Toxic Legacy: Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water and Air of American Cities

Toxic Legacy

Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air of American Cities

Patrick J. Sullivan

James J.J. Clark

Franklin J. Agardy

Paul F. Rosenfeld

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

PREFACE

FOREWORD

Chapter 1: CONFRONTING THE UNKNOWN

1.1 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN THE HUMAN HABITAT

1.2 DEFINING THE RISK

1.3 DEFINING THE UNKNOWN

1.4 CONFRONTING THE UNKNOWN

Chapter 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

2.1 UNDERSTANDING THE FDA DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

2.2 A LAYMAN’S APPROACH TO MARKET BASKET CHEMISTRY

2.3 THE SELECTED MARKET BASKETS

2.4 CHOOSING SAFER FOODS

Chapter 3: THE NUMBER OF SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN FOOD

3.1 DAIRY PRODUCTS

3.2 PROTEIN PRODUCTS

3.3 FRUIT PRODUCTS

3.4 GRAIN AND NUT PRODUCTS

3.5 VEGETABLE PRODUCTS

3.6 MIXED FOOD PRODUCTS

3.7 CHILD AND INFANT PRODUCTS

3.8 SUMMARY OF THE FOOD PRODUCT CATEGORY DATA

Chapter 4: SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN A BALANCED DIET

4.1 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN DAIRY PRODUCTS

4.2 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN PROTEIN PRODUCTS

4.3 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN FRUIT PRODUCTS

4.4 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN GRAIN AND NUT PRODUCTS

4.5 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN VEGETABLE PRODUCTS

4.6 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN MIXED PRODUCTS

4.7 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN CHILD AND INFANT PRODUCTS

4.8 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN A BALANCED DIET

4.9 OPTIONS FOR CHOOSING SAFER FOODS

Chapter 5: DIETS AND CHEMICAL MIXTURES

5.1 SUMMARY

Chapter 6: FOOD CONTAMINATION AT THE CITY AND REGIONAL LEVELS

6.1 BEVERAGES AND DRINKING WATER

Chapter 7: SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER

7.1 WHAT IS SAFE DRINKING WATER?

7.2 CHOOSING A SAFER DRINKING WATER

7.3 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER

7.4 SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL POLLUTION OF DRINKING WATER

7.5 MONITORING FOR SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS

7.6 COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE WATER DATA

7.7 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA

7.8 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

7.9 BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK

7.10 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

7.11 BOISE, IDAHO

7.12 CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

7.13 COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

7.14 DAYTON, OHIO

7.15 DENVER, COLORADO

7.16 FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

7.17 GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

7.18 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

7.19 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

7.20 LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA

7.21 LONG BEACH, NEW JERSEY

7.22 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

7.23 MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

7.24 NEW YORK, NEW YORK

7.25 OGDEN, UTAH

7.26 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

7.27 ORLANDO, FLORIDA

7.28 PEORIA, ILLINOIS

7.29 PHOENIX, ARIZONA

7.30 PORTLAND, OREGON

7.31 PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND

7.32 PUEBLO, COLORADO

7.33 RENO, NEVADA

7.34 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7.35 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

7.36 SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

7.37 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

7.38 TACOMA, WASHINGTON

7.39 TULSA, OKLAHOMA

7.40 WASHINGTON, D.C.

7.41 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA

7.42 WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS

7.43 DATA SUMMARY

7.44 WATER QUALITY RANKING

7.45 CONSUMER ALTERNATIVES

Chapter 8: SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN AIR

8.1 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

8.2 DATA SOURCE AND LIMITATIONS

8.3 TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASES BY CITY

8.4 CONCENTRATION TRENDS

8.5 THE OCCURRENCE OF SINGLE-RING AROMATICS

8.6 CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 9: TOXICITY AND SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL MIXTURES

