PreprintPDF Available

Toxicities of Laundry Products - Review of the Evidence

Authors:
  • No Surrender Breast Cancer Foundation (NSBCF)
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

This review of the aggregated data to date finds the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the contention that many laundry and household cleaning products add significant elevated risk to humans in the domains of reproductive/fertility risk; respiratory/pulmonary (asthma, cardiopulmonary disease) risk; neurological/cognitive (ADHD, autism) risk; metabolic (diabetes, obesity) risk; and oncogenic (cancer) risk. We focus discussion on laundry products, the subject of much research and regulatory scrutiny. We also provide a summary of existing and emerging legislation, national and global, to regulate and thereby limit the potential multifaceted harms of these products (phthalates, plasiticizers, bisphenols, PBDEs, PAHs, phenols, and PFAS substances). Concerns have been sufficiently serious and well evidenced that most of these toxic chemicals have been banned in the EU and over 40 other nations, as well as in California, with pending prohibitions in over a dozen other states (including CT, NY, NJ, MA), and with retailers like Home Depot, Lowe's, Walmart, Target, Apple, Hewlett Packard and 100+ others pledging for their elimination from cosmetics, personal care and household products in near future.
Constantine Kaniklidis
Director, Medical Research, No Surrender Breast Cancer Foundation (NSBCF)
Oncology Reviewer, Current Oncology
Member, European Association for Cancer Research (EACR)
Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO)
International Cardio-oncology Society (ICOS)
Association for Frontotemporal Dementia (AFTD)
Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART)
International Society for Infectious Diseases (ISID)
ORCID ID/Profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7043-5937
ResearchGate.net: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Constantine_Kaniklidis
Date: January, 2022 edition
Abstract
This review of the aggregated data to date finds the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the
contention that many laundry and household cleaning products add significant elevated risk to humans
in the domains of reproductive/fertility risk; respiratory/pulmonary (asthma, cardiopulmonary disease)
risk; neurological/cognitive (ADHD, autism) risk; metabolic (diabetes, obesity) risk; and oncogenic
(cancer) risk. We focus discussion on laundry products, the subject of much research and regulatory
scrutiny. We also provide a summary of existing and emerging legislation, national and global, to
regulate and thereby limit the potential multifaceted harms of these products (phthalates, plasiticizers,
bisphenols, PBDEs, PAHs, phenols, PFAS substances, and the contaminant 1,4-dioxane). Concerns
have been sufficiently serious and well evidenced that most of these toxic chemicals have been banned
in the EU and over 40 other nations, as well as in California, with pending prohibitions in over a dozen
other states (including CT, NY, NJ, MA), and with retailers like Home Depot, Lowe's, Walmart, Target,
Apple, Hewlett Packard and 100+ others pledging for their elimination from cosmetics, personal care
and household products in near future.
Overview of the Dangers: Our review of the aggregated data to date finds the weight of the evidence
demonstrating that among household, personal care, and cosmetic products, dryer sheets in
particular along with fragranced laundry products, add significant risk to humans in various domains:
Reproductive/fertility: this stems largely from endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC)
components like phthalates, bisphenols, and parabens that can dysregulate estrogen
pathways, and can also serve as “pubertal influencers”, advancing to younger years the age of
puberty.
Respiratory/pulmonary: in particular asthma and cardiopulmonary diseases.
Neurological/cognitive: the components can exert neurotoxic activity, with adverse impact on
ADHD and autism, among others.
Metabolic disease: especially diabetes and obesity, where the components can be said to be
obesogenic.
Oncogenic (cancer): increasing risk of endocrine-related cancers, especially breast cancer and
prostate cancer, but also lung, thyroid and hepatocellular cancer.
1
TOXICITIES OF LAUNDRY PRODUCTS: REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
Numerous extensive investigations and aggregated scientific safety and toxicity studies have
concluded that common products used in the laundry process contain complex mixtures of
endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) and asthma-related compounds [Dodson 2012]. EDCs are
agents that can alter hormonal signaling, mimicking estrogen, and have potential effects on
developing reproductive and nervous systems, metabolism, and cancer, and can also be associated
with adverse developmental effects and in humans [Colborn 1993] [Parlett 2013] [Jurewicz 2011]
[Chen 2014] [Ventrice 2014].
Phthalates are used in fragrances, home and personal care products, and laundry products, and
because they are semi-volatile, they are found in indoor air and dust, with exposure to humans via
inhalation, ingestion, and skin absorption. In addition, note that phthalates – like DEP (diethyl
phthalate) - are often added to fragrance to make the scent linger, so are extremely common in all
scented products including dryer sheets and softeners. These phthalates (Phth), known endocrine-
disruptors, may play a role in breast carcinogenesis. Low-molecular-weight phthalates (LMWPhth)
are commonly found in personal care products while high MWPhth (HMWPhth) are used primarily as
plasticizers. The weight of the scientific evidence finds that phthalates are associated with asthma
and wheezing in children [Bornehag 2010] [Kumar 1995] [Parks 2020], among other harms (see
below), as are other common laundry agents. The specific epidemiology of one of these, asthma-
related QACs (quaternary ammonium compounds, aka “quats”) has been reviewed extensively by the
Mount Sinai Selikoff Centers for Occupational Health (SSCOH) in collaboration with the Bellevue/NYU
Occupational & Environmental Medicine Clinic (BNOEMC) [SSCOH/BNOEMC 2016].
This has led to numerous calls by environmental scientists for the total prohibition from all consumer
products of such agents. One of the latest is that of Dr. Russ Hauser, Professor of Reproductive
Physiology and Professor of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan
School of Public Health recent issuance, along with experts in toxic chemicals and neurodevelopment
who are members of Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks)
[http://projecttendr.com/], of a National Call to Action (“Why phthalates should be restricted or
banned from consumer products” [Hauser 2021]), supported by
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences NIEHS) National Toxicology Program
(NTP),
the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health (CERCH),
the American Academy of Pediatrics Environmental Health Council,
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),
the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE),
the Commission on Environmental Health National Medical Association,
the Science and Environmental Health Network,
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
the Children’s Environmental Health Network,
among dozens of others across the nation. (See our summary of legislation in the Appendix of this
document). Collectively, on the neurological front alone, there is overwhelming scientific evidence
linking these toxic environmental chemicals to neurodevelopmental disorders that can impair brain
development and increase risks for learning, attention, and behavioral disorders in childhood,
2
including autism spectrum disorder, attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability and
learning disorders [Engel 2021].
