Once it was used to kill pet birds now in your kitchen. Think
twofold before use as toxin is passing in your blood stream
We
are writing to permit you know the emission from Teflon, given off when a pan
is heated is used in killing people's pet birds. Teflon is the trademarked name for the chemical
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). This chemical, which makes things “non-stick”
in its use in cookware, should be classified as a “likely carcinogen” (a cancer-causing
substance) according to some advisers to the EPA. It's called "Teflon Toxicosis" by
veterinarians and happens because birds develop strong respiratory reactions to
Teflon fumes — even when Teflon is used at only average cooking temperatures.
When a Teflon-lined oven was used to bake biscuits at 325 degrees Fahrenheit,
an owner reported the death of his parrots. When four stovetop burners lined
with Teflon drip pans were preheated for a meal, 14 birds died within15
minutes. And when Teflon-coated heat lamp bulbs were installed in chicken pens,
half of the chicken population passed away within a few days.
Now there's more news about
this bird-killing toxin that's undoubtedly in your home — and in your
bloodstream, too. It's in the bloodstream of almost every single one of us.
PFOA
is the ingredient used in Teflon that causes the problems. Perfluororctanoic
acid or PFOA (and also known as C8), is a carcinogen, is toxic to animals, and
persists in the environment indefinitely.
History
In 1999, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) began investigating perfluorinated
chemicals after receiving data on the global distribution and toxicity of PFOS.
For these reasons, and USEPA pressure, in May 2000, 3M announced the phaseout
of the production of PFOA, PFOS, and PFOS-related products. 3M stated that they
would have made the same decision regardless of USEPA pressure.
Because of the 3M phaseout, in 2002 DuPont built
its own plant in Fayetteville, NC to manufacture the chemical.
The chemical has received attention due to litigation from the
PFOA-contaminated community around DuPont's Washington Works Washington,
WV facility, along with USEPA focus. Research on PFOA has
demonstrated ubiquity, animal-based toxicity, and some associations with human
health parameters and potential health effects. Additionally, advances in analytical chemistry in recent years have
allowed the routine detection of low- and sub-parts per
billion levels of PFOA in a variety of substances.
PFOA
is derived from poly-tetra-fluoro-ethylene (PTFE) what we know as Teflon. Teflon
itself was an "accidental" invention by a chemist in 1938. The fellow
was trying to make a refrigerant and instead came up with the non-reactive,
low-friction substance. Since then, PTFE has been employed as a coating on
pots, pans, wiper blades, curling irons, stain-resistant carpets, and even
microwave popcorn bags — just to name a few chemical-laced modern-day
conveniences.
At
least 99% of the general population in the U.S. have traces of PFOA in their bloodstream (up from
95% a few years ago). Folks who work in chemical plants or live near chemical
plants probably have much higher levels than everybody else.
Evidences:
It is known for a while that Teflon was a likely
health wrongdoer. The fact that Teflon fumes kill birds was the first clue. For
instance,
- When a Teflon-lined oven was used to bake biscuits at 325 degrees
Fahrenheit, an owner reported the death of his parrots.
- When four stovetop burners lined with Teflon drip pans were
preheated for a meal, 14 birds died within15 minutes.
- And when Teflon-coated heat lamp bulbs were installed in chicken
pens, half of the chicken population passed away within a few days.
Next clue was the health concerns voiced by workers
at the DuPont Washington Works plant in the Mid-Ohio Valley. DuPont paid out a $300 million settlement in response to a class
action lawsuit from plant workers and those who live near the plant in Ohio and West Virginia, all alleging DuPont contaminated their drinking
water with PFOA. If a corporation settles a lawsuit one always suspects they
were in the wrong, but you can't be sure. There wasn't a proven link between
cancer and PFOA ... until now.
Wake up call
Because of the allegations
in that West
Virginia and Ohio region, a panel of public health scientists has been
monitoring the long-term health of the community through epidemiologic and
other data. The panel was approved by DuPont as part of the class action
lawsuit over PFOA.
The evidence they've found is chilling. The low-but-constant levels of PFOA
consumed by residents in their drinking water have upped the rates of kidney
and testicular cancer. For kidney cancer, risk is up by a shocking 170 percent.
Thyroid cancer may also be affected by PFOA.
That same panel of independent scientists found another hair-raising health
link last year. Their findings showed a link between PFOA and pre-eclampsia (a
condition during pregnancy that can have catastrophic consequences for both the
mother and the fetus). And they recently found a link between PFOA and both
thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis.
Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D., a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group,
said "Widespread pollution by PFOA should be a wake-up call that our
chemical regulation system is severely broken." She added, "It is
particularly urgent for the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a legal
limit for drinking water pollution by PFOA, which is currently unregulated and
never should have come to market." I agree that this is a wake-up call.
But I think the only acceptable "legal limit" is zero.
A global phase-out is our best bet for future health safety
Right
now, there's a voluntary pact between eight major U.S. companies, including DuPont, to
"virtually" eliminate the use of PFOA by 2015. The pact was put
together by the Environmental Protection Agency. The goal is to drastically
reduce the shocking extent to which PFOA shows up everywhere (pizza boxes are
another offender).
According to DuPont's spokeswoman, Janet E. Smith, "DuPont has
commercialized new alternatives that are made with short chain chemistry that
cannot break down into PFOA."
On the flip side, Leann Brown, press secretary for the Environmental Working
Group (EWG), points out "Had DuPont done sufficient human safety testing
before bringing this product into commerce, they would have found this chemical
was unfit for commercial production and use."
The American Cancer Society points out there is very little data about the
ability of PFOA to cause cancer, but also states the major U.S. health agencies
have not formally evaluated PFOA and its connection to cancer. And keep in
mind, DuPont isn't the only offender that's been using this chemical, though
it's the only current American maker of PFOA. Loads of companies overseas
continue to produce and use it.
There may not be any formal study results, but all signs point in that
direction. If you ask us, it's not worth waiting around for a bureaucratic
process to tell us what we already know. Although unhappily, this doesn't help
the fact that it's probably already in your bloodstream. PFOA has even been
found in the blood of marine life and Arctic polar bears.
All you can really do at this point is make an effort to avoid the stuff as
much as possible. This means staying away from Teflon-coated cookware, or
anything that's heat-resistant or non-stick. Clothes are also possible
offenders, so avoid buying anything labeled wrinkle-free, stain-resistant, or
waterproof.
If you have a hankering for popcorn, here's good news: You can pop ordinary
kernels in your microwave in a simple, chemical-free, brown paper bag. In the
meantime, I'll be watching for updates from DuPont as it phases out the
chemical. And I'll be hoping someday for a global phase-out.
Some signs that PFOA may
cause cancer
In
the sixty years DuPont has been making Teflon, no human cancer has been
publicly linked to the chemical.
One
report claimed a connection between the birth of a deformed child and high
traces of the chemical, but that was in 1981, and no other cases have been
added.
For
people with higher-than-average PFOA levels, the health concern that rings true
is problems with fertility in both men and women.
For
now, the only studies that support PFOA as a cause of cancer are based on
testing rats with high doses.
Scientists
are still concerned about the low levels found in humans. After all, industries
are dealing with a toxin.
Doctors
— or somebody, for crying out loud — should monitor people with high traces of
the chemical to give us a better understanding of the impact on human health.
Because
PFOA is clearly harmful to rats and incredibly persistent in the environment,
the American EPA has noted "suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but
not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential."
In
response to its possible harm, the EPA launched the 2010/2015 Stewardship
Program, an initiative to get the eight major manufacturers that use PFOA to
work toward eliminating the chemicals from emissions and products by 2015.
DuPont
claims that PFOA is not in the finished version of Teflon products anyway. It's
merely used at an earlier stage of the manufacturing process. But the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) states there are trace amounts in finished
Teflon products. Since 95% of Americans have PFOA in their blood, it is the
time to do away with PFOA.
Applications
PFOA has widespread applications. In 1976, PFOA was
reported as a water and oil repellent "in fabrics and leather and in the
production of floor waxes and waxed papers"; however, it is believed
that paper is no longer treated with perfluorinated compounds, but with fluorotelomers
with less than 0.1% PFOA. The compound is also used in "insulators for electric
wires, planar etching of fused silica",
fire fighting foam, and outdoor clothing. As a
protonated species, the acid form of PFOA was the most widely used
perfluorocarboxylic acid used as a reactive intermediate in the production of
fluoroacrylic esters.
In a 2009 USEPA study of 116 products—purchased
between March 2007 and May 2008 and found to contain at least 0.01% fluorine by
weight—the concentrations of PFOA were determined. Concentrations shown below
range from not detected, or ND, (with the detection
limit in parenthesis) to 6750 with concentrations in nanograms
of PFOA per gram
of sample—or parts per billion—unless stated otherwise.
