Selected category: Uncategorized

New EPA model enables comparison of various sources of childhood exposure to lead

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director and Dr. Ananya Roy is Health Scientist

This week, Environmental Health Perspectives published an important article by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that sheds important light on the various sources of children’s lead exposure. Led by Valerie Zaltarian, the article shares an innovative multimedia model to quantify and compare relative contributions of lead from air, soil/dust, water and food to children’s blood lead level. The model couples existing SHEDS and IEUBK models to predict blood lead levels using information on concentrations of lead in different sources, intake and gut absorption. The predicted blood lead levels compared well with observed levels in the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey population. Given the variety of independent sources of lead exposure, the model provides a critical tool that public health professionals can use to set priorities and evaluate the impact of various potential standards for all children and not just those with the greatest exposure.

This peer-reviewed article builds on a draft report EPA released in January 2017 evaluating different approaches to setting a health-based benchmark for lead in drinking water. The report has provided a wealth of insight into a complicated topic. Earlier this year, we used it to show that formula-fed infants get most of their lead exposure from water and toddlers from food, while the main source of lead for the highest exposed children is soil and dust. In our February blog, we provided our assessment of a health-based benchmark for lead in drinking water and explained how public health professionals could use it to evaluate homes. The information was also critical to identifying lead in food as an overlooked, but meaningful, source of children’s exposure to lead.

The new article reaffirms the analysis in the January 2017 EPA report and highlights that evaluating source contribution to blood lead in isolation versus aggregating across all sources can lead to very different answers and priorities. A health-based benchmark for lead in drinking water could vary from 0 to 46 ppb depending on age and whether all other sources of lead are considered. For example, a health-based benchmark for infants (birth to six months old) would be 4 ppb or 13 ppb depending on whether or not you consider all sources of exposure.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking Water, Emerging Science, EPA, Food, Health Policy, lead| Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Fourteen communities set goal of replacing more than 240,000 lead pipes and 19 take important steps forward

Tom Neltner, J.D.Chemicals Policy Director and Sam Lovell, Project Specialist

An estimated 6 to 10 million homes in the US still get their water from aging lead service lines (LSLs) – the lead pipes connecting the water main under the street to homes and other buildings. As the primary source of lead in drinking water, eliminating LSLs is essential to protecting public health and responding to community concerns.

Communities across the country are taking on the challenges posed by LSLs. EDF considers it important to recognize those leaders who are taking action. In a past blog, we highlighted the work of the Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative and its 25 members, including EDF, in developing a toolkit to help communities accelerate replacement of LSLs. Additionally, the American Water Works Association – the main organization for drinking water professionals – deserves recognition for its declaration that LSLs need to be eliminated.

Through our review of publicly available information, EDF identified:

  • 14 communities that have publicly set a goal of eliminating LSLs in their jurisdiction – which collectively represents more than 240,000 LSLs. Setting a goal of full replacement is a critical step in the process—while clearly much work remains to ensure that LSLs are safely replaced.
  • 19 other communities that are taking important steps to replace LSLs, but may not yet be ready or willing to set a public goal of full replacement.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking Water, lead| Tagged , | Comments are closed

A message to our RSS subscribers only:

A message to our RSS subscribers:


We are making a change to how our blog subscriptions are managed. Please update your RSS feed URL to: http://blogs.edf.org/health/feed/ by Thursday, July 27th to ensure you don't miss a blog.

 

Posted in Uncategorized| Comments are closed

Podcast: You Make Me Sick! Diversity in the environmental movement

This month on our podcast, we talked with Whitney Tome, Executive Director of Green 2.0, to talk about the importance of diversity in the environmental movement. In talking about our need to have more chairs at the table, we discussed Green 2.0’s new report, Beyond Diversity, which looked at how hiring practices might be reshaped to cast a bigger net, as well as their scorecards on the state of racial and gender representation at major environmental organizations.

Want more? Subscribe to us on iTunes or Google Play, or check out our SoundCloud to listen via desktop!

Posted in Uncategorized| Tagged | Comments are closed

Lead in food – An overlooked, but meaningful, source of children’s exposure to lead

Tom Neltner, J.D.Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

By now, it is well known that lead exposure is a significant human health concern, especially for young children. While most of the discussion about lead exposure has involved paint, drinking water, and contaminated soil or dust where young children live, play, and learn, EDF's new report shows reason to pay more attention to another source: our food.

Until recently, we have known very little about the contribution of food to children’s lead exposure. In January 2017, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report indicated that food is a meaningful source of children’s exposure to lead. Using EPA’s data, we estimated that over 1 million young children consume more lead than what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers acceptable for children to eat every day. From EPA’s analysis, we calculated that  that if lead in food were eliminated, millions of children would live healthier lives, and the total societal economic benefit would exceed $27 billion a year in increased lifetime earnings resulting from the impact of lead on children’s IQ.