9.1 SINGLE CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS

9.2 CAUSATION OF DISEASES: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

9.3 FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION REQUIRING THAT FOOD AND WATER BE UNADULTERATED

9.4 THE NEED FOR WARNING LABELS IN THE SUPERMARKET

9.5 DRINKING WATER AND WARNING LABELS

9.6 BREAST MILK AS AN INDICATOR OF WHAT IS WRONG IN THE ENVIRONMENT

9.7 MULTIPLE CONTAMINANTS AND INCREASING TOXIC RESPONSES

9.8 CHEMICAL MIXTURES AND TOXIC OUTCOMES

9.9 WHAT DOSE IS SAFE?

9.10 IT IS NOT JUST THE DOSE THAT MAKES THE POISON

Chapter 10: THE BODY’S SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL BURDEN

10.1 THE BODY’S TOXIC BURDEN

10.2 OUR TOXIC LEGACY

10.3 A NATIONAL CONTAMINANT RANKING

10.4 SUMMARY

APPENDIX

GLOSSARY

INDEX

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA

525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495, USA

84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8RR, UK

Copyright © 2007, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (+44) 1865 843830, fax: (+44) 1865 853333, E-mail: permissions@elsevier.com. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (http://elsevier.com), by selecting Support & Contact then Copyright and Permission and then Obtaining Permissions.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Application Submitted

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 13: 978-0-12-370640-9

ISBN 10: 0-12-370640-8

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our Web site at www.books.elsevier.com

Printed in the United States of America

06  07  08  09  10     9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

PREFACE

It should be no surprise that synthetic toxic chemicals released into the environment contaminate the human body. After all, the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe are all contaminated with these man-made chemicals. This is a known condition of our daily lives that the vast majority of us passively accept as a reality of the modern world. Our acceptance of this reality is buffered by the assurances of both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that there is little health risk from being exposed to low levels of these individual environmental contaminants.

When considering the reality of our health and the health of our children and families, however, can we confidently accept the assurances of the EPA and the FDA that some level of allowable pollution does us no harm? The honest answer is that we really do not know. This is because the EPA, the FDA, or any other scientific institution in the United States has the ability to calculate the potential health impact of consuming two or more different chemicals. In other words, in the real world where we are all exposed to mixtures of chemical residues in our food, water, and air, the health risk from these mixtures is totally unknown.

An article in Scientific American (May 2006) stated that With tens of thousands of chemicals in regular use worldwide, assessing which combinations might prove harmful is a gargantuan task…. The potential effects of contaminant mixtures on people, aquatic life, and fish-eating wildlife are still poorly understood (p. 16).

Given these uncertainties, most of us would prefer to have no daily intake of chemical residues. Yet, depending on where we live in the United States, the amount and diversity of chemical residues in food, water, and air can vary dramatically. Because of the unknown health risks associated with our exposure to residual chemical mixtures, the purpose of this book is to (1) provide extensive information on the occurrence of chemical mixtures in the food, water, and air in cities around the United States, (2) show how consumer preferences for specific food and water products, as well as particular diets, influence exposure to chemical mixtures, (3) discuss the toxicity and risks associated with our exposure to synthetic chemicals, and (4) offer some guidance as to what steps we can all take to limit our exposure to complex chemical mixtures.

FOREWORD

Since the start of recorded human history, pollution has been understood to be a significant cause of human suffering and disease. Yet today, we have set up a system in which polluters are allowed to discharge massive quantities of chemicals that pollute our food, water, and air. Ancient cultures knew to keep waste away from homes and food sources yet we license polluters to adulterate our food, water, and air. Lead poisoning from food, water, and in the air of Roman cities may have contributed to the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire. Romans preferred wine that was distilled in lead lined pots and kettles, resulting in a sweet flavor that was thought to complement foods, even though they knew that lead was poisoning the populace. Two thousand years later, we have failed to learn the lessons of other civilizations and the network of laws meant to protect us from pollution in our food, water, and air has failed to prevent the daily assault on our bodies. With more than 75,000 regulated synthetic chemicals in use in the United States, the long term impacts from the constant exposure to these chemicals is understood for less than 1% of these chemicals. The synthetic chemicals released by polluters into the environment not only affects our health today, but the health and well being of future generations, including newborns who are born with a toxic soup of chemicals passed on by their mothers. The time has come to carefully evaluate how we are impacting our children’s world with this toxic legacy.

