Update on CDC Report on trace perchlorate in baby formula

by: John Long, Ph.D.

The AP recently made reference to a CDC study reporting that traces of perchlorate found in powdered baby formula could exceed what's considered a safe dose for adults if mixed with water also contaminated with perchlorate. The article acknowledged that the government requires that baby formula contain iodine, which counteracts the effects of not only perchlorate, but also nitrate and thiocyanate. All three ions inhibit the uptake of iodine by the thyroid by the same mode of toxicity.

Overall, the thyroid is susceptible to four major stressors, including iodine deficiency. The following points put these stressors in perspective, especially with regard to environmental remediation. 

1. Iodine deficiency has a much stronger effect on lowering the total iodide uptake by the thyroid in humans than can be compensated for by reducing environmental exposure to perchlorate, nitrate, and/or thiocyanate.
2. Reducing human exposure to perchlorate, nitrate and thiocyanate can not compensate for mild or moderate iodine deficiency in humans.
3. Lowering nitrate exposure in drinking water is a more effective approach to increasing maternal total iodide uptake than lowering the perchlorate Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) below the EPA Reference Dose level of 24.5 parts per billion.

In summary, there is a legitimate concern relating to exposure of infants and fetuses to nitrate and perchlorate because of their effect on developmental thyroid function.Such concerns can be addressed by ensuring adequate iodine intake, and exercising care in choosing how to meet dietary needs, including avoiding consumption of vegetables and fruit suspected or known to be hydrated with water containing one or more of the thyroid stressors mentioned above.

A full GFS Update on this topic can be found at www.gfschemicals.com.

For a broader perspective on issues such as these, the reader can Google "seattle perchlorate symposium" for numerous hits, or try the following link:

http://www.kleinfelder.com/perchlorate.2008.seattle/.

Overreacting to Perceived Risks

by: John Long, Ph.D.

The Feb. 15 issue (Vol. 29, No. 4) of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News featured an excellent editorial by Henry I. Miller, M.D., describing how fear and intimidation can distort the accurate assessment of information pertaining to perceived risk. This in turn can lead to squandering of societal resources, if not outright fear-mongering.

Dr. Miller focuses on several factors that can affect the perception of risks, and which are prominent in various controversies about biotechnology; however, the principles extend to many areas of science, and chemistry in particular. These factors include the following

• Uncertainty and ambiguity

• Information overload

• Splitting and projection  (us. vs. them)

• Desire to return to a childlike world of purity and innocence

• Manipulation of environmental anxieties

• Informational cascades

Emotional responses can lead to erroneous conclusions , which in turn can lead to misapprehensions about many technologies, from nuclear to chemical to biological. The heart of the problem involves distinguishing between science and pseudoscience, reflecting a debate that is centuries old.  View Dr. Miller's complete article at the link below.

Download Gen0001

Responsible Risk Analysis Still a Challenge

by: John Long, Ph.D.

Dr. Henry Miller, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, continues to dissect the risk-benefit equation that is all too often complicated by political manipulation. The following article, published with the author's permission, is one of several treatments of this critical topic. A recent and more detailed opinion from Dr. Miller appeared in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News under the title "Overreacting to Perceived Risks," and will be presented in this forum shortly.

Greens' War Against All Chemicals Will Do Little To Reduce Our Risks

BY HENRY MILLER
 
A report from a panel appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says that California should expand pollution prevention initiatives, add "green chemistry" to public school curricula and offer public access to comprehensive information about the chemicals in consumer products.

The report, part of a plan by the California Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate many supposedly toxic materials, is more appropriate for a wish list sent to Santa Claus than an attempt at serious public policy.

It recalls H.L. Mencken's observation that for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. 

For starters, the governor and members of his panel seem oblivious to the fact that we live in a sea of chemicals � and that, in fact, our bodies are actually comprised of them � and also to the toxicologists' credo, "the dose makes the poison."

Many of the alarms raised recently about chemicals, from those in rubber duckies and plastic bottles to pesticides used in agriculture, are completely bogus, while most of the others represent only negligible risks. 

