Stain-Protectors Leave an Indelible Mark

Erika Schreder has worked for the Washington Toxics Coalition as a staff scientist since 1997. She has a Master’s Degree in resource ecology and management and a B.S. in molecular biology. She currently directs the Clean Water for Salmon campaign, which aims to end pesticide uses that pollute water and threaten salmon.

Editor’s Note: Whatcom Watch will publish most of the 64-page report “Pollution in People” released in May by the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition. The entire report is available as a pdf file at http://www.pollutioninpeople.org.

Part 5

Senator Bill Finkbeiner is the picture of health. At 37, he has the energy to maintain a seat in the Washington State Legislature, run the family property development business and play with his two young children. He keeps in shape running, biking and coaching his daughter’s soccer team, and doesn’t expect unpleasant news from routine medical tests. But when he donated his hair, urine and blood for toxic chemical testing, he was a bit apprehensive about what he might learn. It turned out his apprehension was warranted.

Bill topped the list of Pollution in People study participants for levels of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) and the pesticide carbaryl. He had the second-highest levels of the toxic flame retardants PBDEs, the second-highest level of phthalates and the third-highest level of mercury. Some of these results are understandable — the carbaryl, for example, probably comes from the conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables he eats. Others are more difficult to explain, particularly his level of PFCs.

At the far eastern edge of the state, Deb Abrahamson’s lifestyle doesn’t have too much in common with Bill Finkbeiner’s. In Wellpinit, Washington, on the Spokane Tribe Reservation, Deb’s family eats rainbow trout caught in nearby Turtle Lake, digs camas roots and gathers huckleberries and serviceberries for dessert. But their study results show Deb and Bill have more in common than they bargained for: toxic chemicals they knew about, like mercury, and some they never suspected, like PFCs.

PFCs — unique chemicals that are possibly best known for their use in the manufacture of Teflon cookware and Scotchgard — are incredibly resistant to breakdown and are turning up in unexpected places around the world. Though they’ve been used for more than 50 years in countless familiar products, from fire extinguishing foam to microwave popcorn bags, they’ve been subjected to little government testing.

PFCs come in many forms, but two have received considerable attention in recent years. PFOS, or perfluorooctane sulfonate, is a member of a family of chemicals once used in treatments for paper food containers, fire-fighting foams and pesticides, as well as for preventing stains in textiles. Until 2002, the Minnesota company 3M was the major global producer, using PFOS-related chemicals to make Scotchgard, used to treat carpet, furniture and clothing.

DuPont is currently the major manufacturer of the PFC called PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid. The company uses PFOA in the manufacturing of Teflon non-stick cookware. PFOA may also be generated by the breakdown of related chemicals that DuPont uses to make stain-protection treatments for paper products and textiles.

Bill Finkbeiner tested positive for five of the 12 PFCs in our study. PFOS was the highest PFC in each participant. PFOS does not break down under normal environmental circumstances, and builds up in people and wildlife. PFOS levels in our participants ranged from 3.3 to 49.4 ppb, with a median of 21.3 ppb. Bill topped the list for PFOS levels with 49.4 ppb in his blood.

Extensive information on PFC levels in the general population has been lacking, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently published data from samples taken in 2001 and 2002, in which blood from 1,832 individuals was pooled into 54 samples for testing. These data revealed that non-Hispanic white males had the highest levels of PFOS, with a mean of 40.2 ppb, while women had somewhat lower levels, with an average of 17.9 ppb for non-Hispanic black women and 24 ppb for non-Hispanic white women. Mexican-American women had the lowest levels, at 10.4 ppb (Calafat 2006). Reasons for the gender and racial/ethnic differences are not known but may be due to varying use of PFC-treated consumer products.

PFOA is also commonly found in people. In the CDC study, levels varied by gender and racial/ethnic background, from 2.1 ppb for Mexican-American women to 7 ppb for non-Hispanic white males.

Previous studies have documented PFCs in specific populations. A 3M-funded study of Red Cross blood donors in Maryland found PFOS at a median level of 34.7 ppb and PFOA at 5.6 ppb (Olsen 2005). A global look that included individuals from the United States, Colombia, Brazil, Belgium, Italy, Poland, India, Malaysia and Korea found considerably higher levels in residents from the United States and Poland, with the lowest levels in India (Kannan 2004). The wide variation is likely due to greater use of PFC-treated products in some countries. A 2002 3M study of 599 children revealed that children have unexpectedly high concentrations, with PFOS at a mean of 37.5 ppb but up to 515 ppb in some children (Olsen 2002).

Bill Finkbeiner’s PFOS level (49.4 ppb) is somewhat higher than the national average for white men (40.2 ppb). The women in our study ranged from well below the national average, at 3.3 ppb, to somewhat above, at 29.8 ppb.

PFOA levels in our participants ranged from 0.7 to 7.4 ppb, with a median of 3.6 ppb. While these levels are lower than our participants’ levels of PFOS, they may well be on the rise as other PFCs continue to break down into PFOA, which does not degrade.