Erin Brockovich

1

CONFRONTING THE UNKNOWN

As a university professor, you are frequently receiving fliers from professional associations and interest groups. So it was not unusual when one day in my mail I found, addressed to Dr. Patrick Sullivan, a glossy, colored postcard from the nuclear power industry. The postcard had a photograph of a nuclear power plant with a small black pellet enclosed in its plastic window.

When concerns over the safe disposal of nuclear waste were first raised, a representative of a public utility commented with a straight face that if every man, woman and child in the United States just ate one gram of nuclear waste there would not be a disposal problem. The postcard was actually designed to illustrate how much electrical power could be generated by this small pellet, but for a moment I thought I had received my personal gram.

I think it is safe to assume that anyone asked to consume a gram of nuclear waste would not believe it was a serious request. But what if we were asked to eat only a milligram (one thousandth of a gram)¹ or a microgram (one millionth of a gram) of nuclear waste? Would you then give your consent? Although we are not specifically confronted with this decision, many people do make similar decisions when they choose to drink bottled water, eat a salad with organic lettuce, or not live in an industrialized area.

Individuals make these choices based more on hearsay than on fact. Why? Because, in reality, medical scientists cannot yet predict the toxic effects to individual humans from consuming low-level chemical mixtures that permeate our food, water, and air. Being unable to predict if low-level chemical mixtures do us harm, each individual’s health faces an uncertain future.

That is why individual choices that influence the type and amount of synthetic chemicals that a person allows into his or her body need to be understood.² This means that everyone should have at least some rudimentary knowledge of the synthetic chemicals in our food, water, and air, and the potential threat they may pose if we are to confront the unknown.

1.1 SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS IN THE HUMAN HABITAT

In 1983, I was teaching environmental and soil science courses at Ball State University, Indiana. During the summer months, however, I was always faced with having to find other sources of income. Fortunately, along with five other professors from across the nation, I had been selected as an environmental and engineering fellow by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to work at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C. As part of this program, we attended various seminars that discussed current and future environmental problems that needed to be studied.

The speaker at our first seminar asked the six of us if we knew the three most common chemical pollutants in water. We all sat there mute, pondering the question. I remember thinking that they had to be either pesticides or other common industrial chemicals. Before we could reply, our speaker preempted any response by correctly assuming we wouldn’t know the answer anyway and blurted out, Valium, estrogen, and diuretics.

Valium (diazepam) was introduced by Roche Labs in 1963 to relieve anxiety, nervousness, and tension. It received a vast amount of media coverage and was popularized as a lifestyle drug. Given the ever-increasing stress load of modern society, it is no wonder that Valium became the first billion-dollar drug. In May 1960, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Searle to sell oral contraceptives (estrogen-type compounds). By 1962, 1.2 million American women were on the Pill. Sales slowed during the early 1970s, due to safety concerns and Senate hearings but surged to 10 million users by 1973. During this same time period, diuretic compounds (which promote water loss and sodium excretion) were becoming routinely prescribed to treat high blood pressure.

Given the popularity and use of these drugs, why wouldn’t they be present in water? I wrongly assumed that if pharmaceuticals found their way into one’s urine or feces and were flushed to a sewage treatment plant, then these drugs would be destroyed during the treatment process. Based on the speaker’s information, this was simply not the case. Clearly, wastewater containing pharmaceuticals was being discharged into creeks, rivers, lakes, and groundwater, and these same waters would eventually become someone’s drinking water. Nothing has changed since 1983, except for the type and number of different drugs that are currently being found in our water resources. In today’s water, we also find drugs like Prozac, aspirin, ibuprofen, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and even chemotherapy chemicals.