To better understand the issue of lead in food, EDF evaluated over a decade’s worth of data collected and analyzed by the FDA as part of the agency’s Total Diet Study (TDS). Since the 1970s, the TDS has tracked metals, pesticides, and nutrients in up to 280 types of food yearly.

What did we find?

Overall, 20% of 2,164 baby food samples and 14% of the other 10,064 food samples had detectable levels of lead. At least one sample in 52 of the 57 types of baby food analyzed by FDA had detectable levels of lead in it. Lead was most commonly found in the following baby foods:

  • Fruit juices: 89% of 44 grape juice samples contained detectable levels of lead, mixed fruit (67% of 111 samples), apple (55% of 44 samples), and pear (45% of 44 samples)
  • Root vegetables: Sweet potatoes (86% of 44 samples) and carrots (43% of 44 samples)
  • Cookies: Arrowroot cookies (64% of 44 samples) and teething biscuits (47% of 43 samples)

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food, lead| Tagged | Comments are closed

Toxic secrets in our food? EDF joins in lawsuit aimed at protecting food safety

Today, Environmental Defense Fund joined other groups in challenging a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that allows chemical and food manufacturers to decide for themselves – in secret – what chemicals and food additives can be added to foods. The practice puts our health at risk and does not fulfill Congress’ requirement that FDA determine that chemical additives are safe before they can be used in food.

Americans would be shocked to learn that food companies routinely add novel chemicals to our food without first getting FDA approval. In doing so, the companies are exploiting a loophole exempting ingredients “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) from formal FDA review and approval.

Originally intended for ingredients like vinegar and olive oil, industry now abuses the GRAS loophole by bypassing FDA review and making safety determinations in secret. The alarming result: even FDA does not know what is in our food. In fact, FDA has no way to know what chemicals are actually being used in which food or in what quantities—even in baby food.

Last year, the FDA issued a final rule formalizing this outrageous practice. We described this decision as a lost opportunity for safer food additives when the decision was made. Today, EDF and our colleagues at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Environmental Working Group, represented by CFS and the environmental law firm Earthjustice, joined in filing suit against the FDA for unconstitutionally and illegally delegating that authority to self-interested food and chemical manufacturers.

It is disappointing that the groups were forced to take legal action. In addition to being a bad policy that doesn’t comply with law, or protect public health, the FDA is oddly out of touch with public sentiment. Just last week an industry funded survey showed overwhelming consumer concern about chemicals in food, including cancer causing chemicals, while showing diminished confidence in the food supply. This continues a trend that has been building for years. Food companies would be wise to take notice: adding secret chemicals without FDA scientific review to our food is no way to improve confidence in their products.

But with thousands of secret chemicals in our food, we can’t wait for industry or FDA to wise up. Today’s lawsuit seeks to force FDA to do what should be common sense—determine that food additives are safe before they can be added to our food.

Also posted in FDA, Food, GRAS| Tagged , | Comments are closed
  • About this blog

    Science, health, and business experts at Environmental Defense Fund comment on chemical and nanotechnology issues of the day.
    Our work: Chemicals

  • Get new posts by email

    We'll deliver new blog posts to your inbox.

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Filter posts by tags

    • bisphenol A (23)
    • BPA (2)
    • BPS (1)
    • building code (1)
    • building code official (1)
    • citizens petition (2)
    • Clinton (1)
    • dermal exposure (1)
    • disclosure (3)
    • Drinking Water (14)
    • dry food (1)
    • Durbin (1)
    • dust/soil (1)
    • endocrine disruption (31)
    • EPA (15)
    • FDA (20)
    • Flint (1)
    • Food (3)
    • food additive (3)
    • food additives (4)
    • GRAS (5)
    • health-based benchmark (3)
    • home sales (1)
    • Household action level (3)
    • hypochlorite (2)
    • ICC (1)
    • IEUBK (1)
    • International Code Council (1)
    • lead (34)
    • lead and copper rule (4)
    • lead dust hazard (2)
    • Lead Service Lines (4)
    • lead-based paint (6)
    • lead-safe renovator (1)
    • Markey (1)
    • model (2)
    • NCHH (1)
    • NDWA (1)
    • NDWAC (2)
    • Obama (1)
    • packaging (1)
    • paint (2)
    • perchlorate (8)
    • pipes (1)
    • Podcast (9)
    • Quigley (1)
    • renovation (1)
    • rental (1)
    • residential code (1)
    • right-to-know (1)
    • Science Advisory Board (1)
    • SDWA (1)
    • secrecy (1)
    • SHEDS (1)
    • Sierra Club (1)
    • soil lead hazard (1)
    • TSCA Title IV (1)
    • Washington Post (1)