defect - The Environment Report

Downstream view of Roberts Creek, IA, where USGS scientists conducted a study of the degradation of atrazine, a herbicide, in streams. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)

People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:

Transcript

Bob Denges is worried. His water is discolored. So he’s
called a water purification company to test it.

(sound of running water)

They’re running water in the basement utility sink. It’s kind
of orange-y looking. So, it’s an easy diagnosis: too much
iron.

“You can probably see in the toilet, upstairs just on the first
floor, that there’s some brownish, reddish discoloration
around the toilets.”

That’s not great. But at least you can tell when there’s iron
in the water. You cannot see or taste other water
contaminants such as weed killers like atrazine.

Tom Bruusema is the water filter expert at the National
Sanitation Foundation. They test and certify water filtration
devices. He says the first place you can check is your local
municipality – the folks that monitor water in your area.

“That would be the place to start. They are required, by
federal law, to measure a number of contaminants, produce
an annual report for their consumers.”

But recently an investigative report by the New York Times
revealed water contamination can spike in some places –
and local water officials might not even know about it.

That weed killer – atrazine – is applied on farm fields and, in a
lot of places, you also find a lot of atrazine in the water
during that time.

If you’re looking for it at the right time.

Sometimes it spikes for longer than a month. But some local
water officials only test for atrazine once a month, or only
once a year, and often it’s not during that peak application
season.

So people can’t really find out about atrazine levels for their
drinking water in those places.

Some water systems are spending lots of money to treat
drinking water to get atrazine levels down to what the federal
government considers safe levels.

But that might not be enough, according to some of the new
scientific evidence about atrazine.

Five studies published in peer-reviewed journals recently
have found evidence suggesting that small amounts of
atrazine in drinking water causes health problems. Even at
levels considered safe by federal standards, atrazine might
be associated with birth defects. Things like low birth
weights in newborns. Skull and facial malformations and
misshapen limbs.

Forty-three water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — recently sued
atrazine’s manufacturers. They want to force the company
Syngenta and its partner Growmark to pay for removing the
chemical from drinking water.

Steve Tillery is an attorney in the lawsuit.

“Some of them have gone to the expense to cleaning it
completely out of their water supplies, so that it doesn’t exist
at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to
reimbursement of expenses for cleaning it completely out of
their water supplies.”

But, some water systems are not cleaning out atrazine
completely. And, as we mentioned, there are times when
some don’t know they exceed the federal safe drinking water
levels.

There is something pretty easy you can do if you’re worried
about your water.

Tom Bruusema of the National Sanitation Foundation says a
simple carbon filter can remove atrazine. Those are the
filters you can attach to the faucet or the pitchers you refill.

“So it’s a good investment. Certainly can help them if they
have those kinds of concerns, and particularly those living in
an area that’s known to have potential contaminants in the
water supply.”

But first people have to be aware of a possible problem.
And, too often, they are not.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Transcript

(Sound of woman and child talking)

Teri Olle is playing dress-up with her two-year-old daughter, Natalie, in the family’s bathroom. Teri is applying lotions to her daughter’s chubby cheeks, while Natalie puts lipstick on her mother.

Little girls like Natalie have been playing dress-up for generations. But Natalie’s game is slightly different. She’s using nail polish, lipsticks and creams made without man-made chemicals.

That’s because her mother is an environmental activist who lobbies against toxic chemical use. With cosmetics, her biggest fear is a group of chemicals called phthalates. Phthalates increase the flexibility of plastic and keep nail polish from chipping.

“Phthalates are testosterone-suppressing synthetic hormones, essentially. And they’ve been linked with all sorts of developmental problems, including, most dramatically, a set of male genital defects that show themselves as birth defects in infant boys.”

Last month, scientists released the first study on male babies. They found a strong link between high levels of phthalates exposure in pregnant women and damage to their sons’ reproductive tract. Studies like this, and others on lab animals showing possible links to reproductive problems, prompted the European Union this past March to ban two types of phthalates from all products sold in Europe. The states of California, New York and Massachusetts are also considering similar plans.

Olle is five months pregnant with her second child. She doesn’t know if she’s carrying a boy, but she says chemicals in cosmetics could be risky for any fetus. So she’s not taking any chances.

“For me, as a person, if someone said to me, ‘You can either use this product that may cause a genital defect in your baby boy or not’, I would think most people would go, ‘Really, we probably shouldn’t be using these products.'”

And it’s not just phthalates that could be a problem. Environmentalists say that the ingredients in cosmetics haven’t been evaluated for health or safety effects. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t do that kind of testing. And in 60 years, it’s banned only nine ingredients. So there are other chemicals, like coal tars used in hair dyes and formaldehyde used in nail polish, that might cause health problems as they’re absorbed by the skin into the bloodstream.

Because of these concerns, a group of environmentalists called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has convinced 136 natural cosmetics companies to sign a pledge to check for potentially toxic chemicals and eliminate them.

One of those companies is Avalon Organics. Over the past year, Avalon’s spent two and a half million dollars to reformulate their products and switch to more natural alternatives. Gil Pritchard is the company’s President and CEO. He says the jury’s out on whether these chemicals definitely cause harm. Even so, he didn’t hesitate to make the investment.

“It’s convincing enough for me and our company to exercise what we call a precautionary principle – to adopt it and say look, we may not have direct scientific evidence, but there’s enough evidence here to say whoa, I can feel the heat from the stove. I don’t need to put my finger on and burn myself to know that that’s one of the likely outcomes.”

But not all companies feel this way. Procter & Gamble, in Cincinnati, Ohio, has not signed the pledge. Nor have any other major cosmetic companies. Tim Long is a company spokesman. He says environmentalists are blowing this issue way out of proportion.

“The amounts of most of these ingredients that the activists have concerns about are, in fact, extremely small and at the doses used in our products, there’s no scientific evidence to support that they’re resulting in any harm to consumers.”

Long says Procter & Gamble complied with the EU directive and took the banned phthalates out of all of its products both in Europe and the U.S. But he says that wasn’t necessary, since phthalates, along with all other cosmetic ingredients, simply aren’t dangerous. He says his company wouldn’t be using them if they were. And the FDA says that these cosmetics are safe.

Environmentalists say that more research needs to be done to better understand the effect of chemicals used in cosmetics on the body. But Teri Olle says that with so many natural alternatives available, it makes sense to be careful.

“When I became pregnant, I definitely became more conscious of what I was putting on my body. I mean, if you’re supposed to avoid soft cheeses and cake batter, it certainly can’t be good for you to be spraying petrochemicals on your body. That definitely can’t be good for the baby.”

So when the baby’s born this September, instead of using products with man-made chemicals, Teri Olle will be spreading diaper rash ointment with beeswax and apricot oil on her newborn baby.

For the GLRC, I’m Julie Halpert.

Tag: defect

Atrazine in Our Water

Transcript

Related Links

Phthalate Concerns Cause Company Makeovers

Transcript

Related Links