What’s Lurking in the Laundry: The labeling terms “natural,” “nontoxic,” and “green” are unregulated
and require no standardized ingredient information. Indeed, in a recent study [Steinemann 2011]
found that the VOC composition of “green”-labeled fragranced products was not significantly
different from that of other fragranced products with regard to number of hazardous chemicals as
defined under U.S. federal laws [Potera 2011]. Testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)
has also revealed that 75% of the fragrances contain phthalates, linked to diabetes, obesity and
hormone (endocrine) disruption which affects both development and fertility, and the Mt. Sinai
Children’s Environmental Health Center (CEHC) has linked exposure to synthetic fragrance that
including endocrine disruptors (as with dryer sheets) in first and third prenatal exposure to ADHD and
autism [Landrigan 2012] [Mount Sinai 2012] [Bagasra 2013]. Recognizing the household dust is a
vast repository of consumer product chemicals and pollutants, researchers at UC Davis conducted a
large study of these potentially hazardous agents in California house dust [Shin 2020],including
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) for which household dust in a reservoir, finding that in the
-119 newly detected compounds, 13 had endocrine disrupting potential, while another 7 had
neurotoxic potential. These included phthalates, plasiticizers, bisphenols, PBDEs (polybrominated
-diphenyl ethers), OP FRs (organophosphate flame retardants); PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons), phenols, and PFAS.
PFAS in the Laundry, and in Us, Forever
-This latter group of chemicals, the PFAS (per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) represents a class of
over 5000 chemicals used cosmetics, laundry products, household cleaning products, cookware and
food packaging, carpeting, outdoor attire, firefighting foams and in almost innumerable industrial
processes before been discharged into our waterways and which are linked to cancer promotion,
hormone disruption, immune suppression, and adverse reproductive functioning. Because of the fact
that they are highly resistant to breaking down in the environment and so may be with us forever,
they are commonly called “forever chemicals”, and can be found in the blood, breast milk, and a
newborn baby’s umbilical cord blood [Perfluorochemicals CDC 2017]. And contrary to constant
reassurance by the chemical industry that current use of PFAS does not build up in humans, recent
evidence decisively shows the opposite: in a recent study [Zheng 2021] these toxic PFAS chemicals
were found in 100% of breast milk samples in mothers tested in the United States, exposing nursing
infants to significant harms, including the later development of immune dysfunction, dyslipidemia,
pregnancy-induced hypertension, damage to the liver, elevated risk of thyroid disease, reduced
fertility, and various cancers [Rappazo 2017] [Sunderland 2019]. And it is demonstrated that current-
use short-chain PFAS have been increasing worldwide, doubling about every 4 years [Zheng 2021].
Finally, there’s is mounting evidence that PFAS exposure may exert immunotoxic activity, likely
compromising the effective immune response, especially critical in vulnerable populations and in a
time of the COVID-19 pandemic [Quinete 2021].
The Fragrance-Free Myth
Note that although many of these products may be labeled as 'fragrance-free' they may still contain
fragrance compounds if those are used not for scent per se, but rather as preservatives or fixatives.
3
In a seminal study of effective VOC-reduction strategies [Goodman 2019], researchers conducted a
comprehensive study of emissions from dryer vents during use of fragranced versus fragrance-free
laundry products, showing that the simple strategy of changing from fragranced to fragrance-free
products can be an effective approach to reducing ambient air pollution and potential health risks.
This, in households using fragranced laundry detergent, the highest concentration of d-limonene (a
common fragrance agent found in laundry products like dryer sheets and detergents) from a dryer
vent was 118 μg/m3, compared to just 0.26 μg/m3 in households using only fragrance-free laundry
products, and after households using fragranced detergent switched to using fragrance-free
detergent, the concentrations of d-limonene in dryer vent emissions were reduced by up to 99.7%. D-
limonene is associated with multiple adverse effects, including breathing difficulties manifested in
wheezing or coughing [NICNAS 2002], and can react with ozone to generate hazardous air pollutants
which include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and ultrafine particles, known respiratory irritants and
carcinogens [Nazaroff 2004].
In the U.S. 12.5% of adults reported adverse health effects (asthma attacks, migraine headaches)
from the fragrance of laundry products emitting from a dryer vent, with 28.9% of adults with
diagnosed asthma or an asthma-like condition reporting adverse health effects from these dryer-vent
fragrances [Steinemann 2018; 2018c]. It has been noted that the pathologies triggered by endocrine
disrupting compounds (EDCs) include neuropathies like depression and autism), malignant disease
like breast cancer and prostate cancer, endocrinopathies like gynacomastia, organ damage like
hepatotoxicity, among many others [Patel 2017].
On a positive note, it has been demonstrated that switching from fragranced to fragrance-free
laundry products allows dryer vent emissions of a leading contaminant and environmental pollutant,
limonene, to be reduced up to 99.7% [Goodman 2021].
The Cancer Connection: In addition, there are "secondary hazard" effects: limonene and other
volatile aromatic terpenes (pine, citrus oils, essential oils) react with ozone present in the
surrounding air to generate secondary pollutants that including formaldehyde (probable human
carcinogen), acetaldehyde (probable human carcinogen), acetone (respiratory / pulmonary irritant),
and ultra-fine particles known as PM0.1 (these are classified by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) as Group 1 human
carcinogens, associated with lung cancer and as well as cardiopulmonary disease) [ACS]). Another
class of agents commonly used in dryer sheets is nonylphenol ethoxylates (or NPEs), a mix of
petrochemical cleaning agents also used in many laundry detergents as surfactants (lowering the
surface tension of water to allow for a deeper clean each time they are used). And it is known that
certain agents like dichlorobenzene can not only induce irritation of the skin, throat and eyes, but
have chronic (long-term) effects on the liver, skin, and central nervous system (CNS), which has led
the EPA to warning of it being suspected to cause human cancer, therefore classifying it as a possible
human carcinogen [EPA 1999.]. Despite being completely banned in Canada and the EU, these
agents are still found in laundry products in the U.S.
The Breast Cancer Connection: Most alarmingly, new human clinical evidence from the Multiethnic
Cohort Study of 798 women just presented this June (2020) shows that phthalate exposure – and
4
also parabens [BCPP Parabens] and other EDCs – is associated with increased risk of invasive breast
cancer [Wu 2020], and may be higher risk still in subgroups of women with greater genetic
susceptibility (such as women with BRCA-mutations), as shown in a just published (August, 2020)
systematic review of 56 studies [Zeinomar 2020], cross-validating other critical studies [Terry 2019]
[Ahern 2019]. A widely used class of phthalates, known as high molecular weight phthalates
(HMWPhth) are used primarily as plasticizers found in a broad swatch of products from personal care
to laundry products including dryer sheets, but in the notoriously underregulated U.S. markets,
producers are not required by the FDA to list all ingredients in a product, only so-called “active
ingredients”, and numerous individual chemicals in cosmetics like phthalates in fragrances are not
required to be labeled, and so represent a hidden danger to the consumer [BCPP Phthalates]. This is
in contrast to the EU where full-disclosure is required, and endocrine disruptors like phthalates and
parabens have already been prohibited since 2005.
