Why our children are at risk

18 11 2013

We hear about deaths from cancer – and how the rates are going down  (1). And that’s fabulous – but the sad fact is that the incidence of cancer seems to be going up (2).   The reason is complicated – we’re getting older, true –  but we’re also getting better at fighting it:

Cancer Research UK

Cancer Research UK

The number of new cancer cases have increased 0.6% every year since 1975 – overall, that’s an increase of 21% in the past 36 years (3) . What I find particularly disturbing is the rise in the reported incidence of cancer among young children and adolescents, especially brain cancer, testicular cancer, and acute lymphocytic leukemia. Sadly, after injuries and violence, cancer is the leading cause of death in our children (4).

National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences

At the risk of showing my bias, in case there are those among you who didn’t already know, I think part of the problem is because our environment contains many chemicals that are known to cause these cancers. But I’m not alone: the New York Times, in a recent editorial, urged the reform of the current law which purports to protect Americans from these chemicals (5), and the 2011 report of the President’s Cancer Panel has said that the “true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated.” (6)

Besides cosmetics, shampoos, detergents and building products, fabric processing uses a wide variety of synthetic chemicals, many of which remain in the fabrics. A short list of the many chemicals used in textile processing – many of which remain in the fabrics we live with – includes the following chemicals, which are all linked to cancer:

• Formaldehyde is known to cause cancer (and asthma), yet rates of formaldehyde in indoor air have grown from 14 ppb in 1980 to 200 ppb in 2010 – and these rates are increasing.
• Higher rates of chemicals called Polychlorinated Biphenyls, or PCBs, used in the production of plastics – and therefore all synthetic fabrics – also are linked with higher rates of leukemia.
• Benzene, used in the production of nylon and other synthetics, in textile dyestuffs and in the pigment printing process – is linked to leukemia, breast cancer, lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers.
• Chromium Hexavalent compounds, used in leather tanning, and the manufacture of dyes and pigments, are linked to lung, nasal and nasopharyngeal cancers.
• Bisphenol A, used in the production of polyester and other synthetic fibers and as an intermediate in the production of dyestuffs, is an endocrine disruptor linked to breast and prostate cancer.

Children are at greater risk because they are exposed at a higher rate than adults, their behaviors exacerbate exposure and they have increased susceptibility to the chemicals:

GREATER EXPOSURE:
Pound for pound, children breathe twice as much air as an adult, drink two and a half times as much water, and eat three to four times more. Also – the typical newborn weighs 1/20th that of an adult male, but the infant’s surface area is just 1/8th as great. This means that the infant’s total skin area is 2.5 times more per unit of body weight than an adult (7).
Their breathing rates, at rest, are higher than those of adults, and greater levels of physical activity can increase their breathing rates even further. Their play is often at ground level, while adults breathe four to six feet above the floor. So children have greater inhalation and dermal exposure to chemicals present on floors, carpets, grass or dirt, where heavier chemicals such as lead and particulates settle.

BEHAVIOR:
Children put everything into their mouths when exploring their environment. This increases their ingestion of substances in soil, household dust, floors and carpets, as well as the objects themselves.

Some children will gleefully jump into a lake – even before they could swim! This lack of fear as they grow can further increase their exposure to environmental hazards.

INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY:
Childhood is characterized by rapid physical and mental growth. Accordingly, certain organs may not be fully developed and may be more vulnerable to injury. Children absorb, metabolize, and excrete compounds differently than adults.
• In some instances, children may be more susceptible than adults due to their increased rates of absorption or decreased rates of elimination of foreign compounds. In other cases, the opposite may be true. Children will absorb about 50 percent of lead ingested, whereas adults will absorb only about 10 to 15 percent(8). Kidneys are the principal pathway for elimination of most chemicals from the body. At birth an infant’s kidney’s filtration rate is a fraction of adult values; by age one the rate is at adult levels. (9)
• Longer lifetimes: many diseases initiated by chemical hazards take decades to develop, so early exposure to toxicants may be more likely to lead to disease than the same exposures experienced later in life.

The fetus is particularly sensitive to environmental toxicants (10). Chemicals can affect the children born to women exposed during pregnancy, while the women remain unaffected. For example, the children of women from Michigan who ate two to three meals of fish contaminated with PCBs per month for six years before pregnancy had lower birth weights, memory deficits at seven months and four years of age, and cognitive deficits persisted at eleven years of age (11). In Iraq, children born to women who during pregnancy inadvertently ate seed grain treated with mercury to prevent fungus had severe developmental and mental deficits  (12).

(1) Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2009;59(4):225–249.
(2) Data from cancer tracking suggest that childhood cancer is increasing, although the data is not consistent from year to year; the National Cancer Institute reported that for infants less than one year old, the rate of cancer rose by 36% from 1976-84, but some say that these increases are due to improved detection rather than representing true increases in cancer.
(3) Center for Children’s Health and the Environment, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine (http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/odyssey/toxics_brain_cancer.pdf)
(4) Ibid.
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/a-toothless-law-on-toxic-chemicals.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
(6) http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/presidents-cancer-panel/
(7) Our Children at Risk, The Natural Resrouces Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap2.asp
(8) Royce, S. and H. Needleman, Case Studies in Environmental Medicine: Lead Toxicity, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1995.
(9) Bearer, C., “How Are Children Different from Adults?” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 103, supp. 6, September 1995, pp. 7-12.
(10) Birnbaum, L.S., “Endocrine Effects of Prenatal Exposures to PCBs, Dioxins, and Other Xenobiotics: Implications for Policy and Future Research,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 102, no. 8, 1994, pp.676-679. Y.L. Guo et al., “Growth Abnormalities in the Population Exposed in Utero and Early Postnatally to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Dibenzrofurans,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 105, suppl. 6, September 1995, pp.117-122.
(11) Jacobson, J.L. et al., “The Transfer of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs) across the Human Placenta and into Maternal Milk,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 74, 1984, pp.378-9. J. Jacobson et al., “Effects of In Utero Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Related Contaminants on Cognitive Functioning in Young Children,” Pediatrics, vol. 116, 1990, pp.38-45. S.W. Jacobson et al., “The Effect of Intrauterine PCB Exposure on Visual Recognition Memory,” Child Dev, vol. 56,1985, pp.853-60. J.L. Jacobson et al., “Effects of Exposure to PCBs and Related Compounds on Growth and Activity in Children,” Neurotoxicol. Teratol., vol.12, 1990, pp. 319-26.
(12) Gilbert, S. G. and K. Grant-Webster, “Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Methyl-Mercury Exposure,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 103, supp. 6, September 1995, pp. 135-142.





True cost of a conventional sofa

8 11 2013

Buying a sofa is a big committment: it dominates the room, costs a lot, and should be presentable for at least 10 years. So let’s say that you’ve cruised the stores, sat in the sofas, lifted them, pushed and probed – and decided on a version that looks and feels right. And you’ve made sure that your choice contained all the ingredients for a high quality sofa – hardwood frame (check), 8 way hand-tied springs (check); high density foam (check), and a decorative fabric that will last the entire 10 – 20 year estimated life of the sofa.

But is it organic?

Most people wouldn’t give that question a second thought, but we think it’s a critical question. Why? Well, let’s just assume you’ve chosen a conventionally produced sofa. That means:

1. The hardwood is not FSC certified, which means it comes from a forest that is not managed. That means you’ve chipped away at your children’s inheritance of this Earth by supporting practices which don’t support healthy forests, which are critical to maintaining life: forests filter pollutants from the air, purify the water we drink, and help stabilize the global climate by absorbing carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. They provide habitat for 90% of the animal and plant species which live on land. Forests are commercially important, too; they yield valuable resources like wood, rubber and medicinal plants, including plants used to create cancer drugs. Forest certification is like organic labeling for forest products. If you have chosen a sofa which uses plywood, medium density fiberboard (MDF) or Glue Laminated Beams (Glulam), then you will also be living with formaldehyde emissions. To read more about why FSC certification is important, click here.

