistic, but sometimes things aren't always as transparent as they seem. For example, 12 years ago Yoplait began a pink ribbon campaign called Save Lids to Save Lives. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of their yogurt are donated for breast cancer research. The conflict resulted from their yogurt being made with milk from cows that were given a synthetic growth hormone, called rBGH. This chemical has been linked to breast cancer and is banned from use in many countries. You can read more about the topic here, and Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility has an interesting video discussing rBGH and milk found here or click on the Videos tab in this blog.

The term "pinkwasher" has been used to describe a company "that purports to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink-ribboned product, but manufactures products that are linked to the disease" (Breast Cancer Action). When you consider that Yoplait was both contributing to and profiting from breast cancer, one could say they were successful at "pinkwashing." Thankfully, because of pressure brought about by health activist groups, like Breast Cancer Action and their "Put a Lid on It" campaign, as well as concerned consumers, to their credit as of 2008 Yoplait has stopped using rBGH milk in their yogurt.

The above is just one example of pink ribbon profiteering. Breast Cancer Action has some great information on their Think Before You Pink site to help guide consumers when purchasing "pink" products. They suggest asking the following questions:

1. How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer?
2. What is the maximum amount that will be donated? Sometimes contributions are capped at a certain amount. 
3. How are the funds being raised? 
4. To what breast cancer organization does the money go, and what types of programs does it support?
5. What is the company doing to assure that its products are not actually contributing to the breast cancer epidemic? 

You can find a more detailed discussion of these points here.

In a recent post I mentioned my support of the Love/Army of Women, a non-profit foundation dedicated to stopping breast cancer before it starts.  At first inspection I felt this group represented something that I feel is of critical importance - the need for more research into the prevention of breast cancer. However, after closer scrutiny I realized that this group is funded through a grant from Avon. This cosmetics company uses a number of chemicals in their products that have been linked to cancer through standard laboratory feeding tests done on mice and rats by the National Toxicology Program. Their study results have been published and accepted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A perfect example of the importance of the need to "think before I pink."

A final thought. On my last visit to the doctor she mentioned that Tamoxifen is now being recommended as a breast cancer prevention treatment for women who are considered to be at high risk for developing the disease. I was hoping that more breast cancer prevention research would be focused on how to reduce our exposure to cancer causing agents, such as the above-mentioned chemicals. Sadly, this doesn't appear to be a research priority, but it's not that surprising.  All things considered, I suppose drugs would be the first line of defense offered for prevention, if the pharmaceutical and chemical companies are underwriting a great deal of the research being conducted in the area of cancer prevention. Evidently there isn't anything completely transparent when it comes to this issue. One thing is for certain, pink looked a whole lot rosier before I took off my rose-colored glasses.

Sources
McKenzie, J., et.al., An Introduction to Community Health, 5th Ed., Jones & Bartlett, MA, 2005
http://www.nbcam.org/newsroom_nbcam_facts.cfm
http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=newsletter-88d
http://www.safe2use.com/drsherman/life/15.htm
http://www.cancercare.org/about_us/
http://www.cancercare.org/about_us/annual_reports/2009/donors.php
http://globalrace.info-komen.org/site/PageNavigator/hq_gr_learn_FAQ_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Chemical_Industries#History
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/3/878S
Lancet - Circulating concentrations of insulin like growth factor 1 and risk of breast cancer -  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2910384-1/abstract
Potential public health impacts of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin in dairy production - http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm
Breast Cancer Action - http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=10
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/

Health issues and natural gas drilling: Should we be concerned?

When my family moved to the sleepy, bedroom community of Flower Mound, Texas back in 1992, we never dreamed that we would be in the position we find ourselves in now. Flash forward 20 years and Flower Mound isn't so sleepy anymore. It has grown to a suburb of over 60,000 residents. The town was even recognized as a Gold Scenic City this year. The title is awarded by Scenic Texas, an organization that states, "we believe that growth is inevitable, but ugliness is not."