We also have several epidemiological studies linking endocrine disrupting compound (EDC) exposure
with breast cancer risk, and still more importantly, with poor prognosis, which include the case-
control study finding increased risk of breast cancer in North Mexico states among women exposed to
diethyl phthalate [Lopez-Carrillo 2010], in agreement with the reviews from The Silent Spring
Institute [Rodgers 2018], and the “Coimbra” Review [Encarnação 2019]. This wide spectrum and
penetration of adverse effects of endocrine disrupting compound (EDC) was acknowledged by as
early as The Endocrine Society in 2009 in their Scientific Statement on EDCs addressing the concerns
to public health based on evidence of the effects of EDCs on male [Radke 2018] and female
reproduction, breast development, prostate and breast cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid,
metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology [Diamanti-Kandarakis 2009]. In addition,
EDCs can function as pubertal influencers, accelerating the processing of maturation of secondary
sexual characteristics [Lucaccioni 2020], with recent studies accumulating evidence of exposure to
EDCs during puberty predisposing to breast cancer later in life, and affecting a woman’s reproductive
potential and ovarian reserve, and influence outcome in assisted reproductive technology (ART),
while elevating risk of the development of breast cancer at any age [Karwacka 2019] [Yilmaz 2020]
[Giulivo 2017] [Morgan 2017].
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) released a landmark report in 2018 — Right to Know:
Exposing Toxic Fragrance Chemicals in Beauty, Personal Care and Cleaning Products [BCPP Right to
Know]. The report exposes the presence of harmful fragrance chemicals linked to cancer, hormone
disruption, reproductive harm, and respiratory toxicity, not appearing on the label, especially
unregulated toxic fragrance chemicals, all tested by BCPP using state-of-the-art laboratory testing
via two-dimensional gas chromatography (GCxGC) Time-of-Flight (TOF) analysis. Fragrance
chemicals made up three-quarters of the toxic chemicals in the beauty, personal care and cleaning /
household products tested, with one in four of the total 338 fragrance chemicals detected linked to
serious chronic health effects, as documented in their Red List of Chemicals of Concern as part of their
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics [BCPP Red List]. The list included 102 chemicals found in personal care
products that pose serious chronic health concerns including cancer, hormone disruption, and
reproductive and developmental harm, and also now includes chemicals used in cleaning products
and in fragrance (including dryer sheet products like Bounce whose Dryer Sheets have received an
“F” rating from the Environmental Working Group (EWG, and whose improved Bounce Dryer Sheets,
5
Free & Gentle, have fared only marginally better, with a “D” rating), all cross-confirmed by
authoritative scientific bodies.
Finally, there are subtle metabolic and cognitive effects that are of especial concern:
Metabolic Effects: A recent review of the evidence has found an "obesogenic" impact from EDCs
(including bisphenols, phthalates, biphenyls, and parabens, all common in laundry products including
dryer sheets and laundry softeners), in that early life exposure to EDCs may impose an increased risk
of obesity in later life [Yang 2018] [Mallhi 2011] and the effect of such exposure has further been
found to correlate with increased body weight and/or body mass index during all life stages [Legeay
2017] [Liu 2019] [Liu 2017].
Cognitive Effects: Beyond these adverse effects, more evidence has accumulated than was
previously identified, and critically reviewed and distilled this year (2020), for cognitive deficits and
attention-deficit disorder in children following prenatal exposure to bisphenols [Kahn 2020].
6
Appendix: Legislation, Regulation and Voluntary Restrictions
Based on the robust aggregated evidence of multiple harms, including the fact that in California, 1.6
tons of volatile organic compounds or VOCs are emitted daily from fragranced cosmetics and
personal care products alone [BCPP Legislation 2020], vastly more if we add cleaning and laundry
products, California now bans 24 endocrine disrupting compounds including phthalates and parabens
linked to breast cancer, as of the signing into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom of the landmark Toxic-Free
Cosmetics Act (TFCA), Assembly Bill 2762, as of September 30th of this year (2020), joining the
European Union and over 40 other nations (including Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and the United
Kingdom among others), in protecting against these widespread but hidden toxic compounds
[California TFCA 2020]. SB312 also closes an abused federal labeling loophole allowing companies
to claim trade secret protection for chemicals used to impart fragrance or flavor. The banned
chemicals are:
Dibutyl phthalate (endocrine disruptor linked to breast cancer)
Diethylhexyl phthalate (endocrine disruptor linked to breast cancer)
Formaldehyde (a known carcinogen)
Isobutylparaben (endocrine disruptor linked to breast cancer)
Isopropylparaben (endocrine disruptor linked to breast cancer)
Long chain PFAS chemicals (endocrine disruptors linked to cancer and immune system
suppression)
Methylene glycol (a type of formaldehyde)
Mercury and related compounds (known neurotoxins)
Paraformaldehyde (a known carcinogen)
2 types of Phenylenediamine (damage DNA and linked to cancers)
Quaternium-15 (which releases formaldehyde)
Besides California that has already legislated its ban through the passage in law of the Toxic-Free
Cosmetics Act (TFCA), the following states to follow similarly:
States Also Considering Banning of Toxic Personal Care and Cleaning Products:
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
with other joining in near future. And a move to national regulations is already underway, with several
proposals currently pending in Congress (one being H.R. 5279 Amendment: Cosmetic Safety
Enhancement Act of 2020). All phthalates are classified as dangerous substances by the European
Union’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation.
7
Legislative Action in New York State (NYS): A landmark advance is Governor Cuomo’s signing into
law a bill (NYS Bill No. 4389B/A 6295A) [NYS Senate Bill S4389B] that bans more than trace amounts
of the toxin and carcinogen 1,4-dioxane, a known contaminant and carcinogen (classified it as a
Group B2, probable human carcinogen, by the EPA) that readily penetrates the skin and can be
released to the air and people breathe it, and migrates to New York’s water systems and water
bodies as well as workplaces, and in a broad spectrum of products we use. 1,4-dioxane is
widespread in laundry products, especially detergents, but also in cosmetic products and personal
care products, and in 97% of hair relaxers, 57% of baby soaps and children's bubble bath and body
washes, with the high levels in products that include Victoria Secret’s shower gels, Tide Original
laundry detergent, Dreft Stage 1/Newborn baby laundry detergent, and Ivory Snow 2X Ultra
Detergent, and so ubiquitous that in an assessment by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), it
was found that 22 percent of all products for any use whatsoever may be contaminated with 1,4-
dioxane [EWG Report 2007]. Note that it has three routes: by skin penetration, by consumption of
polluted water, and more rarely, by inhalation (mainly among industrial workers in close contact with
it). Given the extensive use of dioxane across the Tide product line, Tide is reducing amounts after
successful lawsuits against it from consumer environmental groups. The NYS ban officially begins to
take effect January 1, 2023, with increasingly stringent requirements over a two-year period, and
California and many other states to shortly follow suit. Efforts to bring forward the start date by a
year are currently ongoing.