2. The sofa uses either polyurethane or soy foam. Even high density polyurethane foam – as well as soy foam, the new media darling – emits methyloxirane, which causes cancer and genetic mutations , and toluene, a neurotoxin . Your polyurethane/soy foams oxidize over time, sending these chemicals into the air, where you can breathe them in.  Highly poisonous, even in small amounts, these compounds can disrupt hormonal and reproductive systems, and are toxic to the immune system. Early life exposure has been shown to disrupt brain development. And because polyurethane and soy foams are basically solid gasoline, they often require flame retardant chemicals. To read more about soy and poly foams, click here  and here.

From blog.greensciencepolicy.org

From blog.greensciencepolicy.org

3. Your sofa uses fabric – made of anything from cotton to linen or polyester – which was produced without regard to the kinds of chemicals used in dyestuffs, processing or finishes. Fabrics are, by weight, about 25% synthetic chemicals, and textile processing uses some of the most dangerously toxic chemicals known – among them, lead, mercury, arsenic, formaldehyde, Bisphenol A (BPA), flame retardants such as pentaBDE, PFOA.

There are no requirements that manufacturers disclose the chemicals used in processing – chemicals which remain in the finished fabrics. Often the chemicals are used under trade names, or are protected by legislation as “trade secrets” in food and drug articles – but fabrics don’t even have a federal code to define what can/cannot be used  –  because fabrics are totally unregulated in the U.S., except in terms of fire retardancy or intended use. It’s pretty much a free-for-all. Many studies have linked specific diseases with work in the textile industry – such as autoimmune diseases, leukemia and breast cancer. Some of the chemicals used in processing evaporate into your home’s air (such as formaldehyde), others (like lead) will be available in house dust – because every time you sit down or brush against the fabric, microscopic particles abrade and fly into the air. And remember, your skin is a permeable membrane. We are just beginning to understand how even tiny doses of certain chemicals may switch genes on and off in harmful ways during the most sensitive periods of development, and how the endocrine system involves a myriad of chemical messengers and feedback loops. A fetus might respond to a chemical at one hundred-fold less concentration or more, yet when you take that chemical away, the body is nonetheless altered for life.  So infants may seem fine at birth, but might carry within them a trigger only revealed later in life, often in puberty, when endocrine systems go into hyperdrive. This increases the adolescent’s or adult’s chances of falling ill, getting fat, or becoming infertile, for example. For more on these issues, click here  and here

4. Finally, glues, varnishes, paint all contribute to the toxic load of evaporating chemicals if conventional products have been used on your sofa.

We are often asked about the perceived higher cost of going organic – but really, isn’t the true cost of a conventional sofa more than anybody should have to bear?





10 reasons to make sure your sofa choices are upholstered with safely processed fabrics.

28 10 2013

If a fabric is identified as 100%  “cotton” – or even 100% “organic cotton”  —  it’s important to remember that processing the fiber, and then weaving it into fabric, is very chemically intense.  One-quarter of the total weight of the finished fabric is made up of synthetic chemicals, so it’s important to know that the chemicals used in your fabrics are safe! [1]

There have not been a lot of studies which show the effects that chemicals contained in a fabric have on humans as a result of using that fabric, perhaps because there are no interested parties other than universities and government entities.   But there are numerous studies which document the effects which the individual chemicals have on humans – perhaps because the textile industry is so fragmented that the few really large corporations with the resources to do this kind of research tend to finance research which supports  new products (such as DuPont’s PLA fibers or Teijin’s recycling efforts).  But there have been some, and we found the following:

  1. Formaldehyde is used often in finishing textiles to give the fabrics easy care properties (like wrinkle resistance, anti cling, stain resistance, etc.).  Formaldehyde resins are used on almost all cotton/poly sheet sets in the USA.
    1. Formaldehyde is a listed human carcinogen.  Besides being associated with watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes and throat, nausea, difficulty in breathing, coughing, some pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), asthma attacks, chest tightness, headaches, and general fatigue, as well as well documented skin rashes, formaldehyde is associated with more severe health issues:  For example, it could cause nervous system damage by its known ability to react with and form cross-linking with proteins, DNA and unsaturated fatty acids.13 These same mechanisms could cause damage to virtually any cell in the body, since all cells contain these substances. Formaldehyde can react with the nerve protein (neuroamines) and nerve transmitters (e.g., catecholamines), which could impair normal nervous system function and cause endocrine disruption. [3]
      1. In January 2009, new blue uniforms issued to Transportation Security Administration officers gave them skin rashes, bloody noses, lightheadedness, red eyes, and swollen and cracked lips, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing the officers.
      2. In 2008, more than 600 people joined a class action suit against Victoria’s Secret, claiming horrific skin reactions (and permanent scarring for some) as a result of wearing Victoria Secret’s bras.   Lawsuits were filed in Florida and New York – after the lawyers found formaldehyde in the bras.
      3. Contact dermatitis is a well-known condition, and there are many websites which feature ways to get help.
      4. A study by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found a link in textile workers between length of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths.[2]
    2. Dioxins:  Main uses of dioxin in relation to textiles is as a preservative for cotton and other fibers during sea transit,  and in cotton bleaching. It is also found in some dyestuffs.  Dioxin is known as one of the strongest poisons which man is able to produce. It causes cancer of the liver and lung, and interferes with the immune system, resulting in a predisposition to infectious diseases and embrional misgrowth.
      1. Studies have found dioxin leached from clothing  onto  the skin of participants:[3]  It was shown that these contaminants are transferred from textiles to human skin during wearing. They were also present in shower water and were washed out of textiles during washing. Extensive evidence was found indicating that contaminated textiles are a major source of chlorinated dioxins and furans in non-industrial sewage sludge, dry cleaning residues and house dust.
    3. Perfluorocarbons (PFC’s)  break down within the body and in the environment to PFOA, PFOS and similar chemicals. (Note: the chemistry here is quite dense; I’ve tried to differentiate between the groups. Please let me know if I’ve made a mistake!) They are the most persistent synthetic chemicals known to man. Once they are in the body, it takes decades to get them out – assuming you are exposed to no more. They are toxic in humans with health effects from increased chloesterol to stroke and cancer. Although little PFOA can be found in the finished product, the breakdown of the fluorotelomers used on paper products and fabric treatments might explain how more than 90% of all Americans have these hyper-persistent, toxic chemicals in their blood. A growing number of researchers believe that fabric-based, stain-resistant coatings, which are ubiquitous, may be the largest environmental source of this  controversial chemical family of PFCs.

PFC’s are used in stain resistant finishes/fabrics such as Scotchgard, GoreTex, Crypton, Crypton Green, GreenShield, Teflon:

  1. PFC’s cause developmental and other adverse effects in animals.[4]
  2. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the more exposure children have to PFC’s (perfluorinated compounds), the less likely they are to have a good immune response to vaccinations (click here to read the study).[5]

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PFC’s:

  • Are very persistent in the environment.
  • Are found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the U.S. population.
  • Remain in people for a very long time.
  • Cause developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.

The levels of PFC’s globally are not going down – and in fact there are places (such as China) where the PFC level is going up. And as there is not a “no peeing” part of the pool, the exposure problem deserves international attention.

4. Tributylphosphate – or TBP – is used in the production of synthetic resins and as a flame-retarding plasticizer. It is also used as a primary plasticizer in the manufacture of plastics and as a pasting agent for pigment pastes used in printing. Because it is a strong wetting agent, it is used often in the textile industry.  In addition to being a known skin irritant (click here to see the MSDS with a warning that it causes eye and skin irritation), TBP also causes bladder cancer in rats. (2)

  1. Alaska Airlines flight attendants were given new uniforms in 2010; shortly thereafter many reported “dermal symptoms” (e.g., hives, rash, blisters, skin irritation), while some also referenced respiratory symptoms and eye irritation; some have more recently been diagnosed with abnormal thyroid function. The symptoms apparently occurred only while wearing the new uniforms. (To read the report filed with the Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Association of Flight Attendants, click here. )

The only fact which can be agreed upon between the union, the CPSC and the manufacturer is that some unknown percent of the fabric used to make the uniforms was “contaminated” with TBP, tributylphosphate, as reported by the manufacturer – but since not all the fabric was tested, it is unknown the final percentage of contaminated fabric.

