Bisphenol A in textile processing?

If you’ve bought baby bottles or water bottles recently, I’m sure you’ve seen a prominent “BPA Free” sign on the container.

BPA stands for Bisphenol A, a chemical often used to make clear, polycarbonate plastics (like water and baby bottles and also eyeglass lenses, medical devices, CDs and DVDs, cell phones and computers).  And though it has been formally declared a hazard to human health in Canada and banned in baby bottles in both Canada as well as the EU,  U.S. watchdog agencies have wildly differing views of BPA:  The National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported “some concern” that BPA harms the brain and reproductive system, especially in babies and fetuses.  The Food and Drug Administration declared that “at current levels of exposure” BPA is safe.

But consider this:  Of  the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted — 14 in all — has found no such effects.  David Case made the argument in the February 1, 2009 issue of Fast Company that this is a story about protecting a multibillion-dollar market from deregulation.  But that’s beside the point  which is:    nobody disputes the fact that people are constantly exposed to BPAs and babies are most at risk.  It’s also undisputed that BPA mimics the female sex hormone estrogen, and that some synthetic estrogens can cause infertility and cancer.  If you’d like to read more about this click here.

Bisphenol A is now deeply imbedded in the products of modern consumer society.  This is important because it’s used in so many modern products (making it pretty much ubiquitous), and because it is extremely potent in disrupting fetal development. BPA contamination is also widespread in the environment. For example, BPA can be measured in rivers and estuaries at concentrations that range from under 5 to over 1900 nanograms/liter.(1)

What this all means is that most of  us live our lives in close proximity to bisphenol A.

Because it’s used to make plastic hard, I never thought it would have a place in the textile industry.  So it was with some concern that I came across articles which explain the use of bisphenol A in the manufacturing of synthetic fibers.

Producing synthetic fibers and yarns is almost impossible without applying a processing aid to the fibers during the extrusion and spinning processes.   The fibers and yarns are frequently in contact with hot surfaces, or they pass through hot ovens.  In order to withstand these extreme conditions, the yarns and fibers have processing aids or finishes applied.    This applied processing aid or ‘finish’, in addition to helping the yarns withstand extreme temperatures, also  reduces static electricity, fiber-fiber and metal-fiber friction, provides integrity to the filaments,  and altogether eases the manufacturing processes.

But because modern manufacturing equipment runs at higher speeds and subsequently at higher temperatures, the finish degrades in the high temperatures – yielding lower quality fibers -  and generates unwanted decomposition products.  These byproducts can be in the form of:

1. Toxic and nontoxic gases which have environmental and safety issues;
2. Liquids, which leave a sticky residue on the yarns,
3. Or they may form a solid varnish on hot surfaces that is very difficult to remove; the presence of the varnish interferes with continuous, efficient production leading to economic losses due to equipment shutdown and product failure.

To overcome the problems caused by the degradation of finishes, several additives are introduced to prevent or delay the reactions of oxidation and degradation.  Several classes of antioxidants are typically used as these additives in these finishes.

In a study sponsored by the National Textile Center, a research consortium of eight universities, three North Carolina State University professors investigated the thermal stability of textiles, specifically with respect to the antioxidants used in the finishes.  They investigated four different antioxidants – one of which is based on Bisphenol A. (2)

So I got interested, and began a bit of poking around for other mentions of Bisphenol A in the textile industry. I found two scientific references to use of bisphenol A in the production of  polyester fabrics.  Both reported similar use of Bisphenol A as this quote,  which states:  “ a woven polyester fabric was … finished with an aqueous compound  containing 5% polyethylene glycol bisphenol A ether diacrylate for 30 min at 60° to give a hygroscopic, antistatic fabric with good washfastness.” (3)

I found that Bisphenol A is used  in the production of flame retardants, and as an intermediate in the manufacture of polymers, fungicides, antioxidants (mentioned above), and dyes.   Because it is often used as an intermediate it’s hard to pin down, and manufacturers keep their ingredients trade secrets so we often will not know – unless somebody funds a study which is published.

I have not seen any studies which report finding Bisphenol A in a finished fabric, so this may be a tempest in a teacup.  But isn’t it worth noting that this chemical, which has been found in the blood of 95% of all Americans, and which some say may be the “new lead”, can exist in products in which we previously never would have thought to look?

(1)  http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm

(2) Grant, Christine; Hauser, Peter; Oxenham, William, “Improving the Thermal Stability of Textile Processing Aids”,  www.ntcresearch.org/pdf-rpts/AnRp04/C01-NS08-A4.pdf

(3)  http://www.lookchem.com/cas-644/64401-02-1.html?countryid=0

Green backlash?