1,4-dioxane a Byproduct, not an Ingredient: It is important to understand that 1,4-dioxane will not be
found on any product label, as it is a contaminant byproduct of the combination of other ingredients
reacting together to form it, under the process known as ethoxylation. Common ingredients that lead
to 1,4-dioxane formation are from sodium laureth sulfate, any chemical in the polyethylene glycol
(PEG) class, and chemicals compounds with “xynol”, “ceteareth”, “oleth” “laureate”, and “myrrh”,
as part of their designations.
Legislative Action at the Multi-state Level: on March 22, 2021 New York Attorney General Letitia
James, leading a coalition of 15attorneys general (NY, HI, IL, MA, ME, MD, MN, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT,
VA, WA, DC, and City of New York) served legal action [NY Attorney General 2021] in support the
Biden Administration’s remedy against the numerous deficiencies of the EPA’s risk evaluation of the
highly-toxic chemical 1,4-dioxane (hereafter “dioxane”), a risk evaluationthat was one of numerous
“midnight” blatantly anti-environmental actions taken by the former administration in its closing
days. The EPA’s risk evaluation has minimized or dismissed dioxane’s well evidenced dangers to
workers, low-income communities residents, communities of color, and the general public, with the
manifest intent to restrict the EPA from implementing regulatory measures to eliminate the
substantial health risks posed dioxane.
The action of this “AG Coalition” as we call it, seeks to support the Biden Administration’s current
and projected efforts to correct the many deficiencies in the EPA’s dioxane risk evaluation. And given
that the procedures used for chemical risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) have been identified as potentially contrary to President Biden’s Executive Order on
8
Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,
Executive Order No. 13990 [Executive Order Whitehouse 2021], they are therefore subject to
revision, rescission, or suspension.
The AG Coalition charges that the EPA under the former administration ignored both science and the
law in an effort to block necessary action to address the numerous serious health and environmental
dangers via a fatally-flawed risk evaluation.
The chemical is also formed as a byproduct from the breakdown of other chemicals in a variety of
consumer products, including laundry and other detergents, household cleaners, and personal care
products, and is released into the air, water, and soil at places where it is produced or used. The New
York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) has reported that at least 12 million New Yorkers
drink water with some level of significant concern of 1,4-dioxane contamination, and in addition their
data analysis has found that 176 water systems that impact 16 million New Yorkers contain one or
more emerging contaminants, with every region in New York State affected, and in Long Island’s
groundwater, which is the sole source of drinking water for almost 3 million state residents.
Because of its potential for substantial harm to public health and the environment, the EPA selected
1,4-dioxane as one of the initial 10 chemical substances subject to its initial risk evaluations,
required under the TSCA amendments of 2016. That law requires the EPA to perform comprehensive
evaluations of the risks associated with the “full range of exposures” people have to the chemical.
The coalition argues that the EPA’s 1,4-dioxane risk evaluation excludes many potential pathways
and exposures.
Despite the fact that 1,4-dioxane has many significant exposure pathways that expose people to the
toxic chemical, including drinking contaminated water, breathing contaminated air, exposure through
contaminated soil, and including exposure from laundry products, the EPA’s risk evaluation under the
former administration found no “unreasonable risk” to the general public from 1,4-dioxane’s
numerous uses. But the EPA risk evaluation is fatally confounded by the fact the exposure to the
general public the EPA examined was limited to solely recreational swimming, with no examination
exposure pathway like drinking contaminated water, and using household and laundry cleaning that
can significantly harm people’s health. The EPA is also charged by the AG Coalition with failing to
assess 1,4-dioxane’s exposure risks to vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant
women, workers, and the elderlywhose risk may be substantially higher than the general public, and
the EPA used the unsupported assumption that workers will use consistently, properly and
effectively use personal protective equipment, which is assumed – with evidence – to protect against
1,4-dioxane exposure, and by doing so the EPA underestimated the chemical’s risks to workers, and
succumbed to the urgings of industry trade groups intent on blocking related state-level policies.
Corporate Level Action: In addition, many environmentally conscious firms have taken the initiative,
including:
Home providers Home Depot, Lowe’s, and IKEA
Computer giants Apple and Hewlett Packard,
9
Ahold Delhaize (grocery chain owning Food Lion, Giant Food, Giant/Martin’s, Hannaford, and
Stop & Shop) which has banned phthalates from their branded products in all grocery, baby
food and infant formula, and in all formulated laundry products, as well as personal care,
cosmetic, and baby products,
Health and Home Products retailers CVS, Rite-Aid, Walmart, Target, Walgreens, Amazon, and
Costco who have reduced the use of phthalates in beauty and personal care products, as well
as household products, with the ultimate goal of complete elimination
among a very rapidly growing list of others (Whole Foods, Sephora, Annie’s, Mohawk, Tarkett, SC
Johnson, Steelcase, Kaiser Permanente, . . . ); for more, consult Who’s Minding the Store? — A Report
Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals, from by the Mind the Store campaign, a
program of Toxic-Free Future, which issues a Grade Report for the top retailers.
10
References
[ACS] American Cancer Society (ACS). Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-
carcinogens.html]
[Ahern 2019] Ahern TP, Broe A, Lash TL, et al. Phthalate Exposure and Breast Cancer Incidence: A
Danish Nationwide Cohort Study. J Clin Oncol 2019 ;17.
[Bagasra 2013] Bagasra O, Golkar Z, Garcia M, Rice LN, Pace DG. Role of perfumes in pathogenesis of
autism. Med Hypotheses. 2013 Jun; 80(6):795-803.
[BCPP 2020] California First State To Ban 24 Toxic Chemicals in Personal Care Products and
Cosmetics. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Sept. 30, 2020. Available at:
https://www.bcpp.org/resource/california-first-state-to-ban-24-toxic-chemicals-in-personal-care-
products-and-cosmetics/.
[BCPP Legislation 2020] Cars Aren’t the Only Thing Polluting Our Air. Breast Cancer Prevention
Partners. Sept. 30, 2020. Available at: https://www.bcpp.org/resource/cars-arent-the-only-thing-
polluting-our-air/.
[BCPP Phthalates] Phthalates. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Available at:
https://www.bcpp.org/resource/phthalates/
[BCPP Red List] Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP): Avoiding the Use of Chemicals with
Adverse Health Effects in Cosmetics, Cleaning Products and Fragrance. Available at:
https://www.bcpp.org/resource/red-list/
[BCPP Right to Know] Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP). Right to Know: Exposing Toxic
Fragrance Chemicals in Beauty, Personal Care, and Cleaning Products. Breast Cancer Prevention
Partners. 2018. Available at: https://www.bcpp.org/resources/right-to-know-exposing-toxic-
fragrance-chemicals-report/
[Bornehag 2010] Bornehag CG, Nanberg E. Phthalate exposure and asthma in children. Int J Androl.
2010;33:333–345.
[California TFCA 2020] California First State To Ban 24 Toxic Chemicals in Personal Care Products
and Cosmetics. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Sept. 30, 2020. Available at:
https://www.bcpp.org/resource/california-first-state-to-ban-24-toxic-chemicals-in-personal-care-
products-and-cosmetics/.