5.  Acrylic fibers are made from acrolynitrile  (also called vinyl cyanide), which is a carcinogen (brain, lung and bowel cancers) and a mutagen, targeting the central nervous system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, acrylonitrile enters our bodies through skin absorption, as well as inhalation and ingestion.  It is not easily recycled nor is it biodegradeable.

  1. Women who work in factories which produce acrylic fibers have seven times the rate of breast cancer as the normal population [6] – those working with nylon have double the risk.

6.  Chemicals used in textile processing which are associated with the immune system include formaldehyde, benzenes, toluene, phthalates. In 2007, The National Institutes of Health and the University of Washington released the findings of a 14 year study that demonstrates those who work with textiles were significantly more likely to die from an autoimmune disease than people who didn’t [7].

  1. Allergies and asthma are both thought to be associated with impaired immune systems.   Twice as many Americans (not just children) have asthma now as 20 yrs ago[8] and 10% of American children now have asthma.[9]
  2. As well as allergies and asthma, there are numerous other ‘chronic inflammatory diseases’ (CIDs) such as Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis which seem to stem from impaired regulation of our immune systems.[10]

7.  Chemicals commonly used in textiles which contribute to developmental disorders (such as (ADD, ADHA, autism, Dyslexia): Bisphenol A, flame retardants, heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadmium), phthalates, PCB’s:

  1. Currently one of every six American children has a developmental disorder of some kind.[11]
  2. Bisphenol A  – used as a finish in the production of synthetic fibers: It mimics estrogens (is an endocrine disruptor) and can cause infertility and cancer.[12] 

8.  PCB’s :  used in flame retardants on fabrics; they are neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors and carcinogenic

  1. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned psychologists to study children whose mothers were exposed to PCB’s during pregnancy. The researchers found  that the more PCBs  found in the mother’s cord blood, the worse the child did on tests for things such as short-term memory. By age eleven, the most highly exposed kids had an average IQ deficit of 6.2 [13].

9.  Cancer – chemicals used in textile processing which are linked to cancer include formaldehyde, lead, cadmium, pesticides, benzene, vinyl chloride – as well as pesticides on crops: 

  1. all childhood cancers have grown at about 1% per year for the past two decades[14]
  2.  brain cancer in children increased nearly 40% from 1973 to 1994[15]
  3. the environmental attributable fraction of childhood cancer can be between 5% and 90%, depending on the type of cancer[16]

10.  Lead – used in the textile industry in a variety of ways and as a component in dyestuffs -  is a neurotoxin – it affects the human brain and cognitive development, as well as the reproductive system. Some of the kinds of neurological damage  caused by lead are not reversible.        Specifically, it affects reading and reasoning abilities in  children, and is also linked to hearing loss, speech delay, balance difficulties and violent tendencies.[17]     Children are uniquely susceptible to lead exposure over time,  and  neural damage occurring during the period from 1 to 3 years of age is not likely to be reversible.  It’s also important to be aware  that lead available from tested products would not be the only source of  exposure in a child’s environment.        Lead is used in the textile industry in a variety of ways and under a variety of names:

    1. Lead acetate:                        dyeing of textiles
    2. Lead  chloride                      preparation of lead salts
    3. Lead molybdate                   pigments used in dyestuffs
    4. Lead nitrate                         mordant in dyeing; oxidizer in dyeing(4)

Studies have shown that if children are exposed to lead, either in the womb or in early childhood, their brains are likely to be smaller.[18]

Lead is a uniquely cumulative poison: the daily intake of lead is not as important a determinant of ultimate harm as is the duration of exposure and the total lead ingested over time.

 


[1] Lacasse and Baumann, Textile Chemicals, Springer, New York, 2004,  page 609; on behalf of the German Environmental Protection Agency.

[2] Pinkerton, LE, Hein, MJ and Stayner, LT, “Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update”, Occupational Environmental
Medicine, 2004 March, 61(3): 193-200.

[3] Horstmann, M and McLachlan, M; “Textiles as a source of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurrans (PCDD/F) in human skin and sewage sludge”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol 1, Number 1, 15-20, DOI: 10.1007/BF02986918  SEE ALSO:  Klasmeier, K, et al; “PCDD/F’s in textiles – part II: transfer from clothing to human skin”, Ecological Chemistry and Geochemistry, University of Bayreuth,  CHEMOSPHERE, 1.1999 38(1):97-108 See Also:  Hansen,E and Hansen, C; “Substance Flow Analysis for Dioxin 2002”, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project No.811 2003

[4] Philippe Grandjean, et al, “Serum Vaccine Antibody Concentrations in Children Exposed to Perfluorinated Compounds”, Journal of the American Medical Association,  january 25, 2012

[6] Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010, 67:263-269 doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.049817 (abstract: http://oem.bmj.com/content/67/4/263.abstract)
SEE ALSO: http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp
AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321

[7] Nakazawa, Donna Jackson, “Diseases Like Mine Are a Growing Hazard”, Washington
Post
, March 16, 2008.

[11] Boyle, Coleen A., et al, “Trends in the Prevalence of Developmental Disabilities in U.S. children, 1997-2008”, Pediatrics,  February, 2011.

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

[13] Shulevitz, Judith, “The Toxicity Panic”, The New Republic, April 7, 2011.

[15] New York Times, “New Toxins Suspected as Cancer Rate Rises in children”, September 29, 1997

[16] Gouveia-Vigeant, Tami and Tickner, Joel, “Toxic Chemicals and Childhood Cancer: a review of the evidence”, U of Massachusetts, May 2003

[17] ‘Safe’ levels of lead still harm IQ”, Associated Press, 2001

[18] Dietrich, KN et al, “Decreased Brain Volume in Adults with Childhood Lead
Exposure”, PLoS Med 2008 5(5): e112.





Choosing a fabric for your new sofa

14 10 2013

Design decisions influence our health –so your choice of a sofa fabric could influence you and your family in ways far beyond what you imagined.  Our children start life with umbilical cords infused with chemicals that affect the essence of human life itself  -   the ability to learn, reason and reproduce.  And fabric – which cocoons us most of the time, awake and asleep – is a contributor to this chemical load.  One thing I know for sure is that the textile industry uses lots of chemicals. During manufacturing, it takes from 10% to 100% of the weight of the fabric in chemicals to produce that fabric.(1) And the final fabric, if made of 100% natural fibers (such as cotton or linen), contains about 27% , by weight, chemicals(2) – let’s not even talk about synthetic fabrics.

Since 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has tested Americans every two years in order to build a database of what are called “body burdens,”(3) in order to help toxicologists set new standards for exposure and definitively link chemicals to illness, or else decouple them. The study attempts to assess exposure to environmental chemicals in the general U.S. population – and the more chemicals they look for, the more they find: The CDC started with 27 worrisome chemicals in 1999 and now tests for 219. Their findings have shown that no matter whether you’re rich or poor; live in the center of a city or a pristine rural community; east coast, west coast or in between; are elderly or newborn; Republican, Democrat or Socialist – you have BPA in your blood, as well as polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE)s – which can retard a fetus’s neurological development; perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – which impairs normal development; perchlorate – which can keep the thyroid from making necessary hormones and methyl tert-butyl ethers (now banned in most states) and mercury.

And the correlation between chemicals to illness seems to be on the rise (4) – certainly from studies done linking various chemicals to human disease and illness, but also because the spectrum of both “rare” and “common” illnesses is on the rise. The National Institutes of Health defines a rare disease as one affecting 200,000 or fewer Americans. Yet 25 – 30 million Americans suffer from one of the nearly 6,800 identifiable rare diseases. That compares to the 40 million Americans with one of the three “major” diseases: heart disease, cancer or diabetes.