Pseudo-scares and the wrongheaded (and often very costly) responses to them � as in these latest recommendations from the governor's panel � are wasteful, if not actually harmful.

For example, the federal EPA forced General Electric to remove trace levels of chemicals called PCBs from the Hudson River, although this massive project will have prodigious costs but no benefits. The EPA's assertion that PCBs in fish pose a human cancer risk is based solely on observations that high-dose, prolonged PCB exposure causes tumors in laboratory animals.

An example of misperception of risk is acrylamide, a useful industrial compound formed naturally in high-carbohydrate-containing foods cooked at high temperatures, such as in frying or broiling. It has thus been part of the human diet since humans learned that cooked foods taste better than raw ones.

Yet because we only learned of acrylamide's existence in foods recently, and because very large amounts fed to animals cause cancer, there have been calls to require warning labels on fried foods and other products � in spite of the fact that acrylamide in food has never been shown to harm human health.

Yet another example of a poorly substantiated health threat is the current scare about bisphenol A (BPA) � a chemical used to make certain plastics clear and shatterproof.

Again, because animals fed huge doses of the chemical experienced ill effects, and because minuscule amounts can leach into the contents of plastic cups and bottles when they are heated, warnings about an effect on infants and children (guaranteed to have the most potent effect on parents) have been trumpeted in the media. ("Is your baby exposed to carcinogens with every feeding? Story at 11.")

Exaggerated Risks

Controversy over chemicals rages on the other side of the pond as well. In 2003, the European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection concluded in a risk assessment of DINP, a chemical commonly used in a variety of consumer products:

"The end products containing DINP (clothes, building materials, toys and baby equipment) and the sources of exposure (car and public transport interiors, food and food packaging) are unlikely to pose a risk for consumers (adults, infants and newborns)."

In spite of the reassuring risk assessments, politicians overruled them, and the EU instituted a permanent ban on DINP and related chemicals in children's toys in 2005.

But these risks aren't real � or to be more accurate, they haven't been substantiated. If we followed through by banning all the chemicals we read about that supposedly cause (pick one) cancer, birth defects, low sperm counts, autism, Alzheimer's disease, etc., we'd have to ban most of the chemicals in the world � including "natural" ones.

Unfortunately, the scares are real attention-grabbers; they sell papers and attract our attention on TV spots and Internet blogs. And many journalists and editors � to say nothing of politicians � seem not to care whether the science supports the hype. 

How can we know what we should worry about?

There is a remarkable new interactive Web source that helps consumers answer that question � to understand what poses significant health risks, and what does not.

The New York-based American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has produced and manages what it calls a "Riskometer" ( www.Riskometer.org), which allows visitors to compare health risks.

It informs us that exposure to cigarette smoking is far and away the leading cause of cancer deaths: In 2002 the odds of dying from smoking were 1 in 771. ("Odds of dying" is defined as the number of people expected to produce one death from a particular cause.) The odds of dying from obesity or from unintentional injuries (including traffic accidents, falls and others) are each about 1 in 2,800.

Far less likely is death from exposure to the dry cleaning fluid perchloroethylene (PERC) or from arsenic in water (about 1 in 6,000,000). In spite of this infinitesimal risk, laws were passed restricting the use of PERC � because "everyone knows" it's a serious health risk.

The data on the ACSH Riskometer show that many of the hyped "threats" that we hear and read about daily occur very far down on the list.

The media's "pseudo-scare mode" is a disservice to its readers and viewers because people have only so much time to pay attention to health issues, and if most stories focus attention on minor (or virtually nonexistent) threats, greater risks that individuals may be able to control get short shrift. 

The bottom line: Be skeptical, be informed, consult the Riskometer.

Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He was at the NIH and FDA from 1977 to 1994.  His most recent book is "The Frankenfood Myth."

************************************************

Henry I. Miller, M.D.

The Hoover Institution

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305-6010

U.S.A.