[Chen 2014] Chen X, Xu S, Tan T, et al. Toxicity and estrogenic endocrine disrupting activity of
phthalates and their mixtures. InternJ Environmental Res Public Health 2014;11(3):3156-3168.
[Colborn 1993] Colborn T, vom Saal FS, Soto A. Developmental effects of endocrine-disrupting
chemicals in wildlife and humans. Environ Health Perspect. 1993;101:378–385.
[Dabre 2018] Darbre PD. Human health implications of personal care products: Breast cancer and
other breast-related diseases. In Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10997-2.
[Diamanti-Kandarakis 2009] Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Bourguignon JP, Giudice LC. Endocrine-
disrupting chemicals: an endocrine society scientific statement. Endocr Rev 2009; 30: 293–342.
[Dodson 2012] Dodson RE, Nishioka M, Standley LJ, Perovich LJ, Brody JG, Rudel RA. Endocrine
disruptors and asthma-associated chemicals in consumer products. Environ Health Perspect. 2012
Jul; 120(7):935-43.
[Encarnação 2019] Encarnação T, Pais AA, Campos MG, Burrows HD. Endocrine disrupting chemicals:
Impact on human health, wildlife and the environment. Sci Prog. 2019 03; 102(1):3-42.
11
[Engel 2021] Engel SM, Patisaul HB, Brody C, et al. Neurotoxicity of Ortho-Phthalates:
Recommendations for Critical Policy Reforms to Protect Brain Development in Children. Am J Public
Health. 2021 04; 111(4):687-695.
[EWG 2013] Environmental Working Group (EWG). Dirty Dozen Endocrine Disruptors – 12 Hormone-
Altering Chemicals and How to Avoid Them. 2013. Available at:
https://www.ewg.org/research/dirty-dozen-list-endocrine-disruptors
[Executive Order Whitehouse 2021 ] Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. White House Briefing Room.
January 20, 2021. At:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-
protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/
[EPA 1999] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC 1999.
[EWG Report 2007] [EWG Research Shows 22 Percent of All Cosmetics May Be Contaminated With
Cancer-Causing Impurity. Report, 8 February 2007; at: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-
release/ewg-research-shows-22-percent-all-cosmetics-may-be-contaminated-cancer#:~:text=In
%20a%20new%2C%20computerized%20assessment,like%20ingredients%20that%20the
%20cosmetics]
[Giulivo 2016] Giulivo M. Lopez de Alda M, Capri E, Barcelo D. Human exposure to endocrine
disrupting compounds: their role in reproductive systems, metabolic syndrome and breast cancer. A
review. Environ Res. 2016;151:251–64.
[Goodman 2019] Goodman NB, Wheeler AJ, Paevere PJ, et al. Emissions from dryer vents during use
of fragranced and fragrance-free laundry products. Air Qual Atmos Health 2019; 12, 289–295.
[Goodman 2021] Goodman N, Nematollahi N, Steinemann A. Fragranced laundry products and
emissions from dryer vents: implications for air quality and health. Air Qual Atmos Health 14, 245–
249 (2021).
[Hauser 2021] Hauser, R. “Why phthalates should be restricted or banned from consumer products”.
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. News. March 10, 2021. At:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-big-3-why-phthalates-should-be-restricted-or-
banned-from-consumer-products/.
[Jurewicz 2011] Jurewicz J, Hanke W. Exposure to phthalates: reproductive outcome and children
health. A review of epidemiological studies. Intern J Occupat Med and Environmental Health 2013;
24(2):115-141.
[Kahn 2020] Kahn LG, Philippat C, Nakayama SF, Slama R, Trasande L. Endocrine-disrupting
chemicals: implications for human health. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 08; 8(8):703-718.
[Karwacka 2019] Karwacka A, Zamkowska D, Radwan M, Jurewicz J. Exposure to modern,
widespread environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals and their effect on the reproductive
potential of women: an overview of current epidemiological evidence. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2019 Apr;
22(1):2-25.]
[Kumar 1995] Kumar P, Caradonna-Graham VM, Gupta S, Cai X, Rao PN, Thompson J. Inhalation
challenge effects of perfume scent strips in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.
1995;75:429–433.
12
[Legeay 2017] Legeay S, Faure S. Is bisphenol A an environmental obesogen? Fundam Clin
Pharmacol. 2017 Dec; 31(6):594-609.
[Landrigan 2012] Landrigan P, Lambertini L, Birnbaum L. A Research Strategy to Discover the
Environmental Causes of Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 2012.
[Liu 2017] Liu B, Lehmler HJ, et al. Bisphenol A substitutes and obesity in US adults: analysis of a
population-based, cross-sectional study. Lancet Planet Health. 2017 Jun; 1(3):e114-e122.
[Liu 2019] Liu B, Lehmler HJ, Sun Y, et al. Association of Bisphenol A and Its Substitutes, Bisphenol F
and Bisphenol S, with Obesity in United States Children and Adolescents. Diabetes Metab J. 2019 02;
43(1):59-75.
[Lopez-Carrillo 2010] Lopez-Carrillo L, Hernandez-Ramirez RU, Calafat AM, et al. Exposure to
phthalates and breast cancer risk in northern Mexico. Environ. Health Perspect 2010; 118:539–544,
10.1289/ehp.0901091.
[Lucaccioni 2020] Lucaccioni L, Trevisani V, Marrozzini L, et al. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and
Their Effects during Female Puberty: A Review of Current Evidence. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 18; 21(6).
[Mallhi 2011] Mallhi T.H., Khokhar A., Khan Y.H., Alotaibi N.H., Khan A. Endocrine Disrupting
Chemicals Induced Childhood Obesity. In: Akash M., Rehman K., Hashmi M. (eds) Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals-induced Metabolic Disorders and Treatment Strategies. Emerging
Contaminants and Associated Treatment Technologies. 2011. Springer, Cham.
[Morgan 2017] Morgan M, Deoraj A, Felty Q, Roy D. Environmental estrogen-like endocrine disrupting
chemicals and breast cancer. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2017;457:89–102.
[Mount Sinai 2012] Mount Sinai Medical Center. "Top ten toxic chemicals suspected to cause autism
and learning disabilities." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 April 2012.
[Nazaroff 2004] Nazaroff WW, Weschler CJ. Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to
primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmos Environ 2004; 38(18):2841–2865.
[NICMAS 2002] NICNAS. National industrial chemicals notification and assessment scheme.
Limonene priority existing chemical assessment report number 22. Commonwealth of Australia
2002. Available at: https://www.industrialchemicals.gov.au/sites/default/files/PEC22-
Limonene.pdf.
[NY Attorney General 2021] Attorney General James Takes Action to Correct “Fatally-Flawed” Toxic
Chemical Risk Evaluation. Press Release. March 22, 2021. At:
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-takes-action-correct-fatally-flawed-
toxic-chemical-risk
[NYS Senate Bill S4389B] Senate Bill S4389B. Signed By Governor Cuomo. 2019-2020 Legislative
Session. At: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s4389/amendment/b.