Thousands of synthetic chemicals could be found in our drinking water sources if we would only analyze for them. However, the water agencies that provide drinking water to our communities routinely check for only 65 known toxic chemicals. This trend also exists for the food we eat and the air we breathe. There are currently 975 different active ingredients (chemicals used for their toxic effects) registered with the EPA, and the EPA allows another 1918 inert ingredients (chemicals not used for their toxic effects) to be mixed into pesticide products. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitoring programs only look for approximately 10% of the synthetic chemicals that could be found in food products. Just as with water, air resources can contain thousands of different synthetic chemicals, but the EPA requires that only 188 toxic chemicals be tracked and their emissions reported.

Our bodies are currently being bombarded with a vast mixture of both known and unknown chemicals, and it is only going to get worse. Our nation’s manufacturers produce approximately 87,000 different chemicals with about 2000 new chemicals being added each year. In recognition of our exposure to this mixture of chemicals, in 2001 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began looking for synthetic chemicals in the human body. The chemical data collected by the CDC should not be surprising.

The January 2003 CDC study analyzed for 49 synthetic chemicals,³ from a selected group of pesticides and one group of industrial chemicals, known as phthalates,⁴ in both blood and urine. The CDC reported the following total average concentrations (parts per billion, or ppb) of either pesticides or phthalates in human blood or urine.

In 2005, the Environmental Working Group released a report on chemical contaminants in newborns.⁵ In this study, an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants were identified in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in U.S. hospitals. The information collected by the CDC and the Environmental Working Group confirms what we all should suspect. Since we are exposed to a mixture of chemicals in our water, food, and air, some combination of these same chemicals will be in our bodies, and this combination of chemicals will be passed on to our children.

To many, the verification of synthetic chemicals in our bodies is old news and is of little or no concern since state and federal governments regulate how much of a specific chemical is allowed in drinking water, in each food product, or in the air. For example, there is a 5.0 ppb limit for the chemical trichloroethylene (a common industrial chemical) in drinking water, yet there is no set limit for trichloroethylene in food or air. Although regulations that limit the concentration of individual chemicals are a good idea, they do not provide the consumer with comprehensive protection. For example, a report by the Government Accountability Office in June 2005 concluded that EPA’s reviews of new chemicals provide limited assurance that health and environmental risks are identified before the chemicals enter commerce. In fact, when you consider that we do not know what chemicals we actually consume, coupled with the fact that all of us are exposed to a massive number of chemicals and chemical mixtures that have unknown toxic effects, we really do not know the potential health risks of this exposure.

1.2 DEFINING THE RISK

In 1988, I chose to leave academics and research to work in the emerging field of environmental forensics.⁶ Of all the potential environmental forensic problems that can occur, the most difficult to prove is the toxic tort lawsuit. In this type of lawsuit, individuals who have been exposed to toxic chemicals must prove that the chemicals to which they were exposed actually resulted in damaging their health. This type of lawsuit was portrayed in the movies A Civil Action and Erin Brockovitch.

I became involved in a similar case in 1991. I had been retained by the Spence Law Firm in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and was asked to determine which industries in Casper, Wyoming, were responsible for polluting the residents’ drinking water wells, within the Brookhurst subdivision, with a mixture of petroleum products and chlorinated industrial chemicals.

Based on the maps and chemical data, I was confident that my expert opinion given at trial would establish which companies were responsible for polluting the residents’ wells. My opinion, however, was not enough to prove that the residents had been harmed by drinking and bathing in the chemical soup that had become their tap water. It was also necessary that the medical experts (toxicologist and physician) be able to show a direct connection between drinking chemically polluted water and the residents’ existing medical problems. Unlike my opinion, which was fairly straightforward, the medical experts had a difficult time establishing this connection since they had no actual data on human health effects from exposure to low levels of the chemicals that were found in the residents’ well water. There were animal studies showing toxic effects for individual chemicals, but no human health studies. Because of this major shortcoming, it was practically impossible for medical experts, in this specific case, to technically support the opinion that it was a scientific certainty the residents were harmed or would be harmed. I found this result deeply disturbing because if the basic science used to establish a chemical standard, which was supposed to be protective of human health,