Perhaps you'll appreciate the irony of this statement when I tell you that it turns out my scenic suburban town sits on the Barnett Shale, a large shale natural gas deposit, and they are drilling in Flower Mound. The town is actually allowing around 24 gas wells to be put in the middle of suburbia. Drilling in the area isn't a new occurrence.  Over the last few years drill sites have popped up throughout the area.  However, the two dozen wells being drilled now at the Hilliard site will be less than 1500 feet from subdivisions, an elementary school, a middle school and there is a church nearby.  You can see the density of the area, as well as the proximity of the site to the schools and neighborhoods here, How is this not ugly?

Now, before I go any further, I acknowledge that I'm a natural gas consumer. I also know that natural gas is a cleaner source of energy than coal, albeit not as clean as solar, wind or other renewable energy sources. Also, in light of the recent oil drilling disaster in the gulf, it's probably a whole lot safer to extract gas than oil, right? Well, no, not really. Not the way it's being done right now and definitely not so close to schools, a church and densely populated subdivisions. Since horizontal gas drilling technology has become available, many environmental and health issues have come to light.

At this point you might be tempted to stop reading and call me "Chicken Little". Please consider that the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink is at risk. We are all potentially affected by this situation, even if we don't live near an area where gas drilling is likely to occur. The risk to our health is the result of pollutants that are generated from the drilling and extraction process. As the map at left clearly shows, shale gas is located throughout the US and it is going to be extracted. It's also becoming a reality in Europe and other parts of the world where shale gas deposits are being found.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "...natural gas production facilities emit pollutants such as hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and volatile organic compounds (VOC's). These pollutants can contribute to health problems..." "While regulations limit the amount of emissions [from these facilities], dangerous releases of HAP's can occur if [a facility] does not operate in compliance with regulations." Even though there are federal, state and local regulations in place that attempt to protect us from dangerous HAP's and VOC's, evidently the accidental and/or intentional release of dangerous pollutants into the environment is a very real consequence of gas drilling.

The issue of our ground water becoming contaminated is documented. In 2005, the oil and gas industry was granted an exemption from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which is in place to protect our drinking water supply. Earthworks Action states that, "at the state level, most oil and gas agencies do not require companies to report the volumes or names of chemicals being injected during [the gas drilling process]. Thus, neither the government nor the public can evaluate the risks posed by injecting these fluids underground..."  This is a result of the something called the Halliburton Loophole. Yep, you might recognize that name, especially if you're from Texas. Halliburton patented the hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" method used to help extract the natural gas. The exemption is believed to have resulted from Dick Cheney who was Vice President at the time and also happened to be the CEO of Halliburton.

Noteworthy are the public health agencies who have attempted to gather data about the health effects experienced by people living near gas drilling sites. One of these is Garfield County, Colorado's department of public health  which took on the task of assessing the health impacts relating to gas drilling that are affecting the people living in their area.  The following charts from their study illustrate some of their findings (click on charts to enlarge):

 

Clearly, health and environmental concerns are continually being raised with regard to shale gas drilling. Recent legislation has been passed by Congress that orders the EPA to study the chemicals used in the natural gas extraction process. Amazingly, many of the chemicals used in the fracking process have not been disclosed by companies because they consider them trade secrets.  As of the end of September, the EPA was holding hearings and had requested nine drilling companies to release information about the chemicals they use. A report should be completed by 2012. Although I'm hopeful that the EPA is working to protect our environment and our health, this is the same agency that previously filed a flawed report on fracking. The flaws were revealed by an EPA insider named Weston Wilson. Thankfully, he blew the whistle by writing a letter to congress about the risks he believes this process poses to drinking water.

The risk doesn't end with the HAP's and VOC's entering our air and water and potentially jeopardizing our health. Just consider the Gulf oil spill.  Wasn't that rig's blow out preventer supposed to be fail safe? Haven't we learned from the catastrophic gas well  "accidents" that have occurred in Virginia, Louisiana and Pennsylvania? These are only a handful of the disasters that have happened since gas drilling has accelerated. I don't even want to think about the possibility of an event occurring 1200 feet from an elementary and middle school.