Specifically with regard to fabrics: The 2010 AATCC (American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists) Buyer’s Guide  lists about 2,000 chemical specialties in over 100 categories offered for sale by about 66 companies, not including dyes. The types of products offered run the gamut from antimicrobial agents and binders to UV stabilizers and wetting agents. Included are some of the most toxic known (lead, mercury, arsenic, formaldehyde, Bisphenol A, PBDE, PFOA). There are no requirements that manufacturers disclose the chemicals used in processing – chemicals which remain in the finished fabrics. Often the chemicals are used under trade names, or are protected by legislation as “trade secrets” in food and drug articles – but fabrics don’t even have a federal code to define what can/cannot be used because fabrics are totally unregulated in the U.S., except in terms of fire retardancy or intended use. It’s pretty much a free-for-all.

Why does the industry use so many chemicals? What are they used for?

Most fabrics are finished in what is called “wet processing” where the process is accomplished by applying a liquid – which accomplishes some sort of chemical action to the textile – as opposed to “dry processing”, which is a mechanical/physical treatment, such as brushing. It is a series of innumerable steps leading to the finished textile, each one of which also has a complex number of variables, in which a special chemical product is applied, impregnated or soaked with the textile fiber of the fabric. A defined sequence of treatments can then be followed by another sequence of treatments using another chemical substance. Typically, treatments are arranged to permit a continuous mode of sequences.

The chemicals used can be subdivided into:
Textile auxiliaries – this covers a wide range of functions, from cleaning natural fibers and smoothing agents to improving easy care properties. Included are such things as:

  • Complexing agents, which form stable water-soluble complexes
  • Surfactants, which lowers the surface tension of water so grease and oil to be removed more easily
  • Wetting agents, which accelerates the penetration of finishing liquors
  • Sequestering agents
  •  Dispersing agents
  • Emulsifiers

Textile chemicals (basic chemicals such as acids, bases and salts)
      Colorants, such as:

  • Dyes
  •  Dye-protective agents
  • Fixing agents
  • Leveling agents
  • pH regulators
  • Carriers
  • UV absorbers

Finishes
The chemicals used get very specific: for example, Lankem Ltd. is one such manufacturer of a range of textile chemicals. According to their website, their Kemtex AP, for example, is an “anti-precipitant” to be used “where dyes of opposing ionicity may be present in the same bath” and their Kemtex TAL is a levelling agent for wool which is a “highly effective level dyeing assistant for acid, acid milling and prematallised dyes on wool.”

In addition to the branded products supplied by chemical companies, which are made of unknown components because they’re proprietary, we know many chemicals are necessary to achieve certain effects, such as PBDEs for fire retardants, formaldehyde resins for crease resistance or PFOA’s for stain protection.
The chemicals used in these branded products to create the effects above include chemicals which have been proven to be toxic, or to cause cancers or genetic mutations in mammals (i.e., us too). The following is by no means an all-inclusive list of these chemicals:
• Alkylphenolethoxylates (APEOs)
• Pentachlorophenols (PCP)
• Toluene and other aromatic amines
• Dichloromethane (DCM)
• Formaldehyde
• Phthalates
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers ( PBDE’s)
• Perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS)
• Heavy metals – copper, cadmium, lead, antimony, mercury among others

One of the presenters at the 2011 Living Building Challenge, inspired by writer Michael Pollan’s Food Rules,  shared a list of ways to choose products that remove the worst of the chemical contamination that plagues many products.

These rules apply to all products, including fabrics, so I’ve just edited them a bit to be fabric specific:

  • If it is cheap, it probably has hidden costs.
  • If it starts as a toxic input (like ethylene glycol in the manufacture of      polyester), you probably don’t want it in your house or office.
  • Use materials made from substances you can imagine in their raw or natural state.
  • Use carbohydrate-based materials (i.e., natural fibers) when you can.
  • Just because almost anything can kill you doesn’t mean fabrics should.
  • Pay more, use less.
  • Consult your nose – if it stinks, don’t use it.
  • If they can’t tell you what’s in it, you probably don’t want to live with it. (note: his is not just the fibers used to weave the fabric – did the processing  use specific chemicals, like heavy metals in the dyestuff, or formaldehyde in the finish?)
  • Avoid materials that are pretending to be something they are not.
  • Question materials that make health claims.
  • Regard space-age materials with skepticism.

(1)    Environmental Hazards of the Textile Industry, Hazardous Substances Research Centers, South and Southwest Outreach Program, US EPA funded consortium, June 2006.

(2)     Lacasse and Baumann, Textile Chemicals: Environmental Data and Facts; German Environmental Protection Agency, Springer, New York, 2004, page 609.

(3)    What is a “body burden”: Starting before birth, children are exposed to chemicals that impair normal growth and development. Exposures continue throughout our lives and accumulate in our bodies. These chemicals can interact within the body and cause illness. And they get passed on from parent to child for generations.

(4)    World Health Organization; http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/index.html





You are what you wear.

13 06 2013

In Memoriam: U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D – NJ).

Sen. Lautenberg fought valiantly to reform the weak laws protecting consumers in the US from chemical incursions in their lives. He introduced the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010”, which was defeated, but followed up with the “Chemical Safety Improvement Act” which has been endorsed by the New York Times, the Washington Post and has bipartisan support at this time. It caps eight years of work by Senator Lautenberg to fix the nation’s broken chemical law (the TSCA) which has been proven ineffective and is criticized by both the public health community and industry. Thank you Senator Lautenberg.
******************************************************************************
You are what you wear.

I don’t mean like in “the clothes make the man” kind of way, but in the “our bodies absorb chemicals found in our environment” kind of way.

The new science of biomonitoring has enabled scientists to take the guesswork out of the effects of toxic exposure in blood, urine, breast milk, semen and all the other parts of us where chemicals tend not to flush out. It has brought home the truth in the saying that we are what we wear – or eat, sit on, breathe, rub up against or drink. The “environment” is not “out there” as David Suzuki reminds us: We are the environment and it is us.

Since 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has tested Americans every two years in order to build a database of what are called “body burdens,”(1) in order to help toxicologists set new standards for exposure and definitively link chemicals to illness, or else decouple them. The study attempts to assess exposure to environmental chemicals in the general U.S. population – and the more chemicals they look for, the more they find: The CDC started with 27 worrisome chemicals in 1999 and now tests for 219. Their findings have shown that no matter whether you’re rich or poor; live in the center of a city or a pristine rural community; east coast, west coast or in between; are elderly or newborn; Republican, Democrat or Socialist – you have BPA in your blood, as well as polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE)s – which can retard a fetus’s neurological development; perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – which impairs normal development; perchlorate – which can keep the thyroid from making necessary hormones and methyl tert-butyl ethers (now banned in most states) and mercury.

And the correlation between chemicals to illness seems to be on the rise(2) – certainly from studies done linking various chemicals to human disease and illness, but also because the spectrum of both “rare” and “common” illnesses is on the rise. The National Institutes of Health defines a rare disease as one affecting 200,000 or fewer Americans. Yet 25 – 30 million Americans suffer from one of the nearly 6,800 identifiable rare diseases. That compares to the 40 million Americans with one of the three “major” diseases: heart disease, cancer or diabetes.

Specifically with regard to fabrics: over 2,000 chemicals are used in textile processing, and these include some of the most toxic known (lead, mercury, arsenic, formaldehyde, Bisphenol A, PBDE, PFOA). There are no requirements that manufacturers disclose the chemicals used in processing – chemicals which remain in the finished fabrics. Often the chemicals are used under trade names, or are protected by legislation as “trade secrets” in food and drug articles – but fabrics don’t even have a federal code to define what can/cannot be used because fabrics are totally unregulated in the U.S., except in terms of fire retardancy or intended use. It’s pretty much a free-for-all.

What they’re finding is that this chemical onslaught seems to be changing us. Using a computer-assisted technique called microarray profiling, scientists can now examine the effects of toxins on thousands of genes at once (before they could only study 100 at a time at most). They can also search for signs of chemical subversion at the molecular level, in genes and proteins. This means that we are beginning to understand how even small doses of certain chemicals may switch genes on and off in harmful ways during the most sensitive period of development.

