Women and their toxic world - !!!

Women and their toxic world.

http://www.wecf.de/cms/articles/2006/10/book_launch.php

Women and their families are exposed to man-made chemicals everywhere and
on a daily basis. These chemicals can be found in everyday consumer goods.
Many of them threaten our health. More than three hundred have been
detected in the human body. Increasingly, scientific research links them
to health disorders.

Published by Women in Europe for a Common Future.

-----------------------

The professors in the following article sound as if they were bred in test
tubes designed by the American Chemical Council - then again, defending
investors' interests has long been a duty of many within universities.

Teresa

-----------------------


Chemical campaigns 'misleading'

By Rebecca Morelle
Health reporter, BBC News

Leading toxicologists have warned green groups are "misleading" the public
with chemical contamination campaigns.

They said they are deliberately and unfairly scaring the public.

In particular, they criticised a WWF campaign that has highlighted the
presence of chemicals in blood, food and in babies' umbilical cords.

The scientists said the minute levels detected did not warrant the group's
focus on health dangers, but WWF has denied it was scare-mongering.

The message they are putting across is misleading, and deliberately so
Professor David Coggon

The tests have formed part of WWF's campaign to strengthen proposed EU
legislation, called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of
Chemicals), on the testing and phasing out of chemicals.

They argue the presence of chemicals, such as musks (found in perfumes),
brominated flame retardants, and dioxins (a by-product of heating
processes), in the environment pose a danger to health in humans and
wildlife, and more stringent protective measures are needed.

But while many scientists believe monitoring levels of chemicals and the
phasing out of dangerous ones are vital, as is REACH, they say WWF and
other green groups have been playing on the public's fears to highlight
their campaigns.

Dose-response

Alistair Hay, professor of environmental toxicology from the University of
Leeds, said: "The presence of these things is a warning that we are
exposed to chemicals in the environment and we have to try and understand
what this means - but it is wrong to frighten people."

While David Coggon, professor of occupational and environmental health
from Southampton University, added: "The message they are putting across
is misleading, and deliberately so."

According to Dr Andrew Smith, of the Medical Research Council Toxicology
Unit, University of Leicester, it is the amount of a chemical present that
is key when considering toxicity.

We are weighing up the difference between alarm and ignorance - we are
not looking to scare-monger
Elizabeth Salter Green, WWF
And the researchers said the levels of the chemicals found in some of the
tests were extremely low - measured in parts per billion or parts per
trillion.

Although some of the chemicals were dangerous at high doses, they said,
one could not go on to assume that because a trace amount was detected it
posed a danger.

Dr Smith said: "Any toxicologist will tell you that dose - the amount - is
the important thing.

"I would rather we didn't find these chemicals present, but trying to
ascribe toxicity to them is a different matter."

Professor Coggon agreed: "One of the most important things in toxicology
is to look at how a person is exposed and how much of a substance they are
exposed to.

"The fact that you can detect something at all does not imply a material
risk to health."

The researchers said the chemicals were being found in trace amounts
because of advances in detection techniques that could uncover substances
at ever smaller concentrations.

The researchers admitted there was uncertainty surrounding the effects of
some of the chemicals, but said just because it couldn't be confirmed
something was 100% safe this did not mean it was 100% dangerous.

Professor Richard Sharpe, an expert in endocrine disrupters from the
Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, in Edinburgh,
said: "By and large, I think people shouldn't be worried. Most chemicals
will not do any great harm at these very low levels. You have to put this
into perspective."

Chemiphobia

Dr John Emsley, a visiting professor at Manchester University, said the
word "chemical" had become a synonym for "toxic", and that the public was
growing increasingly fearful of contamination, something he called
"chemiphobia".

"I think the public are afraid because it is all about the unseen danger -
it is presented as something malevolent lurking below the surface. You
don't know what it is and you don't know what it does. It is a risk they
do not feel in control of."

Elizabeth Salter Green, director of the WWF's toxic campaign, said: "I
think WWF's raison d'etre is to protect biodiversity. We feel that there
are certain drivers such as chemicals undermining future generations'
viability.

"We are keen that the core aim of REACH is maintained - to protect future
generations of humans and wildlife while not undermining the
competitiveness of the chemicals industry."

She said she was concerned with possible health risks associated the
lifestyle exposure to different combinations of low-level chemicals, and
pointed to studies which revealed the chemicals were working together.

"We are weighing up the difference between alarm and ignorance - we are
not looking to scare-monger - we are looking to highlight an issue such
that the UK population are aware of exposures and to call for better
regulation."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/6040146.stm

Published: 2006/10/16 01:01:51 GMT