[Parks 2020] Parks J, McCandless L, Dharma C, et al. Association of use of cleaning products with
respiratory health in a Canadian birth cohort. CMAJ. 2020 Feb 18;192(7):E154-E161.
[Parlett 2013] Parlett LE, Calafat AM, Swan SH. Women’s exposure to phthalates in relation to use of
personal care products. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2013; 23(2),
197-206.
[Patel 2017] Patel S. Fragrance compounds: The wolves in sheep's clothings. Med Hypotheses. 2017
May; 102:106-111.
13
[Perfluorochemicals CDC 2017] Perfluorochemicals. Biomonitoring Summary. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). 7 April 2017. At:
https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/PFAS_BiomonitoringSummary.html
[Potera 2011] Potera C. Scented products emit a bouquet of VOCs. Environ Health Perspect 2011
119:A16, 10.1289/ehp.119-a16.
[Quinete 2021] Quinete N, Hauser-Davis RA. Drinking water pollutants may affect the immune
system: concerns regarding COVID-19 health effects. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021; 28:1235–1246.
[Radke 2018] Radke EG, Braun JM, Meeker JD, Cooper GS. Phthalate exposure and male
reproductive outcomes: A systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environment
International 2018;121, 764-793.
[Rappazo 2017] Rappazzo, K. M.; Coffman, E.; Hines, E. P. Exposure to perfluorinated alkyl
substances and health outcomes in children: A systematic review of the epidemiologic literature. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 691.
[Rodgers 2018] Rodgers, KM, Udesky, JO, Rudel, RA. Environmental chemicals and breast cancer: an
updated review of epidemiological literature informed by biological mechanisms. Environ Res 2018;
160: 152–182.
[SSCOH/BNOEMC 2016] Mount Sinai Selikoff Centers for Occupational Health. Bellevue/NYU
Occupational & Environmental Medicine Clinic. Quaternary Ammonium Compounds in Cleaning
Products Health & Safety Information for Health Professionals. 2016. Available at:
https://med.nyu.edu/pophealth/sites/default/files/pophealth/QACs%20Info%20for
%20Physicians_18.pdf
[Shin 2020] - Shin H M, Moschet C, Young TM, Bennett DH. Measured concentrations of consumer
product chemicals in California house dust: Implications for sources, exposure, and toxicity potential.
Indoor Air. 2020; 30: 60– 75.
[Steinemann 2011] Steinemann AC, MacGregor IC, Gordon SM, Gallagher LG, Davis AL, Ribeiro DS, et
al. Fragranced consumer products: chemicals emitted, ingredients unlisted. Environ Impact Assess
Rev. 2011;31(3):328–333.
[Steinemann 2013] Steinemann AC, Gallagher LG, Davis AL, MacGregor IC. Chemical emissions from
residential dryer vents during use of fragranced laundry products. Air Qual Atmos Health 2013;
6(1):151–156.
[Steinemann 2015] Steinemann A. Volatile emissions from common consumer products. Air Qual
Atmos Health 2015; 8(3):273–281.
[Steinemann 2016] Steinemann A. Fragranced consumer products: exposures and effects from
emissions. Air Qual Atmos Health 2016; 9:861–866.
[Steinemann 2017] Steinemann A. Health and societal effects from exposure to fragranced consumer
products. Prev Med Rep 2017; 5:45–47.
[Steinemann 2018] Steinemann A. Fragranced consumer products: sources of emissions, exposures,
and health effects in the UK. Air Qual Atmos Health 2018; 11(3):253–256.
[Steinemann 2018a] Steinemann A. Exposures and effects from fragranced consumer products in
Sweden. Air Qual Atmos Health 2018; 11(5):485–491.
[Steinemann 2018b] Steinemann A. Fragranced consumer products: effects on asthmatics. Air Qual
Atmos Health 2018; 11(1):3–9.
[Steinemann 2018c] Steinemann A, Wheeler AJ, Larcombe A. Fragranced consumer products: effects
on asthmatic Australians. Air Qual Atmos Health 2018; 11(4):365–371.
14
[Sunderland 2019] Sunderland, E. M.; Hu, X. C.; Dassuncao, C.; Tokranov, A. K.; Wagner, C. C.; Allen,
J. G. A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)
and present understanding of health effects. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2019, 29, 131– 147.
[Terry 2019] Terry MB, Michels KB, Brody JG, et al. Environmental exposures during windows of
susceptibility for breast cancer: a framework for prevention research. Breast Cancer Res. 2019 08
20; 21(1):96.
[Ventrice 2014] Ventrice P, Ventrice D, Russo E, De Sarro G. Phthalates: European regulation,
chemistry, pharmacokinetic and related toxicity.Environmental toxicology and pharmacology, 36(1),
88-96.
[Wu 2020] Wu AH, Franke AA, Tseng C, et el. Exposure to phthalates and risk of invasive breast
cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on
the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved;
2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr PR06.
[Yang 2018] Yang C, Lee HK, Kong APS, Lim LL, Cai Z, Chung ACK. Early-life exposure to endocrine
disrupting chemicals associates with childhood obesity. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Dec;
23(4):182-195.
[Yilmaz 2020] Yilmaz B, Terekeci H, Sandal S, Kelestimur F. Endocrine disrupting chemicals:
exposure, effects on human health, mechanism of action, models for testing and strategies for
prevention. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2020 03; 21(1):127-147.
[Zeinomar 2020] Zeinomar N, Oskar S, Kehm RD, Sahebzeda S, Terry MB. Environmental exposures
and breast cancer risk in the context of underlying susceptibility: A systematic review of the
epidemiological literature. Environ Res. 2020 Aug; 187:109346.
[Zheng 2021] Zheng G, Schreder E, Dempsey JC, et al. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in
Breast Milk: Concerning Trends for Current-Use PFAS. Environ Sci Technol. 2021 Jun 1;55(11):7510-
7520.