In a talk at the National Academy of Sciences, Linda Birnbaum, the head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program, called toxicogenomics (the study of how genes respond to toxins) the “breakthrough” that pushed the study of poisons beyond the “obvious things,” that is, the huge doses that led to “death or low birth weight.”(3) Scientists are developing new ideas about how chemicals can, in effect, re-program animals and humans to be more susceptible to certain diseases—and to pass that susceptibility on to their offspring. This theory is known as the “developmental origins of health and disease” (DOHad) , and is now an emerging field.

So why not seek products – fabrics, soaps, cosmetics, perfumes, deodorants, food – that don’t contain chemicals that harm you – or your children or grandchildren?
**************************************************************************

(1) What is a “body burden”: Starting before birth, children are exposed to chemicals that impair normal growth and development. Exposures continue throughout our lives and accumulate in our bodies. These chemicals can interact within the body and cause illness. And they get passed on from parent to child for generations.
(2) World Health Organization; http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/index.html
(3) Shulevitz, Judith, “The Toxicity Panic”, The New Republic, April 28, 2011





Can you find out what’s in your fabric?

28 03 2013

I was one of those people who thought that manufacturers were not “allowed” to sell me any product that contained something that might harm me. As I quickly learned, that’s basically not true in the United States – especially with respect to fabrics. The EU is light years ahead of the US with their REACH program, designed to replace the most harmful chemicals with less toxic alternatives, but even that program focuses only on only the most high volume chemicals used in industry.
Let me just remind you why knowing what chemicals are used for processing your fabrics is important:
Because fabrics – all fabrics – are by weight about 25% finishing chemicals (i.e. dyes, finishes, softeners, etc.) And because the textile industry uses over 2000 chemicals routinely, how do we know the mix in the fabrics we’re living with are safe?
Well, you can ask the store where you’re buying the sheets or shirts – but they’ll probably look at you blankly.
You can demand information from the manufacturer. But often they don’t know the answers. To illustrate why this is, let’s take one example. Let’s pretend we’re a mill and we have just woven an organic cotton fabric, and we want to dye it. We can choose from many dyes, but settle on one called “Matisse Derivan” manufactured by Derivan Fabric Dye. Because dyes are made up of many chemicals, and because they’re proprietary, it’s next to impossible to find out what is in the particular dye you’re buying. So you might think the MSDS sheet would give us the information.
MSDS sheets are sometimes used to substantiate the “safety” of a chemical product by requiring the listing of chemical components by CAS number, which is a unique numeric identifier of a chemical substance which links to a wealth of information about that chemical. But the reality is that many of the chemicals used in industry (textile or otherwise) have never been evaluated for toxicity, and therefore in the toxicity evaluation there is no data to refer to. In addition, proprietary components do not need to be listed. So the sheets have inaccurate or missing information. According to a 2008 study, between 30 – 100% of products analyzed contained chemicals not declared on an MSDS.(1)
The MSDS sheet for Matisse Derivan (click here to see the sheet) for example, lists these substances in the composition of the dye:

SUBSTNACE                                   CAS NUMBER

  • Pigments                                             Various
  • water-based acrylic co-polymer      Proprietary
  • surfactants, dispersants, etc.           Various
  • ammonia                                             1336-21-6
  • water

In looking at an MSDS sheet, you might also find that any hazard classification or risk phase has “not been established” and “the toxicological properties of this product have not been thoroughly investigated”, or the hazard classification might be identified as “non hazardous” according to various codes, such as the TSCA. These codes are woefully inadequate as is now known (click here for more information) so to say that a chemical is non hazardous according to a code that dismisses all chemicals for which there is no data – well, you can see the problem.
There is also a lack of enforceable quality criteria, probably one of the reasons the sheets are of such poor quality.
Because testing has been done to establish wastewater criteria, some studies have shown what types of chemicals are found in textile wastewater from dyes, such as one which found benzidine, vinyl-p-base and 4-aminoazobenzene – all quite toxic.(2)
Once you get the information on the dyestuff used you’re one chemical component down  – and maybe 20 to go, because in most fabrics these functional areas also require chemical treatments:
Textile auxiliaries (such as complexing, wetting, sequestering, dispering agents; emulsifiers), textile chemicals (dyes, dye-protective, fixing, leveling agents; pH regulators, carriers, UV absorbers); finishes (stain, odor, wrinkle resistance).
And finally, even if you were able to find out which particular chemicals are used in a product, it’s possible that you won’t know what you’re looking at. For example, most everyone knows to avoid formaldehyde, but manufactures can legally use over 30 different trade names for formaldehyde, such as:
• Formalin
• Quaternium-15
• Methanal
• Methyl Aldehyde
• Methylene Oxide
• Oxymethylene
• Bfv
• Fannoform
• Formol
• Fyde
• Karsan
• Methaldehyde
• Formalith
• Methylene Glycol
• Ivalon
• Oxomethane

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18651574

(2)  Rehorek, A and Plum, A; Characterization of sulfonated azo dyes and aromatic amines by pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; Analitical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Aug 2007; 388(8): 1653-62.





Chrome-free leather?

6 03 2013

leather sofaLast week we took a look at chromium in textiles – and leather. With the increased interest in avoidance of certain chemicals and industrial products that are particularly harmful to our environment, it’s not surprising that manufacturers are becoming ingenious in pointing out attributes that play to this script. So we now see claims for “chrome free” leather as being “eco friendly”.

Although most leather is tanned using chromium (from 80 – 95% of all leather produced uses chrome tanning [1]) there is a third type of leather tanning, called aldehyde tanning, which like vegetable tanning does not use chromium.

Often leather is advertised as being “pure aniline”, “full or semi aniline”, “top grain” “nubuk”- these are just terms which describe how the dye is applied or in the case of “top grain”, where the hide comes from on the animal. These terms have nothing to do with tanning.

Let’s look at leather tanning for a minute and find out what that means:

Sometimes leather manufacturers will tell you that they don’t use the toxic form of chromium in tanning – the toxic form is called chromium VI or hexavalent chromium. And that is correct: chromium tanned leathers use chromium III salts (also called trivalent chromium) in the form of chromium sulfate. This form of chromium is found naturally in the environment and is a necessary nutrient for the human body. However, the leather manufacturers fail to explain that chromium III oxidizes into chromium VI in the presence of oxygen combined with other factors, such as extremes in pH. This happens during the tanning process. Chromium-tanned leather can contain between 4 and 5% of chromium [2] – often hexavalent chromium, which produces allergic reactions and easily moves across membranes such as skin. End of life issues, recovery and reuse are a great concern – chromium (whether III or VI) is persistent (it cannot be destroyed) and will always be in the environment. Incineration, composting and gasification will not eliminate chromium.

Vegetable tanning is simply the replacement of the chromium for bark or plant tannins –all other steps remain the same. And since there are about 250 chemicals used in tanning, the replacement of chromium for plant tannins, without addressing the other chemicals used, is a drop in the bucket. Last week I mentioned some of the other 249 chemicals routinely used in tanning: alcohol, coal tar , sodium sulfate, sulfuric acid, chlorinated phenols (e.g. 3,5-dichlorophenol), azo dyes, cadmium, cobalt, copper, antimony, cyanide, barium, lead, selenium, mercury, zinc, polychlorinated biphenyels (PCBs), nickel, formaldehyde and pesticide residues.[3]

Aldehyde tanning is the main type of leather referred to as “chrome-free”, and is often used in automobiles and baby’s shoes. Aldehyde tanning is often referred to as “wet white” due to the pale cream color it imparts to the skins. But aldehydes are a group of chemicals that contain one chemical which many people are familiar with: formaldehyde. And we all know about formaldehyde: it is highly toxic to all animals; ingestion of as little as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult human[4] and the Department of Health and Human Services has said it may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen.