It's a sad reality that our government officials are strongly influenced by lobbyists representing big business interests, and the oil and gas industry ranks up there with some of the most powerful. However, call me naive, but I believe that as their constituents we do exert some influence ourselves. With that thought in mind, if you're wondering like I was what actions we might take to protect our air, our water and our health, I suggest the following:

1. We can let our government officials know that we want our water protected.  Contact them and ask them to support the FRAC Act here. 
2. For concerns about air quality, if you live in Texas you can contact the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), or contact your state and local elected officials and urge them to consider stronger regulation of toxic gases and VOC's that threaten our environment and our health.

As things stand, I feel the environment and our health are losing out to our ever increasing demand for energy resources. It's an ugly situation and I'm afraid it isn't going to get any better. That is... unless changes in the way we live occur and our focus shifts to cleaner more renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, the reality now is that shale gas wells will continue to pop up all over. Until the process of extracting the shale gas is mandated to adhere to best practice methods, the chemicals used in the process and their effects on our environment and our health are required to be openly disclosed, and the gas drilling companies are held more strictly accountable for accidents, I believe we need to proceed with caution. So, yes, I think we should be very concerned.

Update 10/10: I wanted to learn more about the natural gas drilling process. This educational video made by the Penn State Cooperative Extension, shows a natural gas well operation site. What I know about gas drilling could fill a thimble, so I submit my comments about the video mostly from the observational perspective.  What I notice:  1) the noise; 2) the amount of heavy equipment 3) the number of box cars for hauling water, chemicals, sand, etc? 4) site access roads. If we all work together to shift toward cleaner energy sources, perhaps your neighborhood can be spared all this "inconvenience."


Sources
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Shale
Town of Flower Mound http://www.flower-mound.com/index.php
EPA http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/oil-gas_addl_info.html#activity2
http://anuqa.net/oil.php
http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/Fracking.pdf
http://www.garfield-county.com/index.aspx?page=1408
http://www.earthworksaction.org/hydfracking.cfm#FMI
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_699397.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/12/national/main6476337.shtml
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/23/update-blast-pennsylvania-gas-kills-state-regulator/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
http://wilderness.org/files/Hydraulic-fracturing-facts.pdf
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/terp/program_info.html
http://www.earthworksaction.org/NM_GW_Contamination.cfm 
http://www.flower-mound.com/env_resources/pix/pdf/Gas%20Well%20Status%20Report.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1D4bRFOrxg&feature=related

Avoiding chemical exposure

One of the first strategies for improving wellness is to limit exposure to chemicals that pose a health threat.  Avoiding chemicals seemed like an almost impossible task to me. First, because not all of them are required to be disclosed. Second, because chemicals that are disclosed on labels require some detective work to decipher what they are and if they pose any health problems. Third, I come into daily contact with a virtually endless number of chemicals. So, where to start?

Undaunted, I began my quest by looking at the personal care, cleaning and lawn and garden products we use.  The personal care products were a big surprise.  As discussed in the post, What's on the Label?, most of these products contain chemicals that act as endocrine system disruptors.  Most definitely not good. You can find a cosmetic safety database at Skin Deep. You can do a search for the beauty or personal care product of your choice to see how Skin Deep rates it for safety. Even some of the so-called natural products are big offenders, so beware.

Next up, were the laundry products, which usually contain petrochemical detergents.  Again, not good for us or the environment. The first thing I eliminated were dryer sheets. These are especially nasty. The Environmental Working Group suggests using a cup of baking soda in the rinse cycle as an inexpensive fabric softener alternative.  Check out more of their eco-friendly options for the laundry here.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a Safer Product Labeling Program. Products that carry the label shown at left mean they have been proven to be "safer for people and the environment" (EPA). You can learn more about this program here.

I've discovered that Shaklee makes a great line of green cleaning products.  They might seem a little expensive, but they are very concentrated. A little goes a long way. Check out the Healthy Home section where they offer Get Clean Kits that provide everything you need to eco-clean your home and laundry. If you're more inclined to purchase from the grocery store, Seventh Generation is another good option for environmentally friendly household cleaners.  They even go so far as to list the ingredients in each of their products in Material Safety Data Sheets. You can find this information, as well as coupons for their products if you visit their website. 