 

Phone: 650.725.0185

Fax: 650.723.0576

E-mail: [email protected]

Ohio Court & "Expert" Opinions

by: John Long, Ph.D.

In July of 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings that held that rules of evidence governing "expert witnesses" precludes testimony about an alleged cancer resulting from chemical exposures where no studies are cited to demonstrate a causal effect between the exposure and the cancer.

At trial in county court, testimony was presented from doctors and an industrial hygienist suggesting some undefined relationship between the employee's work and the rare brain cancer that he developed. However, the county court rejected the testimony as not meeting the standards for expert witnesses - and issued a summary judgment in favor of the company (PPG).

The written majority opinion of the Court included the following: "Expert opinion based on unscientific principles and methodology is unhelpful to the trier of fact, and has no place in the courts of law." It was apparent that none of the so-called expert witnesses cited any scientific studies that provided evidence of a causal connection between the employee's work and his brain cancer.

PPG is to be commended for its substantial effort to defend the principle of good science in the courtroom.

Cost of Arsenic Compliance

by: John Long, Ph.D.

The headline in the January 22nd (2007) issue of the Columbus Dispatch (p. B7) speaks volumes: " 3 Ohio cities paying high price to cut arsenic levels in water".   New federal limits on how much arsenic can exist in public water supplies have sent treatment costs soaring in some communities.  It has been estimated that 4,100 public water systems across the country were in violation of the standard that was recently lowered from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb.

Middlefield, a community of 2,400 not far from Cleveland, is spending $7.4 million to drop the arsenic level from 12 ppb to meet the new standard. The Geauga Count Health Commissioner, Bob Weisdack, was quoted as saying "Is the juice worth the squeeze, or are we regulating just to regulate." The consensus seems to be that the EPA may have underestimated compliance costs, anticipating that the national cost of compliance would be $3.62 billion over 20 years. Contrast this with the figures from the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, which pegged the actual cost closer to their initial estimate of $4.6 billion to $21.5 billion over 20 years. 

For the responsible chemist, there are two primary issues:

1) Given the degree of analytical uncertainty and the extreme levels of data measurement, how much difference really exists between 12 ppb and 10 ppb ?  And how much is Public Health affected by this difference ?

2) Does gaining a few ppb in the arsenic level justify millions of dollars of expense, or are there better ways to spend money to protect the public ?

Similar questions have been raised about the action in some states to put limits on perchlorate exposure at one ppb, especially when, like arsenic, perchlorate has been shown to occur naturally in various environments.  It is incumbent upon all scientists to be engaged in issues like this in order to ensure that regulatory policy is responsibly built upon good science.

Perchlorate Fireworks

by: John Long, Ph.D.

Regular visitors to VanishingZero are probably aware of the concern expressed by many toxicologists and other scientists over attempts to regulate perchlorate, a naturally occurring environmental constituent, to levels below those required for environmental arsenic.  This despite that fact that there have been no reliable data found to connect trace (parts per billion) perchlorate exposures to any public health event or incident.  In the view of many, the perchlorate debate has evolved into a political issue that in some quarters is being pressed at the expense of the use of sound science in determining public policy.  A recent note in the October 2006 issue of  "Mainstream," published by the American Water Works Association demonstrates a consequence of the mindest "If you can detect it, you should regulate it." Titled "Perchlorate Fears Douse Fireworks," the front-page blurb said the following:

"Massachusetts' adoption of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2 ppb for perchlorate in late July apparently doused plans for fireworks at the annual Harwich Cranberry Festival on Cape Cod in September.

Perchlorate, a chemical that disrupts thyroid functions, is used as a propellant for fireworks and persists in water for decades.

Raising concerns about contamination of the aquifer used for the city's water supply, water commissioners would have asked the festival for a $10 million bond for caonamination cleanup, but Harwich selectmen voted to ban any perchlorate-based fireworks displays in the aquifer's recharge area.

The fireworks company offered to switch to a nitrates-based display but then found its insurance company wouldn't cover environmental contamination."