Aldehyde tanning essentially uses formaldehyde, which reacts with proteins in the leather to prevent putrefication. BLC Leather Technology Center, a leading independent leather testing center, states that leathers should contain no more than 200ppm of formaldehyde for articles in general use. If the item is in direct skin contact this should be 75ppm, and 20ppm for items used by babies (<36 months). Typically, with modern tanning techniques, leathers contain 400ppm or less.[5] Yet that far exceeds levels set elsewhere – in New Zealand, for example, acceptable levels of formaldehyde in products is set at 100 ppm[6] – the European Union Ecolabel restricts formaldehyde to 20 ppm for infant articles, 30 ppm for children and adults, while GOTS prohibits any detectable level.

BLC Leather Technology Center commissioned a study by Ecobilan S.A. (Reference BLC Report 002) to do a life cycle analysis to evaluate the various tanning chemicals, to see if there was an environmentally preferable choice between chrome, vegetable and aldehyde based processes. The result? They found no significant differences between the three – all have environmental impacts, just different ones. These LCA’s demonstrate that tanning is just one of the impacts – other steps may have equal impacts. Chrome was cited as having the disadvantage of being environmentally persistent. “Another consideration, in terms of end-of-life leather or management of chrome tanned leather waste, is the possibility of the valency state changing from the benign Cr III to the carcinogenic Cr VI.”[7]

So much for “chrome free” leather. But since all three tanning processes impact the environment to the same degree, the least toxic (vegetable) is the one I’d choose. But there are precious few tanneries doing vegetable tanned leather.

One issue which is a hot topic in leather production is that of deforestation and the sourcing of skins from Brazil – cattle ranching in Brazil accounted for 14% of global deforestation and ranches occupy approximately 80% of all deforested land in the Amazon. [8] Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) aims to stop all deforestation in the Amazon by encouraging the meat processors to insist that their suppliers register their farms and map and log their boundaries as a minimum requirement. They also encourage companies to cancel orders with suppliers that are not prepared to stop deforestation and adhere to these minimum requirements. Many of the Leather Working Group (LWG)(for a list of these members, see footnote 9) member brands have made commitments to a moratorium on hides sourced from farms involved in deforestation and LWG itself has a project to identify and engage with the key stakeholders in Brazil, investigate traceability solutions, conduct trials and implement third party auditing solutions.
________________________________________
[1] Richards, Matt, et al, “Leather for Life”, Future Fashion White Papers, Earth Pledge Foundation
[2] Gustavson, K.H. “The Chemistry of Tanning Processes” Academic Press Inc., New York, 1956.
[3] Barton, Cat, “Workers pay high price at Bangladesh tanneries”, AFP, Feb. 2011
[4] Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, “Medical management guidelines for formaldehyde”, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=216&tid=39
[5] BLC Leather Technology Center Ltd, “Technology Restricted substances – Formaldehyde”, Leather International, November 2008, http://www.leathermag.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/13528/Technology_Restricted_substances-Formaldehyde.html
[6] “Evaluation of alleged unacceptable formaldehyde levels in Clothing”, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Consumer Affairs, October 17, 2007.
[7] http://www.leathermag.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/13479/Technology_Restricted_substances-Chrome_VI_story.html
[8] “Broken Promises: how the cattle industry in the Amazon is still connected to deforestation…” Greenpeace, October 2011; http://www.leatherworkinggroup.com/images/documents/Broken%20promises%20-%20Oct11FINAL.pdf
(9) Currently the consumer brands involved with the LWG are: Adidas-group, Clarks International, Ikea of Sweden, New Balance Athletic Shoe, Nike Inc, Pentland Group including (Berghaus, Boxfresh, Brasher, Ellesse, Franco Sarto, Gio-Goi, Hunter, KangaROOS, Mitre, Kickers (UK), Lacoste Chaussures, ONETrueSaxon, Radcliffe, Red or Dead, Speedo, Ted Baker Footwear), The North Face, The Timberland Company, Wolverine World Wide Inc including (CAT, Merrel, Hush Puppies, Patagonia, Wolverine, Track n Trail, Sebago, Chaco, Hytest, Bates, Cushe, Soft Style). New brands recently joined are Airwair International Ltd, K-Swiss International, Marks & Spencers and Nine West Group.





What about chrome-free, or “eco” leather?

29 05 2012

With the increased interest in avoidance of certain chemicals and industrial products that are particularly harmful to our environment, it’s not surprising that manufacturers are becoming ingenious in pointing out attributes that play to this script.  So we now see claims for “chrome free” leather, or for “eco friendly” leather.

In last week’s post, I pointed out two kinds of leather tanning – chromium and vegetable. Although most leather is tanned using chromium (from 80 – 95% of all leather produced[1]) there is a third type of leather tanning, called aldehyde tanning, which like vegetable tanning does not use chromium.  Let’s revisit leather tanning for a minute:

  1. Sometimes leather manufacturers will tell you that they don’t use the toxic form of chromium in tanning – the toxic form is called chromium IV or hexavalent chromium.  And that is correct:  chromium tanned leathers use chromium III salts (also called trivalent chromium) in the form of chromium sulfate.  This form of chromium is found naturally in the environment and is a necessary nutrient for the human body.   However, the leather manufacturers fail to explain that  chromium III oxidizes into chromium IV in the presence of oxygen combined with other factors, such as extremes in pH.  This happens during the tanning process.  Chromium-tanned leather can contain between 4 and 5% of chromium [2] – often hexavalent chromium, which produces allergic reactions and easily moves across membranes such as skin.  End of life issues, recovery and reuse are a great concern – chromium (whether III or IV) is persistent (it cannot be destroyed) and will always be in the environment.   Incineration, composting and gasification will not eliminate chromium.
  2. Vegetable tanning is simply the replacement of the chromium for bark or plant tannins – all other steps remain the same.  And since there are about 250 chemicals used in tanning, the replacement of chromium for plant tannins, without addressing the other chemicals used, is a drop in the bucket.   Last week I mentioned some of the other 249 chemicals routinely used in tanning:  alcohol, coal tar , sodium sulfate, sulfuric acid, chlorinated phenols (e.g. 3,5-dichlorophenol), azo dyes, cadmium, cobalt, copper, antimony, cyanide, barium, lead, selenium, mercury, zinc, polychlorinated biphenyels (PCBs), nickel, formaldehyde and pesticide residues.[3]   Here are the steps to creating leather :
  3. Aldehyde tanning is the main type of leather referred to as “chrome-free”, and is often used in automobiles and baby’s shoes.  Aldehyde tanning is often referred to as “wet white” due to the pale cream color it imparts to the skins.  But aldehydes are a group of chemicals that contain one chemical which many people are familiar with: formaldehyde.  And we all know about formaldehyde: it is highly toxic to all animals; ingestion of as little as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult human[4]  and the Department of Health and Human Services has said it may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen.  Aldehyde tanning essentially uses formaldehyde, which reacts with proteins in the leather to prevent putrefication.  BLC Leather Technology Centre,  a leading independent leather testing center, states that leathers should contain no more than 200ppm of formaldehyde for articles in general use. If the item is in direct skin contact this should be 75ppm, and 20ppm for items used by babies (<36 months). Typically, with modern tanning techniques, leathers contain 400ppm or less.[5]   Yet that far exceeds levels set elsewhere – in New Zealand, for example, acceptable levels of formaldehyde in products is set at 100 ppm[6]  – the European Union Ecolabel restricts formaldehyde to 20 ppm for infant articles, 30 ppm for children and adults, while GOTS prohibits any detectable level.

BLC Leather Technology Centre Ltd.  commissioned a study by Ecobilan S.A (Reference BLC Report 002)  to do a life cycle analysis to evaluate the various tanning chemicals, to see if there was an environmentally preferable choice between chrome, vegetable and aldehyde based processes.  The result?  They found no significant differences between the three  – all have environmental impacts, just different ones.  These LCA’s demonstrate that tanning is just one of the impacts – other steps may have equal impacts.   Chrome was sited as having the disadvantage of being environmentally persistent. “Another consideration, in terms of end-of-life leather or management of chrome tanned leather waste, is the possibility of the valency state changing from the benign Cr III to the carcinogenic Cr VI.”[7]

So much for “chrome free” leather.  What about claims for “eco leather”?

