GENERATIONS AT RISK:
How Environmental Toxins May Effect Reproductive Health in Massachusetts

Executive Summary

Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility (GBPSR) and the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG) Education Fund have joined together to prepare the report Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxins May Affect Reproductive Health in Massachusetts. This report brings together for the first time information about the reproductive health effects of selected chemical exposures with use and emissions data from Massachusetts.

Major findings of the report include:

Of the more than 70,000 synthetic chemicals in commercial use today, only a small fraction have been adequately examined for toxic effects in humans and other life forms;

Despite limited scientific information, there is solid evidence of the reproductive toxicity of some substances in widespread commercial use including solvents, metals, and pesticides; newly-emerging evidence of the toxicity of others; and important new information about a mechanism of toxicity known but largely ignored for many years -- hormone (endocrine) disruption;

Federal and state regulations are frequently not written or implemented in ways protective of human health and the environment;

Of industries required to report chemical use, Massachusetts businesses used more than 2.1 billion pounds of toxic chemicals associated with reproductive or developmental disorders from 1990-1994;

Right-to-know legislation like the federal Toxics Release Inventory and the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act provide the public with essential information which is rightfully theirs about toxins to which they may be exposed. However, information gaps show that these laws do not go far enough. Since these laws were implemented, there has been a reduction in the environmental release of known and suspected reproductive toxins in Massachusetts;

In order to protect the public from exposure to known and suspected reproductive toxins, a precautionary and collaborative approach must be used by government, industry, the medical and scientific communities, advocacy groups, and private citizens.

The Scope of the Problem -- Extensive Exposure, Limited Information

 More than 70,000 synthetic chemicals and metals are currently in commercial use in the U.S. The toxicity of most of these is unknown or incompletely studied. In humans, exposure to some may cause cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, adverse neurological and immunological effects, or other injury. Reproductive and developmental effects are of concern because of important consequences for couples attempting to conceive and because exposure to certain substances during critical periods of fetal or infant development may have lifelong and even intergenerational effects.

Unfortunately, toxicological information is often incomplete. Animal testing usually looks at health effects using one chemical at a time. This strategy fails to provide information about interactive effects which may occur with exposure to more than one chemical. Moreover, animal tests often fail to examine for subtle, delayed, or difficult-to-diagnose conditions. Epidemiological (human) studies are often limited by inaccurate exposure assessments and incomplete information about health out comes. Further complicating matters, the federal government is reducing its support for research and information analysis. Corporate funding is filling the void, providing an opportunity for bias in study design and data interpretation.

Some Chemicals Known, Some Suspected, as Reproductive Toxins

Some of the specific synthetic chemicals or metals reviewed in this report are known to harm human reproduction or development. Lead and mercury, for example, disrupt brain development in the fetus. Solvent exposures are associated with spontaneous abortions in female workers. Several specific solvents have additional adverse effects -- glycol ethers and epichlorohydrin damage male reproductive function, and toluene causes birth defects at high levels of maternal exposure. Workers exposed to mixtures of pesticides are at increased risk of spontaneous abortion and birth defects in offspring. Some pesticides, like the fumigant, ethylene oxide, used to sterilize medical equipment, or the fungicide, benomyl, and herbicide, cyanazine, used in Massachusetts agriculture, are identifiable as particularly associated with adverse reproductive outcomes. While the scientific evidence is weaker and still emerging, many other chemicals may also adversely impact human reproduction. Suspects include cadmium, manganese, several solvents including xylene, styrene, and perchloroethylene, and numerous pesticides and plasticizers.

Animal testing reveals that a single dose of a tiny amount of dioxin administered during a critical "window of vulnerability" in pregnancy can lead to life-long health effects in offspring. Men exposed to Agent Orange, an herbicide containing dioxin, are more likely to father children with birth defects. In addition, maternal exposure to PCBs seems to result in developmental delays in children. Dioxin and PCBs are examples of chemicals which appear to derail human reproduction and development by interfering with hormones. Other chemicals which may also be endocrine disruptors in humans are commonly found in consumer products such as plastics, paints, detergents, cosmetics, and pesticides. While the full significance of some of these newly recognized or suspected reproductive and developmental toxins is not yet clear, there is reason for concern about a wide range of chemicals and their potential effects on human health.