I just read an article about “green marketing” and how the manufacturer should downplay the green aspects of a product because “very few Americans have ever bought stuff because they want to
save the planet.”[1]

And I agree that most people just want their stuff, not a sermon.

But when I hear something along the lines of “we love your fabrics, but we’re looking for a particular shade of …” my heart drops – because I realize the speaker does not really believe that his
fabric choices are making a direct impact on him or his clients.   He does not believe that buying a product that pollutes our groundwater, contributes to global warming, contains chemicals which are known to be harmful to humans (and which might well have long term impacts on him), and all too often employs children who should be in school helping us fight the enormous problems we face – well, he doesn’t believe each purchase simply ensures that the same products will continue to be made!

Because what you buy is what gets produced.   It may be a long, circuitous way of making a
personal impact on you, but it happens nevertheless.

Why don’t people recognize this?

Green lifestyle expert Danny Seo says the main reason people choose not to buy green is:  they’re selfish.[2]  If there is not a tangible benefit to wearing organic cotton, or changing to organic bedding, Seo says people literally will not buy into it.  “All you know is that you have done something better for the planet. We are selfish, and want to know what we are getting out of it. That is why something like organic cotton will never work, because there is no direct link to why people should want to do this.”  And unlike a Prius, organic clothing or bedding isn’t something one can point to and use to improve their status – or promote their “greener than thou” lifestyle.

But Danny Seo doesn’t know about textile processing – because that organic cotton, if processed conventionally, contains chemicals – 27% by weight of the fabric to be exact -  which most definitely will allow you to make a direct link to what people are getting out of it – from asthma and allergies to cancers and worse.

To cite just a few examples:

• The American Contact Dermatitis Society has an interesting web
  site for people suffering from formaldehyde resins in fabrics[3],
• studies have found dioxin which leached from clothing – a potent
  carcinogen – on the skin of participants [4]
• and women working in textile factories which produce acrylic
  fibers have seven times the rate of breast cancer as the normal population[5].

Textile processing uses some of the most potent and dangerous chemicals known – and they remain in the fabrics we live with.  This becomes part of the chemical soup we’re all exposed to each day, and which we believe is changing us in many ways, not all for the better.  We don’t just absorb synthetic chemicals one at a time during the day.  We’re exposed to hundreds of chemicals as a result of using a wide array of consumer products, many of which contain the same chemicals as are found in fabrics.  We are exposed to a variety of stressors – and textiles are one of the stressors, among others such as:

• Automotive exhaust
• Cleaning products
• Chemicals in treated water
• Cosmetics
• Environmental pollution
• Food
• Insect repellents
•  Prescription drugs
• solvents
• Ultraviolet radiation

As we absorb tiny amounts of chemicals repeatedly from  multiple sources, they might add up until they reach a tipping point.  Add to this what Drs. Anita and Paul Clement call the “black hole” of ignorance about a key fact in toxicology:  that toxins make each other worse.  “A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that kills 1 in 100 rats, when combined, have a striking effect: all the rats die.“

So how can you, as an individual, change it – how can one person do anything to change the world? Margaret Meade says that committed people, banding together, is the only thing that really
ever has.

The writer Fritjof Capra says that we need to be governed “by a metaphor that says we are part of a continuously evolving and interrelated system”.  We need to start thinking of the world as a system, a cyclical system of interconnections, a web of connections— literally “the web of life.”

And it must be understood that this is a long-term project, not to be mistaken for a marketing trend like one furnishings manufacturer told us. (“Green?” he said. “Yes, well, we did that last year, but we’re doing something really exciting this year!”) In fact, green is only a part of it, a central part that must deal with environmentally benign materials and processes, restoration, recycling, reclaiming:  all those things we have to do to remedy the damage we’ve done to the natural environment and to ourselves in it.

Hope for the future springs from witnessing small reversals of the damage we have caused,  as Victor Papanek says in The Green Imperative.    These times, he says,  also call for a sense of optimism and a willingness to act without full understanding but with a faith in the effect of small individual actions on the global picture.

Remember that each time you purchase something,  you’re ensuring that the product you bought will keep being produced, in the same  way.  If you support new ideas, find creative ways to use something or insist that what you buy meets certain parameters, then new research will be done to
meet consumer demand and new processes will be developed that don’t leave a legacy of destruction.