In the strict sense of the definition, the term “eco leather” is meaningless. However, retailers want to imply improved environmental performance. So how can you evaluate their claims for “eco leathers”?

There are two main considerations in making leather:

  • How is it manufactured?
  • What inputs are used to produce it?

Research has shown that a significant part of the environmental impact of leather is in the manufacturing process.  In this respect it is the environmental stewardship practice of tanners coupled with chemical selection that should determine how eco friendly a leather is.  The following areas of leather manufacture have the most significant potential impact:

  • Management of restricted substances
  • Energy consumption
  • Air emissions
  • Waste management (hazardous and non hazardous)
  • Environmental management systems
  • Water consumption
  • Control of manufacturing processes
  • Effluent treatment
  • Chrome management
  • Traceability of material

In terms of the selection of inputs, we should consider the use of certain materials that could give an improved eco profile to leather. These include:

  • Biodegradable wetting agents for soaking
  • Reduced sulphide processing
  • Non synthetic or polymeric re-tannage systems
  • optimized dyestuffs
  • Vegetable oil based fatliquors
  • Optimised finishing systems to reduce waste such HVLP or roller coating
  • Biodegradable in 12 months or less

In summary, although there is no current definition, these are the key elements which should determine an “eco leather”:

  1. Control of leather manufacturing processes
  2. Clean technology chemical selection in the process
  3.  Effective management of restricted substances within the leather
  4. A measure of the end of life impact

As I mentioned in last week’s post, the production of leather can be a hellish life for the animal.  I have found only one company, Organic Leather, which looks beyond the production of the leather itself to the important questions of animal husbandry and land management practices which provide the skins, and incorporate these into a tanning process which “prevents further toxicity entering our environment and our bodies.”

The Leather Working Group (LWG)   is a multi-stakeholder group[8], whose purpose is  “to develop and maintain a protocol that assesses the compliance and environmental performance of tanners and promotes sustainable and appropriate environmental business practices within the footwear leather industry.”   The LWG, in conjunction with BLC Leather Technology Center Ltd., operates an eco rating system for leather. (This sort of mark is known as a first or second party certification, and lacks – I believe – the credibility of a true third party certification.)   Retailers, brands or tanners who are able to meet the requirements of this standard are eligible to use the EcoSure mark. To be eligible to use this mark tanneries must have achieved at least a Bronze award in the LWG Tannery Environment Auditing Protocol,  and the finished leather on which the mark is to be used must meet the requirements of the audit and testing regime. (to see the audit form, click here  ).

One issue which is a hot topic in leather production is that of deforestation and the sourcing of skins from Brazil – cattle ranching in Brazil accounted for 14% of global deforestation and ranches occupy approximately 80% of all deforested land in the Amazon.[9]  Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) aims to stop all deforestation in the Amazon by encouraging the meat processors to insist that their suppliers register their farms and map and log their boundaries as a minimum requirement. They also encourage companies to cancel orders with suppliers that are not prepared to stop deforestation and adhere to these minimum requirements.  Many of the LWG member brands have  made commitments to a moratorium on hides sourced from farms involved in deforestation and LWG itself has a project to identify and engage with the key stakeholders in Brazil, investigate traceability solutions, conduct trials and implement third party auditing solutions.


[1] Richards, Matt, et al, “Leather for Life”, Future Fashion White Papers, Earth Pledge Foundation

[2] Gustavson, K.H. “The Chemistry of Tanning Processes” Academic Press Inc., New York, 1956.

[3] Barton, Cat, “Workers pay high price at Bangladesh tanneries”, AFP, Feb. 2011

[4] Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, “Medical management guidelines for formaldehyde”, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=216&tid=39

[5] BLC Leather Technology Center Ltd, “Technology Restricted substances – Formaldehyde”, Leather International,  November 2008,  http://www.leathermag.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/13528/Technology_Restricted_substances-Formaldehyde.html

[6] “Evaluation of alleged unacceptable formaldehyde levels in Clothing”, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Consumer Affairs, October 17, 2007.

[8] Currently the consumer brands involved with the LWG are: Adidas-group, Clarks International, Ikea of Sweden, New Balance Athletic Shoe, Nike Inc, Pentland Group including (Berghaus, Boxfresh, Brasher, Ellesse, Franco Sarto, Gio-Goi, Hunter, KangaROOS, Mitre, Kickers (UK), Lacoste Chaussures, ONETrueSaxon, Radcliffe, Red or Dead, Speedo, Ted Baker Footwear), The North Face, The Timberland Company, Wolverine World Wide Inc including (CAT, Merrel, Hush Puppies, Patagonia, Wolverine, Track n Trail, Sebago, Chaco, Hytest, Bates, Cushe, Soft Style). New brands recently joined are Airwair International Ltd, K-Swiss International, Marks & Spencers and Nine West Group.

[9] “Broken Promises: how the cattle industry in the Amazon is still connected to deforestation…” Greenpeace, October 2011; http://www.leatherworkinggroup.com/images/documents/Broken%20promises%20-%20Oct11FINAL.pdf





Toxic textiles by Walt Disney

27 01 2011

The Walt Disney Corporation,  in a letter to Greenpeace in 2003, said that “the Walt Disney Company is always concerned with quality and safety”.

Greenpeace decided to test that statement, so – as part of their campaign to show how dangerous chemicals are out of control, turning up in house dust, in household products, food, rain water, in our clothes……and ultimately in our bodies – they decided to test Disney’s childrenswear for the presence of toxic chemicals.

Disney garments, including T-shirts, pajamas and underwear, were bought in retail outlets in 19 different countries around the world and  analyzed  by the independent laboratory Eurofins, an international group of companies which provides testing, certification and consulting on the quality and safety of products and one of the largest scientific testing laboratories in the world. 

Greenpeace asked Eurofins to test the Disney childrenswear for:

1.      Phthalates

2.      Alkylphenol ethoxylates

3.      Organotins

4.      Lead

5.      Cadmium

6.      Formaldehyde

We don’t have the space to fill you in on why each of these six chemicals is of grave concern, but please believe us – they’re not good.  Any one of these chemicals can interfere with a child’s neurological development, for example, or can set the path for a cascade of health problems as they age.   

This is what they found:

1.      Phthalates:  Found in all the garments tested, from 1.4 mg/kg to 200,000 mg/kg – or more than 20% of the weight of the sample.

2.      Alkylphenol ethoxylates: Found in all the garments tested, in levels ranging from 34.1 mg/kg to 1,700 mg/kg

3.      Organotins:  found in 9 of the 16 products tested; the Donald Duck T shirt from The Netherlands had 474 micrograms/kg

4.      Lead:  Found in all the products tested, ranging from 0.14 mg/kg to 2,600 mg/kg for a Princess T shirt from Canada.  With Denmark’s new laws on the use, marketing and manufacture of lead   and products containing lead, the Princess T shirt from Canada would be illegal on the Danish market.  Canada has set a limit of 600 mg/kg for children’s jewelry containing lead – why not Disney T shirts?

5.      Cadmiun:  Identified in 14 of the 18 products tested, ranging from 0.0069 mg/kg in the Finding Nemo T shirt bought in the UK to 38 mg/kg in the Belgian Mickey Mouse T shirt.

6.      Formaldehyde:  Found in 8 of the 15 products tested for this chemical in levels ranging from 23 mg/kg to 1,100 mg/kg.

One sample stands out: a German Winnie the Pooh PVC raincoat.  This contained an astounding 320,000 mg/kg of total phthalates, or 32% by weight of the raincoat!  This raincoat also contained 1,129 micrograms/kg organotins.