The Need for Policy Reform -- Using Precaution as a Guide

Laws which regulate human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances generally take one of two possible approaches -- "better safe than sorry" or "innocent until proven guilty." We believe that a "better safe than sorry," or precautionary approach, should guide risk management and regulatory decisions. This means that the issue of safety should be thoroughly considered before human and environmental exposures are permitted. No hazardous substance should be allowed to slip through the cracks because of a lack of information, time, or funding. Where there is some evidence of human or environmental toxicity, the precautionary approach demands that exposures be avoided or minimized.

Federal legislation which regulates pesticides and pharmaceuticals, for example, intends that manufacturers provide evidence of safety before a product is released for use -- a seemingly cautious approach. But for many pesticides which were in use for years and "grandfathered" when EPA took over the pesticide registration process, safety studies are seriously inadequate. The special review process designed to address these deficiencies will not be complete for years. Moreover, despite the legislative intent, animal testing used to support an application for new pesticide registration currently fails to examine adequately for subtle and delayed toxicity. Furthermore, the registration process for pesticides does not account for interactive or cumulative effects of multiple exposures that individuals are likely to experience in real-world situations. And there is no comprehensive evaluation of the impact such chemicals may have on the environment generally.

But, for most industrial chemicals, there is no absolute requirement for advance demonstration of safety before the product enters the commercial market. For example, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the only legislation which addresses chemicals not covered by other laws, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must have reason to believe that a substance poses unreasonable risk to health or the environment before proposing controls -- i.e., the chemical is "innocent until proven guilty." Though the law states that the Administrator should have adequate data on which to base a decision, there are no standard testing protocols which are required before the chemical is released for use. And, with chemical manufacturers announcing more than 1,000 chemicals for production annually, the political and economic pressures to avoid thorough safety review are enormous. Appropriate screening and testing have never been practical possibilities under existing law. Moreover, industry has frequently abused "confidential business information" provisions in the legislation, effectively concealing the nature of industrial chemicals to which many people are exposed.

What Right-to-Know Data Reveal: Trends in Selected Chemical Use and Environmental Releases -- Leading Industries, Facilities, Municipalities

The federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) are two landmark laws that require public disclosure of environmental releases and use of listed chemicals by large industrial operations. They are the centerpieces of right-to-know legislation. Each is based on the fundamental principle that individuals have the right to know the identity of substances to which they are or might be exposed. Because of these laws, information is now available throughout the country about emissions of some toxic substances from selected industrial sources. In Massachusetts, information about chemical use is also available.

Environmental releases of chemicals with some evidence of reproductive toxicity have declined substantially since reporting requirements were established in Massachusetts. However, the amount of these chemicals incorporated into products has not changed significantly. The amount used tends to fluctuate with economic cycles. To the degree that right-to-know laws have contributed to the decrease in emissions they have been useful for protecting public health. However, their ultimate validity rests in their recognition of the public's right to know, irrespective of incentives they provide for reducing toxics use and releases. Such laws ensure that the public has the information required to make policy decisions and give individuals access to information they may need to protect themselves. We support efforts to expand each of these laws to include additional industries and hazardous substances and to make the data more readily available and understandable to the general public.

Although this report discusses the reproductive and developmental effects of a large number of chemicals, the Massachusetts use- and release-data review is limited to chemicals for which there are reporting requirements in TRI and TURA legislation (see Table 1).

According to TURA data, between 1990 and 1994, large Massachusetts industries used more than 2.1 billion pounds of these chemicals. More than 25 percent left the plants as part of the product being sold, with a much smaller amount (3.3%) leaving as waste. Most were transformed into other chemical substances during manufacturing processes, though it is not possible to determine with available data what the new chemicals were or what their toxicity may be.