Products using PFOA
Serial
No
|
Products
|
1
|
|
2
|
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
5
|
|
6
|
Treated
non-woven medical garments
|
7
|
Industrial
floor wax
and wax removers
|
8
|
Stone,
tile, and wood sealants
|
9
|
|
10
|
|
11
|
|
12
|
|
13
|
|
Global occurrence and sources
PFOA contaminates
every continent.
PFOA has been detected in the central Pacific Ocean at low parts per quadrillion ranges, and at low parts per trillion levels in coastal
waters. Due to the surfactant nature of PFOA, it has been found to
concentrate in the top layers of ocean water.
PFOA is detected
widely in surface waters, and is present in numerous
mammals, fish, and bird species. However, wildlife has much less PFOA than
humans, unlike PFOS
and other longer perfluorinated carboxylic acids;
in wildlife, PFOA is not as bioaccumulative as longer perfluorinated carboxylic
acids.
Most industrialized
nations have average PFOA blood serum levels ranging from 2 to 8 parts per
billion; the highest consumer sub-population identified was in
Korea—with about 60 parts per billion. In Peru, Vietnam,
and Afghanistan
blood serum levels have been recorded to be below one part per billion. In
2003–2004 99.7% of Americans had detectable PFOA in their serum with an average
of about 4 parts per billion, and concentrations of PFOA in US serum have
declined by 25% in recent years. Despite a decrease in PFOA, the longer
perfluorinated carboxylic acid PFNA is increasing in the blood of US consumers. So far we
know no tests have been carried out within the workers of garments
manufacturing units in Bangladesh.
Human data
The levels of PFOA
exposure in humans vary widely. While an average American might have 3 or 4 parts per
billion of PFOA present in his blood serum, individuals
occupationally exposed to PFOA have had blood serum levels over 100,000 parts
per billion (100 parts per million or 0.01%) recorded. In a
study of individuals living around DuPont's Washington Works WV plant, those
who had no occupational exposure had a median blood
serum level of 329 parts per billion while the median of those with
occupational exposure was 775 parts per billion. While no amount of PFOA in
humans is legally recognized as harmful, DuPont was "not satisfied"
with data showing their Chinese workers accumulated an average of about 2,250
parts per billion of PFOA in their blood from a starting average of around 50
parts per billion less than a year prior.
Consumers
Single cross-sectional studies on consumers have
been published noting multiple associations. Blood serum levels of PFOA were
associated with an increased time to pregnancy—or "infertility"—in
a 2009 study. PFOA exposure was associated with decreased semen quality,
increased serum alanine aminotransferase levels, and
increased occurrence of thyroid disease. In a study of 2003–2004 US
samples, a higher (9.8 milligram per deciliter) total cholesterol level was observed when the
highest quartile
was compared to the lowest. Along with other related compounds, PFOA exposure
was associated with an increased risk of attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) in a study of US children aged 12–15. In a paper
presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the International Society of
Environmental Epidemiology, PFOA appeared to act as an endocrine disruptor by a potential mechanism on
breast
maturation in young girls. A C8 Science Panel status report noted an
association between exposure in girls and a later onset of puberty.
PFOA has been
associated with signs of reduced fetal growth including lower birth weight.[108][109][110]
However, other studies have not replicated the lower birth weight finding
including a study on the DuPont exposed community. PFOA exposure in the Danish
general population was not associated with an increased risk of prostate,
bladder,
pancreatic, or liver cancer.
Maternal PFOA levels were not associated with an offspring's increased risk of
hospitalization due to infectious diseases, behavioral and motor coordination
problems, or delays in reaching developmental milestones.
Toxicology data
While a USEPA review notes PFOA has not "been
shown to be mutagenic
in a variety of assays" in 1991 researchers from Japan demonstrated oxidative
liver DNA
damage in an experiment with rats. PFOA has been described as a member of a
group of "classic non-genotoxic carcinogens". However, a provisional
German assessment notes that a 2005 study found PFOA to be genotoxic
via a peroxisome proliferation pathway that produced oxygen radicals in HepG2 cells, and a 2006
study demonstrated the induction and suppression of a broad range of genes;
therefore, it states that the indirect genotoxic (and thus carcinogenic)
potential of PFOA cannot be dismissed. Criteria have been proposed that would
allow PFOA, and other perfluorinated compounds, to be classified as
"weakly non-specific genotoxic.