Although not as well studied, two other PFCs, known as PFDA and PFHxS, are developing a reputation for toxicity. We detected at least one of these chemicals in six of our participants.

Figures on pages 5 and 9 show our participants’ levels of the two compounds most commonly found, PFOS and PFOA.

PFCs have been in use since the 1950s and have made possible such revolutionary products as stain-resistant furniture and non-stick pans. Even that Northwest emblem, the Gore-Tex jacket, contains PFCs. Chemically, PFCs repel both oil and water. This property has made them irresistible for a wide variety of applications, from stain-resistant couches, leathers, and carpets, for which about 5 millions pounds are used each year (Renner 2001), to grease-resistant food packaging and paper products, for which 2.7 million pounds are used annually.

PFCs are also included in cleaning and personal care products like shampoo and denture cleaners, and have numerous industrial applications, from semi-conductor production to coatings for imaging films and printing plates. But exactly how each of us ends up with these chemicals in our bodies is somewhat of a mystery, though it is likely a combination of direct contact with products that contain PFCs together with exposure from our food, water, air and house dust.

Perhaps most disturbing about these chemicals is their extreme persistence. Even if production were to end today, levels of the breakdown product PFOA would continue to increase in the environment for many years to come. 3M, which manufactured PFCs prior to 2002, has disclosed that “perfluorinated compounds are extremely resistant to biodegradation” (3M 2000). PFOA is particularly resistant to breakdown processes; it has been found not to degrade at all — even when boiled in nitric acid for an hour (Renner 2001). Once PFOA enters our bodies, it remains in our blood and liver, and it takes years to get rid of it (USEPA 2003). Researchers have estimated PFOA’s half-life in our bodies, or the time it would take to expel half of a dose, at more than four years (Kudo 2003). PFOS’s half-life has been estimated at more than eight years (OECD 2002).

Researchers have found PFCs in wild animals around the world (Giesy 2001). Predatory animals such as mink, bald eagles and polar bears displayed the highest levels, indicating that these chemicals increase in concentration as they move up the food chain.

For 50 years, PFCs were used in consumer products without government scrutiny to ensure their safety. But industry-led laboratory studies indicate that our study participants — and the public at large — should be concerned that their PFC levels may be harming their health. In animal tests, male rats with a blood serum PFOA level of approximately 40 ppb had symptoms of kidney and liver damage (USEPA 2002). Female rats with the same level had smaller offspring with reduced growth in later life. Other effects, including increased number of dead offspring and altered size of the liver and pituitary in surviving pups, were seen at higher doses. No one knows exactly what this means for people, but there is considerable cause for concern when, pound for pound, levels in ordinary people like Bill Finkbeiner approach the levels shown to harm laboratory animals.

PFOA also causes liver, pancreatic, testicular and mammary gland tumors in laboratory animals (USEPA 2002). Studies by 3M to see whether workers exposed to PFOA were more likely to die of cancer have found a possible link to prostate and testicular cancer (Gilliland 1993, Alexander 2001). In 2004, the EPA asked an advisory panel of 17 independent scientists to consider the evidence on PFOA’s carcinogenicity. In February 2006, the verdict came in: the panel declared PFOA “likely to be carcinogenic.”

PFOS has its own problems. As long ago as the 1970s, scientists obtained disturbing results when they exposed monkeys to the chemical. In the first study, no exposed rhesus monkeys survived past three weeks (Goldenthal 1979 as described in OECD 2002). Before they died, the monkeys were weak and lethargic and suffered twitching, trembling and convulsions. A follow-up study, using lower doses, caused anorexia, diarrhea, convulsions and harm to the pancreas. Even at the lowest dose, monkeys were listless and had gastrointestinal troubles.

PFOS also causes cancer and reproductive problems in laboratory animals. A two-year study in rats found increases in liver and thyroid cancer (OECD 2002). When pregnant rats were exposed to PFOS, many of the offspring died shortly after birth. When the survivors reproduced, their pups were smaller at birth than the pups of unexposed animals. In rabbits, offspring of exposed mothers had more skeletal abnormalities and lower birth weight.

PFCs have been produced, used and disposed of essentially without regulation for the last half-century. Under current federal law, the EPA can require studies on the potential health effects of a chemical only when it already has evidence that the chemical is causing harm. Rigorous evaluation of these chemicals therefore did not start until the late 1990s, following 50 years of use. Rising levels of PFCs in the environment and increasing governmental pressure, however, have led to voluntary actions to reduce PFC production and use. In 2002, 3M ceased using PFCs for its signature product, Scotchgard, because of concerns over release of PFOS and PFOA during manufacture and use. In early 2006, the EPA, Teflon manufacturer DuPont and seven other companies announced an agreement to reduce PFOA in emissions from manufacturing plants and in consumer products by 95 percent by the year 2010.

While these actions are a step in the right direction, they do not adequately protect public health from the dangers posed by PFCs. The Washington State Department of Ecology should begin in 2007 by completing a chemical action plan under its program on persistent toxic chemicals to phase out PFOA. The remaining PFCs should undergo expedited review, and, if necessary, be eliminated from products. §

Next Month: Choice Is Clear on Pesticides