Lots of people, individually and together, made a difference in the way our foods are grown and processed.  Organic foods went from gnarly to beautiful, and now we’re becoming healthier and our land is being replenished.  It can be done if the individual believes in his own importance, and believes that each purchasing decision is a vote – for clean air and water and safe products – a vote literally for our future.  Or not.

---

[1]
Shelton, Suzanne, “Green Marketing and the Death of Curmudgeonly Contrariness”,
GreenBiz, May 19, 2011.

[2]
Kate Rogers, “Why People Opt Against Going Green”, FOXBusiness, November 4,
2011; http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/11/04/why-people-opt-against-going-green/

[3] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/497713_Tables

[4] “Dioxins and Dioxin-like Persistent Organic Pollutants in Textiles and Chemicals in the
Textile Sector”  Bostjan Krizanec and Alenka Majcen Le Marechal,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, SI-2000
Maribor, Slovenia; January 24, 2006

[5]  Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010,
67:263-269 doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.049817
SEE ALSO:  http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp
AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321

What is “body burden” – and why is it important to you?

I just found a website that threw me for a loop:  It’s called Sailhome (www.sailhome.org).

It was started by a regular guy – a physicist living in San Francisco who was the VP of marketing for a semiconductor intellectual property company – named Ron.   Ron’s son, born almost 10 years ago, began to show signs of being developmentally off track by age 2.  By age 3, Ron and his wife had three separate diagnoses trying to label his condition – Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, Autism.

Before age 4, he began receiving treatment guided by the DAN! Protocol.  DAN! doctors feel that autism is a disorder caused by a combination of lowered immune response, external toxins from vaccines and other sources, and problems caused by certain foods. It includes treatment to reduce toxic loads and pathogens, boost immunity, and heal from the complexities of toxic injury.  Some of the major interventions suggested by DAN! practitioners include:

• Nutritional supplements, including certain vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and essential fatty acids
• Special diets totally free of gluten (from wheat, barley, rye, and possibly oats) and free of dairy (milk, ice cream, yogurt, etc.)
• Testing for hidden food allergies, and avoidance of allergenic foods
• Treatment of intestinal bacterial/yeast overgrowth (with pro-biotics, supplements and other non-pharmaceutical medications)
• Detoxification of heavy metals through chelation (a potentially hazardous medical procedure)

There are some who debate about whether this approach is safe, proven, or even “quackery”.
But it’s working for Ron’s son –  who is 9 years old in 2010, and largely recovered. Ron says that most people who meet him have no inkling he’s ever been “on the spectrum” – but that successfully navigating through each day’s toxic insults will probably remain a life-long challenge for him.

Sailhome was started by this regular guy, who says he  “parked my career for 6+ years in order to help my son recover, make sure my family stayed intact during the ordeal, and to develop this web site.”

The website is an attempt to “connect the dots”, so that we have a better understanding about how easily toxic exposures occur, the types of illness that results, and how to prevail.

It’s divided into three parts under “Concerns”:

• Body Burden
• Excitotoxins
• Vaccines

I want to concentrate on the “Body Burden” section, because among the chemicals often found in our bodies (contributing to our body burden) are those used most often in textile processing.

Body burden refers to the accumulation of synthetic chemicals – found in substances like household cleaners, fabrics, cosmetics, pest repellants, computers, cell phones – which helped “modernize” our lives in the post World War II chemical age and which are now found in our own bodies. When we hear that some chemicals can damage the environment, we have forgotten that we ARE the environment, as David Suzuki reminds us.  Whatever is “out there” is also inside us.  We live , breathe and eat the products of our modern industrial era, for better or for worse.  Think of it as “the pollution inside people”.

You can get tons of information about body burden on Google, and studies litter the landscape with results showing the effects this chemical onslaught is having on us. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is running the National Biomonitoring Program (NBP) started in 1998. Every two years the NBP attempts to assess exposure to environmental chemicals in the general U.S. population.   Data covering 2001-2002 found that the average adult American body carried 116 toxic synthetic compounds. In other studies, similar chemicals have been detected in the placenta, umbilical cord blood, bloodstream, and body fat of infants as well as in the human breast milk they drink. In a study sponsored by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in the umbilical cord of newborn babies,  indicating that babies are born “pre polluted”. 

Yet many people are not terribly concerned, because the industry and their government tells them that the chemicals found in products are present in such low quantities as to have no effect.  And scientists are trained to believe that “the dose makes the poison” – in other words, it’s commonly thought that a little bit won’t hurt you; that large doses always have greater effects than small doses.  But that simplistic approach overlooks greater harm that is being found at extremely small doses.  If all toxins behaved exactly the same way that might hold true.   But the effect of high doses cannot always be extrapolated to predict what happens at extremely low doses.