Sources to
people
Food, drinking water, outdoor air, indoor air, dust, and food
packagings are all implicated as sources of PFOA to people. However,
it is unclear which exposure routes dominate because of data gaps. When water
is a source, blood levels are approximately 100 times higher than drinking
water levels.
People who lived in the PFOA contaminated area
around DuPont's Washington Works Washington,
WV facility were found to have higher levels of PFOA in their blood
from drinking water. The highest PFOA levels in drinking water were found in
the Little Hocking water system, with an average concentration of 3.55 parts per
billion during 2002–2005. Individuals who drank more tap water, ate
locally grown fruits and vegetables, or ate local meat, were all associated
with having higher PFOA levels. Residents who used water carbon filter
systems had lower PFOA levels.
Food contact surfaces
PFOA is also formed as an unintended byproduct in
the production of fluorotelomers and is present in finished goods
treated with fluorotelomers, including those intended for food contact.
Fluorotelomers are applied to food contact papers because they are lipophobic:
they prevent oil from soaking into the paper from fatty foods. Also,
fluorotelomers can be metabolized into PFOA. In an U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(USFDA) study, lipophobic fluorotelomer-based paper coatings (which can be
applied to food contact paper in the concentration range of 0.4%) were found to
contain 88,000–160,000 parts per billion PFOA, while microwave
popcorn bags contained 6–290 parts per billion PFOA. Toxicologists
estimate that microwave popcorn could account for about 20% of the PFOA levels
measured in an individual consuming 10 bags a year if 1% of the fluorotelomers
are metabolized to PFOA. Fluorotelomer coatings are used in fast food wrappers,
candy wrappers, and pizza box liners. PAPS, a
type of paper fluorotelomer coating, and PFOA precursor, is also used in food
contact papers.
Despite DuPont's asserting that "cookware
coated with DuPont Teflon non-stick coatings does not contain PFOA,"
residual PFOA was also detected in finished PTFE products including
PTFE cookware (4–75 parts per billion). However, PFOA levels ranged from
undetectable (<1.5) to 4.3 parts per billion in a more recent study. Also,
non-stick cookware is heated—which should volatilize
PFOA; PTFE products that are not heated, such as PTFE sealant tape, had higher
(1800 parts per billion) levels detected. Overall, PTFE cookware is considered
an insignificant exposure pathway to PFOA
Conclusion:
Multiple studies have shown
how toxic this stuff is! So you must not like a side of polytetrafluoroethylene
or perfluorooctanoic acid with your egg in the frying pans. Teflon is toxic so avoid it at all
costs.
How much does the environment affect human health? Are air
pollution and tainted water shortening our lives and those of our children?
These questions have aroused increasing interest in recent years, particularly
since the adoption of Agenda 21 at the UN Conference on Environment and
Development, which drew the attention of policy makers to the links between
health and the environment. Environmental degradation
exerts significant pressure on human health. Exposure to air, water and soil
pollution, to chemicals in the environment, or to noise, can cause cancer,
respiratory, cardiovascular and communicable diseases, as well as poisoning and
neuropsychiatric disorders. Emerging environmental hazards, such as
chemical products, will also need to be addressed. Chemical products are used
in virtually every man-made product and play an important role in the everyday
life of people around the world. However, harmful exposure to chemical products
can lead to health problems such as skin diseases, chronic bronchitis, nervous
system dysfunctions and cancers as well as damaging the environment. Environmental
hazards are responsible for as much as a quarter of the total burden of disease
world-wide, and more than one-third of the burden among children. Heading that
list are diarrhea, lower respiratory infections, various forms of unintentional
injuries and malaria and cancer. The disease burden is much higher in the
developing world, although in the case of certain non-communicable diseases,
such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers, the per capita disease burden is
larger in developed countries. Health impacts of environmental hazards run
across more than 80 diseases and types of injury. Well-targeted interventions
can prevent much of this environmental risk. Worldwide, as many as 13 million
deaths could be prevented every year by making our environments healthier.
Beam of optimism is in pronouncement that eight U.S. companies, including giant DuPont
Co., agreed to virtually eliminate a harmful chemical used to make Teflon from
all consumer products coated with the ubiquitous nonstick material. The voluntary pact, which was crafted by the Environmental Protection
Agency, will force companies to reduce manufacturing emissions of PFOA by 95
percent. They will also have to reduce trace amounts of the compound in
consumer products by 95 percent during the same period and virtually eliminate
them by 2015.
Dr. Md. Abdus Sabur &
Nahida Sultana