15
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Robust data from longitudinal birth cohort studies and experimental studies of perinatally exposed animals indicate that exposure to ortho-phthalates can impair brain development and increase risks for learning, attention, and behavioral disorders in childhood. This growing body of evidence, along with known adverse effects on male reproductive tract development, calls for immediate action. Exposures are ubiquitous; the majority of people are exposed to multiple ortho-phthalates simultaneously. We thus recommend that a class approach be used in assessing health impacts as has been done with other chemical classes. We propose critically needed policy reforms to eliminate ortho-phthalates from products that lead to exposure of pregnant women, women of reproductive age, infants, and children. Specific attention should be focused on reducing exposures among socially vulnerable populations such as communities of color, who frequently experience higher exposures. Ortho-phthalates are used in a vast array of products and elimination will thus necessitate a multipronged regulatory approach at federal and state levels. The fact that manufacturers and retailers have already voluntarily removed ortho-phthalates from a wide range of products indicates that this goal is feasible. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 18, 2021: e1–e9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306014 )
Article
Full-text available
Puberty is the process of physical changes between childhood and adulthood during which adolescents reach sexual maturity and become capable of reproduction. It is considered one of the main temporal windows of susceptibility for the influence of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs may act as single chemical agents or as chemical mixtures; they can be pubertal influencers, accelerating and anticipating the processing of maturation of secondary sexual characteristics. Moreover, recent studies have started to point out how exposure to EDCs during puberty may predispose to breast cancer later in life. In fact, the estrogen-mimicking endocrine disruptors (EEDs) may influence breast tissue development during puberty in two main ways: the first is the action on the proliferation of the breast stromal cells, the second concerns epigenetic mechanisms. The aim of this mini-review was to better highlight what is new and what is not completely known regarding the role of EDCs during puberty.
Article
Full-text available
Background The evidence evaluating environmental chemical exposures (ECE) and breast cancer (BC) risk is heterogeneous which may stem in part as few studies measure ECE during key BC windows of susceptibility (WOS). Another possibility may be that most BC studies are skewed towards individuals at average risk, which may limit the ability to detect signals from ECE. Objectives We reviewed the literature on ECE and BC focusing on three types of studies or subgroup analyses based on higher absolute BC risk: BC family history (Type 1); early onset BC (Type 2); and/or genetic susceptibility (Type 3). Methods We systematically searched the PubMed database to identify epidemiologic studies examining ECE and BC risk published through June 1, 2019. Results We identified 100 publications in 56 unique epidemiologic studies. Of these 56 studies, only 2 (3.6%) were enriched with BC family history and only 11% of studies (6/56) were specifically enriched with early onset cases. 80% of the publications from these 8 enriched studies (Type 1: 8/10 publications; Type 2: 8/10 publications) supported a statistically significant association between ECE and BC risk including studies of PAH, indoor cooking, NO2, DDT; PCBs, PFOSA; metals; personal care products; and occupational exposure to industrial dyes. 74% of Type 3 publications (20/27) supported statistically significant associations for PAHs, traffic-related air pollution, PCBs, phthalates, and PFOSAs in subgroups of women with greater genetic susceptibility due to variants in carcinogen metabolism, DNA repair, oxidative stress, cellular apoptosis and tumor suppressor genes. Discussion Studies enriched for women at higher BC risk through family history, younger age of onset and/or genetic susceptibility consistently support an association between an ECE and BC risk. In addition to measuring exposures during WOS, designing studies that are enriched with women at higher absolute risk are necessary to robustly measure the role of ECE on BC risk.
Article
Full-text available
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) are a global problem for environmental and human health. They are defined as "an exogenous chemical, or mixture of chemicals, that can interfere with any aspect of hormone action". It is estimated that there are about 1000 chemicals with endocrine-acting properties. EDCs comprise pesticides, fungicides, industrial chemicals, plasticizers, nonylphenols, metals, pharmaceutical agents and phytoestrogens. Human exposure to EDCs mainly occurs by ingestion and to some extent by inhalation and dermal uptake. Most EDCs are lipophilic and bioaccumulate in the adipose tissue, thus they have a very long half-life in the body. It is difficult to assess the full impact of human exposure to EDCs because adverse effects develop latently and manifest at later ages, and in some people do not present. Timing of exposure is of importance. Developing fetus and neonates are the most vulnerable to endocrine disruption. EDCs may interfere with synthesis, action and metabolism of sex steroid hormones that in turn cause developmental and fertility problems, infertility and hormone-sensitive cancers in women and men. Some EDCs exert obesogenic effects that result in disturbance in energy homeostasis. Interference with hypothalamo-pituitary-thyroid and adrenal axes has also been reported. In this review, potential EDCs, their effects and mechanisms of action, epidemiological studies to analyze their effects on human health, bio-detection and chemical identification methods, difficulties in extrapolating experimental findings and studying endocrine disruptors in humans and recommendations for endocrinologists, individuals and policy makers will be discussed in view of the relevant literature.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The long time from exposure to potentially harmful chemicals until breast cancer occurrence poses challenges for designing etiologic studies and for implementing successful prevention programs. Growing evidence from animal and human studies indicates that distinct time periods of heightened susceptibility to endocrine disruptors exist throughout the life course. The influence of environmental chemicals on breast cancer risk may be greater during several windows of susceptibility (WOS) in a woman's life, including prenatal development, puberty, pregnancy, and the menopausal transition. These time windows are considered as specific periods of susceptibility for breast cancer because significant structural and functional changes occur in the mammary gland, as well as alterations in the mammary micro-environment and hormone signaling that may influence risk. Breast cancer research focused on these breast cancer WOS will accelerate understanding of disease etiology and prevention. Main text: Despite the plausible heightened mechanistic influences of environmental chemicals on breast cancer risk during time periods of change in the mammary gland's structure and function, most human studies of environmental chemicals are not focused on specific WOS. This article reviews studies conducted over the past few decades that have specifically addressed the effect of environmental chemicals and metals on breast cancer risk during at least one of these WOS. In addition to summarizing the broader evidence-base specific to WOS, we include discussion of the NIH-funded Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) which included population-based and basic science research focused on specific WOS to evaluate associations between breast cancer risk and particular classes of endocrine-disrupting chemicals-including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, perfluorinated compounds, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and phenols-and metals. We outline ways in which ongoing transdisciplinary BCERP projects incorporate animal research and human epidemiologic studies in close partnership with community organizations and communication scientists to identify research priorities and effectively translate evidence-based findings to the public and policy makers. Conclusions: An integrative model of breast cancer research is needed to determine the impact and mechanisms of action of endocrine disruptors at different WOS. By focusing on environmental chemical exposure during specific WOS, scientists and their community partners may identify when prevention efforts are likely to be most effective.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol S (BPS) are increasingly used as substitutes for bisphenol A (BPA), an environmental obesogen. However, health effects of BPF and BPS remain unclear. In this study, we evaluated the associations of BPA, BPF, and BPS with obesity in children and adolescents. Methods: We used data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013 to 2014, a nationally representative study. We included 745 participants aged 6 to 17 years old. General obesity was defined based on the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention body mass index-for-age growth charts for the United States. Abdominal obesity was defined as waist-to-height ratio ≥0.5. Results: After adjustment for demographic, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, and urinary creatinine levels, the odds ratio of general obesity comparing the highest with lowest quartile of urinary bisphenol levels was 1.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 3.31) for BPA, 1.54 (95% CI, 1.02 to 2.32) for BPF, and 1.36 (95% CI, 0.53 to 3.51) for BPS. Moreover, the associations were stronger in boys than in girls for BPA and BPF. Similar results were observed for abdominal obesity. Conclusion: This study for the first time showed that exposure to BPF, a commonly used substitute for BPA, was positively associated with higher risk of obesity in children and adolescents. The association of BPA and BPF with general and abdominal obesity was primarily observed in boys, suggesting a possible sex difference. Further investigations on the underlying mechanisms are needed.