We're getting ready to paint indoors and this prompted me to research paint to find a brand that has little or no volatile organic compounds (VOC's). These are defined as products that contain organic carbons that readily evaporate changing from liquid to gases when exposed to air. VOC's contribute to indoor and outdoor air pollution and are a rather sneaky health hazard.

In 2002 the EPA did an interesting National Scale Air Assessment that looked at the risk of both the cancer and noncancer effects of inhaling outdoor air.  They measured 124 air toxins and compiled an air toxicology study.  They released the results in 2009 and you can find maps here, that illustrate the areas in the U.S. that have the highest levels by county for carcinogenic, neurological and respiratory risks.  I believe knowledge is power, but if you're feeling a little down today you might want to skip looking at the maps. They aren't uplifting, especially if you live in or near any major metropolitan areas.

As if having polluted outdoor air isn't bad enough, it seems that indoor air pollution can surpass outdoor levels. Aren't I just full of good news Anyway, if you're looking for information on indoor VOC's, the EPA has another reference called, "The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality" that I found helpful. In addition, Oklahoma State University has a comprehensive site here.  If you're looking to check the information on chemicals, this site is the place to start.  It has links to a number of resources like Material Safety Data Sheets, Chemical Database,  National Toxicology Program Chemical Health and Safety Database and even a glossary of terms that's useful.  I was able to do a search on a variety of different paint brands and discover the VOC ratings, as well as other information.

Last, but not least, check out the National Geographic's site, The Green Guide.  They have many good  articles, tips and suggestions to help you go "green". It definitely requires diligence and more than a little detective work to revamp your personal care, cleaning, paint, and lawn and garden products. However, it's definitely worth the effort, because:

When we heal the earth, we heal ourselves.  ~David Orr

Sources
Skin Deep - http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/
Environmental Working Group - http://www.ewg.org/node/18698 
Environmental Protection Agency - http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/saferproductlabeling.htm
Seventh Generation - http://www.seventhgeneration.com/Green-Cleaning 
Oklahoma State University - http://ehs.okstate.edu/links/msds.htm
The Green Guide - http://www.thegreenguide.com/ 
Inside Story: Guide to Indoor Air Quality - http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/insidest.html 

What's on the label?

In my quest for wellness I've started taking a closer look at exactly what is in many of the products I use daily. Needless to say I was overwhelmed. Scanning the labels it all seemed like a foreign language to me. I set out to decipher these strange words, and after doing an internet search discovered something called endocrine disrupter chemicals (EDC's).

According to the National Institute of Environmental Sciences, EDC's are "substances in our environment, food, and consumer products that interfere with hormone biosynthesis, metabolism, or action resulting in a deviation from normal homeostatic control or reproduction." Well, that's a mouthful, but the take away is "a deviation from the norm." That doesn't sound good.

Considering that most cosmetics enter the body through the skin, my skin is my largest organ and I use most of these products daily, I decided to narrow my focus to personal care products for now. To make matters worse, I discovered that the cosmetics industry is unregulated. Naively, I thought that they would fall under some regulating agency like the FDA. The reality is the cosmetics industry can call anything natural or herbal even if it contains things that are far from it. For example, most shampoos, lotions, soaps, and cosmetics contain paraben or phenoxyethanol (EDC's), even the so-called natural products.

So what's a hair product, fragrance loving girl to do? Well, if you're politically minded you could get involved in the campaign for safe cosmetics. You can also begin by eliminating just one product at a time from your beauty regimen. Stop using the cosmetic that contains the most EDC's and that you use most frequently and replace it with something that doesn't contain EDc's. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has some great info on their website to help get started. Just click on the post title to view it.

It's been frustrating trying to find personal care products that don't contain EDC's, but I keep reminding myself that small changes can have a big impact. This is especially important considering the cumulative amounts of EDC exposure received through the daily use of these products on our skin. In this case the price of beauty is more than skin deep.

PS I did find a great body lotion at our local herbal pharmacy. Just email me if you're interested.

Sources:
For more information check out http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/docs/endocrine.pdf and http://www.ewg.org/files/EWG_cosmeticsguide.pdf
http://e.hormone.tulane.edu/learning/learning.html
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/index.cfm