The industry responsible for creating raw plastic materials is by far the biggest user of listed chemicals, reportedly using nearly 270 million pounds in 1993 alone. Top industrial users are:

Plastic materials and resins

Chemicals and allied products

Paints and allied products

Adhesives and sealants

Unsupported plastics film and sheets

Industrial organic chemicals

Chemical preparations

Coated and laminated papers

Custom compound purchased resins

Plastics products

Industries in Massachusetts found to be chiefly responsible for releasing listed chemicals into the environment or transferring them off-site as waste in 1993 are listed below:

Coated and laminated paper

Photographic equipment and supplies

Fabricated rubber products

Electric lamps

Electronic capacitors

Leather tanning and finishing

Finishing plants

Paints and allied products

Industrial organic chemicals

Environmental controls

Ironically, the "environmental controls" industry includes companies that make pollution control devices designed to monitor and prevent chemical pollutants from being released directly into the environment.

Toluene, used in glues, coatings, inks, and paint, was the leading reproductive toxin released into the environment in the Commonwealth between 1987 and 1993. During that time 30 million pounds were released directly into the air. Other listed chemicals released or transferred off-site in substantial quantities include 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, xylene, and glycol ethers. The most heavily used are styrene, toluene, glycol ethers, lead, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

The municipalities of Springfield, Holyoke, Oxford, Tewksbury, and Chicopee were, in descending order, the communities in which the largest amounts of listed chemicals were used in 1993. Municipalities in which the greatest quantities were released directly into the environment include Lowell, Fall River, Framingham, Peabody, and New Bedford.

Environmental releases of chemicals with some evidence of reproductive toxicity have declined substantially in Massachusetts from more than 15 million pounds in 1987 to less than 6 million pounds in 1993. Industrial use of these chemicals was also declining from 1990 to 1993, but in 1994 there was a large increase of approximately 56 million pounds. The amount going into products has fluctuated widely with a slight increase in 1994 compared to 1990. This suggests that, while there has been improved efficiency in chemical use and recycling, the potential for direct consumer exposure through product use has not declined.

Policy Recommendations

We base our policy recommendations on two fundamental principles: the precautionary approach and citizens' right-to-know. We believe that all members of the public, both in and outside of the workplace, have the right to be fully informed about the chemicals that they are likely to come in contact with and the potential health hazards associated with exposures. Moreover, individuals who are adequately informed of the presence and toxicity of hazardous materials will be more prepared and able to minimize exposures at home and in the workplace.

Industry, government, the medical and scientific communities, non-governmental organizations and the general public each has an important role to play in reducing toxic exposures and the likelihood of adverse health effects. Our general recommendations for each follow, but the reader should review the specifics in the body of the report for more detail.

Regulations and legislation intended to protect human health and the environment must be reformed to ensure that chemicals are screened and tested for safety before they are released for commercial use. The Toxics Substances Control Act and pesticide regulation are of particular concern.

Right-to-know laws reflect a fundamental right and are essential to public health. They should be expanded to include additional industries, chemical use data, and improved product labeling.

The medical and scientific communities need to investigate the relationships between human health and the environment more thoroughly and consistently integrate the information throughout their institutions, including in education and patient care.

The most dangerous reproductive hazards or the industrial processes that produce them should be phased out immediately, especially those for which an alternative is available. Others may be targeted for phase-out over a longer period of time or be more strictly controlled. Regulators should require phase-out of certain of these chemicals if industry fails to act.

Individuals should avoid unnecessary exposures to reproductive toxins in the home, community, and workplace. Informed decisions will, however, require full disclosure and identification of those substances. Individually and collectively, through non-governmental organizations, citizens should press for public policy initiatives to achieve these goals.

[Pesticides and Precautionary Principal] * [Precautionary Principal and Global Warming]
[How Environmental Toxins May Effect Reproductive Health]
[Back to CA DPR Emails] *

---

[Pests, Bugs and Other creepsy stuff Site Map]
 [Safe2use Site Map]