Article
Full-text available
Increasing prevalence of childhood obesity poses threats to the global health burden. Because this rising prevalence cannot be fully explained by traditional risk factors such as unhealthy diet and physical inactivity, early-life exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is recognized as emerging novel risk factors for childhood obesity. EDCs can disrupt the hormone-mediated metabolic pathways, affect children’s growth and mediate the development of childhood obesity. Many organic pollutants are recently classified to be EDCs. In this review, we summarized the epidemiological and laboratory evidence related to EDCs and childhood obesity, and discussed the possible mechanisms underpinning childhood obesity and early-life exposure to non-persistent organic pollutants (phthalates, bisphenol A, triclosan) and persistent organic pollutants (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, polychlorinated biphenyls, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). Understanding the relationship between EDCs and childhood obesity helps to raise public awareness and formulate public health policy to protect the youth from exposure to the harmful effects of EDCs.
Conference Paper
Background: Phthalates (Phth), known endocrine-disruptors, may play a role in breast carcinogenesis. Low-molecular-weight phthalates (LMWPhth) are commonly found in personal care products while high MWPhth (HMWPhth) are used primarily as plasticizers. Individual Phth may disrupt normal mammary gland development and promote tumorigenesis by binding to and activating the estrogen receptor (ER). Methods: We prospectively examined the association between pre-diagnostic urinary levels of Phth metabolites and breast cancer risk in a case-control study nested within the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC). We measured 11 Phth metabolites and phthalic acid from overnight/first morning urine samples of 798 women with invasive breast cancer (355 Japanese Americans, 218 Whites, 125 Native Hawaiians, 62 Latinos, and 38 African Americans; the latter three groups were combined due to small numbers) and 796 matched controls using an ultrasensitive isotope dilution orbitrap LCMS assay after hydrolysis from conjugation, extraction, and concentration. Average time between urine collection and breast cancer diagnosis was 5.5 years (SD=3.3). Cases and controls were 1:1 matched on area (Hawaii or California), birth year (± 1 year), race/ethnicity, urine type (overnight or first morning), and date of urine collection (± 1 year). Association of LMWPhth (MBP, MiBP, MEP, MMP), HMWPhth (MBzP, MEHP, MEHHP, MEOHP, MECPP, MCMHP, MCHP), and total Phth exposure (LMWPhth + HMWPhth), and phthalic acids with breast cancer risk were examined using conditional logistic regression. All models were adjusted for creatinine levels, demographics, and potential confounders (e.g., education and established breast cancer risk factors). Stratified analyses were conducted by race/ethnicity and ER and progesterone receptor (PR) status. Results: Women in the highest tertile (T3) of total Phth exposure showed a significant increased risk of breast cancer compared to women in the lowest tertile (T1) (HR=1.36, 95% CI: 1.02-1.82). The association was suggested across race/ethnicity with a statistically significant positive association observed in the three smaller groups combined (Native Hawaiians, Latinos, and African Americans) with HR for T2=2.29 (95% CI: 1.27-4.41) and HR for T3=2.42 (95% CI: 1.25-4.70); Ptrend=0.006. By ERPR status, risk associations tended to be stronger for ER-PR- (n=96 cases) (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.89-1.45) than for ER+PR+ (n=694 cases) (HR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.94-1.19) breast tumors. Among the three smaller groups combined, total Phth exposure was associated with a significant increased risk of ER-PR- breast cancer (n=38 cases) (P=0.045). Conclusion: This is one of the first studies of Phth exposure and breast cancer to include large numbers of diverse populations in a single study. Risk patterns were stronger among the combined group of Native Hawaiians, Latinos, and African American and for ER-PR- breast cancer. Better understanding of these differences in risk associations by race/ethnicity and ERPR status is needed. Citation Format: Anna H. Wu, Adrian A. Franke, Chiuchen Tseng, Shannon M. Conroy, Yuqing S. LI, Mindy DeRouen, Linda Polfus, Christian Caberto, Daniel Stram, Chris Haiman, Lynne R. Wilkens, Loic Le Marchand, Iona Cheng. Exposure to phthalates and risk of invasive breast cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr PR06.
Article
Household dust is a reservoir of various consumer product chemicals. Thus, characterizing comprehensive chemical profiles of house dust may help improve our understanding of residential chemical exposure. We have previously developed a method for detecting a broad spectrum of chemicals in dust by applying a combination of target, suspect screening, and non‐target methods with mass spectrometry preceded by liquid chromatography and gas chromatography. Building upon a previous study that detected 271 compounds in 38 dust samples, we presented concentrations of 144 compounds that were confirmed and quantified by standards in the same set of samples. Ten compounds were measured with median concentrations greater than 10,000 ng/g of dust: cis‐hexadec‐6‐enoic acid, squalene, cholesterol, vitamin E, bis(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate, dioctyl terephthalate, linoleic acid, tricaprylin, tris(1‐chloroisopropyl) phosphate, and oxybenzone. We also reviewed in vitro toxicity screening data to identify compounds that were not previously detected in indoor dust but have potential for adverse health effects. Among 119 newly detected compounds, 13 had endocrine disrupting potential and 7 had neurotoxic potential. Toxicity screening data were not available for eight biocides, which may adversely affect health. Our results strive to provide more comprehensive chemical profiles of house dust and identified information gaps for future health studies.
Article
Purpose: Phthalate exposure is ubiquitous and especially high among users of drug products formulated with phthalates. Some phthalates mimic estradiol and may promote breast cancer. Existing epidemiologic studies on this topic are small, mostly not prospective, and have given inconsistent results. We estimated associations between longitudinal phthalate exposures and breast cancer risk in a Danish nationwide cohort, using redeemed prescriptions for phthalate-containing drug products to measure exposure. Methods: We ascertained the phthalate content of drugs marketed in Denmark using an internal Danish Medicines Agency ingredient database. We enrolled a Danish nationwide cohort of 1.12 million women at risk for a first cancer diagnosis on January 1, 2005. By combining drug ingredient data with the Danish National Prescription registry, we characterized annual, cumulative phthalate exposure through redeemed prescriptions. We then fit multivariable Cox regression models to estimate associations between phthalate exposures and incident invasive breast carcinoma according to tumor estrogen receptor status. Results: Over 9.99 million woman-years of follow-up, most phthalate exposures were not associated with breast cancer incidence. High-level dibutyl phthalate exposure (≥ 10,000 cumulative mg) was associated with an approximately two-fold increase in the rate of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.5), consistent with in vitro evidence for an estrogenic effect of this compound. Lower levels of dibutyl phthalate exposure were not associated with breast cancer incidence. Conclusion: Our results suggest that women should avoid high-level exposure to dibutyl phthalate, such as through long-term treatment with pharmaceuticals formulated with dibutyl phthalate.