Greenpeace urged Disney to take responsibility for avoiding or substituting harmful chemicals in their products and to demand that their licensees implement a chemical policy that protects children’s heath.  Disney reacted by stating that their products are in line with the law.    The only action taken was to put labels on some products with a warning that those clothes contain toxic chemicals – but  only in the UK (which has more stringent laws regarding chemical use than does the US), and only on a few items.  Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner Oliver Knowles said, “”Their complete disregard for children’s health smacks of a Mickey Mouse company, and it’s now down to us to let the public know that these pyjamas contain dangerous chemicals.

“Perhaps it would be more apt if Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase became   “To infertility and beyond!”

SAFbaby.com has asked a variety of children’s clothing companies whether their clothing contained formaldehyde.  Disney responded that they comply with all Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations.   But (as SAFbaby commented): CPSC has NO regulations set for formaldehyde levels, so that reply was not helpful to us in the slightest.  We are not impressed with their follow up response to us.

Disney’s refusal to be pro active in insisting their suppliers phase out hazardous substances demonstrates why voluntary initiatives don’t work.  We support Greenpeace in asking that legislation  to require mandatory substitution of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives be put in place.

Read the Greenpeace report on Disney’s childrenswear here.





Formaldehyde in your fabrics

4 01 2011

In January 2009, new blue uniforms were issued to Transportation Security Administration officers at hundreds of airports nationwide. [1] The new uniforms – besides giving officers a snazzy new look – also gave them  skin rashes, bloody noses, lightheadedness, red eyes, and swollen and cracked lips, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing the officers.  “We’re hearing from hundreds of TSOs that this is an issue,” said Emily Ryan, a spokeswoman for the union.

The American Federation of Government Employees blames formaldehyde. 

In  2008, an Ohio woman filed suit against Victoria’s Secret, alleging she became “utterly sick” after wearing her new bra.  In her lawsuit, the plaintiff said the rash she suffered was “red hot to the touch, burning and itching.”   As more people came forth (600 to be exact)  claiming horrific skin reactions (and permanent scarring to some) as a result of wearing Victoria Secret’s bras, lawsuits were filed in Florida and New York – after the lawyers found formaldehyde in the bras.

For years the textile industry has been using finishes on fabric that prevents wrinkling – usually a formaldehyde resin.   Fabrics are treated with urea-formaldehyde resins to give them all sorts of easy care properties such as:

  • Permanent press / durable press
  • Anti-cling, anti-static, anti-wrinkle, and anti-shrink (especially shrink proof wool)
  • Waterproofing and stain resistance (especially for suede and chamois)
  • Perspiration proof
  • Moth proof
  • Mildew resistant
  • Color-fast

That’s why you can find retailers like Nordstrom selling “wrinkle-free finish” dress shirts and L.L. Bean selling chinos that are “great right out of the dryer.”  And we’ve been snapping them up, because who doesn’t want to ditch the ironing?

According to the American Contact Dermatitis Society, rayon, blended cotton, corduroy, wrinkle-resistant 100% cotton, and any synthetic blended polymer are likely to have been treated with formaldehyde resins. The types of resins used include urea-formaldehyde, melamine-formaldehyde and phenol-formaldehyde.[2] Manufacturers often “hide” the word “formaldehyde” under daunting chemical names.  These include:

  • Formalin
  • Methanal
  • Methyl aldehyde
  • Methylene oxide
  • Morbicid acid
  • Oxymethylene

Not only is formaldehyde itself used,  but also formaldehyde-releasing preservatives. Some of these are known by the following names:

  • Quaternium-15
  • 2-bromo-2nitropropane-1,3-diol
  • imidazolidinyl urea
  • diazolidinyl urea

Formaldehyde is another one of those chemicals that just isn’t good for humans.  Long known as the Embalmer’s Friend for its uses in funeral homes and high school biology labs, formaldehyde effects depend upon the intensity and length of the exposure and the sensitivity of the individual to the chemical. The most common means of exposure is by breathing air containing off-gassed formaldehyde fumes, but it is also easily absorbed through the skin.  Increases in temperature (hot days, ironing coated textiles) and increased humidity both increase the release of formaldehyde from coated textiles.

Besides being associated with watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes and throat, nausea, difficulty in breathing, coughing, some pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs),  asthma attacks, chest tightness, headaches, and general fatigue,  as well as the rashes and other illnesses such as reported by the TSA officers, formaldehyde is associated with more severe health issues.  For example, it could cause nervous system damage by its known ability to react with and form cross-linking with proteins, DNA and unsaturated fatty acids.13 These same mechanisms could cause damage to virtually any cell in the body, since all cells contain these substances.  Formaldehyde can react with the nerve protein (neuroamines) and nerve transmitters (e.g., catecholamines), which could impair normal nervous system function and cause endocrine disruption. [3]

Medical studies have linked formaldehyde exposure with nasal cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified formaldehyde as a human carcinogen.  Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have found formaldehyde to be a probable human carcinogen and workers with high or prolonged exposure to formaldehyde to be at an increased risk for leukemia (particularly myeloid leukemia)  and brain cancer. Read the National Cancer Institute’s factsheet here.

Formaldehyde is one of about two dozen chemical toxins commonly found in homes and wardrobes that are believed by doctors to contribute to Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS). Chemical sensitivities are becoming a growing health problem in the U.S. as the persistent exposure to harsh and toxic chemicals grows. One of the signs of increasing chemical sensitivities is the rise of contact dermatitis caused by formaldehyde resins and other chemicals used in textile finishes. Repeated exposure to even low levels of formaldehyde can create a condition called “sensitization” where the individual becomes very sensitive to the effects of formaldehyde and then even low levels of formaldehyde can cause an “allergic” reaction, such as those suffered by the TSA workers.

Countries such as Austria, Finland, Germany, Norway, Netherlands and Japan have national legislation restricting the presence of formaldehyde in textile products.  But in the United States, formaldehyde levels in fabric is not regulated.   Nor does any government agency require manufacturers to disclose the use of the chemical on labels.  Because it’s used on the fabric, it can show up on any product made from fabric, such as clothing.  And it can show up in any room of the house – in the sheets and pillows on the bed.  In drapery hanging in the living room.  The upholstery on the sofa.  Even in the baseball cap hanging by the door.

“From a consumer perspective, you are very much in the dark in terms of what (fabric or) clothing is treated with,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization. “In many ways, you’re in the hands of the industry and those who are manufacturing our fabrics. And we are trusting them to ensure they are using the safest materials and additives.” [4]

“The textile industry for years has been telling dermatologists that they aren’t using the formaldehyde resins anymore, or the ones they use have low levels,” said Dr. Joseph F. Fowler, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Louisville. “Yet despite that, we have been continually seeing patients who are allergic to formaldehyde and have a pattern of dermatitis on their body that tells us this is certainly related to clothing.”

Often it’s suggested that washing the fabric will get rid of the formaldehyde.  But think about it:  why would a manufacturer put in a wrinkle resistant finish that washes out?  If that were the case, your permanent press shirts and sheets would suddenly (after a washing or two) need to be ironed.  Do you find that to be the case?  Manufacturers work long and hard to make sure these finishes do NOT wash out.  At least one study has found that there is  no significant reduction in the amount of formaldehyde after two washings. (5)

So we can add formaldehyde to the list of chemicals which surround us, exposing us at perhaps very low levels for many years.  What this low level exposure is doing to us has yet to be determined.


[1] “New TSA Unifroms Trigger a Rash of Complaints (Formaldehyde)”, The Washington Post, January 5, 2009, Steve Vogel.

[2] Berrens, L. etal., “Free formaldehyde in textiles in relation to formalin contact sensitivity”

[3] Thrasher JD etal., “Immune activation and autoantibodies in humans with long-term inhalation exposure to formaldehyde,” Archive Env. Health, 45: 217-223, 1990.

[4] “When Wrinkle-Free Clothing Also Means Formaldehyde Fumes”, New York Times, Tara Siegel Bernard, December 10, 2010

(5)  Rao S, Shenoy SD, Davis S, Nayak S.,  “Detection of formaldehyde in textiles by chromotropic acid method”. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2004;70:342-4.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,097 other followers