The effect of a ‘dose’ is not that simple.  Factors that must be considered include

• Size of dose

• Length of exposure

• Rate of absorption

• Timing

• Individual metabolism

• State of health and nutrition when exposed

• Concurrent exposure to other toxicants — including order of exposures and any  synergies

Here are some of the problems with the assumption that a low dose translates into low risk:

New research is demonstrating that harm can occur at much lower thresholds than previously considered possible.  Hormones, for example, play specific roles, at specific moments in time, throughtout a person’s life.  If the actions of hormones are prevented, interrupted, or increased then the effects can range from subtle to dramatic.

For example, exposure occurring at a young age can cause a subtle change in how a gene expresses itself. This can set up a low-level progression of conditions that eventually leads to some form of cancer.

In other cases the original disruption might occur at a key moment during development in the womb. The dramatic result might be a birth defect, mental retardation or miscarriage.

The amount of chemical necessary to cause these disruptions does not have to be large. A vanishingly small amount is all it takes — “just enough” to alter an event.   The mouse on the left is normal. The mouse on the right was exposed to 1 ppb DES while in the womb.   For years it was assumed that such low exposure would have no effect — until someone checked.

Toxins are often regulated based on finding the level of exposure that causes no harm. This is known as the ‘no observable adverse effects level’ (NOAEL).  But a NOAEL is derived by starting with a high dose and then reducing subsequent doses until no affect is observed misses other harm that can take place (from synergistic reactions with other chemicals in the body) at even lower doses.

These chemicals do not act in a vacuum and the effects cannot be isolated from other variables.  Harm can be amplified when chemicals are combined –  in other words, toxins can make each other more toxic.  For example, a dose of mercury that would kill 1 out of 100 rats, when combined with a dose of lead that would kill 1 out of 1000 rats – kills every rat exposed!  This is called synergistic toxicity.

The timing – and order –  of toxic exposure plays a much more significant role than previously recognized.  Exposures can happen one after the other, or all at once. Combinations of chemicals can produce:

• Consequences that are significantly different than would be expected from individual exposures.
• A range of combined acute and chronic effects.
• Effects that can appear immediately  -  or sometime later.
• Increased or unexpected harmful effects — including entirely new kinds of effects.

The possible combinations of exposure are huge and knowledge is limited about the effects of mixed exposures. Individual susceptibility adds to the complexity of exposure and resulting outcomes.   As a result, current safety standards based on high dose experiments don’t guarantee shelter from toxic levels of exposure.

Genetic susceptibility plays a role in body burden.  For instance, a large part of the population, possibly more than 20%, are unable to effectively excrete heavy metals. Their burden accumulates faster. Their illnesses are more obvious. They are the “canaries in a coal mine” in an environment that is increasingly toxic.  It’s becoming abundantly clear that both “rare” and “common” illnesses are on the rise, and research is making a connection with body burden. The National Institutes of Health defines a rare disease as one affecting 200,000 or fewer Americans yet:

• 25 million Americans suffer from one of the nearly 6,000 identified rare diseases.  That rivals the 40 million Americans with one or more of the three “major” diseases: heart disease, cancer or diabetes.

Viruses, bacteria, yeasts, parasites, and mold aggravate body burden at any stage of life. New research demonstrates that viruses can increase susceptibility to heavy metals; or that they increase the uptake of PBDEs.  Beyond the better understood mechanisms of infection, research is revealing that some microorganisms interact directly with chemicals to enhance susceptibility to infection.

A common misconception is that “inactive ingredients will not interact”.
In fact many ingredients do interact, and it is possible for ingredients to change into different chemicals that also interact. A manufacturer may claim a product has been tested and proven to be 100% safe when used as directed. This might be true — there is no requirement to test for synergies.

These are just the highlights of Ron’s eye opening discussion.  Please take a few minutes exploring his web site and others, some of which I’ve listed below:

Resources:

www.sailhome.org

For presentation on PBS and hosted by Bill Moyers on our body burden, see http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html

For the Centers for Disease Control report: www.cdc.gov/exposurereport

For the EWG/Mount Sinai body burden report: www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/index.php

For the EPA study on extent of testing for modern chemicals: www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/hazchem.htm

For ideas on what you can do: “Everybody’s Chemical Burden” by Shayna Cohen in The Green Guide #96 May/June 2003, www.thegreenguide.com