National Geographic Looks at Toxics

by: John Long, Ph.D.

The October 2006 issue of National Geographic deals with a personal view of chemical exposure in everyday life. In an article titled The Pollution Within, the author, David Ewing Duncan, chronicles the comprehensive survey of his daily interaction with (mostly) man-made chemicals in a wide range of venues, including air travel. He was tested for 320 chemicals that he might have picked up from food, drink and air, as well as products that touch the skin.  The results give one pause for thought, and complicate the perception that while health statistics have been improving for decades, the rates of occurrence of some illnesses have been rising significantly.

In the article, particular mention is made of the fact that until recently, no one had even measured average levels of exposure among large numbers of Americans because no regulations required it and the technology needed to measure the "tiniest" levels didn't exist.

The article did acknowledge that the realm in which many of these analytes were being detected was extraordinarily low. One toxicologist was quoted as saying:  "In toxicology, dose is everything, and these doses are too low to be dangerous."  One part per billion, considered the standard unit for measuring most chemicals inside the body, is like putting half a teaspoon of red dye into an Olympic-size swimming pool. In addition, some of the most feared substances, such as mercury, dissipate within days or weeks if the body weren't constantly re-exposed.

Many chemical species were not included in the test regimen for various reasons including practicality. For inquiring minds who have been tuned into the mission of the VanishingZero site, these omissions included various solvents, plastics, and "a rocket-fuel ingredient called perchlorate," exposure to which has been defined by informed toxicologists as safe for the U.S. population to levels of at least 200 ppb.

Biotech Sanity in California

by: John Long, Ph.D.

We are pleased when we are able to post the insights of Dr. Henry Miller, physician, molecular biologist, and fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of "The Frankenfood Myth." Dr. Miller headed the FDA's office of biotechnology from 1989 to 1993.   In this post, Dr. Miller describes recent proposed legislative action in California that would give genetically enhanced plant products and technologies a level playing field upon which to articulate their virtues. 

Dr. Miller's complete editorial follows.

Continue reading "Biotech Sanity in California"

Expert Witness Court Test in Ohio

by: John Long, Ph.D.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a 4-3 decision that affirmed lower court rulings that held that rules of evidence governing "expert witnesses" can preclude testimony about an alleged cancer resulting from chemical exposures where no studies are cited to demonstrate a causal effect between the exposure and the cancer.

In the case at hand, the family of an employee at PPG Industries alleged that workplace exposure to chemicals for some 30 years was responsible for a very rare form of brain cancer. At trial in county court, the family's attorney presented testimony from doctors and an industrial hygienist. That testimony suggested some undefined relationship between the employee's work and the cancer he developed. However, the county court rejected the testimony as not meeting the standards for expert witnesses - and issued a summary judgment in favor of PPG.

A majority court  opinion stated that "Expert opinion based on unscientific principles and methodology is unhelpful to the trier of fact and has no place in courts of law," and that none of the so-called expert witnesses in the case at hand cited any scientific studies that provided evidence of a causal connection between the employee's work at PPG and the brain cancer.

This decision was cited as support for the principle that "expert" testimony must meet standards of scientific validity and quality, and that PPG was to be commended for defending the principle of good science in the courtroom.

News Bits

by: John Long, Ph.D.

The wire services occasionally offer some interesting chemical information to ponder, to wit:

1) Benzene -  The FDA is speculating that changes in analytical methods may be the cause for recent results showing low levels of benzene in some drinks. In the past, the FDA protocol allowed heating of samples to 100 deg C for thirty minutes, conditions which may favor decarboxylation of benzoic acid to form traces of benzene. Products having ascorbic acid and sodium benzoate as ingredients may have been affected.

2) Perchlorate - There has been a report that the presence of traces of perchlorate has been confirmed in some vitamins.  While the source is uncertain, one possibility is seaweed - which has long been known to be rich in iodide, possibly collected by a mechanism that is capable of concentrating naturally occurring perchlorate as well.